Friday, December 31, 2010
Kids are so pure and their creation is free.. something in the world, by age ??, takes something way -- makes us give something up. As a partially rhetorical question, what might those things be...? And how can we fix them/it? Everybody's got their answers, including mine. It's just more effective to ask an open question.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
antiimmigration policies.
One problem with anti-immigration, flat off-the-bat, is that it involves force and coercion.
Another problem is that it's based purely in national selfism, and I'll explain why.
Obviously, immigrants want to move here because they perceive it'll be a better place to live. Now this implies, among other things, that we probably have an imbalance in wealth vis-a-vis the other nations; this is true.
Some people feel they don't 'deserve' the benefits because they weren't born here..how lucky are those ignorami to have been born here?
In any case, as long as there's the imbalance of wealth that makes people want to move in, allowing people to move in alleviates the imbalance. Lemme explain. Their allowance is analogous to if we were to slowly expand the country to include areas in other nations.. only we just assimilate their peoples instead. Now, yes, you might say that if they don't work for it then they're just leaching. The facts of the matter are a) just because they're foreign doesn't mean they'll leach, b) some natural citizens leach, c) working for anything doesn't help the Earth and that's a pretty big variable in any system, and d) they already belong to Mother Nature by virtue of having been born, and your laws and order have no say on what areas of land they may stand on. If you don't believe in Mother Nature, I'll say it a different way: land has been there for billions of years, people have been here for millions, and governments haven't.
If the country gets overcrowded by immigrants, then it gets overcrowded by immigrants; that's the price to pay for being so better. But, obviously like Adam Smith's invisible hand, if it gets so crowded that the imbalance of wealth is alleviated enough, and/or they just get tired of crowding in the streets, then they'd stop coming. So basically they *can't* leach off the country more than it would take to balance the world anyway.
Now, in the particular case of the USA, we have a very large imbalance of wealth.., so protecting the country from immigrants is probably, to some degree, protecting the imbalance of wealth, per se, and that ain't noble either..because it's the imbalance, among other things, that's killin' the world.
Another problem is that it's based purely in national selfism, and I'll explain why.
Obviously, immigrants want to move here because they perceive it'll be a better place to live. Now this implies, among other things, that we probably have an imbalance in wealth vis-a-vis the other nations; this is true.
Some people feel they don't 'deserve' the benefits because they weren't born here..how lucky are those ignorami to have been born here?
In any case, as long as there's the imbalance of wealth that makes people want to move in, allowing people to move in alleviates the imbalance. Lemme explain. Their allowance is analogous to if we were to slowly expand the country to include areas in other nations.. only we just assimilate their peoples instead. Now, yes, you might say that if they don't work for it then they're just leaching. The facts of the matter are a) just because they're foreign doesn't mean they'll leach, b) some natural citizens leach, c) working for anything doesn't help the Earth and that's a pretty big variable in any system, and d) they already belong to Mother Nature by virtue of having been born, and your laws and order have no say on what areas of land they may stand on. If you don't believe in Mother Nature, I'll say it a different way: land has been there for billions of years, people have been here for millions, and governments haven't.
If the country gets overcrowded by immigrants, then it gets overcrowded by immigrants; that's the price to pay for being so better. But, obviously like Adam Smith's invisible hand, if it gets so crowded that the imbalance of wealth is alleviated enough, and/or they just get tired of crowding in the streets, then they'd stop coming. So basically they *can't* leach off the country more than it would take to balance the world anyway.
Now, in the particular case of the USA, we have a very large imbalance of wealth.., so protecting the country from immigrants is probably, to some degree, protecting the imbalance of wealth, per se, and that ain't noble either..because it's the imbalance, among other things, that's killin' the world.
Airplanes can't actually fly. What happened was, basically back in 1903 when Wilbur and Orville made their first flight, it was *probably* aerodynamically sound and not just mostly magic. Here's how it *could've* been magic: if the parameters on whether such a contraption can fly haven't been defined yet, maybe God didn't solve the equations.. and if the magic of their spirits _wanted_ it to fly, the details could've fulfill themselves later.. several years later in the minds of Harvard students. But anyway, it was a relatively simple plane so it probably depended mostly upon conventional aerodynamical systems..
Now, what happened gradually over time was that the original planes could fly..but..interestingly, the threat of plane-crash was so terrifying to those passengers aboard that the mere potentiality of it, every time it happened, caused them to psychically lift the aircraft...just a little bit if even that.
Now, what happens in this reality (and I won't go into other realities here), is that when something happens a lot in a certain way, it tends to keep happening. Look up info in one of Sheldrake's books for examples if you wish. More simply put, we get what we expect -- more often than not collectively -- and we expect what we see -- and we generally tend to see what we create (usually collectively).
Over time this cycle happened more and more, and eventually the planes got so creepy that you can see them literally hanging in the sky...if you're paying any attention.
The thing is, that when somebody's up in an airplane...they're too terrified to feel afraid, because the thought of a plane-crash is always looming; that's the stuff they hardly make nightmares about and *rarely* the movies. And frankly, I don't blame them...it's not a testament to your will-power because Nature never intended it anyway.
So, in addition to being more-terrifying-than-you-can-probably-imagine, it's a *tremendous* waste of resources because it transports people to and fro who have way more money than most to afford the business trips...it's mainly about the fuel, I think.
On the "plus" side of all this, if you stare at an airplane briefly and try to wake up out of your dream about it...you'll see it hanging in air and have a *whiff* of imaginally-created collective reality.
Now, what happened gradually over time was that the original planes could fly..but..interestingly, the threat of plane-crash was so terrifying to those passengers aboard that the mere potentiality of it, every time it happened, caused them to psychically lift the aircraft...just a little bit if even that.
Now, what happens in this reality (and I won't go into other realities here), is that when something happens a lot in a certain way, it tends to keep happening. Look up info in one of Sheldrake's books for examples if you wish. More simply put, we get what we expect -- more often than not collectively -- and we expect what we see -- and we generally tend to see what we create (usually collectively).
Over time this cycle happened more and more, and eventually the planes got so creepy that you can see them literally hanging in the sky...if you're paying any attention.
The thing is, that when somebody's up in an airplane...they're too terrified to feel afraid, because the thought of a plane-crash is always looming; that's the stuff they hardly make nightmares about and *rarely* the movies. And frankly, I don't blame them...it's not a testament to your will-power because Nature never intended it anyway.
So, in addition to being more-terrifying-than-you-can-probably-imagine, it's a *tremendous* waste of resources because it transports people to and fro who have way more money than most to afford the business trips...it's mainly about the fuel, I think.
On the "plus" side of all this, if you stare at an airplane briefly and try to wake up out of your dream about it...you'll see it hanging in air and have a *whiff* of imaginally-created collective reality.
In a world with lots of corruption, and lots of ways to get corrupted, whether that's the reason or not my eyes always knew to seek the natural. I always suspected this is the same reason Plato didn't like paintings of natural things, but I found out I may have been wrong. Art itself contains malice, because it's made by selfish people who find ways to encode mind into physical form, and you follow along.
Yes you like it and that means you resonate with the mind in question, but it's bigger and more powerful than you are and it's abducting you into its script anyway. This, of course, doesn't *necessarily* (and usually doesn't) apply to *paintings*, per se, but either way the art contains a likely amount of malice; for example, consider why the artist wants to show you a painting. Or why he wants to paint.
Are his intentions pure? Is it the willingness to express? Or is it for attention? If it's just to express you'd think maybe he'd find it more convenient to allow you to look at the nature directly? Heck, if the spot is that rare, take a photograph. Anyway..
In a lost world we look to the harmony of nature & the original..
I don't even know if that's the reason my eyes see with an anchor. It might be because I'm in Love with Mother Nature and was born that way. Anyway..
