<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: My ideal candidate</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.shanebrady.com/2008/02/10/my-ideal-candidate/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.shanebrady.com/2008/02/10/my-ideal-candidate/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Fri,  5 Dec 2008 15:12:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: caesar</title>
		<link>http://www.shanebrady.com/2008/02/10/my-ideal-candidate/#comment-39728</link>
		<dc:creator>caesar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shanebrady.com/2008/02/10/my-ideal-candidate/#comment-39728</guid>
		<description>Voting never has, and never will solve a damn thing. Whatever candidate (Presidential, Congressional, or otherwise) is up for the vote you can be sure doesn't have the power to make significant changes. Their power lies only in their voice (i.e., publicity). Do you seriously think the puppet masters would subject themselves to a public vote? Hardly...they choose which puppets they deem suitable to be voted for...all the while the sheeple are convinced they've been given a real voice in government policy...when all they've been given are paper dolls (politicians), drama (infantile politics), and fear tactics (fabrication of "things to fear" and endless NON-issues) to play around with.

I've never voted and never will. The only way to make significant changes (i.e., create a civilization based on logic, reason, and cooperation) is for the people to simply cease this idiotic belief that they need a leader to follow. As long as the people continue to follow this programmed belief, there will always be some unscrupulous schmuck waiting to fill that role for them. 

Remember...the politicians do NOT matter. The people are what matter. A new and great and truly advanced global civilization can emerge if the majority (the people) decide no longer to follow the minority (ruling elite). Rather than be violently deposed, the latter need only be ignored.

But hey...you can still hold onto the belief that you need a "representative" to "represent" you. Just don't expect changes to write home about. Expect only games, games, and more games. 

Now you see why the ruling minority must, at ALL costs, maintain a persistent conditioning of ignorance, distraction, fear, endless toil, and busy-ness throughout the public masses. To truly empower the people would be the death of the global establishment. This, they cannot allow. Thus, as the world continues to shrink towards its limit, chaos increases and life degenerates on a global basis. This is all ingeniously orchestrated by the puppet masters, because they know the world WILL become united no matter what their efforts...but they want to let it happen on THEIR own terms...and certainly under THEIR control. So, they are in a race to secure control of the world's natural resources, energy production, industry, food supply, medical therapies &#38; nutritional supplements, education, media, trade, credit &#38; monetary systems, agriculture...you name it. They need to control it all under a single centralized entity that no one dare question...otherwise they will lose this game. But alas for them, they cannot keep this charade going for much longer.

Learn to see the bigger picture...and you will see that what "they" want you to occupy your mind with is pure rubbish. Just like the machines of the Matrix movie wanted to turn humans into energy-generating batteries for their survival, the globalist elite in similar fashion want to turn the masses into mindless drones. 

Will we see the big picture...or will we continue to prattle on about gay marriage?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Voting never has, and never will solve a damn thing. Whatever candidate (Presidential, Congressional, or otherwise) is up for the vote you can be sure doesn&#8217;t have the power to make significant changes. Their power lies only in their voice (i.e., publicity). Do you seriously think the puppet masters would subject themselves to a public vote? Hardly&#8230;they choose which puppets they deem suitable to be voted for&#8230;all the while the sheeple are convinced they&#8217;ve been given a real voice in government policy&#8230;when all they&#8217;ve been given are paper dolls (politicians), drama (infantile politics), and fear tactics (fabrication of &#8220;things to fear&#8221; and endless NON-issues) to play around with.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve never voted and never will. The only way to make significant changes (i.e., create a civilization based on logic, reason, and cooperation) is for the people to simply cease this idiotic belief that they need a leader to follow. As long as the people continue to follow this programmed belief, there will always be some unscrupulous schmuck waiting to fill that role for them. </p>
<p>Remember&#8230;the politicians do NOT matter. The people are what matter. A new and great and truly advanced global civilization can emerge if the majority (the people) decide no longer to follow the minority (ruling elite). Rather than be violently deposed, the latter need only be ignored.</p>
<p>But hey&#8230;you can still hold onto the belief that you need a &#8220;representative&#8221; to &#8220;represent&#8221; you. Just don&#8217;t expect changes to write home about. Expect only games, games, and more games. </p>
<p>Now you see why the ruling minority must, at ALL costs, maintain a persistent conditioning of ignorance, distraction, fear, endless toil, and busy-ness throughout the public masses. To truly empower the people would be the death of the global establishment. This, they cannot allow. Thus, as the world continues to shrink towards its limit, chaos increases and life degenerates on a global basis. This is all ingeniously orchestrated by the puppet masters, because they know the world WILL become united no matter what their efforts&#8230;but they want to let it happen on THEIR own terms&#8230;and certainly under THEIR control. So, they are in a race to secure control of the world&#8217;s natural resources, energy production, industry, food supply, medical therapies &amp; nutritional supplements, education, media, trade, credit &amp; monetary systems, agriculture&#8230;you name it. They need to control it all under a single centralized entity that no one dare question&#8230;otherwise they will lose this game. But alas for them, they cannot keep this charade going for much longer.</p>
<p>Learn to see the bigger picture&#8230;and you will see that what &#8220;they&#8221; want you to occupy your mind with is pure rubbish. Just like the machines of the Matrix movie wanted to turn humans into energy-generating batteries for their survival, the globalist elite in similar fashion want to turn the masses into mindless drones. </p>
<p>Will we see the big picture&#8230;or will we continue to prattle on about gay marriage?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.shanebrady.com/2008/02/10/my-ideal-candidate/#comment-34956</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:59:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shanebrady.com/2008/02/10/my-ideal-candidate/#comment-34956</guid>
		<description>I am familiar with producer lobbied subsidies.

In response to my point about subsidies in the name of security, am I understanding that you don't buy it?  If not for food or energy, how about military or space related products?

I'm not one to know, but I'd guess for as much as energy companies want to milk every last bit of value out of existing energy solutions (hydrocarbons), they are just as interested in providing by any other superior energy source.  I'm not confident government money would find hydrocarbon alternatives any sooner or with less expense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am familiar with producer lobbied subsidies.</p>
<p>In response to my point about subsidies in the name of security, am I understanding that you don&#8217;t buy it?  If not for food or energy, how about military or space related products?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not one to know, but I&#8217;d guess for as much as energy companies want to milk every last bit of value out of existing energy solutions (hydrocarbons), they are just as interested in providing by any other superior energy source.  I&#8217;m not confident government money would find hydrocarbon alternatives any sooner or with less expense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shane</title>
		<link>http://www.shanebrady.com/2008/02/10/my-ideal-candidate/#comment-33547</link>
		<dc:creator>Shane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:46:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shanebrady.com/2008/02/10/my-ideal-candidate/#comment-33547</guid>
		<description>We don't subsidize all foods, and the ones that we don't, don't have problems with shortfalls.  If you look at ADM, you see that they lobby for both corn subsidies and higher prices for import sugar.  So we have farmers that over produce corn so ADM can sell corn syrup, while we all pay higher prices needlessly for pure sugar.

We subsidize sheep farmers, because in WWII, we were afraid that we would run out of wool for uniforms.  That made sense then.  Doesn't make sense that we're still paying for it.

The problem I have with oil company subsidies, is that they are all quite profitable already, even when you consider the cost of their own exploration and research.  

I think the oil companies would do fine without subsidies, and we could take that same money and put it into seed research for real energy advancement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We don&#8217;t subsidize all foods, and the ones that we don&#8217;t, don&#8217;t have problems with shortfalls.  If you look at ADM, you see that they lobby for both corn subsidies and higher prices for import sugar.  So we have farmers that over produce corn so ADM can sell corn syrup, while we all pay higher prices needlessly for pure sugar.</p>
<p>We subsidize sheep farmers, because in WWII, we were afraid that we would run out of wool for uniforms.  That made sense then.  Doesn&#8217;t make sense that we&#8217;re still paying for it.</p>
<p>The problem I have with oil company subsidies, is that they are all quite profitable already, even when you consider the cost of their own exploration and research.  </p>
<p>I think the oil companies would do fine without subsidies, and we could take that same money and put it into seed research for real energy advancement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.shanebrady.com/2008/02/10/my-ideal-candidate/#comment-33546</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:15:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shanebrady.com/2008/02/10/my-ideal-candidate/#comment-33546</guid>
		<description>"However, there is no doubt in my mind that [energy policy] is an issue of national security."

"Stop subsidizing oil companies, farmers, steel workers, shrimp farmers, and god knows what else."

I've heard it argued that some of the subsidies you mention are in place as an issue of national security, that we can't allow something so important as our food supply (or energy supply, etc.) dependent on a foreign source.  Since you want to stop subsidies, I assume you understand the many benefits of free trade, including a kind of coerced cooperation from mutual dependence.

Is energy really so different that we should bear the inefficiencies of self reliance (assuming self reliance works towards improving our security)?

PS How is it that such logical positions as you've outlined are impossible to find in US candidates or their parties?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;However, there is no doubt in my mind that [energy policy] is an issue of national security.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Stop subsidizing oil companies, farmers, steel workers, shrimp farmers, and god knows what else.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve heard it argued that some of the subsidies you mention are in place as an issue of national security, that we can&#8217;t allow something so important as our food supply (or energy supply, etc.) dependent on a foreign source.  Since you want to stop subsidies, I assume you understand the many benefits of free trade, including a kind of coerced cooperation from mutual dependence.</p>
<p>Is energy really so different that we should bear the inefficiencies of self reliance (assuming self reliance works towards improving our security)?</p>
<p>PS How is it that such logical positions as you&#8217;ve outlined are impossible to find in US candidates or their parties?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sharon berkowitz</title>
		<link>http://www.shanebrady.com/2008/02/10/my-ideal-candidate/#comment-33190</link>
		<dc:creator>sharon berkowitz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:40:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.shanebrady.com/2008/02/10/my-ideal-candidate/#comment-33190</guid>
		<description>This is the post I wanted to respond to. But the Dr Frank thing got in the way. I safely pasted to appropriate spot. NOW then....Hey! did you grow up in the late 60's in brooklyn? 
I remember the 70's and forming strong political opinions.
 They continued to morph into a moral ethical human belief system that you clearly and succinctly posted on my birthday. 

I'd like you to take the concept of legalizing drugs and take a time travel. What do we look like as a people and nation, after the initial explosion.
 Addicts will be addicts. Do you see the potential workaholics and shopaholics finding a satisfactory, available substitute?  Do drugs become a strong competitor or fizzle out to franchised head-shops? What would become of our current cultural mores, political lobby, import/export and economic incentives. Take me on your mental  journey from legalization to 10 -20 yrs from now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is the post I wanted to respond to. But the Dr Frank thing got in the way. I safely pasted to appropriate spot. NOW then&#8230;.Hey! did you grow up in the late 60&#8217;s in brooklyn?<br />
I remember the 70&#8217;s and forming strong political opinions.<br />
 They continued to morph into a moral ethical human belief system that you clearly and succinctly posted on my birthday. </p>
<p>I&#8217;d like you to take the concept of legalizing drugs and take a time travel. What do we look like as a people and nation, after the initial explosion.<br />
 Addicts will be addicts. Do you see the potential workaholics and shopaholics finding a satisfactory, available substitute?  Do drugs become a strong competitor or fizzle out to franchised head-shops? What would become of our current cultural mores, political lobby, import/export and economic incentives. Take me on your mental  journey from legalization to 10 -20 yrs from now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
