Posted on 
Feb 01, 2008 08:37 pm Everyone does it. It's like whiping in the restroom or being late to work. Sometimes, it's just gotta be done. Well done Hilliary! You get two index fingers up!
Hillary is so classy
Feb 01, 2008 08:37 pm Everyone does it. It's like whiping in the restroom or being late to work. Sometimes, it's just gotta be done. Well done Hilliary! You get two index fingers up!
Feb 01, 2008 09:21 pm Too bad her other hand is out of the frame.
Feb 01, 2008 10:07 pm Guess that Bill isn't the only one in the family that can't keep a digit out of a hole.
Feb 02, 2008 01:08 am Looks like she is really digging in though. Probably one of those tuff crusty ones stuck on the inside of her snout.
Feb 02, 2008 01:23 am Both sides of the political game take pictures of people on "the other side" and try to make them look like idiots...
I hate it. Even though I don't even support Hillary this still ticks me off.
Feb 02, 2008 08:06 am i have a hunch that many republicans secretly want obama to win.
if you haven't seen the SC victory speech, be moved now:
part two
whatever your party affiliations, some of this is just real basic human stuff, and it's great to hear. this is some of the best oratory i've heard in a while.
Feb 02, 2008 11:10 am So, you're buying into the poor little starving children, eh?
This country is not in the terrible shape they say it is. UNLESS, you want everyone to have equal resources and eliminate the free market and capitalism. If so, let's suspend the Constitution and adopt the Marxist agenda.
And the war was NOT a mistake. The Dems demanded Bush do something, and he did, and I can prove it.
Government needs fixing, but he is incapable. He NEVER worked any social programs in Chicago, and I can prove that, too.
The Dems want nothing short of a socialistic communism where wealth is redistributed according to their ideas. And believe me, Obama and Hitlery won't be giving up their wealth to the communal pot.
Feb 02, 2008 01:04 pm Glenn, were you and dB separated at birth?
Feb 02, 2008 01:11 pm I agree with them.
Feb 02, 2008 01:14 pm We were not separated at birth, but I agree with him 100%.
Feb 02, 2008 05:59 pm "So, you're buying into the poor little starving children, eh? "
uh, no... i was talking about his oratorical skills.
good thing you're not making the speeches, glnflwrs. if you wanna try, though, i've got a hitler mustache you can borrow.
Feb 02, 2008 06:56 pm Quote:
This country is not in the terrible shape they say it is.
Who is "they"? Both Democrats and Republicans would agree that this country is busted and needs to be fixed. Romney is running his whole campaign on making major changes in Washington.
Quote:
And the war was NOT a mistake. The Dems demanded Bush do something.
Are you saying that the Democrats were responsible for going into Iraq?
Quote:
Government needs fixing, but he (Obama)is incapable.
On what basis do you make this statement? There are an awful lot of people who think he IS capable.
Quote:
The Dems want nothing short of a socialistic communism where wealth is redistributed according to their ideas.
I guess I need to pay closer attention to what they're saying...read between the lines. I wonder why they want the US to be communist...
Quote:
I've got a Hitler mustache you can borrow
Yikes! That's just out there.
Extremism...this is just the kind of thing that scares me. Nobody's willing to look in the middle for common ground.
Feb 02, 2008 07:03 pm "that made no sense what-so-ever"
what made no sense whatsoever?
Feb 02, 2008 07:24 pm Well, Jim, without directly doing the wealth redistribution, they are doing it, or want to, by taxing us more to give money to the failures of society. MANY of the people our welfare money (and other such assistance) goes to don't deserve it, they are simply lazy, addicts and bums. Welfare, socialized medicine, subsidies and other such programs are no more than wealth redistribution at the end of the day.
As far as the war issue goes, the dems are the ones making the "quagmire", "Bush lied" and other such stupid arguments.
The country IS busted, lots of things DO need fixing, but it is NOT beyond repair...the best thing that came be done to fix this country is for the gov't to do less to fix it. No more assistance programs in favor of simply monitoring the ones we have, no more policing the world, just police our borders, no more price controls or minimum wage laws, let the free market do it, it does it better.
Less gov't is good gov't and the dems, as I see it, want HUGE gov't, as nothing scares a dem more than somebody that can take care of themselves, they want everybody suckling off the gov't teet.
