ParanoiA

Has anyone read about this scandal? Not a "diehard" fan of the Patriots but I have always liked Brady and company. I really liked their "team" attitude and discipline - they emulated class and professionalism to me. This really tarnishes that image and makes me wonder how much of their previous success could be attributed to this video taping of defensive, and perhaps even offensive signals. I'd say at the very least, now that everybody's watching, the rest of this season could prove vindication or guilt.

I'm with iNow...pasta and sauce was my lifeline for years...come to think of it, I've only recently upgraded to Hamburger Helper so I guess I'm still doing it. That's why my wife doesn't let me cook much... Cheap Fav's: Pasta smothered in butter and parmasean cheese Pasta smothered in velveeta cheese and salsa Pasta smothered in tomato paste (Trailer Park Spaghetti) And don't forget chicken or beef broth mixed with a couple tablespoons of flour or corn starch is a basic sauce. From there, add pasta (like you didn't see that coming), chunks of beef or chicken, corn, etc...

Ha! I have no idea what that means but I'll bet it's funny...

You're catching on to this...

We may need to consider a preemptive strike...

But it's the landslide of systemic obstacles that provides much of balance of powers and keeps one entity from ruling the day - like a King. