tar

sorry I made an assumption. half the vets that committed suicide COULD have been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, I should have said. The numbers just tell us that 47 percent of vets were deployed. The people that committed suicide could have all been among the 53 percent of vets that were not deployed. Still, whether staying home and not suffering with your buddies, or going and suffering war, might increase one's likelihood of committing suicide, what with pain killers being likely for injuries, and mood altering drugs being used to combat PTSD and such, and the numbers that say lower income individuals have a higher rate of suicide than people with education, the search for the reasons for the increase need not be found in the mind of a vet, but many of the factors related to suicide can be found at high rates, with conditions related to vets and the conditions are sufficient to explain at least some of the increase. Just imagine coming home from war, disabled mentally or physically, having lost your girlfriend, with no jobs available as tank gunner and being prescribed a powerful pain killer for some chronic pain you are encouraged to report, to get the fantastic, but expensive high. How is that scenario going to turn out? Just adding up the numbers?

Overtone, Yes, its all very funny. The republicans are goofy and we, all that are progressive, can laugh at their ignorance, and simultaneously cry at what they are doing to the wonderful American people and all the great things that America stands for. But the tea party was a reaction to Obama. They didn't get voted in, until Obama asked for laws that were only wanted by his party. It has not been presidential, to not work with your congress, and instead use executive orders to defy the will of congress. Bill Clinton worked with Kasich and the republicans after Hilarycare failed and the congress was voted Republican which had not happened for years. That is when the budget surpluses came about. When a democratic president, worked with a republican congress. And this was within the last 50 years that you swear the republican party has ruined for America. So you can't use the teaparty to characterize the republican party for the last 50 years, because they only arose in the last 7 years as a reaction to Obamacare. The last time an all democrat congress was replaced by an all republican congress, we had 4 years of surpluses as Clinton worked with the congress. Obama is not working with an all republican congress, and now we have Cruz and Rubio. I don't like either one, and I don't like the teaparty, but neither am I taking full responsibility for their rise, it had something to do with Obama wanting to have his way, regardless of the way the republican party wanted to go. And the arguments one could use to vote for change, to remove Bush and fix Iraq, and fix the recession, and win the war against terrorism cannot be used again, because Bush is no longer president, we have come out of the recession to some large degree, and Obama has had 7 years to fix Iraq and Bin Laden is dead and we are still in Afghanistan. The anger parts of the Muslim world have toward America is real and dangerous. Americans can not travel in some countries, without getting kidnapped and held for ransom. Paying the ransom and negotiating with terrorists, is doing exactly the harm that we have known for years is what occurs if you pay the ransom. Another American gets kidnapped. There have always been pirates, but the idea is to get rid of the pirates so that being a pirate is a loosing proprosition. If you vote for change now, what are you voting to change from, and what are you voting to change to? Which part of being American are you willing to accept and which part are you willing to reject? You cannot travel, as an American, in Northern Libya, with any more safety and security than I can. I don't think ISIS checks your party registration. Regards, TAR I think the debate went well for Kasich, Christie and Bush, the governors. Christie destroyed Rubio in the first part of the debate, but Rubio came back a little. Trump had some bad moments and might have lost his big lead. Cruz I think will be overtaken by one or two of the governors and Carson was hardly there and probably cannot carry on too much longer, unless South Carolina votes for him. It is early, with plenty of votes yet to go, but I am thinking we are looking at a Kasich/Christie ticket and a Clinton/Biden ticket. I would vote for Kasich. I hope though, that Cruz goes because he is too fascist. Rubio I hope goes because he is too young and inexperienced. And I wouldn't mind if Kasich found a better VP than Christie, whose stance against Planned Parenthood I don't like at all. My hope is that Trump does not do nearly as well as he thinks he is going to do in New Hampshire. He will fold very quickly if he cannot maintain his "winner" brag. Sort of like the rabbit in a long distance race. You send the sprinter out to set a fast pace for the first couple laps, but he gets winded and the real long distance runners take over. One of the governors. If its Kasich he will have to raise big money, fast or he will not be able to hang with Bush. If Trump or Cruz somehow gets the nomination, I think I will revert to my democrat roots. Regards, TAR

iNow, Lets say we have about 100,000,000 white males. The suicide rate was about 10.4 per 100,000 at the start of the increase in suicides, about 10,400 suicides the rate was 12.5 per 100,000 at the end of the period, or about 12,500 suicides an extra 1000 suicides per year would account for the increase we are investigating. finding a time sensitive American source of 800 suicides accounts for something significant the extra suicides over a 12 year period rose something like 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, 2400 or about 15,000 extra suicides. 800 is 5.3 percent of 15,000 if half the VA suicides were white males, then at least 2.5 percent of the 15,000 extra suicides could be vets. Half the vets that committed suicide were deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq. So at least 1 percent of the increase in suicides could easily be attributable to deployment. One percent of a 32,000 gallon pool, the pool being the extra suicides, is 320 gallons or 6, 55 gallon drums. Significantly more than a drop in a pool. Regards, TAR Regards, TAR

