You do realize I was responding to someone else's claim that we are the dominant life form, right? As that point was not relevant to the discussion at hand, I did not seek to correct the statement. So why are you correcting me, and not girlintraining?
For most of our time on this planet, we have not had hierarchical societies. They are a recent invention, only appearing in the last five thousand years or so.
We have natural leaders, and natural followers, and there are more natural followers than leaders, of course. You say, there must be leaders for society to work, but you do realize that followers are even more crucial, right? Lacking leaders, followers will just do what their parents did, and most of the time this works. Lacking followers, leaders are less than useless, as their focus is not on day to day survival. The leader without followers gets eaten by a lion as he contemplates some far off goal.
And genetically speaking, we are not speaking of classes or castes but genetic variations. Get too many leadership genes and you end up screwed up with OCD or other mental illnesses. Leaders don't breed true, and followers can birth leaders. There is no 'top spot' that leaders are in competition for, leaders are not 'better' than their followers, just different.
Really? I'd say perhaps in the preceding five thousand years, but before that we had no walled cities, no mass graves, no weapons meant only for killing humans, no organized warfare, and very little heirarchy. Our current violent, hierarchical culture is an aberration brought about by our invention of agriculture and animal husbandry, our settling down, and subsequent inability to move on when drought and famine hit.
No, the traits that allowed us to become the dominant life form are cooperation, reciprocity, a sense of fairness, and intelligence. The only thing we have going for us as predators is our stamina.
The traits you describe are sociopathic. Sociopathy does not mean you don't know right from wrong. It means you have a diminished sense of empathy and remorse, and you look at people as objects. Sociopaths know right from wrong, which is why they try to hide what they are. They just don't care.
Here's a hint. If you wish to appear intelligent, rational, and adult, then when someone accuses you of not being one or more of those things, don't fly into a profanity filled rage. Everything lumpy says is true. It is indeed stupid not to embrace the metric system, and our education system has proved itself incapable of getting people to switch. You shouldn't even be angry at lumpy for pointing out the blindingly obvious, I don't find his phrasing insulting at all. He isn't saying we can't embrace the metric system, or that we are universally stupid. He is saying that we choose not to embrace the metric system, and that is stupid.
Just when everyone is thinking "Zuckerberg, what an ass!" we get a book purporting that Zuckerberg is in fact a genius coder and philosopher. And here I thought his philosophy boiled down to "fucking idiots tell me things about themselves that I can sell." When are we going to stop this sycophantic worship of sociopaths who happen to get rich by screwing over others?
So either I have to use Red Bull's oddball sugar-enriched BS for a charge (which I'll probably build up a tolerance to), or seek out alternatives like - METH (it's what's for breakfast! Yummy mmmmmeth!).
He did better than any so called 'fiscal conservative,' otherwise known as borrow and spend conservatives. In fact, by any measure, the economy always does better under a liberal. 8.%5 average market growth under Democratic administrations,.5% under Republican administrations (or 3%, if you don't count Hoover. But why wouldn't you?)
Everyone knows that all Republicans know how to do is win elections. They despise government, is it any wonder that they screw it up when actually elected?
All of it. The fact that you don't get that leads me to believe you are one of those people who love license, not freedom. License means 'I get to do whatever I want.' Freedom is a contract, it requires a trade off, you have to give something to get something, you have to protect and defend it for others as well as yourself. Freedom means consequences for breaking the contract. For instance, in order to keep the markets free, we need regulations, and consequences for breaking them, otherwise, people will use the power they can amass in the markets to manipulate the markets in an unfree, coercive manner.
But you can just go on believing freedom means the four year old's cry of "you're not the boss of me!"
There are no such thing as sheeple. Only a very rare few people love capitalism, mostly the rich or those who wish they were.
The free market and capitalism are two separate things. You can have a socialist economy and a free market. You don't need to lend for profit to have open trading. For instance, cooperative banks and credit unions can provide the capital, without the need for capitalism.
But you don't really believe any of this. The language, the idiotic misunderstanding of what capitalism, the free market, communism, and socialism actually mean, It's all pretty obvious. You'll have to do a lot better than that.
Hadn't thought about that, fractionation, plus, there's gas in the oil, it's straight out of the ground, so, an emulsified foam. I think it would go over and under the booms. And yeah, I learned everything I know about fucking booming from booming school 101.
But Clinton proposed the budget cuts. And the tax increases, which according to Republican propagnda should have lowered revenue. Whoopsie, looks like the facts have a liberal bias again.
Read this thread, I'm not repeating it here for your convenience. Or look it up on wikipedia, you'll find the article well referenced. Laws were broken. But I'm not trying to pin this on Republicans, whatever Bush did or did not do, this happened on Obama's watch. If Bush put in anti-government Republicans, Obama could have replaced them with socialists, right? Except he isn't one, he's a corporate centrist, and lax regulation enforcement suited him just fine.
You do realize that those figures include all printed money as well, right? Says so right on the page. So, as the economy expands and we print more money so that we don't have deflation, those numbers will go up.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize I was responding to someone else's claim that we are the dominant life form, right? As that point was not relevant to the discussion at hand, I did not seek to correct the statement. So why are you correcting me, and not girlintraining?
OH COME ON! What did Sauron do to you?
Dude said he would scour my village. I thought he meant clean my village. I was wrong.
He actually was a philosopher. Read his Discorsi on how to structure a democratic society. The man wasn't evil, he was a realist.
