Those afflicted with this ailment spend six or more hours a day online and exhibit at least one of the following symptoms: difficulty sleeping or concentrating, yearning to be online, irritation, and mental or physical distress.
I seriously doubt some one working 12 hour days in a sweatshop is going to spend 6 hours a day on a computer.
Mandatory community service? Great, let's send a bunch of unmotivated kids to do stupid work. Hell, that kind of shit would have been a nightmare for me at that age when I had massive social anxiety and was extremely uncomfortable in such situations.
I could see myself agreeing with you if it weren't for a completely contrary experience for me. In high school I certainly had my fair share of social anxiety issues and whatnot and I was forced into community service through a policy at my high school that required 40 hours to graduate. To say I was unhappy about this requirement would be an understatement.
I actually found it to be a pretty rewarding experience, however. I delivered meals to the elderly as a volunteer for the local Meals on Wheels program and ended up meeting one or two old folks that I would stay and talk to for a bit. While I did get in trouble for taking too long on my roots I think this was a good experience for both me and the elderly people I met.
Now I am not saying that every kid would have such a positive experience in a situation like this I think it does help promote the development of a more "socially healthy" individual
I think what the women being interviewed is getting stretched waayyy out of proportion here. Gas Prices and the Mortgage crisis are two of todays most pressing issues for average Americans. She merely says she won't have to worry about these things, meaning she is expressing her hope that Obama will help resolve these problems for the country.
While I think it's extremely wish-full thinking to think Obama is going to get gas prices to drop significantly and whatnot, I don't see anything wrong with some one expressing naive hopes. Certainly this happens at both ends of the ideological spectrum.
While I follow what you're saying I believe the only Latinos in this country that were or ever have been predominantly Republican is the Cubans. I can certainly say from experience that in California Latinos have been considered a fairly solid Democratic voting block for as far back as I can remember.
Of course Blacks are much more likely to be living in poverty or in a low income situation in this country. Statistically, all of the things you attribute to Blacks are also more common attributes of low income people. This begs the question of whether it is Blacks or if there is some larger social ill (such as the latent racism still present in our country).
I think of ancient Greece, which can hardly be considered a culture that discriminated against homosexuality, yet I know of no movement for gay marriage in ancient Greece. "Marriage" is a word that has meaning in our culture for a long time, having "gay marriage" is not giving equal rights, it is a radical redefining something that is considered one of the basic building blocks of society.
So you are basing the morality of gay marriage on the actions of a civilization that practiced slavery?
Using history as a justification against gay marriage doesn't work very well because of the vast amount of beliefs and activities practiced by past people that modern individuals would consider immoral. I mean a century ago it would have been considered pretty terrible for a black person and a white person to marry and yet today a person holding such beliefs is generally considered backwards and / or ignorant.
I think that's exactly what we're going to see happen. Fortunately for me, I'm a pretty solid Democrat so this just means more victories for us as I don't think the Republican's have much hope pushing a far right agenda. I do honestly feel for the Republican moderates though, who I do have quite a bit of respect for. It was a shame to see McCain's campaign sell itself to the far right.
But I dont see any strong leaders from the pragmatic, small government, strong but restrained military branch that I wish the party was...
If the Republican party had way more of this and way less of the religious right I'd probably vote Republican about 50 percent of the time. As it stands right now, that party is way to scary for me to even consider giving power to on the national level.
I wonder if I could sue my town or state in so limiting my internet choices through government granted monopoly. Given that all of the major players (who get the government granted monopolies) all seem to be moving towards usage caps it would be nice if it was easier for competitors to enter the market. Particularly with download and upload speeds comparable to cable and without the lag of satellite services.
And if we lived in the 19th or 18th century you would be dead on in describing American politics. Unfortunatly for your point, we currently live in 20th century America and almost all of the major post WW2 civil rights leaders have been Democrats while said leaders have been consistently and increasing opposed by Republicans.