CharonY, But .2% of what? .2 percent of 100,000 is 200 .2 percent of the population of the country is 318,000,000 times .002 or 636,000 people. My only point was that we are talking teaspoons and cups, rather than drops, where such a number as 6 or 8 hundred VA treated vets killing themselves, added to the suicides of vets not treated at the VA can become significantly more important in understanding white male suicides in general, than considering the numbers, not relevant. Besides the Afghan and Iraq actions have happened within the time frame where the numbers of white male suicides have inexplicably risen, compared to other populations, and this factor, may be at least a part of the answer to the thread question. Even if only .002 of the answer. So we still have to look for 99.8 percent of the answer, it could still be a start. Regards, TAR And .2 percent of a 32,000 gallon swimming pool is 64 gallons. That's a 55 gallon drum, not a drop.

I would rather Graham or Paul, but they are not around. The system we have is condusive to partisan bickering. Two parties, black and white, good and evil. Maybe would be better if we each had the guts to go with the person that best reflected our view of the world. Vote anarchist if that is our bent, or socialist, or communist, or nationalist, or libertarian and not feel you have to equivocate to win the national election. The way it is now, you have to hold your nose and vote so someone you like even less won't get in. The majority does not like the teaparty or the communist party. Thinking of them as mainstream is not the correct vision of America. We have a little of everything in us. Its what we are when we put everything together, that makes us strong. Ten Oz. International terrorism, terrorism without a state, on the scale of Al Qaeda and ISIS is a new thing for the world. If ISIS is not a state, then we should help the governments of the states in which they are operating, defeat them. Like the occupiers in Oregon, you wait them out, then if they don't give up, you go in and arrest them. Pure and simple. If ISIS is a state, then call them a state, and declare war on them, and defeat them. I think we can figure a way to do this. Not easy. They are experts themselves. They are Saddam's best generals. They are a powerful foe and they have a system put together where rape and pillage are part of the reward for the fighters. They are strong and getting stronger. But the generals have to be somewhere. The hidden munitions and equipment have to be somewhere. Under the ground, most likely, but you need to root them out. Capture or kill the leaders, free the sex slaves and the unwilling subjects, and return the countryside to Assad's rule and then ask for a new election. If Assad wins, then he shall continue to be king. Same as if Hilary wins I must accept it, or if Trump wins I must accept it. We should not decide for another country, who their leaders should be. Regime change, I think is allowable if the world votes against a harmful dictator, but the thing should be done fast and sure, and the world should fill the vacuum until the people chose their future. If its just a king like Assad, that is not quite as perfect a leader as we would like to see, we perhaps should not fund a revolution against him, unless we mean to remove him. Boko Haram is revolutionaries fighting against a corrupt establishment...but they need defeating. Bernie Sanders is a revolutionary fighting against a corrupt establishment...but England should not send drones in to take out Bernie. Distinctions can be made, and we can fight and win against our enemies. We can together build and maintain a better world. But we can not do it if Democrats hate Republicans, and Republicans hate democrats. Regards, TAR house of commons, house of lords, you can be adversaries and still respect each other and figure out the laws you want to follow, and you can all together, still love your queen I even love your queen and we fought and won a war against the redcoats

Like with Assad. You want him out, put him out. You want to talk and make peace and help him regain control of his country, you do the thing. Halfway hurts. Some military I have talked to, have not liked being police, with limited rules of engagement in a foreign county. When somebody wants to kill you, and you can't go after them, it is very hard. I only have heard this in person from one, and he was in the aCBs and not infantry, but I have heard it second and third hand, and I understand it. If you shouldn't be there. Don't be there. If you should be there to fight, fight someone. If what is needed is humanitarian and civilian in nature, send humanitarian aid and civilian helpers and engineers and medical staff and support people, like the peace corps. If you need somebody protected from an armed group you send an armed group with the intent of breaking things and killing people, capturing people and putting them in prison. Against a state, that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, fighters can be captured and held and their human rights protected. How to fight Al Qaeda and Boko Haram and ISIS in a humane fashion, has not yet been figured out. Regards, TAR Ten Oz, I am using pacifist as in how Bernie was against going into Iraq against Saddam. Even Clinton, before Bush, knew that Saddam was willfully obstructing the inspectors and was in favor of no fly zones and other military options against Saddam. He was not in favor of sending in troops, but that, is a decision to be made by the pentagon. The commander in chief says what he wants done, and the experts get it done. Telling me that shooting down or blowing up a military target from the air, is peace and going in on the ground where you can see who you are shooting, is war, is the exact doublespeak that 1984 was talking about. Regards, TAR Either way is war. Why pussyfoot around. Declare it. Fight it. Win it. And live in peace with the vanquished, like we did with the Japnese and the Germans and the Italians. And tried to do with the Iraqis. The military will do what its told to do. But certain rules of engagement are not built around sound military procedures. That is my only question with Bernie. Will he use our military correctly, or put them in situations where the rules of engagement makes them sitting ducks in a hostile country. well that is not my only question with Bernie, he has not found the proper ways to pay for universal health care, but I would rather he than Cruz or Trump or Hillary

