I used to talk mad shit about him because I am a dickhead, but he was a nice mostly self-less man who served other people; and many complied with the American with Disabilities Act which was kind to me. problems with it include:
1. I can't help anyone out independently;
2. some suffered for the ADA as it was taxing;
3. it was be abused by me and many others who took it;
4. and my parents had money to get me out of school anyway (and maybe place me away or place themselves away) but the Dept. of Indoctrination as well as my parents' choices to have highly toxic chainshots put into me then giving me ritalin, desoxyn, SRIs and anti-psychotics made that hard to take me out of school.
5. private charity works and is truthful
6. it loaned credence to hypocrisy (including my own) while hyper criticism couldn't be truthful; no one could suffer on their own from being hyper-critical.
A good thing about it is that Ryan White seemed satisfied with George HW Bush and George HW Bush intended to enrich the world with it. And there wasn't as much resistance as there was with the Civil Rights Act; perhaps Bush 41 being so private and polite made it better than LBJ and MLK Jr. made the Goverment Centralizing Property Acts. MLK Jr is good for non-violent resistance but it could've turned it into a violent revolution had LBJ not been half-agreeable. Neither man was providing or happy to help like Bush 41 was.
And MLK wasn't satified like Ryan White was. And the absence of the "Civil rights act" gave ethnics of the Roman faith (like my grandmother) a seat they may or may not have deserved in the South. She was far, far removed from the Philly PA elite although still a Neo-Republican starting with Eisenhower (and her mother was probably against the Democrats at the time and the Republicans as she used loopholes in the Emergency Quota Act and the National Origins Act to not go back to Central Europe). She probably hated Robert A Taft; and Robert A Taft wasn't quite Ron Paul. Robert A Taft was like grover cleveland. Ron Paul is a fan of both; Grover Cleveland and Robert A Taft were Civil ESTJs, both cared about the national economy, liberty, and were more altruistic in their foreign policy than men like Alexander Hamilton and Henry Cabot Lodge (except the man who wished for FDR that the latter would never be President of the United States was probably more classical liberal than paleoconservative; Grover Cleveland also didn't let himself get conned into internationalism). But I don't want to ever work for the State directly simply because I have pre-natal Testosterone/paranoia like Nixon did and that would stop me from governing like John Tyler. John Tyler couldn't be depressed about not being loved by women or about being not having kids as he was so good looking and tall due to him having low Prenatal T. Coolidge and cleveland were principled like john tyler because their mtDNA hgs were U and K which meant they were good looking and gave off good exhalations. They were also non-violent despite being Guardians (sensing judging types are often out of touch with reality) and that is due to the high ph of their celtic/North Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups. Their right hand 2d4d ratios were high, but I would make a great bad ruler because mine is very low.
And the ADA helped me for a time, even though individual action helped me. Much moreso than MLK Jr. stayed with LBJ's crap which was a lot more powerful and evil than the ADA. MLK Jr. was idealistic and LBJ didn't really love him that much. And blacks as a group aren't richer today than they were in the 50s. the blacks would've been freed under the Articles of Confederation and remained here without so many whites getting killed and pissed off by the State. Or, if the 11 State of the former CSA had been a true confederation then the blacks could've been not less free than they are today. Or the 13th Amendment should've put a wall between the U.S. Central govt and slavery so that the blacks could've shown the whites that they were not too terribly different, so that the labor market could've changed, and so that real savings would increase without min wage bureaucracy. The Radical Republicans wanted control and revenge, not Justice. And then the federal war on drugs and the federal funding of cops is partly why blacks are excluded from the marijuana trade in colorado. Do we need enlightened princes of small secessionist communities?
I am hypocrite for using the ADA in college to others' expense. If I need structure so badly that I can't help anyone independently, then I should never be employed. a 50% unemployment rate isn't absolutely 50% bad. unemployment is a Keynesian statistic and it just doesn't look at the overall health of the economy, yet it tries to prescribe top down solutions.
Ron Paul 2012's plan was excellent and could give much more stability than what he had proposed in the past.
I don't know why we can't privatize the Federal Reserve, minimize the debt, and end real govt revenues by repealing legal tender (lazy people may or may not be helped by the State forcing others to pay them in dollars only, but legal tender contracts are not pro-debtor), by not taxing non-dollar assets, and by not threatening people who give the banking system and the dept of debt competition. The Fed and legal tender are not pro-independence and they result in reduced output.
basically, the State has tried to help the 50-60% or so who need severe structure yet those who get it are not happy anyway. Then those who love ingenuity and change can't have their freedom because of the State's power to tax and to centralize all money within itself and within the banking system. Sorry about that digression.