And then you went on to state that not allowing children to vote wasn't that different from requirements based on land ownership, wealth or gender.
Perhaps you think this is facetious, but what is so magical about the age of 18 that suddenly makes you competent to vote? Is it really that different from owning property, having a certain amount of money, or being male?
Did you just decide to ignore everything I wrote in my post about ideology changes for the parties (which was pretty much my entire post)? Yes, the Democratic party's pre Great Depression history sucks but that doesn't change a thing I stated above.
Incorrect. The Republican party has always been the party of equal rights for all men and women in the United States, and that has not changed.The only difference is that today, modern Liberals (big "L") believe that if you're not willing to create laws that benefit one race over another (affirmative action, hate crime laws, grant money), that you're a racist bigot.
So please explain the massive movement of Southerners from the Democratic party to the Republican party during the civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's.
Modern Republicans like to hide behind their party's proud history and point out the Democratic party's shitty one but any blue stater who has taken the time to do some extensive traveling around the South (solid red state territory) will have some stories to tell about some jaw dropping in moments in listening to how some people, still to this day, talk about Blacks. Coming from California I was appalled by some of the things coming out of people's mouths about Blacks when I cruised around the South. I've also heard plenty of accounts from a few black friends and acquaintances who are from the South who tell some stories that are so bad I feel like they should be coming from the 19th century.
Of course I am not saying all Republican's are racist but I am saying their political home turf is pretty sketchy when it comes to race relations.
That if you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist bigot. That if you don't vote for hand outs to people who are capable of working, that you're a racist bigot.
Yes there are jerk Liberals who believe this just like there are jerk conservatives who believe that Palin bullshit about them being "the real Americans". Both sides of the fence has its crazies but to claim that said crazies represent the ideological mainstream of either group is ridiculous.
Yeah, I covered that when I agreed with you in my last two posts that the line at 18 is ambiguous. It doesn't change the fact that children are ill-equipped to vote and given this fact, the line has to be drawn some where.
Yes but the average cognitive ability of a six year old versus a non-land owner, a poor person or a women is vastly different. A very solid majority of the later group is well equipped for voting while aside from perhaps some extremely rare prodigies, the prior group is exclusively ill-equipped for voting.
As said before, yes the age limit is arbitrary but to say it's on par with denying women the vote is completely fucking outrageous. How can you possibly equate denying all children the vote with all women?
So you're not refuting what I said in that you are essentially claiming that outlawing a six-year-old from voting (your own example) is the moral and logical equivalent of outlawing a women from voting?
As in the popular consciousnesses of those who belong to the self labeled "West". As in White people. As in "Most White people of the period believed..."
I will agree that 18 is an arbitrary point but the line has to be drawn somewhere given that age should, for obvious cognitive reasons, be a factor in determining who votes. Your point certainly doesn't disprove your own statements that six-year-olds should not vote. Perhaps the age limit should be 16? Perhaps it should be 20? Small details on the subject of who should vote given your broader implications on the subject of who should vote.
Furthermore, none of what you state changes the fact that using property ownership, wealth, or gender (all examples of yours) as a means of determining who votes is not only illogical but immoral.
You're whole post is confusing to me (no offense meant of course). For starters, we were never talking about religion and what you quote me saying these out of context is irrelevant to the general topic given that both political parties of that period called upon religious themes to help draw votes. Furthermore, you clearly state that religion was used both as a justification for slavery (the whole soul thing) and as a justification against slavery (both points which are historically accurate) which further confuses me as you seem to be not making any kind of concise point at all.
Prior to posting this it occurred to me that perhaps you were implying that the Republicans are currently the party of the religious and the Democrats are the party of the irreligious. I assure you, that is not the case. Democrats proudly count among themselves the majority of blacks in this country (a very solid majority of which belong to Protestant faiths), a majority of the Hispanics of this country (almost all of which are Catholic), and a majority of the more generalized Jewish, Catholic and any other faith besides Protestant Christian you can think of. Just because they don't have the majority in the only other Religious group this country has (Christian Protestant) does not make them irreligious.