Ten Oz, Bernie's plan sounds like what we have been doing, and it is not working yet. We have not degraded ISIS we have made them stronger. More recruits not l ess. Whatever Bernie thinks the root causes of radicalization are, he may not completely understand, because they are the same ideas that Clinton and Kerry have had, and the plan is not working very well. Our recent bombing campaign, along with others, has reduced the amount of ISIS fighters in Syria, and caused additional frictions as Russia and Iran are backing Assad, and we are not, and the amount of ISIS fighters in the north central part of Libya has doubled. Boko Haram is making a mess of Chad and other countries right below Libya. These countries, Syria, Iran, Libya and other African states were in the U.S. war against terrorism, that was hamstrung by pacifists. Pacifism may not be the way to go against it. Letting local powers fight is out on the ground, is not working either. Adding Saudi troops and Iranian troops to Syria, will be no better a path to peace, than putting American troops on the ground. If a proxy war, between Turkey and Iran and Saudi Arabia and the U.S. is being fought in Syria, it would be good to know if Bernie is on the side of the U.S. and Israel and France and Britain and Turkey, and the Kurds and moderate Sunnis or whether he is satisfied to let things go, as they are going, with Russian and Iran, ISIS and Al Qeada all gaining strength in the area, while we drop bombs on people and piss them off. My thinking is, that if you drop bombs on people you should be their enemy and desire to utterly defeat them. Take away completely, their ability to hurt you back. Dropping bombs on people, pretending you don't want to hurt them, is really stupid. It is impossible to know who to support, without being on the ground. It is impossible to make sure your equipment does not fall into the wrong hands, unless you are on the ground. Our military is very very good. I was in it. I know our capabilities and I don't need to tell them out loud. But I do know, that the things Fox says, and the things Rush Limbaugh says about the military are true. The job of the marines and special forces is to break things and kill people. A pacifist can not effectively be in charge of such a group of individuals. Last resort, certainly. But when all else fails and you need to result to force, than force should be used. And you can not be afraid that using force is going to piss off your enemies. You already have asked them nicely to be nice. You already have asked them not to kill people and steal stuff, and break stuff. If they persist, you have to physically stop them, or let them walk all over you. Regards, TAR

Willie, Thank you for that assessment. I will take it under consideration, when the primary rolls around to my town. I am however, registered republican and cannot vote in the democrat primary. The power of your will, exercised through my pull of the lever, might not be effective 'til election day. However, I believe I would vote for Sanders before Cruz or Trump. On your recommendation. Regards, TAR Ten Oz, I could only possibly be allowed to make that self assessment, if you allow that there could possibly be such a thing as a reasonable conservative. Are you saying reasonable conservative is an oxymoron, or that I am not a reasonable person, or that by definition one can not make an objective assessment of themselves? Willie71, As an objective viewer, and ally of the U.S. would you be happy with Bernie at the head of our State Department and Military, when it comes to Boko Haram, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Iran, Russia, China and North Korea? Regards, TAR But I would vote for an establishment republican before an establishment democrat. The planks on the dem party have moved to the left, as I have moved toward the status quo as I have aged. So anti establishment, I would go Bernie, instead of Trump. Establishment I would go Kasich before Clinton.

Willie71, Here I am a conservative, but a sensible one, giving you, a person not even a citizen, a right to caucus, as if we did not even have political parties, and you have a vote in the general. Remember, even me. A republican can vote for Bernie, in the general election if you prove to me, that he is the best leader of the free world available. Regards, TAR

Phi, So you are right. You demonize people you don't even know, and can not figure why they are not as angry as you are at other people's behavior. Perhaps some of us, give the other guy the benefit of the doubt and realize the world is not arranged only for me or for you, but for us, and by us. If the us is doing the arranging, then we have the us to thank for it. Some of those individuals are conservatives. Regards, TAR Willie71, I know you are not voting in the primaries, but if you lived in New Hampshire would you be registered democrat, independent or republican? Who would you get your vote? Do you figure everybody who does not vote for your guy or gal is an idiot? Regards, TAR

I helped put Christmas lights up in my town's veteran's park. Not a manger or a cross or a star of David. Christmas lights. Holiday lights, if you will. It need not be an indication that I am Facist. I like the rule that you need a special one day permit to display a religious symbol, or make a political statement on town property.

I thought is was a good picture of America. I am an atheist, and think the story has a happy ending. My point is that local traditions matter and the constitution matters and common sense matters and human judgement matters, and this country is for all americans, not just atheists, like me. And other people, whether republican or democrat are good people, loving people, sensible people, rational people and should be given the benefit of the doubt, and not automatically considered evil, just because they are registered to the other party or have a different outlook on life, than you do.