This principle is especially important when it comes to how we biochemically treat our bodies. I'd already written up something about healthful food and how it relates to the {human} body, so I won't get into that now. However, I will get into drug-use..
Basically it's a) manipulation in domains we don't know much about, and b) *forcing* happiness out of the body per abuse. It's an interesting gambit, and I don't see how it works. I don't understand that kind of buying time; for example, let's say you take ecstasy and it makes you..say..ecstatic.
Now, if this were such a holy state, or even if it were just beneficial for the person to feel this kinda feeling at whim, don't you think that the body would have developed the ability to have that feeling at whim, or all of the time, or perhaps, wouldn't have, for some unknown reasons of the past, given it up?
Nature is pretty smart, my friend, and it's not all out to get ya'. Mind, body, and soul work in harmony and are and were developed in harmony and so too with the Earth..nature is in harmony, and that's what the Native Americans understood while in companionship with the Great White Spirit, among other things..such as the trees, animals, children, and each other.
So if you want a guide to life, look to nature or what's natural, and also the original & pure..
..and taking drugs is abuse of the self for deriving benefit.
By the way, heroin addicts have missing auras and often are still addicted in their afterlives...so watch out for the spirits as you're tending toward the elementar. please kthx.
.
Yes you like it and that means you resonate with the mind in question, but it's bigger and more powerful than you are and it's abducting you into its script anyway. This, of course, doesn't *necessarily* (and usually doesn't) apply to *paintings*, per se, but either way the art contains a likely amount of malice; for example, consider why the artist wants to show you a painting. Or why he wants to paint.
Are his intentions pure? Is it the willingness to express? Or is it for attention? If it's just to express you'd think maybe he'd find it more convenient to allow you to look at the nature directly? Heck, if the spot is that rare, take a photograph. Anyway..
In a lost world we look to the harmony of nature & the original..
I don't even know if that's the reason my eyes see with an anchor. It might be because I'm in Love with Mother Nature and was born that way. Anyway..
This principle is especially important when it comes to how we biochemically treat our bodies. I'd already written up something about healthful food and how it relates to the {human} body, so I won't get into that now. However, I will get into drug-use..
Basically it's a) manipulation in domains we don't know much about, and b) *forcing* happiness out of the body per abuse. It's an interesting gambit, and I don't see how it works. I don't understand that kind of buying time; for example, let's say you take ecstasy and it makes you..say..ecstatic.
Now, if this were such a holy state, or even if it were just beneficial for the person to feel this kinda feeling at whim, don't you think that the body would have developed the ability to have that feeling at whim, or all of the time, or perhaps, wouldn't have, for some unknown reasons of the past, given it up?
Nature is pretty smart, my friend, and it's not all out to get ya'. Mind, body, and soul work in harmony and are and were developed in harmony and so too with the Earth..nature is in harmony, and that's what the Native Americans understood while in companionship with the Great White Spirit, among other things..such as the trees, animals, children, and each other.
So if you want a guide to life, look to nature or what's natural, and also the original & pure..
..and taking drugs is abuse of the self for deriving benefit.
By the way, heroin addicts have missing auras and often are still addicted in their afterlives...so watch out for the spirits as you're tending toward the elementar. please kthx.
.
closure..
PatchesPapers 11:25 pm
and I think I'm succeeding. you know i am
richard nichols 11:25 pm
i don't care
unless you are.
PatchesPapers 11:26 pm
okay night
richard nichols 11:26 pm
wait
i have to split a dichotomy.
PatchesPapers 11:26 pm
k
richard nichols 11:26 pm
ducks let everything slide off their backs and that's part of being crazy
and ducks are so precious even good people hate 'em.
PatchesPapers 11:27 pm
:)
O:-)
richard nichols 11:27 pm
;[
errrr
typo
:-)
PatchesPapers 11:27 pm
dichotomy
richard nichols 11:28 pm
:-P
PatchesPapers 11:28 pm
okay thanks richard
richard nichols 11:28 pm
night!!!
