It would take some big event to prompt a protest group like OWS starting up, pull in an order of magnitude or more people, and form another political party. I think you realize (as I do) how likely that is anytime soon.
I'm a little surprised to hear you using the term "gorilla dust." I had to look it up. It seems to be a term referring to confrontations based on bluster rather than actual combat that came into use thanks to Ross Perot.
Bill McNeil, Phil Hartman's character on NewsRadio, used the term once, and it has lurked at the bottom of my phrase pond ever since. I think my use was entirely appropriate in this context.
The sad truth is that there is a large portion of the US population that believes that Obama is actually an antichrist Muslim terrorist who did lied, cheated, and stole in order to get elected, and is still an asshole, a racist, and a hatemonger. Not to mention that these same people believe he was born in Kenya and that the birth announcement was a plant for his presidential campaign as was the long form birth certificate.
I don't believe this to be the case. I think the real sad truth is, a large portion of the US population doesn't believe a black man should be president, and all the other wild claims, accusations, and baldfaced lies are just gorilla dust to justify that core belief.
That's something I've never understood. How does crappy content encourage more people to download it? If I think something is worthwhile, then I watch it. If I don't, then I won't. Why would you continue to seek out and download shows (or music, movies, games, or any other form of entertainment) you think are crap?
Once these ISPs learn that we're entitled to everything we want, they'll finally have to stop throttling us. Then we can continue to consume content without paying the people who spent their lives creating it.
I agree. The entitlement of the unwashed masses doesn't override my entitlement to send my grandchildren to college for a job I did once.
Reform based on Romney's plan, which was based on the Heritage Foundation plan, which was devised to undermine First Lady Clinton's plan that would have actually provided improved healthcare for people. Reform which amounts to a massive subsidy to the insurance industry, the source of soaring healthcare costs with reduced outcomes.
There were some tertiary benefits to the public from the Evil Kenyan Socialist Death Panel Healthcare Bill, but it wasn't good reform. I don't give the big O points for it.
(if you follow Real Unemployment rather than the government's "officially skewed" numbers that lose a lot of people).
So we should follow your skewed numbers, which include people like stay-at-home moms, students, and the retired in their numbers of who's "unemployed".
The official unemployment rate is based only on people who actually collecting unemployment benefits. It's fun to pretend that real unemployment can be deduced from it, but that doesn't make it true. A significant number of the unemployed are not "stay-at-home moms, students, and the retired". Just because you don't qualify for assistance doesn't mean you don't need (or aren't looking for) work.
Sorry your shit's all fucked up, but don't get too lost in the pity party - people don't just walk away from serious abuse. You take it with you always.
This way it is perfectly compatible with science [...] There is no way to check this claim.
Actually doesn't that make it completely INcompatible with science? If it can't be validated with science, it is not compatible with it. Mutually exclusive is not the same as compatible, it's apples and oranges.
I the electorate is simply unwilling to put up with any more spending
This is simply untrue. The majority of the electorate supports spending and a return to fair taxation. That may not be your position, but the electorate, the voters, don't have a problem with government spending on job creation (us whacko lefties think the proposed spending is insufficient to improve the short term fiscal outlook, but it's better than nothing). It's the oligarchs who want to kill spending, because they're making money hand over fist in this crippled economy and at the expense of... well, of all of us. Most of the public support for broad spending cuts has been whipped up by the oligarchy to create a kind of political proxy war. It's gays vs creationism or whatever, and "class warfare", which is code for "anyone drinking a latte wants to steal your money".
"The 99%" is catchy, but the reality is it's the 99.9% that suffers. Stuffing cash under your mattress (in Antigua) doesn't create jobs.
Where are my mod points? Oh well, I'd rather comment anyway. I come from the other end of the political spectrum, and I completely agree. Obama's policies are about in line with McCain's (classic McCain that is, not Neo McCain). I'm pretty damn disappointed in Mr Hope and Change, but the thought of a McCain/Palin administration still has me waking myself with night terrors in a cold sweat now and then.