I was talking about a person having an image of Big Brother. Somebody watching, all the time. to some that is a good thing, to other's that is a bad thing to some that is God, to others it is the human race, or the earth, or aunt mary or buddah or ghandi or Socrates or Einstein or newton, or Jesus or Mohammed. to some it is a federal agency, to others the local police, to others black helicopters/ and drones after 9/11 there was, along with the fight against global terrorism many big rallies against globalism, against the world bank, and the world court, and big money and power dominating the world taking the position of an ISIS member on the coast of Libya looking up in the sky and seeing a drone, the idea of big brother puts the U.S. in the evil role and Allah in the good guy role was watching a Fox report, about a town out west, where someone had put up a big god bless America sign on town property an atheist sued and won (on the basis of separation of church and state) and the signs were taken down in response somebody made more signs and distributed them around town, and everybody put them up on their lawns I have heard many politicians and leaders utter the words God bless America. What if by God, we just mean each other, and objective reality in general? Even a humanist, can not disagree with that.

iNow, There is a certain communication that occurs between you and me when I say something, and you say something. That communication is different than the communication that is occurring between you and any other particular poster, or reader of this board. Writing words on this page are directed at you, because I addressed you, but I want anyone listening to hear the words, as well. I have ongoing debates with specific people on specific points on this thread, and issues carried over from others. Well chosen points and stories on my part are not ramblings. They are intentional attempts at communication. To get an idea in my head into other people's head. To have a discussion. To explore ideas. To bring up points. To ask people to put themselves in someone else's shoes, and to give other people the benefit of the doubt and concede that this is other people's world, as well, and other people, even people that do stupid stuff, or make mistakes or do something contrary your opinion of what it means to be a good person, still just might, and probably are good people. In any and all cases, we care about what other people think about us, and what we say, and what we do. We like to be doing it right, with other people, even people we don't know, appreciating our efforts. Or as Hilary says, I am for you, even if you are not for me. Groupthink, in my definition, is having an image in your mind of an invisible other that is judging your behavior. You know what thoughts are proper, you know what thoughts are not. You think and say and act in a way that will be accepted and rewarded and encouraged by your team, and avoid those thoughts and words and actions that will bring punishment or disgust or shunning from those you care about. Your group. Regards, TAR Willie71, People loyal to the king, like the three Musketeers are the good guys. People rebelling against the king, are mischief makers. If the king is unjust as in Robin Hood, someone needs to fight for the people, 'till the good king returns from the Crusades. If the queen says let them eat cake, when told the people have no bread, then you have a revolution. For the past 7 years the democrats have been on the throne. Hilary can not, and make sense at the same time, pull the Robin Hood card, and use the same slogans the Democrats used to replace the evil king Bush. Regards, TAR

rats, just hit a button and lost an excellent post I can't reproduce it as cleverly and precisely and in the right order and the right mood as I just had it, with all the points and all the examples, but basically... So without the words I would usually use to prove my points, and bring you to the same conclusions I will just state them. whatever human penchant there is to fall for groupthink, is obviously occurring on both sides of the aisle, or we would not have party line voting the British oligarchy that ran the world in the past, still runs the world today If you storm the castle, you are liable to be shot in the snow, like Finicum. Regards, TAR couple of the sub points read 1984 when it was still in the future, so have been looking out for it campaigned for McGovern in New Hampshire, so I know what is going to happen with Sanders Antidisestablishmentarianism, the word, was coined several cycles ago. Queen Elizabeth, began her rule the year I was born, and her idea of civility and proper behavior is the same idea I hold. Bernie does not want the death penalty because the government should not be involved in killing, yet he is ready to be commander in chief.

Overtone, Good post. I did not know that such monopoly protection was obtained prior the sale to the creep. But still a certain amount of copyright protection is afforded people in this society for creating something that is useful to society, to allow them a certain amount of time to be financially rewarded for such a thing. Our system has evolved for reasons, all along. There are scores of thousands of lobbyists, in Washington to ask that their towns and bridges and organizations and companies be looked after and not overlooked, when legislation is made. Yes it is unfair for somebody to take large sums for the ear of a powerful person, because we all don't have the funds available to bend those ears...but 475 thousand for a speaking engagement is also a form of the same thing. At one point, Bill and Hilary were swamped by legal expenses and more than broke. For them to be multimillionaires now, does require that somebody s giving them money, to bend their ears. That is one reason people are backing Trump, because people think that since he already is a billionaire, he can not be corrupted by special interests. And Bernie is trusted, because he gets his funding from 3 and a half million different sources, at 37 dollars a pop. Perhaps that is why they are each attracting so much popular support. But popular support is not the only kind you need to run this country. You need to be on the side of the power structures already in place. The churches, the industry, the local organizations, the universities, the medical community, the aerospace industry, Hollywood and the media, state and local governments, the military and the huge organizations that are built under each cabinet chief, that do not completely turn over upon each election. It is not just the republican party that operates on its own. The democrat party does the same. The rules of the Iowa caucus are set by the respective parties. Not the pervue of the state attorney general. Not governmental in many ways. It is interesting in our system that the President of the U.S. is also the head of his or her party. It is almost like a conflict of interests. The head of state, the head of the military the lead law enforcement officer, the boss of every cabinet member and facet of the federal government, is also the head of the party that elected him or her. Such power as the president wields is probably done with the OK of the rich and powerful. That is, the place does not run without everybody from the janitor to the manager to the board member, to the CEO and college president and hospital board chief, being onboard. It is OK in terms of political dialog to talk about taking your country back, but in reality, on Monday morning, you are most likely going to work and will do your job, and report to the same boss you reported to on Friday. Regards, TAR Willie71, Extract dopamine from the king, if you think it due. No reason to make me feel bad about the way I have conducted my life. Regards, TAR