PatchesPapers 11:28 pm
night :)
PatchesPapers is offline 11:31 pm
well I am in an agitated repose is all. 112d and 6h ago Comment
IMs are delivered when the buddy signs in. Send PatchesPapers a text message
PatchesPapers 11:28 pm
talk to you later.
richard nichols 11:31 pm
ok
i had a fun conversation
and btw
i have a new theory on closure
humans shouldn't do it.
and I think I'm succeeding. you know i am
richard nichols 11:25 pm
i don't care
unless you are.
PatchesPapers 11:26 pm
okay night
richard nichols 11:26 pm
wait
i have to split a dichotomy.
PatchesPapers 11:26 pm
k
richard nichols 11:26 pm
ducks let everything slide off their backs and that's part of being crazy
and ducks are so precious even good people hate 'em.
PatchesPapers 11:27 pm
:)
O:-)
richard nichols 11:27 pm
;[
errrr
typo
:-)
PatchesPapers 11:27 pm
dichotomy
richard nichols 11:28 pm
:-P
PatchesPapers 11:28 pm
okay thanks richard
richard nichols 11:28 pm
night!!!
PatchesPapers 11:28 pm
night :)
PatchesPapers is offline 11:31 pm
well I am in an agitated repose is all. 112d and 6h ago Comment
IMs are delivered when the buddy signs in. Send PatchesPapers a text message
PatchesPapers 11:28 pm
talk to you later.
richard nichols 11:31 pm
ok
i had a fun conversation
and btw
i have a new theory on closure
humans shouldn't do it.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Always remember that sticks and stones will break their bones but words will fuck a person up forever.
I like picking on quotes today, and I'll say that he can only say that under the guise of being sarcastic because everyone else loves to spread the opposite quote already because they're stupid *AND* dumb..
Who was it that liked Fair & Balanced..? Was it Law & Order? Or was it Fox, who feeds itself? Either way.. Chuck Norris and Richard Simmons conspired to get along and realized that fair and balanced, when they met if they ever could or will, probably realized that they couldn't get a long either..wait.. what? oh well
The world is in confusion, but the main point of it is this. Lies spread out recursively. It's not just a lie when you say it.. there are many, many elements of confusion which *could* or would not have existed without a lie, and some of those lies can go back decades. The only reservation I have from tracing it that long or longer is that a given element of confusion was probably the co-fusion of many different lies..
And by the way, lying about your opinion is a factual lie.
And by the way, lying about your opinion is a factual lie.
Some kinds of advice only work if the person was distraught over the decision already and the device just 'reminds' them in a sense of what's true, or what they've decided. In other words it comes at the right place and time and gives them confidence about their decision.
ps. i don't know if you knew it, but saying "don't be selfish" isn't exactly a way of saying "give more." it's saying, "give up.."
Some kinds of advice are more general and apply to the habits of emotional evolution. They're not always as helpful as you think.. everyone has their path.
Some kinds of advice are probably even more general, such as "don't lie to yourself" and "don't betray yourself." Anything that tells you, in one way or another, to "give more" is bullcrap. I'm not sure yet which is worse, crap or bullcrap. I'd want to put whichever is worse..
So regarding advice, well, basically.. i wanted to give advice here but, then, well, things got hairy. Actually I wanted to give more theory behind it, but basically the advice *I'm* going to give, right now, is that it depends on your intentions. Things go awry when you buy things with advice.
Even my 'general' advice above..*is* general but could be dicey to say. I'll just assume that the context was right and the mood was right. I suspect the main dice is that it makes someone feel like, well, maybe they do that because it's even a potential insult. And then they have to ask if they lie to themselves. And then by asking that they have to test themselves.. and to test themselves they create something like an inversive stack.. and then that comes close to defeating the purpose of not lying to oneself.