I've never met anyone who thinks that a 6-year-old child should be able to vote, for example.
Perhaps you think this is facetious, but what is so magical about the age of 18 that suddenly makes you competent to vote? Is it really that different from owning property, having a certain amount of money, or being male?
Yes actually it's actually incredibly different. A six year old does not have the mental capacity to even understand politics. Meanwhile, an adult who does not own property, is poor, or is a women generally has the cognitive abilities to form a decently educated opinion in regards to how they should vote, assuming they put the effort into it.
Re:Oh, its us evil Republicans!
on
How We Used To Vote
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Fun facts:
Republicans supported black suffrage (being targeted by the KKK after the 15th amendment, and had greater support, as a percentage, for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 than democrats)
Republicans fought womans suffrage.
If women could not vote, no democrat would have served as president of the United States in the previous 50 years.
This was a completely different Republican party doing those things then today. If you know your American history then you know that at a few points in our history the major party's ideologies have changed in drastic ways. The Republican party you're referring to has quite a few similarities to our modern Democrats.
The modern Republican party, to which you seem to be trying to bolster the image of with these claims, really only took shape after Southern Democrats (of which the majority of them were given that they wanted nothing to do with those darn Republicans freeing the slaves and giving them the right to vote) left the Democratic party in droves because of their support for the civil rights movement. They merged with Northern economic conservatives and bam, you have the modern Republican party.
Kind of a shady history for the current manifestation of the party if you ask me.
Re:I voted in this manner...
on
How We Used To Vote
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Wow, way to fly off the handle at polite scepticism. It's not as if the poster said "You're full of shit". The poster merely pointed out that parts of your story seemed funny to them and politely asked you to explain them.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to read a little more closely here.
Those afflicted with this ailment spend six or more hours a day online and exhibit at least one of the following symptoms: difficulty sleeping or concentrating, yearning to be online, irritation, and mental or physical distress.
I seriously doubt some one working 12 hour days in a sweatshop is going to spend 6 hours a day on a computer.
Great, now when the great robot revolution happens they'll be coming at us from under the ground too.
What the hell are you even getting at?
Speaking freely is un-Islamic.
Treating women with respect is un-Islamic.
Freedom is un-Islamic.
Peace is un-Islamic.
It wasn't that long ago that all of those things you mention were un-Christian.
Mandatory community service? Great, let's send a bunch of unmotivated kids to do stupid work. Hell, that kind of shit would have been a nightmare for me at that age when I had massive social anxiety and was extremely uncomfortable in such situations.
I could see myself agreeing with you if it weren't for a completely contrary experience for me. In high school I certainly had my fair share of social anxiety issues and whatnot and I was forced into community service through a policy at my high school that required 40 hours to graduate. To say I was unhappy about this requirement would be an understatement.
I actually found it to be a pretty rewarding experience, however. I delivered meals to the elderly as a volunteer for the local Meals on Wheels program and ended up meeting one or two old folks that I would stay and talk to for a bit. While I did get in trouble for taking too long on my roots I think this was a good experience for both me and the elderly people I met.
Now I am not saying that every kid would have such a positive experience in a situation like this I think it does help promote the development of a more "socially healthy" individual
I think what the women being interviewed is getting stretched waayyy out of proportion here. Gas Prices and the Mortgage crisis are two of todays most pressing issues for average Americans. She merely says she won't have to worry about these things, meaning she is expressing her hope that Obama will help resolve these problems for the country.
While I think it's extremely wish-full thinking to think Obama is going to get gas prices to drop significantly and whatnot, I don't see anything wrong with some one expressing naive hopes. Certainly this happens at both ends of the ideological spectrum.
While I follow what you're saying I believe the only Latinos in this country that were or ever have been predominantly Republican is the Cubans. I can certainly say from experience that in California Latinos have been considered a fairly solid Democratic voting block for as far back as I can remember.