Phi, I haven't read String Junky's whole pdf but seeing who the thing is about makes me stop to make a point. The guy was a smug, young criminal twerp that is guilty of extortion or holding people's life for ransom or something and does not deserve of drop of dopamine for the rest of his worthless life. We are rightly prosecuting him for his crimes. But I want to point out that he raised the price of a life saving drug, from 13.50 a pill to 750 a pill because he was a greedy bastard, that broke the law. The important thing in the story is to realize that the drug company, before the creep bought it, was making a drug saving pill for 13.50. This in no way demonizes drug companies, and infact should engender pride and gratification from us all, that the people that worked to develop and test the drug, did the work. Here dopamine should be given to those folks, by praising them and being grateful to them. Not robbing them of the dopamine by associating them with the creep. Regards, TAR Phi for All, I understand that if I associated with the creep, you could and should call me un-American. But you can't call the people that developed and produced the drug un-American, because they are exactly what America is about. Regards, TAR But you are calling me un-American for not backing universal health care...which America has not developed for itself, yet. A dream in your head, that cobbles together the best practices of the best social democracies in the world. Pretty much not done yet, here, or at least not yet done right, in a workable fashion. Brought up by first lady once, and halfway done by Obama-care, but not yet done here, right. Possible, but not yet working. A dream, but it would take a while to make it work. Obama ran on it, and finally got it half way done with all sorts of problems, The republicans fault you figure, for messing it up. Feel that way, if you like, if it makes you feel good and right and so on, but consider one of my rules for determining the difference between something working in your head, and something working in the waking world. The more things that would have to change, for you to be right, the stronger the indication that its just going to work in your head, and not in reality. If we could just remove everybody blocking progress we would have a perfect world. Great, you and a couple thousand reasonable people would enjoy a perfect world. Regards, TAR

So, while worrying about the sea levels and violent weather and such, I also worry about the people of W. Virginia. Taking care of the planet for other people is one side of the coin. One must also put food on the table for their own kids. my middle man stance was between atheists and believers in god I am more conservative than progressive at the moment. I used to be more moderate, but I am getting more status quo as I age. Phi, Let me ask you to take an objective stance, as if you were not a humanist, and a scientist and a socialist and find fault with every plank of the democrat platform, and support every plank of the republican. You could easily cherry pick the required aspects to prove your debate position. In politics though, you actually care about your team and agree with their arguments. And you belong to a number of teams and have a role on each. You never want to disappoint the team and you always want to take care of the team. Yes I want to be right. Yes I want to validate the last 62 years of my life. Yes I want to understand life and learn how to make other people happy and find those hundred ways to feel good that are not destructive and expensive. I want that dopamine same as everybody else. What I am seeing that you are not, is that everybody has their way to get their dopamine, and getting your dopamine by taking another's away, is not very kind. It is better to look for the ways were everybody gets the dopamine. What I am saying, directly, is that if it makes you feel good, to be a champion of the poor, you provide dopamine for yourself, and dopamine for the poor, but do it at the expense of the rich guy. And it is absolute fact that rich people provide jobs and life improvements for everybody and provide loads of wins, loads of dopamine already, for millions.