So Bush 41 is a good man, if a bit security seeking. He, Gerald Ford, and McKinley were the most tolerant presidents of the 20th century. Bill Clinton was a good man, but he was much, much more conservative than Bush 41 in some ways. And really, Clinton and Gore were not much more independently foresightful compared to Obama or Newt Gingrich and the intolerance of the Clinton-Gore Admin tricked the fuck out of Bush 43. Clinton was gifted with excellent INsight, but not so much foresight. I have no gifts at all so perhaps I am hypocritical.
Obama and Newt are rational and tolerant (at least compared to too many other Presidents) and that is what has stopped any "terrorists" from retaliating here. But the GOP's actions under Reagan's Admin and Bush 43's Admin as well as today are partly (if not mostly) responsible for Obama not firing the bureaucrats and also for the terrorism.
Maybe we need Sarah Palin to be President as she aligns with public opinion, I don't fucking know. The poor lady is always crying and getting picked on when she just wants to help. And really, she isn't dumb. She's not aware, but she is polite (unless you're fucking with her own whoever they may be). But she would've made a better more democratic president than McCain. She could've been like Gerald R Ford.
Was Gerald R. Ford all that removed from Thomas Jefferson? I mean, look at how pretty their mothers were, how much abuse she took, how much abuse Jerry took, look at how polite he was, look at how clumsy he was, look at how stepped down after less than full 3 years (I guess he was afraid to disappoint Richard Nixon). His intentions were good; they couldn't render general welfare like Ron Paul's, but did they not promote it? I am like Jimmy Carter and MBachmann but it is nicer to be dependent on pleasing people like Ford and Paul than to be logically compulsive like I am. The problems are rooted in the State as the State distorts reality.
Anyway, what if Perot was a stronger (i.e. worse/bad/authoritarian) President than Bill Clinton and if Bill Clinton made a stronger President than Bush 41 had the old-style republican been re-elected?
Myself, I am pretty sure Bush 41 would've been less centralizing than Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and David Duke would've been. and perhaps we need someone like bush 41 again. Histrionic characteristics in sensation seekers (like Bill Clinton) are Good, but not in presidents or leaders because the State censors ingenuity once the histrionic leader leaves office. Pure commanding narcissism like i can have is even worse.
So leaders with extreme dependent characteristics (polite and emotional universality) can be as liberal as TPs are; but the INTP leader (or maybe another ENTP presidency sometime after the first and current one), if ever there is one in the future, will never minimize risks for me and will perhaps inspire the people to execute me if I become a ruler. I don't deserve to live.
I wish I was a better writer and had mental self-control but the smartest people may like it. Incoherence is good even though I am not good.
1. I can't help anyone out independently;
2. some suffered for the ADA as it was taxing;
3. it was be abused by me and many others who took it;
4. and my parents had money to get me out of school anyway (and maybe place me away or place themselves away) but the Dept. of Indoctrination as well as my parents' choices to have highly toxic chainshots put into me then giving me ritalin, desoxyn, SRIs and anti-psychotics made that hard to take me out of school.
5. private charity works and is truthful
6. it loaned credence to hypocrisy (including my own) while hyper criticism couldn't be truthful; no one could suffer on their own from being hyper-critical.
A good thing about it is that Ryan White seemed satisfied with George HW Bush and George HW Bush intended to enrich the world with it. And there wasn't as much resistance as there was with the Civil Rights Act; perhaps Bush 41 being so private and polite made it better than LBJ and MLK Jr. made the Goverment Centralizing Property Acts. MLK Jr is good for non-violent resistance but it could've turned it into a violent revolution had LBJ not been half-agreeable. Neither man was providing or happy to help like Bush 41 was.
And MLK wasn't satified like Ryan White was. And the absence of the "Civil rights act" gave ethnics of the Roman faith (like my grandmother) a seat they may or may not have deserved in the South. She was far, far removed from the Philly PA elite although still a Neo-Republican starting with Eisenhower (and her mother was probably against the Democrats at the time and the Republicans as she used loopholes in the Emergency Quota Act and the National Origins Act to not go back to Central Europe). She probably hated Robert A Taft; and Robert A Taft wasn't quite Ron Paul. Robert A Taft was like grover cleveland. Ron Paul is a fan of both; Grover Cleveland and Robert A Taft were Civil ESTJs, both cared about the national economy, liberty, and were more altruistic in their foreign policy than men like Alexander Hamilton and Henry Cabot Lodge (except the man who wished for FDR that the latter would never be President of the United States was probably more classical liberal than paleoconservative; Grover Cleveland also didn't let himself get conned into internationalism). But I don't want to ever work for the State directly simply because I have pre-natal Testosterone/paranoia like Nixon did and that would stop me from governing like John Tyler. John Tyler couldn't be depressed about not being loved by women or about being not having kids as he was so good looking and tall due to him having low Prenatal T. Coolidge and cleveland were principled like john tyler because their mtDNA hgs were U and K which meant they were good looking and gave off good exhalations. They were also non-violent despite being Guardians (sensing judging types are often out of touch with reality) and that is due to the high ph of their celtic/North Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups. Their right hand 2d4d ratios were high, but I would make a great bad ruler because mine is very low.