The betrayal one I really like though, but that could be because it was contextual that I *do* give the general advice.
ps. i don't know if you knew it, but saying "don't be selfish" isn't exactly a way of saying "give more." it's saying, "give up.."
In this world we're misled to think that a lot of things that mean things don't mean anything. I had another theory before, and I wrote it down in one of my blogs, and it may even be *partially* true, but right now I'm having another theory.. *EVERYTHING* in this world is *exactly..precisely* what it seems to be on the outside, except that there's things we do to them to make them seem otherwise.
Makeup, clothes, hair dye, paint, artificially constructed entities (they cater to other purposes than directly expressing oneself.. and even art has malice), advertizements, school books..
Books are different from school books for two reasons. 1) school books change the game on how your mind plays with reality. 2) school books are given early on and they may have pictures, so that's early imagery. honestly, the fact that they're given early on is enough.
so, once having been taught to believe that appearance is always, or usually, or *predominately* superficial, we learn to ignore a lot of truth..
it's not that appearances are incidental, but mainly that people manipulate them. secondarily that people lie overtly.
i would suggest trying to pay attention to nature, as a solution, and then in the meantime seeing "through" what you can and when you have even more spare time trying to see the gaps in-between..
What I would personally do is slightly more specific.
Makeup, clothes, hair dye, paint, artificially constructed entities (they cater to other purposes than directly expressing oneself.. and even art has malice), advertizements, school books..
Books are different from school books for two reasons. 1) school books change the game on how your mind plays with reality. 2) school books are given early on and they may have pictures, so that's early imagery. honestly, the fact that they're given early on is enough.
so, once having been taught to believe that appearance is always, or usually, or *predominately* superficial, we learn to ignore a lot of truth..
it's not that appearances are incidental, but mainly that people manipulate them. secondarily that people lie overtly.
i would suggest trying to pay attention to nature, as a solution, and then in the meantime seeing "through" what you can and when you have even more spare time trying to see the gaps in-between..
What I would personally do is slightly more specific.
Everybody's starving in this world, and they can't be blamed.
Lots of people are into the game of blaming others for starving.
Whether they know it or not I don't know, but I never forgive.
A very few figure out a good way to live, which involves expressing yourself truthfully.. I'd stop it there, because it's probably enough; however, incidentally, I was going to continue by saying that those people seem, also, to live charitable lives or otherwise make people happy or embetter somethingerather.
..and that doesn't mean it's a prescription. People who say *you* should give charity are buying something, but I'm not sure what yet.
..here's the problem.. even if they *are* 'buying something' for their CAUSE, which i *guess* is possible, they're doing it by putting the guilt on you if you don't do it. now, what happens if you don't want to..?
I have a better solution now.
Advertize the charity, somewhere, probably somewhere that doesn't jump way out at you *too* much.. and don't, please, word it in a way that makes them feel like they have to, or that it's the best they can do with their time, or that they're not a good person if they don't, or otherwisely that they're obligated to..
umm, here's one to you actors -- you know you're gods to people...right? .. :]
Lots of people are into the game of blaming others for starving.
Whether they know it or not I don't know, but I never forgive.
A very few figure out a good way to live, which involves expressing yourself truthfully.. I'd stop it there, because it's probably enough; however, incidentally, I was going to continue by saying that those people seem, also, to live charitable lives or otherwise make people happy or embetter somethingerather.
..and that doesn't mean it's a prescription. People who say *you* should give charity are buying something, but I'm not sure what yet.
..here's the problem.. even if they *are* 'buying something' for their CAUSE, which i *guess* is possible, they're doing it by putting the guilt on you if you don't do it. now, what happens if you don't want to..?
I have a better solution now.
Advertize the charity, somewhere, probably somewhere that doesn't jump way out at you *too* much.. and don't, please, word it in a way that makes them feel like they have to, or that it's the best they can do with their time, or that they're not a good person if they don't, or otherwisely that they're obligated to..
umm, here's one to you actors -- you know you're gods to people...right? .. :]
{M} you won't have to do it now.. nature & the water that runs through the rivers will.. if the wind predicts correctly..