Feb 02, 2008 07:47 pm had to re-edit the post to include the smiley face. i'm not criticizing anyone personally.
but i lament the totally black and white view many people have about the left. only the far left wackos advocate real socialism. it should be common sense that there's a huge middle ground available to exploit and to get working so that things actually function optimally.
government to me is push/pull, with different solutions required at different times, depending on conditions. this is why i describe myself as 'in the middle somewhere.' i could easily vote for a republican when circumstances seem to warrant it. i like their values and philosophy. i just don't think you win when you limit yourself by identifying completely with a philosophy, because then you can make the mistake of thinking that your way's the best way for every circumstance. you can run the country into the ground--whether you're right or left--by refusing to realize when an approach is not leading to desired outcomes.
feedback is involved in government, and people forget that. the 'inputs' to the governmental system are the conditions at large, and as they change, government must be tweaked to remain functioning at an optimum level. that means sometimes less, sometimes more government. constant adjustments, with the ability to undo changes next election cycle. government is kind of like a really complicated physical machine which goes out of equilibrium unless it's tweaked now and then. the thing to worry about and to take care of is to make sure that the fundamental identity of the country doesn't get lost in the process. i'm not sure it really can get lost. i'm not sure america could become a truly socialist country even if it leans in that direction at times. can you ever really truly see the capitalistic impulse in this country going to sleep? i can't.
get used to one thing, though. some form of universal health care is the destiny of this country. it won't be as bad as you think, and there may be new ways to do it.
that stuff db is saying about taxing...seems to be looking at the situation through one lens when others are available. welfare is one thing, and if you focus on that, you'll see 'handouts.' hell, i'm upset about welfare. but there's another, obviously logical argument for being flexible with taxation. the republican idea is that we give breaks to the rich and that that will translate to more investment and growth, and lower prices for consumers. therefore consumers don't need more money in their pockets, because things are cheap. but what happens when the economy is in a downturn and gas prices are high and businesses are losing money (for whatever reason). then the idea breaks down. lower income people need to be, in that circumstance, more judicious with their cash. in such a situation, more money in the pockets of those at the bottom rung of the ladder can help things get back to an equilibrium for obvious, logical reasons.
one singular approach to taxation is kind of retarded, because it ignores the reality of the economic climate. it turns out that here, both sides have legitimate ideas. only people in the middle who do not become identified with a particular politics and get their ego and selfhood invested in it realize this. i'd be for abolishing the IRS, i think, if the plan was good (i haven't looked into any). but as long as the IRS exists, the only sane approach is a flexible one. that means a constant back and forth.
capitalism is a powerful and good system. but make no mistake: it goes out of equilibrium without checks and balances, and then it works against itself. i think at heart i might be something of a libertarian, but because i think capitalism is so good, i actually want it to be taken care of, i want a guiding hand that keeps it working at the optimum. i wish more people would read about complexity theory. the economy is a complex adaptive system, and you don't set a switch and let those things run forever. they crash and burn and go into a state of lockup.
Feb 02, 2008 08:18 pm dB and Forty...
I can't really argue with anything that either of you have said. Obviously, it's a very complex system...probably nothing like our forefathers envisioned. If there were simple answers to these questions we'd be doing it already.
Our government does a lot of good things for its citizens. Just watch the news for a week and see what kind of crap goes on in other countries. With the good ultimately comes some bad.
There's always going to be plenty of blame to throw around, and I refuse to get into that discussion. I'm just thinking about moving ahead and having this country be a better place for my kids and their kids.
Would this be a better country if Democrats were in charge? No. Republicans? No.
There you are.
Feb 02, 2008 08:26 pm Quote:
If there were simple answers to these questions we'd be doing it already.
Well, right, left or dead center, nobody, I mean NOBODY is better at complicating simple things like the US gov't. There ARE simple answers...look at the tax system...want a simple answer, flat tax is it...simple, fair and logical...ya want simple? Subsidies for businesses, here is simple, if a business can't make it on it's own, it SHOULD go out of business...I am tired of my tax dollars handed to farmers with hundreds of acres of land or corporations getting tax breaks to open stores in places they wouldn't otherwise open.
There IS simple...
Feb 02, 2008 08:27 pm Temporary threadjack for a funny headline:
www.myfoxdc.com/myfox/pag....1.1&sflg=1
Y'all needed that.
Feb 02, 2008 10:23 pm Quote:
There IS simple...
Honest question...then why aren't we doing it?
Feb 02, 2008 11:47 pm Quote:
then why aren't we doing it?
IS simple. One person alone knows everything. Two or more people in a group know nothing.
Lock the thread.
Feb 03, 2008 12:00 am uh,
how about: some republicans even don't want a flat tax. and some industries seem to need subsidies and many people (again, even some republicans), seem to agree. like airlines.
simple is just as complicated.
Feb 03, 2008 12:16 am Well how about a couple I know of just around the corner. This will tell you how ****** up our system really is.
She had a supposed back injury while working for the school district as a lunch lady. How does a lunch lady get a sore back from holding a serving spoon? I digress though on that. She has been collecting disability for over 5 years now. Money coming out of the school district, which is essentially out of my pocket and yours.