There are few things Obama could do to restore some faith that he isn't the worst sitting president since Bush II.
That's a whole lot of... something you got there. I'd just like to point out that, objectively, Obama is the BEST sitting President since Bush II. This is simply a statement of fact, and totally undisprovable (which may or may not be a real word). I dare you to try.
Marijuana [...] should be freely sold [...] as a poison
The most ineffective poison known to man. You would suffer some kind of organ rupture before you reached the lethal dose of pot, good sir. It is totally non-lethal.
Which is only an important distinction as long as one can remove oneself from the presence of pot. If it's legalized it's going to be a much less distinct line between physical and psychological addiction.
The suggestion you're making that it being psychologically addictive is somehow better than it being physically addictive is just plain ignorant. Tell that to individuals suffering from OCD, I'm sure they'll be glad to hear that their addictions to behaviors is somehow less serious because it's not a physical addiction.
Substances that are not physically addictive are less of a problem to *society*. We aren't talking about people with pre-existing illnesses here but laws which affect the 342 million citizens who are NOT suffering from OCD or a related disorder. If someone is predisposed to habitual behaviors, that doesn't mean a certain behavior is inherently risky.
Also, in what way does legalization of a substance suddenly make a "less distinct line between physical and psychological addiction"? If a substance isn't addictive, it doesn't become addictive because the tens of millions of people who use it aren't in danger of going to Federal prison anymore. And if you actually mean that it will be impossible to escape a contact high just because cannabis gets legalized, then you haven't been paying attention to the crackdown on public smoking that has swept the nation for the last 20 years. No one's going to be lighting up at the corner cafe for gods sake.
I have no problem with teetotalers, but please keep your blue laws off my cannabis.
I wonder how common forced/coerced incest is among 2-child families where the male is 2-10 years older than the female
You know, women can commit sexual assault too... Assuming a sexual aggressor is always male is the same kind of reasoning as the parents who assume a stranger is more likely to kidnap their child. Our society seems to hold less animosity towards female-on-male sexual abuse, but it still happens.
You're absolutely right. "Greed" is only an argument when it's used to promote nutty conspiracy theories AGAINST the "climate deniers" and how they're all Big Oil shills. You just keep telling them that they're going to look stupid when we all die in a decade, like you've been doing several decades. Meanwhile, you won't need to wait that long.
Money is a good way to determine motives, which can call claims into doubt. The problem with your skepticism is that there's also 50 years of a working theory based on testing and evidence - commonly called facts. Sure, there are people who make money from AGW, but that doesn't change decades of science.
And what do that link prove? Nothing. It doesn't even link to a video... it just links to someones account. If you have an actual case of FoxNews or whomever calling a republican "democrat" in response to wrong doing, THEN EFFING PROVE IT.
Actually it's a playlist (only a few hundred) of that user's videos, each of which document specific intentional falsehoods perpetrated by the so-called Fox News. This isn't some great conspiracy to smear Fox, you know? If you're as interested in this issue as your shrill rage suggests, you should try watching one or two.
If you have enough time to post, you have enough time to toss your question into google and find more. I also have that time! Here you go.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but only if you reverse the polarity first.
Don't forget to reroute it all through the main deflector dish.
It would take some big event to prompt a protest group like OWS starting up, pull in an order of magnitude or more people, and form another political party. I think you realize (as I do) how likely that is anytime soon.
Increasingly? I think we might agree on that.
I'm a little surprised to hear you using the term "gorilla dust." I had to look it up. It seems to be a term referring to confrontations based on bluster rather than actual combat that came into use thanks to Ross Perot.
Discussion of Gorilla Dust as a term.
Bill McNeil, Phil Hartman's character on NewsRadio, used the term once, and it has lurked at the bottom of my phrase pond ever since. I think my use was entirely appropriate in this context.
You must be new here.