Watch out for the confusion, guys. It's coming at you through advertizements.. if I predict correctly based on how many people or important people read my text.. and it's their last waking breath while they compete for survival.
Watch out for the confusion, guys. It's coming at you through advertizements.. if I predict correctly based on how many people or important people read my text.. and it's their last waking breath while they compete for survival.
The mind is made of imagery.
I don't know if that's totally true, but the world and mind are unified, and the imagery you see around you in the world becomes the imagery of the mind. That imagery of the mind is reflected back into the world and you get the big swirl. In today's internet, the colors are pretty much happy, solid colors, bounded by rectangles and simple figures. The constituencies aren't particularly elegant/beautiful, but they're not exactly mind-slicing. But they're not art, and that's why they're not beautiful. For those who are producing art, they don't have the tools to conveniently/expediently create a masterpiece.
In any case, what I'm getting into is that a very large proportion of this imagery is advertizements. The advertizements are wrong.. and they pollute the idea-pool.
Now, a lot of things people do are selfish. They're romance, at core, or something like that. 'selfish' is a word... but not quite. 'corrupt' is also a word, and that's why the word advertizers use for the truth they never sell is 'parity,' which is a binary term for the same thing.
And it's also why, in the game of wage-slavery that everybody loses from including the animals and the environment, they're the only ones leaching off the game itself, deliberately.
Hmm, i'm just theorizing here because it's cool. If we solve the wage-slavery crisis through water, and water is connective karma which makes it closure, it means advertizers and former advertizers can fuck off their closure?
I don't know if that's totally true, but the world and mind are unified, and the imagery you see around you in the world becomes the imagery of the mind. That imagery of the mind is reflected back into the world and you get the big swirl. In today's internet, the colors are pretty much happy, solid colors, bounded by rectangles and simple figures. The constituencies aren't particularly elegant/beautiful, but they're not exactly mind-slicing. But they're not art, and that's why they're not beautiful. For those who are producing art, they don't have the tools to conveniently/expediently create a masterpiece.
In any case, what I'm getting into is that a very large proportion of this imagery is advertizements. The advertizements are wrong.. and they pollute the idea-pool.
Now, a lot of things people do are selfish. They're romance, at core, or something like that. 'selfish' is a word... but not quite. 'corrupt' is also a word, and that's why the word advertizers use for the truth they never sell is 'parity,' which is a binary term for the same thing.
And it's also why, in the game of wage-slavery that everybody loses from including the animals and the environment, they're the only ones leaching off the game itself, deliberately.
Hmm, i'm just theorizing here because it's cool. If we solve the wage-slavery crisis through water, and water is connective karma which makes it closure, it means advertizers and former advertizers can fuck off their closure?
The FCC's Net Neutrality FAIL
Inbox
X
Reply
Al Franken to me
show details 12:13 PM (20 hours ago)
Images are not displayed.
Display images below - Always display images from no-reply@alfranken.com
Dear Richard,
A couple weeks ago, I told you that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski had released a proposal on net neutrality--but that we didn't have enough of the details to know whether it was a strong one.
Unfortunately, now that we've got more information about his proposal, it's becoming clear that without significant changes it would take us in the wrong direction.
Although the Obama administration is on record as supporting net neutrality, the draft leaves far too many loopholes for corporations to prioritize certain content on the Internet, and even legitimizes some discriminatory behavior.
In short, as it's currently written, it's worse than nothing.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE FCC'S NET NEUTRALITY FAIL.
Rest assured, I won't settle for regulations that do more harm than good. And I won't stop fighting until we have real net neutrality.
Thanks for sticking with me in that fight.
Al
Paid for and authorized by Al Franken for Senate 2014
www.AlFranken.com
This email was sent to inhahe@gmail.com.
To unsubscribe, go to: http://www.alfranken.com/unsubscribe
Reply
Forward
Your message has been sent.