For most of our time on this planet, we have not had hierarchical societies. They are a recent invention, only appearing in the last five thousand years or so.
We have natural leaders, and natural followers, and there are more natural followers than leaders, of course. You say, there must be leaders for society to work, but you do realize that followers are even more crucial, right? Lacking leaders, followers will just do what their parents did, and most of the time this works. Lacking followers, leaders are less than useless, as their focus is not on day to day survival. The leader without followers gets eaten by a lion as he contemplates some far off goal.
And genetically speaking, we are not speaking of classes or castes but genetic variations. Get too many leadership genes and you end up screwed up with OCD or other mental illnesses. Leaders don't breed true, and followers can birth leaders. There is no 'top spot' that leaders are in competition for, leaders are not 'better' than their followers, just different.
Really? I'd say perhaps in the preceding five thousand years, but before that we had no walled cities, no mass graves, no weapons meant only for killing humans, no organized warfare, and very little heirarchy. Our current violent, hierarchical culture is an aberration brought about by our invention of agriculture and animal husbandry, our settling down, and subsequent inability to move on when drought and famine hit.
No, the traits that allowed us to become the dominant life form are cooperation, reciprocity, a sense of fairness, and intelligence. The only thing we have going for us as predators is our stamina.
The traits you describe are sociopathic. Sociopathy does not mean you don't know right from wrong. It means you have a diminished sense of empathy and remorse, and you look at people as objects. Sociopaths know right from wrong, which is why they try to hide what they are. They just don't care.
Here's a hint. If you wish to appear intelligent, rational, and adult, then when someone accuses you of not being one or more of those things, don't fly into a profanity filled rage. Everything lumpy says is true. It is indeed stupid not to embrace the metric system, and our education system has proved itself incapable of getting people to switch. You shouldn't even be angry at lumpy for pointing out the blindingly obvious, I don't find his phrasing insulting at all. He isn't saying we can't embrace the metric system, or that we are universally stupid. He is saying that we choose not to embrace the metric system, and that is stupid.
Just when everyone is thinking "Zuckerberg, what an ass!" we get a book purporting that Zuckerberg is in fact a genius coder and philosopher. And here I thought his philosophy boiled down to "fucking idiots tell me things about themselves that I can sell." When are we going to stop this sycophantic worship of sociopaths who happen to get rich by screwing over others?
Adderall is speed (amphetamine/dextroamphetamine), not meth. Meth is sold medically under the brand name Desoxyn but prescription is rare.
The More You Know!
So either I have to use Red Bull's oddball sugar-enriched BS for a charge (which I'll probably build up a tolerance to), or seek out alternatives like - METH (it's what's for breakfast! Yummy mmmmmeth!).
Otherwise known as 'Adderall,' yes, it is what's for breakfast.
I believe it's called 'homeostasis.'
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
For another good look at Twain's world view regarding mankind and religion, I'd say read What is Man? .
He did better than any so called 'fiscal conservative,' otherwise known as borrow and spend conservatives. In fact, by any measure, the economy always does better under a liberal. 8.%5 average market growth under Democratic administrations, .5% under Republican administrations (or 3%, if you don't count Hoover. But why wouldn't you?)
Everyone knows that all Republicans know how to do is win elections. They despise government, is it any wonder that they screw it up when actually elected?
All of it. The fact that you don't get that leads me to believe you are one of those people who love license, not freedom. License means 'I get to do whatever I want.' Freedom is a contract, it requires a trade off, you have to give something to get something, you have to protect and defend it for others as well as yourself. Freedom means consequences for breaking the contract. For instance, in order to keep the markets free, we need regulations, and consequences for breaking them, otherwise, people will use the power they can amass in the markets to manipulate the markets in an unfree, coercive manner.
But you can just go on believing freedom means the four year old's cry of "you're not the boss of me!"
There are no such thing as sheeple. Only a very rare few people love capitalism, mostly the rich or those who wish they were.
The free market and capitalism are two separate things. You can have a socialist economy and a free market. You don't need to lend for profit to have open trading. For instance, cooperative banks and credit unions can provide the capital, without the need for capitalism.
But you don't really believe any of this. The language, the idiotic misunderstanding of what capitalism, the free market, communism, and socialism actually mean, It's all pretty obvious. You'll have to do a lot better than that.
I saw his skin, I saw his arm, it was white.
Hadn't thought about that, fractionation, plus, there's gas in the oil, it's straight out of the ground, so, an emulsified foam. I think it would go over and under the booms. And yeah, I learned everything I know about fucking booming from booming school 101.
If you read the link I gave, you'll see the income and expense streams added up to a positive number.
Old news, the raw data is available.
But Clinton proposed the budget cuts. And the tax increases, which according to Republican propagnda should have lowered revenue. Whoopsie, looks like the facts have a liberal bias again.
A libertarian propaganda site? Really? They lie, plain and simple. Libertarians are loons, look at Rand Paul.
Read this thread, I'm not repeating it here for your convenience. Or look it up on wikipedia, you'll find the article well referenced. Laws were broken. But I'm not trying to pin this on Republicans, whatever Bush did or did not do, this happened on Obama's watch. If Bush put in anti-government Republicans, Obama could have replaced them with socialists, right? Except he isn't one, he's a corporate centrist, and lax regulation enforcement suited him just fine.
You do realize that those figures include all printed money as well, right? Says so right on the page. So, as the economy expands and we print more money so that we don't have deflation, those numbers will go up.
I went for Hillary in the primary...