The sad truth is that there is a large portion of the US population that believes that Obama is actually an antichrist Muslim terrorist who did lied, cheated, and stole in order to get elected, and is still an asshole, a racist, and a hatemonger. Not to mention that these same people believe he was born in Kenya and that the birth announcement was a plant for his presidential campaign as was the long form birth certificate.
I don't believe this to be the case. I think the real sad truth is, a large portion of the US population doesn't believe a black man should be president, and all the other wild claims, accusations, and baldfaced lies are just gorilla dust to justify that core belief.
I bet they have refrigeratorstoo
Lucky duckies.
That's something I've never understood. How does crappy content encourage more people to download it? If I think something is worthwhile, then I watch it. If I don't, then I won't. Why would you continue to seek out and download shows (or music, movies, games, or any other form of entertainment) you think are crap?
Well, it beats doin stuff.
BOO!
Were you terrified?
Stay where you are. Agents will be with you shortly.
Once these ISPs learn that we're entitled to everything we want, they'll finally have to stop throttling us. Then we can continue to consume content without paying the people who spent their lives creating it.
I agree. The entitlement of the unwashed masses doesn't override my entitlement to send my grandchildren to college for a job I did once.
healthcare reform
Reform based on Romney's plan, which was based on the Heritage Foundation plan, which was devised to undermine First Lady Clinton's plan that would have actually provided improved healthcare for people. Reform which amounts to a massive subsidy to the insurance industry, the source of soaring healthcare costs with reduced outcomes.
There were some tertiary benefits to the public from the Evil Kenyan Socialist Death Panel Healthcare Bill, but it wasn't good reform. I don't give the big O points for it.
WTF are they teaching in home economics today?
It's similar to the curricula in civics and music classes.
(if you follow Real Unemployment rather than the government's "officially skewed" numbers that lose a lot of people).
So we should follow your skewed numbers, which include people like stay-at-home moms, students, and the retired in their numbers of who's "unemployed".
The official unemployment rate is based only on people who actually collecting unemployment benefits. It's fun to pretend that real unemployment can be deduced from it, but that doesn't make it true. A significant number of the unemployed are not "stay-at-home moms, students, and the retired". Just because you don't qualify for assistance doesn't mean you don't need (or aren't looking for) work.
you can walk away from abuse
Sorry your shit's all fucked up, but don't get too lost in the pity party - people don't just walk away from serious abuse. You take it with you always.
This way it is perfectly compatible with science [...] There is no way to check this claim.
Actually doesn't that make it completely INcompatible with science? If it can't be validated with science, it is not compatible with it. Mutually exclusive is not the same as compatible, it's apples and oranges.
I the electorate is simply unwilling to put up with any more spending
This is simply untrue. The majority of the electorate supports spending and a return to fair taxation. That may not be your position, but the electorate, the voters, don't have a problem with government spending on job creation (us whacko lefties think the proposed spending is insufficient to improve the short term fiscal outlook, but it's better than nothing). It's the oligarchs who want to kill spending, because they're making money hand over fist in this crippled economy and at the expense of ... well, of all of us. Most of the public support for broad spending cuts has been whipped up by the oligarchy to create a kind of political proxy war. It's gays vs creationism or whatever, and "class warfare", which is code for "anyone drinking a latte wants to steal your money".
"The 99%" is catchy, but the reality is it's the 99.9% that suffers. Stuffing cash under your mattress (in Antigua) doesn't create jobs.
Where are my mod points? Oh well, I'd rather comment anyway. I come from the other end of the political spectrum, and I completely agree. Obama's policies are about in line with McCain's (classic McCain that is, not Neo McCain). I'm pretty damn disappointed in Mr Hope and Change, but the thought of a McCain/Palin administration still has me waking myself with night terrors in a cold sweat now and then.
I just cannot stand to have another thumper in executive power again. the amount of damage they do is seen for decades, later.
But it sure is fun watching the current crop of wannabes trying to out-kook each other.
It's all fun and games until someone gets elected...
There are few things Obama could do to restore some faith that he isn't the worst sitting president since Bush II.