And the ADA helped me for a time, even though individual action helped me. Much moreso than MLK Jr. stayed with LBJ's crap which was a lot more powerful and evil than the ADA. MLK Jr. was idealistic and LBJ didn't really love him that much. And blacks as a group aren't richer today than they were in the 50s. the blacks would've been freed under the Articles of Confederation and remained here without so many whites getting killed and pissed off by the State. Or, if the 11 State of the former CSA had been a true confederation then the blacks could've been not less free than they are today. Or the 13th Amendment should've put a wall between the U.S. Central govt and slavery so that the blacks could've shown the whites that they were not too terribly different, so that the labor market could've changed, and so that real savings would increase without min wage bureaucracy. The Radical Republicans wanted control and revenge, not Justice. And then the federal war on drugs and the federal funding of cops is partly why blacks are excluded from the marijuana trade in colorado. Do we need enlightened princes of small secessionist communities?
I am hypocrite for using the ADA in college to others' expense. If I need structure so badly that I can't help anyone independently, then I should never be employed. a 50% unemployment rate isn't absolutely 50% bad. unemployment is a Keynesian statistic and it just doesn't look at the overall health of the economy, yet it tries to prescribe top down solutions.
Ron Paul 2012's plan was excellent and could give much more stability than what he had proposed in the past.
I don't know why we can't privatize the Federal Reserve, minimize the debt, and end real govt revenues by repealing legal tender (lazy people may or may not be helped by the State forcing others to pay them in dollars only, but legal tender contracts are not pro-debtor), by not taxing non-dollar assets, and by not threatening people who give the banking system and the dept of debt competition. The Fed and legal tender are not pro-independence and they result in reduced output.
basically, the State has tried to help the 50-60% or so who need severe structure yet those who get it are not happy anyway. Then those who love ingenuity and change can't have their freedom because of the State's power to tax and to centralize all money within itself and within the banking system. Sorry about that digression.
So Bush 41 is a good man, if a bit security seeking. He, Gerald Ford, and McKinley were the most tolerant presidents of the 20th century. Bill Clinton was a good man, but he was much, much more conservative than Bush 41 in some ways. And really, Clinton and Gore were not much more independently foresightful compared to Obama or Newt Gingrich and the intolerance of the Clinton-Gore Admin tricked the fuck out of Bush 43. Clinton was gifted with excellent INsight, but not so much foresight. I have no gifts at all so perhaps I am hypocritical.
Obama and Newt are rational and tolerant (at least compared to too many other Presidents) and that is what has stopped any "terrorists" from retaliating here. But the GOP's actions under Reagan's Admin and Bush 43's Admin as well as today are partly (if not mostly) responsible for Obama not firing the bureaucrats and also for the terrorism.
Maybe we need Sarah Palin to be President as she aligns with public opinion, I don't fucking know. The poor lady is always crying and getting picked on when she just wants to help. And really, she isn't dumb. She's not aware, but she is polite (unless you're fucking with her own whoever they may be). But she would've made a better more democratic president than McCain. She could've been like Gerald R Ford.
Was Gerald R. Ford all that removed from Thomas Jefferson? I mean, look at how pretty their mothers were, how much abuse she took, how much abuse Jerry took, look at how polite he was, look at how clumsy he was, look at how stepped down after less than full 3 years (I guess he was afraid to disappoint Richard Nixon). His intentions were good; they couldn't render general welfare like Ron Paul's, but did they not promote it? I am like Jimmy Carter and MBachmann but it is nicer to be dependent on pleasing people like Ford and Paul than to be logically compulsive like I am. The problems are rooted in the State as the State distorts reality.
Anyway, what if Perot was a stronger (i.e. worse/bad/authoritarian) President than Bill Clinton and if Bill Clinton made a stronger President than Bush 41 had the old-style republican been re-elected?
Myself, I am pretty sure Bush 41 would've been less centralizing than Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and David Duke would've been. and perhaps we need someone like bush 41 again. Histrionic characteristics in sensation seekers (like Bill Clinton) are Good, but not in presidents or leaders because the State censors ingenuity once the histrionic leader leaves office. Pure commanding narcissism like i can have is even worse.
So leaders with extreme dependent characteristics (polite and emotional universality) can be as liberal as TPs are; but the INTP leader (or maybe another ENTP presidency sometime after the first and current one), if ever there is one in the future, will never minimize risks for me and will perhaps inspire the people to execute me if I become a ruler. I don't deserve to live.
I wish I was a better writer and had mental self-control but the smartest people may like it. Incoherence is good even though I am not good.
Facebook
Twitter