Ten Oz, Yes I support them in that they reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and make it possible for us to starve ISIS of oil revenue, and keep oil prices low and weaken Russia who gets much strength from high oil prices, and gives us more leverage against the Saudis and the Iranians should we have policy or human rights differences with them. The NO tax dollars for renewable energy is not the best way to go. We should be working on renewable resources on a national scale. But we should do it in a thoughtful way. For instance just saying solar does not mean you have made a sound sustainable economic decision. It takes materials and labor to make panels. You have to dig mines and build factories and forges to build huge wind turbines marching like huge robot invaders across the landscape. Somebody is going to own these turbines. The people that built them, or the people that lease them out, will profit. I get calls almost every day, from somebody who wants me to invest in solar panels on my roof. I always hang up, because I think they have a racket going, talking about government subsidies that would help me make it happen, when I KNOW that there is some angle they have, where they will make money, and some way, where I will wind up paying for something, I won't even own. So yes, we should be investing, as a nation, in renewable energy, but picking winners and losers in any government policy or program is going to happen. There is for instance no purpose in having a hybrid car, if the electricity you are charging up with, is generated by a coal fired plant. I would like government money spent in new technology that would solve the problem on a big scale, to go along with what each individual and each company can voluntarily do to recycle and reduce their energy expenditures and the amount of trees they need to cut down. I don't want to lose my gas powered car, my gas powered blower, my gas powered lawnmower and my gas powered snow thrower, and my gas powered chain saw. Nor do I want to see American industry hamstrung by carbon emission regulation, and see manufacturing jobs go to Mexico and China. There are unintended consequences that cascade off of any party platform. For instance the republicans probably lobbied for strip mining in W.Virgina, and the democrats probably lobbied to shut down the strip mines. Result: the coal industry and the chemical industries related to the coal in terms of power or materials is MUCH smaller than it used to be. The people that worked the mines and factories still live there, and have to go on government assistance to survive. They go on disability, get high on meth and turn into burdens on society. Regards, TAR

As a person investigating the meaning behind language, and the workings of the human mind, consciousness, subjectivity and objectivity, and trying to act as middle man, between people of fact and people of faith, I lose, whether I make a good point or not. In the overall scheme I have realized that I have true enemies in this world. Common enemies of America and my way of life. In this, I am on the team of EVERY American, and on the team of everybody living the American way of life. If the republican platform serves to maintain America and my way of life, it is good. If the democrat platform serves to maintain America and my way of life, it is good.

Ten Oz, I reviewed them, and agree with all of them...but its what each is code for, and what each of them is for and the debate behind each issue that jumps out at me. I have gotten republican polls in the mail, and I never answer them, because they are framed in such a way as you can not put your rider on the thing. I have the same problem reading the democratic platform. I like the title, but I might not like the plot, or the characters and the way it plays out and what it "means", in reality. When I answer your questions, and tell you what I believe, in a way that qualifies what I mean by each of the terms you show me where your qualifications are not maintained by the republican party. That I must be insincere because I say what I want, and the republican party platform does not reflect it, and the republican party does not live up to their platform planks. So I point out where the democrat platform is code for this and that that I am hesitant to sign up for and you distill it down to the talking point that makes you right, and me wrong...regardless of the fact that I just explained my thinking, and it made sense. Today on the news a commentator asked Santorum, who had dropped out and put his support behind Rubio, what Rubio had ever accomplished, and he could only come up with a few stances on a few things, basically not able to come up with anything, because nothing was accomplished. Then I heard Christie hammering Cruz along the same line. That he had no executive experience, and just rattled off the same speech every time he talked, and his handlers picked the questioners at his town halls, and that he could not actually do the job of president. Christie has a good point. He also might have ordered traffic problems on the GWB to embarrass a political rival. There are ins and outs and riders and spin and code on everything. I don't have to like Palin, to like an idea she has. Hillary and Sanders where arguing over who is progressive and who is moderate. I am now listening to Anderson Cooper asking Hilary about taking 675,000 from Wall Street, and voting for the Iraq war. Whether you give Hilary the benefit of the doubt might depend on whether you are a pacifist, or a socialist, or a libertarian or a conservative. People that support different people forgive them their sins, and look for goodness. People that do not support someone, add up all the cons and do not want to see any pros. Regards, TAR

Yes. I did that already. I saw this, just now, and think it reflects some of the issue I am talking about concerning the tendency to find fault with "them" that are not "us". I cite it, because it is not America that is being xenophobic, but France. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/6-in-10-french-people-think-jews-are-responsible-for-anti-semitism-survey-finds/ar-BBp5nSG?ocid=spartandhp? while rich people are not from another country, poor people show a intense and unjustified hatred or fear of them I wonder what the word for this hatred would be. Ten Oz, Well if we are to start over, can you tell me what you think America's biggest problem is, so I can make a judgement, as to whether I think it is a bigger problem than having fear and disrespect and intolerance of the other side of the aisle and thinking the other side of the aisle is the enemy to be defeated. Over the last few days I have heard from several candidates for the presidency of the U.S. that they wanted to take the country back. Rubio said it. Hilary said it. Take it back from who? Don't we already have it? Regards, TAR well wait while I am enjoying this discussion, I am constantly feeling that I am making excellent points and nobody, or very few people are getting those points instead I am being asked to defend stupid positions I don't even hold while I don't mind arguing for my positions, it is impossible for me to argue for positions I do not hold My wife was yelled at one day by a neighbor because the neighbor's tied up dog had barked viciously at her and my wife had yelled back at the dog, and the neighbor had yelled at my wife for yelling at the dog. Later that night the woman attempted suicide and was rescued by neighbors and police and ambulance. In the fray she told everyone she had seen me, through the garage window, abusing my daughters. How can I defend myself against such accusations? The woman was crazy and could not have ever seen such a thing, because I never did such a thing. But just my telling the story, the mention of it, makes everybody wonder if I abused my daughters and am lying, on top of being a child molester and a bad parent. My wife and daughters know the truth. I know the truth. Who knows what an enemy of mine might think is the truth. Those of you who know and trust me will give me the benefit of the doubt. Those of you who think I am voting for horrible people might find it easy to believe that I abused my daughters in the garage.