That's a whole lot of... something you got there. I'd just like to point out that, objectively, Obama is the BEST sitting President since Bush II. This is simply a statement of fact, and totally undisprovable (which may or may not be a real word). I dare you to try.
That is all.
but some people become obsessed with it, think about it all the time
You mean the way law-enforcement officials are about prosecuting marijuana users?
I'm not usually a huge fan of police tactics, but I have to say - at least in my community - the cops don't give a good goddamn about pot smokers.
Marijuana [...] should be freely sold [...] as a poison
The most ineffective poison known to man. You would suffer some kind of organ rupture before you reached the lethal dose of pot, good sir. It is totally non-lethal.
You cannot
die
from pot.
Which is only an important distinction as long as one can remove oneself from the presence of pot. If it's legalized it's going to be a much less distinct line between physical and psychological addiction.
The suggestion you're making that it being psychologically addictive is somehow better than it being physically addictive is just plain ignorant. Tell that to individuals suffering from OCD, I'm sure they'll be glad to hear that their addictions to behaviors is somehow less serious because it's not a physical addiction.
Substances that are not physically addictive are less of a problem to *society*. We aren't talking about people with pre-existing illnesses here but laws which affect the 342 million citizens who are NOT suffering from OCD or a related disorder. If someone is predisposed to habitual behaviors, that doesn't mean a certain behavior is inherently risky.
Also, in what way does legalization of a substance suddenly make a "less distinct line between physical and psychological addiction"? If a substance isn't addictive, it doesn't become addictive because the tens of millions of people who use it aren't in danger of going to Federal prison anymore. And if you actually mean that it will be impossible to escape a contact high just because cannabis gets legalized, then you haven't been paying attention to the crackdown on public smoking that has swept the nation for the last 20 years. No one's going to be lighting up at the corner cafe for gods sake.
I have no problem with teetotalers, but please keep your blue laws off my cannabis.
I wonder how common forced/coerced incest is among 2-child families where the male is 2-10 years older than the female
You know, women can commit sexual assault too... Assuming a sexual aggressor is always male is the same kind of reasoning as the parents who assume a stranger is more likely to kidnap their child. Our society seems to hold less animosity towards female-on-male sexual abuse, but it still happens.
Garcia, with a number as low as yours (tip of the hat BTW) you should know what Monchanger was referencing. Go back and watch episode one.
Garcia, don't do it! It's a tr... um. It's a bad movie!
You're absolutely right. "Greed" is only an argument when it's used to promote nutty conspiracy theories AGAINST the "climate deniers" and how they're all Big Oil shills.
You just keep telling them that they're going to look stupid when we all die in a decade, like you've been doing several decades. Meanwhile, you won't need to wait that long.
Money is a good way to determine motives, which can call claims into doubt. The problem with your skepticism is that there's also 50 years of a working theory based on testing and evidence - commonly called facts. Sure, there are people who make money from AGW, but that doesn't change decades of science.
And what do that link prove? Nothing. It doesn't even link to a video... it just links to someones account. If you have an actual case of FoxNews or whomever calling a republican "democrat" in response to wrong doing, THEN EFFING PROVE IT.
Actually it's a playlist (only a few hundred) of that user's videos, each of which document specific intentional falsehoods perpetrated by the so-called Fox News. This isn't some great conspiracy to smear Fox, you know? If you're as interested in this issue as your shrill rage suggests, you should try watching one or two.
If you have enough time to post, you have enough time to toss your question into google and find more. I also have that time! Here you go.
http://www.google.com/search?q=republican+labeled+as+democrat+fox
Evidently, Marks Foley and Sanford are two, although I have to admit I didn't read past the second link.
enjoy
When did this happen? I didn't hear about it until now. Link please, if any?
Fox news bias playlist by liberalviewer on the youtube. I know there are a few in there, and lots more.
http://www.youtube.com/user/LiberalViewer#grid/user/A3BD2524FE99BD4D