Of course Blacks are much more likely to be living in poverty or in a low income situation in this country. Statistically, all of the things you attribute to Blacks are also more common attributes of low income people. This begs the question of whether it is Blacks or if there is some larger social ill (such as the latent racism still present in our country).
I think of ancient Greece, which can hardly be considered a culture that discriminated against homosexuality, yet I know of no movement for gay marriage in ancient Greece. "Marriage" is a word that has meaning in our culture for a long time, having "gay marriage" is not giving equal rights, it is a radical redefining something that is considered one of the basic building blocks of society.
So you are basing the morality of gay marriage on the actions of a civilization that practiced slavery?
Using history as a justification against gay marriage doesn't work very well because of the vast amount of beliefs and activities practiced by past people that modern individuals would consider immoral. I mean a century ago it would have been considered pretty terrible for a black person and a white person to marry and yet today a person holding such beliefs is generally considered backwards and / or ignorant.
I think that's exactly what we're going to see happen. Fortunately for me, I'm a pretty solid Democrat so this just means more victories for us as I don't think the Republican's have much hope pushing a far right agenda. I do honestly feel for the Republican moderates though, who I do have quite a bit of respect for. It was a shame to see McCain's campaign sell itself to the far right.
But I dont see any strong leaders from the pragmatic, small government, strong but restrained military branch that I wish the party was...
If the Republican party had way more of this and way less of the religious right I'd probably vote Republican about 50 percent of the time. As it stands right now, that party is way to scary for me to even consider giving power to on the national level.
I wonder if I could sue my town or state in so limiting my internet choices through government granted monopoly. Given that all of the major players (who get the government granted monopolies) all seem to be moving towards usage caps it would be nice if it was easier for competitors to enter the market. Particularly with download and upload speeds comparable to cable and without the lag of satellite services.
And if we lived in the 19th or 18th century you would be dead on in describing American politics. Unfortunatly for your point, we currently live in 20th century America and almost all of the major post WW2 civil rights leaders have been Democrats while said leaders have been consistently and increasing opposed by Republicans.
Way to get a little stab in at Obama!
Of course lets not forget all of those idiots who vote Republican because of issues of completely marginal importance like gay marriage.
And then you went on to state that not allowing children to vote wasn't that different from requirements based on land ownership, wealth or gender.
Perhaps you think this is facetious, but what is so magical about the age of 18 that suddenly makes you competent to vote? Is it really that different from owning property, having a certain amount of money, or being male?
I then suggested that it is very different.
Did you just decide to ignore everything I wrote in my post about ideology changes for the parties (which was pretty much my entire post)? Yes, the Democratic party's pre Great Depression history sucks but that doesn't change a thing I stated above.
Incorrect. The Republican party has always been the party of equal rights for all men and women in the United States, and that has not changed.The only difference is that today, modern Liberals (big "L") believe that if you're not willing to create laws that benefit one race over another (affirmative action, hate crime laws, grant money), that you're a racist bigot.
So please explain the massive movement of Southerners from the Democratic party to the Republican party during the civil rights movement of the 60's and 70's.
Modern Republicans like to hide behind their party's proud history and point out the Democratic party's shitty one but any blue stater who has taken the time to do some extensive traveling around the South (solid red state territory) will have some stories to tell about some jaw dropping in moments in listening to how some people, still to this day, talk about Blacks. Coming from California I was appalled by some of the things coming out of people's mouths about Blacks when I cruised around the South. I've also heard plenty of accounts from a few black friends and acquaintances who are from the South who tell some stories that are so bad I feel like they should be coming from the 19th century.
Of course I am not saying all Republican's are racist but I am saying their political home turf is pretty sketchy when it comes to race relations.
That if you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist bigot. That if you don't vote for hand outs to people who are capable of working, that you're a racist bigot.
Yes there are jerk Liberals who believe this just like there are jerk conservatives who believe that Palin bullshit about them being "the real Americans". Both sides of the fence has its crazies but to claim that said crazies represent the ideological mainstream of either group is ridiculous.