Willie71, I started in this thread with a suggestion that our biggest problem in America is that we don't give the other person the benefit of the doubt. I move no goalposts to point out that we don't give the people who we think are causing us problems, the benefit of the doubt. All the problems we face, can not all be my fault. I take responsibility for driving my car and living in the suburbs, where things are not within walking distance. I drove down to Virginia to visit my daughter and uncle the other week and added a lot of carbon monoxide to the atmosphere. I am guilty. I am part of the reason why the sea levels are rising and the storms are increasing. I do some things to recycle and use less energy and keep my house a little cooler in the winter then some would like, etc. I don't deny anything. I know the seas are rising, I know the ice is melting, I know the coral is at risk and things will be worse in 100 years if we don't do something. But lets do something, not blame the other guy for ignoring the problem. If the thing you want done though, is for me to not go down and see my daughter, though, I am not sure I am onboard. There are those that deny global warming, perhaps many associated with the selling of fossil fuels. And these people are most likely rich republicans. But to demonize them at the same time as you fill up your tank or eat your vegetables trucked in from the farm, is not reasonable. I knew when I was 18 that I could not breath without taking somebody else's oxygen. That never stopped me from breathing, nor did I ever feel I was therefore doing a bad thing to breath. We have to share this place with billions of others. I long ago understood I should only have 2 children...replacement numbers. I stopped at 2. Do people that had three and four and five and six children owe me some consideration for hogging more than their share of resources? If my life style uses more resources than the life style of a person living in a crowded city...must I move to the city and live like them? Do I owe them a credit, for not using up resources? Do I get anything for not buying new stuff and using my father's throw aways? Willie71, I am not moving the goal posts. I tell stories to make a point. My arguments in this thread are to point out we are all in this boat together and what makes America strong is when we forget our differences when it comes to maintaining the union. What to do about global warming, ISIS, drugs, education, wealth distribution, racism, sexism, guns, suicide, mass murders and any other problem facing us, are arguments that I may or may not be on your side on. Those arguments I am not even interested in winning or losing in terms of this thread and my arguments are directed toward proving that what I think is the biggest problem in America, is more correct than Overtone's argument. My argument has been the same, the same goal posts all along. Overtone says that the republican party has done nothing but destroy her country, and destroy the planet, and destroy America's moral standing in the world. The republican party has contributed to all those problems, but not without the help of republicans like me. And while I am guilty of many a sin, I am as well responsible for many a fix and have helped to maintain the world, and mow my grass and paint my house so the people driving by have something nice to look at, and have raised two wonderful daughters. I have lived my life with the assistance of the police and my neighbors and the military and the corporations and the government that is half maintained by the republican party. The power structure of the country is arguably mostly republican, being that the wealth and power is concentrated in the corporate board room, and the pentagon, and the country club, and the Elks club, and where ever else there is liable to be more republicans than democrats. Regards, TAR I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. Perhaps, rather than making me prove that Sarah Palin is not an idiot (which would be an impossible task), I should make you prove that the board members of every major corporation in the country, are idiots. Let me here apologize to the Netherlands for my contribution to global warming. I hope I can help do more to slow the trend. With the help of good corporate citizens. Perhaps someone on this thread can design a way to take some heat out of the ocean and beam it into space or deep into the earth. And the industrial complex in our country can build out the system that would get the job done.

Ten Oz, I did not say that this is what republicans believe and this is what democrats believe. I gave a list of 10 things I thought republicans that I know, believe in that were consistent with what I believe in to show that a conservative can have an ideological stance based on reason and facts, as in an atheist could come upon the same belief as church goer. I did not say that these positions were only ones republicans would have, nor that there are no examples where a republican did not hold the thought, nor that you could not characterize each position any way you wanted. I the 10 as a request for what I thought republicans believed in. For each one, objections were made, like what about this time the thing was not lived up to, or that is really code for bigotry, or you don't really believe that, or why do you think democrats don't do that. Willie71, I said I would NOT vote for Cruz or Trump but might for a more reasonable candidate, like Paul or Kasich. Its a party primary, where republican voters are looking for an acceptable candidate to forward the republican cause. It is not up to a democrat to decide who among the field is a good candidate. You, if you are a democrat are going to vote against the guy or girl anyway, because your philosophy aligns more generally with the democrats. You, poor souls only have two choices now that your only reasonable choice has lost the caucus. Paul has just dropped out on the Republican side, so I am left with Kasich to vote for on primary day. We do not even know who the Republican party is going to put up against who on the democratic side. Maybe Sanders, a socialist. Maybe Hilary, champion of the gays, and poor, and women up against a glass ceiling. But who is to represent the rest of us on the Democrat side? Is there no democrat who is a homophobe? Is there no Democrat that fears walking at night in the inner city? Is there no democrats that earn over 50K a year? Are there any Reagan democrats? Anybody that would vote for a non teaparty, reasonable, fact checking individual, if the republican party should find one to put up for national election? This thread currently has two candidates for biggest problem with America. One put up by Overtone, is the Republican party. The other, put up by me, is party line voting, and the inability of a democrat to give a republican the benefit of the doubt and the inability of a republican to give a democrat the benefit of the doubt. Overtone's choice is defeated by her mere mention of it, and my choice is shown to be the actual biggest problem. I have won the argument 100 times already. This is not to say that we should not be ruled by sensible fact checking atheists, adept at critical thinking. But when it comes to America having a problem, it can not be either party, because each party is made up of the exact same people that make up America in the first place. Regards, TAR Like Rubio said. "Yeah, Sanders would make a great president...of Sweden". And if it would come down to Kasich and Sanders I would vote Kasich. If Sanders would win, then America wants to be a social democracy, and I would live in a social democracy and progressives would be happy. But he couldn't get a darn thing done, unless we voted in socialist house members and socialist senate members to support his agenda. That is like having an Arab spring and not expecting any resistance from the king.