Reply
inhahe to info
show details 8:51 AM (3 minutes ago)
Al! If i may
you're fighting with him too much
you're both good guys
it's probably lack of communication
anyway,
*if* there are too many loop-holes, then obama knows that, or he estimated the problem differently in his position.. more information, different information, different pressures, more knowledge of the things he's balancing, different ways of anticipating the future, different links with the companies in question, and so and so on..
i would recommend you talk to him - despite my recommendation that you become president someday. ;]
i'm listening more, and i see it: you just want to tell him this. is he listening? apparently not or your essay would be different.
or you're making a bottom-line judgement, in the meantime, which goes, 'how anarcho-capitalistic is obama' and/or the same for julius. personally i'd go for socialism and so would einstein, but we work with what we got.. and who knows what's on obama's mind, that's part of his grace & power.
anyway, i could *probably* talk to miranda who could *probably* talk to obama if you want to talk to obama, but that all depends on whether i could *probably* talk back to you with this message.. hehe no j/k i'll tell her.
Inbox
X
Reply
Al Franken to me
show details 12:13 PM (20 hours ago)
Images are not displayed.
Display images below - Always display images from no-reply@alfranken.com
Dear Richard,
A couple weeks ago, I told you that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski had released a proposal on net neutrality--but that we didn't have enough of the details to know whether it was a strong one.
Unfortunately, now that we've got more information about his proposal, it's becoming clear that without significant changes it would take us in the wrong direction.
Although the Obama administration is on record as supporting net neutrality, the draft leaves far too many loopholes for corporations to prioritize certain content on the Internet, and even legitimizes some discriminatory behavior.
In short, as it's currently written, it's worse than nothing.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE FCC'S NET NEUTRALITY FAIL.
Rest assured, I won't settle for regulations that do more harm than good. And I won't stop fighting until we have real net neutrality.
Thanks for sticking with me in that fight.
Al
Paid for and authorized by Al Franken for Senate 2014
www.AlFranken.com
This email was sent to inhahe@gmail.com.
To unsubscribe, go to: http://www.alfranken.com/unsubscribe
Reply
Forward
Your message has been sent.
Reply
inhahe to info
show details 8:51 AM (3 minutes ago)
Al! If i may
you're fighting with him too much
you're both good guys
it's probably lack of communication
anyway,
*if* there are too many loop-holes, then obama knows that, or he estimated the problem differently in his position.. more information, different information, different pressures, more knowledge of the things he's balancing, different ways of anticipating the future, different links with the companies in question, and so and so on..
i would recommend you talk to him - despite my recommendation that you become president someday. ;]
i'm listening more, and i see it: you just want to tell him this. is he listening? apparently not or your essay would be different.
or you're making a bottom-line judgement, in the meantime, which goes, 'how anarcho-capitalistic is obama' and/or the same for julius. personally i'd go for socialism and so would einstein, but we work with what we got.. and who knows what's on obama's mind, that's part of his grace & power.
anyway, i could *probably* talk to miranda who could *probably* talk to obama if you want to talk to obama, but that all depends on whether i could *probably* talk back to you with this message.. hehe no j/k i'll tell her.
ilyarien ilyarien
#femalesneedto the egyptians built pyramids in honor of the guys who didn't get the jokes ok.
ilyarien ilyarien
#femalesneedto a) stop using girl-metaphors and dirty jokes, or b) share them with the rest of the world..
ilyarien ilyarien
#femalesneedto ..at the bottom of their soul with which to manipulate people better
ilyarien ilyarien
#femalesneedto stop stalking shoes all the time on the man's dollar, for the consumeristic representation of the confetti they wish they had
ilyarien ilyarien
#femalesneedto stop wearing the pointy-toed shoes that deform their toes just to remind us there really are witches..
ilyarien ilyarien
#femalesneedto stop flaunting all their spiritual fat to make it more intimidating, er, i mean, wearing purses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)