Yeah, I covered that when I agreed with you in my last two posts that the line at 18 is ambiguous. It doesn't change the fact that children are ill-equipped to vote and given this fact, the line has to be drawn some where.
Yes but the average cognitive ability of a six year old versus a non-land owner, a poor person or a women is vastly different. A very solid majority of the later group is well equipped for voting while aside from perhaps some extremely rare prodigies, the prior group is exclusively ill-equipped for voting.
As said before, yes the age limit is arbitrary but to say it's on par with denying women the vote is completely fucking outrageous. How can you possibly equate denying all children the vote with all women?
So you're not refuting what I said in that you are essentially claiming that outlawing a six-year-old from voting (your own example) is the moral and logical equivalent of outlawing a women from voting?
How completely apaling.
As in the popular consciousnesses of those who belong to the self labeled "West". As in White people. As in "Most White people of the period believed..."
I will agree that 18 is an arbitrary point but the line has to be drawn somewhere given that age should, for obvious cognitive reasons, be a factor in determining who votes. Your point certainly doesn't disprove your own statements that six-year-olds should not vote. Perhaps the age limit should be 16? Perhaps it should be 20? Small details on the subject of who should vote given your broader implications on the subject of who should vote.
Furthermore, none of what you state changes the fact that using property ownership, wealth, or gender (all examples of yours) as a means of determining who votes is not only illogical but immoral.
You're whole post is confusing to me (no offense meant of course). For starters, we were never talking about religion and what you quote me saying these out of context is irrelevant to the general topic given that both political parties of that period called upon religious themes to help draw votes. Furthermore, you clearly state that religion was used both as a justification for slavery (the whole soul thing) and as a justification against slavery (both points which are historically accurate) which further confuses me as you seem to be not making any kind of concise point at all.
Prior to posting this it occurred to me that perhaps you were implying that the Republicans are currently the party of the religious and the Democrats are the party of the irreligious. I assure you, that is not the case. Democrats proudly count among themselves the majority of blacks in this country (a very solid majority of which belong to Protestant faiths), a majority of the Hispanics of this country (almost all of which are Catholic), and a majority of the more generalized Jewish, Catholic and any other faith besides Protestant Christian you can think of. Just because they don't have the majority in the only other Religious group this country has (Christian Protestant) does not make them irreligious.
I've never met anyone who thinks that a 6-year-old child should be able to vote, for example.
Perhaps you think this is facetious, but what is so magical about the age of 18 that suddenly makes you competent to vote? Is it really that different from owning property, having a certain amount of money, or being male?
Yes actually it's actually incredibly different. A six year old does not have the mental capacity to even understand politics. Meanwhile, an adult who does not own property, is poor, or is a women generally has the cognitive abilities to form a decently educated opinion in regards to how they should vote, assuming they put the effort into it.
Fun facts:
Republicans supported black suffrage (being targeted by the KKK after the 15th amendment, and had greater support, as a percentage, for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 than democrats)
Republicans fought womans suffrage.
If women could not vote, no democrat would have served as president of the United States in the previous 50 years.
This was a completely different Republican party doing those things then today. If you know your American history then you know that at a few points in our history the major party's ideologies have changed in drastic ways. The Republican party you're referring to has quite a few similarities to our modern Democrats.
The modern Republican party, to which you seem to be trying to bolster the image of with these claims, really only took shape after Southern Democrats (of which the majority of them were given that they wanted nothing to do with those darn Republicans freeing the slaves and giving them the right to vote) left the Democratic party in droves because of their support for the civil rights movement. They merged with Northern economic conservatives and bam, you have the modern Republican party.
Kind of a shady history for the current manifestation of the party if you ask me.
Wow, way to fly off the handle at polite scepticism. It's not as if the poster said "You're full of shit". The poster merely pointed out that parts of your story seemed funny to them and politely asked you to explain them.