Now comes the really ****** up part. She now filed for social security benefits as she is no longer capable of working. Now that is complete bull**** right there. She is fit as a fiddle and I have been witness to here being just fine. So it is all a big hoax and she is going to get away with it. But the kicker is not only will she collect social security money, but her two children will collect as well, right now. Now the best part for last. The money she and the children will collect is not based on what she was making but it will be based on what her husband is making, who is plumber by the way. And his pay is 9 times that which she was making as a lunch lady.
But guess what, our idiotic government allows that sort of thing to happen constantly. How is it that the money WE will now be paying her is not based on what she made, but what her husband makes currently.
I'm just absolutely floored by the stupidity of our government.
Feb 03, 2008 12:21 am Nobody listens to me. But hey, I'm used to it. If I were fortymile or dB Masters or even gflnflwrs, would I take Herb Utsmelz seriously?
Eeh, probably not.
Feb 03, 2008 12:29 am Reps hate social programs. Uh huh. Taking over a foreign country to change the way it treats its citizens is not a social program of the highest order? Spending $1T to send soldiers to die for the rights of Iraqis is somehow more noble than spending the same money on our own citizens?
I'm pissed. The right and left wing ideologues can all go to the hot place. I'm sick of it.
Feb 03, 2008 12:41 am I have a stomach ache.
Feb 03, 2008 12:59 am Quote:
I have a stomach ache.
You should.
Feb 03, 2008 01:15 am Now it's gone. Thank goodness.
Feb 03, 2008 07:26 am snippets from a, like, article at NS that's not freely accessible:
(*ignites debate*)
"According to an emerging idea, political positions are substantially determined by biology and can be stubbornly resistant to reason. "These views are deep-seated and built into our brains. Trying to persuade someone not to be liberal is like trying to persuade someone not to have brown eyes. We have to rethink persuasion," says John Alford, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston, Texas."
"However, Jost uncovered many more intriguing connections. People who scored highly on a scale measuring fear of death, for example, were almost four times more likely to hold conservative views. Dogmatic types were also more conservative, while those who expressed interest in new experiences tended to be liberals. Jost's review also noted research showing that conservatives prefer simple and unambiguous paintings, poems and songs."
"A much stronger link exists between political orientation and openness, which psychologists define as including traits such as an ability to accept new ideas, a tolerance for ambiguity and an interest in different cultures. When these traits are combined, people with high openness scores turn out to be almost twice as likely to be liberals."
"Combine the genetic influences on personality with the political tendencies of different personality types, and the idea that genetics shapes political tendencies seems very plausible indeed. All of the big five personality traits are highly heritable (Journal of Research in Personality, vol 32, p 431), with several studies suggesting that around half of the variation in openness scores is a result of genetic differences. Some traits that are linked to openness, such as being sociable, are also known to be influenced by the levels of neurotransmitters in the brain. And levels of these chemicals are controlled in part by genes. So while there isn't a gene for liking hippies, there is probably a set of genes that influences openness, which in turn may influence political orientation."
"These gene studies are not the only way in which researchers are trying to pin politics down to more fundamental science. If Jost's personality work is correct, the differences between conservatives and liberals should show up in measures of brain activity. Tasks that involve dealing with conflicting information, for example, are known to activate an area of the brain known as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Since liberals are generally more open to conflicting ideas, activity in this area of the brain would be expected to differ between them and conservatives.
Last September, David Amodio, a neuroscientist at New York University, showed that it does. "
"Charney has a more general criticism of the personality work. As others have pointed out, a rather unflattering view of conservatives emerges from the studies. They are portrayed as dogmatic, routine-loving individuals, while liberals come across as free-spirited and open-minded folk. "I keep expecting Jost to show that conservatism is negatively correlated with penis size," jokes Charney. He feels that inherent biases in the make-up of academia, which is dominated by liberals, leads to the "pathologising of conservatism"."
"This last criticism is difficult to dismiss. "It's hard to come up with totally unbiased language," admits Sulloway. However, the details of the language are not critical to the overall result. When political questions are weeded out, the results remain the same, he says. And Jost points out that conservative academics have run personality studies and come up with similar results to their liberal colleagues. "We are all pretty much finding the same kinds of differences," he says."
"So the guy at the bar may never agree with you, but perhaps realising that can be liberating. "We spend a lot of energy getting upset with the other side," says Alford. We often think our opponents are misinformed or stubborn. Accepting that people are born with some of their views changes that, Alford points out. Come to terms with these differences, and you can spend the energy now wasted on persuasion on figuring out ways of accommodating both points of view."
Feb 03, 2008 08:51 am ^^^ in defense of republicans, regarding that article, i'd just like to say that it's possible to be so 'open minded' that your brain falls out. i just spent an hour arguing with a liberal 911 consppiracy theorist. i get nasty when i do that, really, really mean.
happy super bowl sunday, brothas!