Willie71, He is not calling me out. I cringed the same as any other reasonable person when Cruz said he would carpet bomb ISIS, or Trump said he would keep out Muslims until we could figure out what is going on, or Hilary answered that she is proud to be the enemy of the drug companies, the republicans and the Iranians, or when Sanders says he is going to give everybody health care and college and make the superrich pay for it through a political revolution. But you figure if Cruz says it, I believe it. You figure if Trump says it, I believe it. You figure if Hilary says it, I must disagree with it. You figure if Sanders says it, I must disagree with it. If in order to be a republican I must agree with everything a republican ever said or did, then I am not a republican. If to be a republican I have to disagree with everything a democrat ever did, I am not a republican. But there is no democrat that has always done the right thing, nor is everything the democrats do right. On every issue there is a debate. It is wrong to take a side on a debate find a weakness in the thinking of the other side, and then ascribe that weakness to anybody and everybody that takes the other side. In my business of servicing copiers, faxes and printers, I worked on third level support and with the engineers in Japan. Producing equipment was a multi-year process. It takes time to design and engineer a thing and arrange for the fabrication of all the parts and pieces and set up the production lines and such. We worked on products we were not going to be releasing for 3 years. I learned a real term called engineering trade offs. You might make a gear out of plastic rather than metal, because of the cost of materials, and the shipping weight, and quieter operation even though the plastic was going to wear out sooner than the metal gear and you already had a metal gear supplier who would make the gear of the material you wanted to the specs you wanted, and the reliability of their product was already tested and known...or whatever. Engineering tradeoffs, where making something better in one way, degraded it in another. Like in reality with people involved where giving a child a meal, also makes it possible for the father to not worry about feeding his child, and instead can use his money to get drunk or high, or allow a mom to buy a bon bon and sit and watch court TV. When I taught a few technical classes, a bright student that had worked on equipment for many years, would see a design change and ask "why did they do that" when he or she could see that the design had a down side. I would answer, "engineering tradeoff". In this discussion, with overtone leading the pack, every thing wrong with America is being brought up. America, a very multifaceted place, with 318 million people, each with a mother and father, many with sisters and brothers, each with different wills, desires, intentions, capabilities, moral rules and each with various teams they belong to and rely upon. Yet overtone can think it reasonable that everything that is wrong is the result of the Republican Party. I say that her being right, is flat out impossible, on two counts. One, something that the republican party has done includes something we have done as a nation. And two, even a broken analog watch is right twice a day. Regards, TAR and my company was Japanese the shareholders lived in other countries I was not doing the bidding of the Koch brothers, directly. I was working for some other band of rich and powerful folk. Yet, one day, during a time when our U.S. branch was loosing money, and Japan was subsidizing our operation, I stood, smoking a cigarette, looking out in the parking lot at the hundreds of late model cars and realized each one represented a father or a mother or a husband or a wife or a son or a daughter that was bringing home the bacon and supporting the local economy and the economy of the place where they had their house or apartment, supporting the local shoe store and grocery store and doctors office, etc. Just being in business, was a big win. Even that year when we were not making a profit for the shareholders, we were winning, by eating, and feeding our families. and my company's products were energy star compliant and we designed our plastic covers to be recyclable and remanufactured equipment and had a place where we ground up old equipment and extracted the various plastics and metals and recycled them. The company cared very deeply about corporate citizenship and taking care of the environment. Already concerned, in big, meaningful ways about global warming. I even launched a product that allowed for sharing pdfs on devices during meetings so you did not have to make copies of presentations that would waste paper, and remove a carbon sequestering tree from the forest. Imagine that, a corporation, that makes copiers, designing a product, that allows you not to use paper. Do you figure that, a republican thing or a democrat thing?