Feb 03, 2008 11:18 am With a minor rewrite, that article could apply to football fans too.
Go Pats!
Love you guys.
Feb 03, 2008 11:27 am That article is very logical, conservatives, on the whole, do believe in basic rules and moral standard across the board, which comes from their strongly Christian base, Christianity brings with it those standards from the book they follow. Liberalism believe morality is graded on a curve.
Of course, I am painting with a broad brush here (as everybody always does in such discussions) and I am really only speaking of the rank and file. The elite on either side believe those same things apply to the rank and file, but not themselves.
Also, when speaking of "Christian" I am speaking of most denominations of Bible-believe Christianity...from some of my recent studies, I am beginning to believe that Catholicism falls outside the standard Christian ideology with rules that just confound me and completely throw my theory to the dogs.
Feb 03, 2008 04:57 pm what have you found out about catholicism? i can dispel some rumors about that, having grown up in that church
Feb 03, 2008 05:54 pm Well, Catholicism is weird to me, while every church is about money, the Catholic church takes it to such an obscene level it rivals Benny Hin.
The thing is, the rank and file Catholic parishioners are good people, but when you talk about a religion that has made a religion of covering up child molesters on a very frequent level. This is in part caused by their own beliefs, that of taking away the most human of urges from their clergy, that of marriage, sex and procreation.
Secondly, when sins can be paid away and wrongs can be righted or "absolved" by paying the church is against everything basic Christianity teaches. Forgiveness and salvation and freely available from Christ, requiring no confession to a clergy, no payment for sins or anything of that nature.
Thirdly, well, the Opus Dei is one scary topic I'd rather not brush much on here because it is actually disturbing.
I look at Catholicism as more of a cult than a religion. Admittedly, many people look at religion as a whole cultish, and that's fine, it doesn't really bother me, I believe what I believe, it works for me.
The fact that Catholics are very quick to belittle, insult and call out as "evil" anything that doesn't directly line their pockets very petty.
Feb 03, 2008 05:56 pm Yet another innocent thread forced into a frenzied soapbox war... makes me wanna cry, lol.
Feb 03, 2008 06:09 pm well the paying of indulgences is from another century, man!
catholics don't as a rule insult or call things evil; not sure where you're getting that from. catholic mass was the most sedate thing in the world when i was a kid. the catholic church struck me as being completely and totally laid back about just about everything. generally accepting of people, but firm enough in their morality. my dad has different stories. his experience in the 40s and 50s was strict as heck. it's not like that anymore. i just had the feeling that it was all very nice, as a kid. catholics also have the best music. richard dawkins says so!
the celibacy thing is debateable. it obviously doesn't work, so i'm on your side with that. but the impulse to institute celibacy makes sense. i mean, it's a thing you could do that's not really all that weird on an ideological level, on a religion level. no matter how impractical, in other words, there's precedence for it.
don't really see how someone could come down on catholicism unless they were reading some weird stuff and had never actually been around catholics or attended a mass. it's a totally normal thing that you would recognize as christian.
Feb 03, 2008 06:19 pm Quote:
well the paying of indulgences is from another century, man!
Ummmmm, no, I am not speaking of "indulgences" exactly, people today still pay for righting this and that in the church, hell, I had relatives have to pay the church just to have their marraige recognized by the church so their kid could attend their school...since they were married in a private ceremoney, not the church...and thats just one example from the tip of my tongue, there are more.
The celibacy thing, is debatable, it is good in theory, the logic is sound as far as "being married to the church" and whatnot, but it's failed, it's not workable, you are fighting basic human instinct. It's one of those things that looks good on paper...
As far as the church insulting orgs and whatnot that don't line their pockets, argh, dude...well, that is a whole new thread I don't intend to start, but yes, they do...
As far as mass goes, I never said anything about the service, and actually said the rank and file Catholics that I know (I live in a prominently Catholic community) are good people, it's the Catholic org, the top of the church, The Vatican, that I find very anti-Christian, not the town churches.
Oooop, Super Bowl, the rest of the night is all about football, not the soapbox.
Feb 03, 2008 06:21 pm Yeah, indulgences aren't really a major thing anymore...the original Martin Luther (who Martin Luther Kings name comes from) got rid of that when he started the Reformation.
I did a report on that.
Feb 03, 2008 06:22 pm Oh, yeah, after 8+ years of deep Lutheran education, well, yeah, the reformation is something I know a little bit about...and indulgences are not what I am talking about.
That said, football!
Feb 03, 2008 06:24 pm ah ok, well that's a people thing; it has nothing to do with catholic beliefs. people can be corrupt. what're the reigious beliefs, though? that's the real question.
insulting orgs would be another people thing. you should talk just about the belief system itself. there are corrupt buddhists too.
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.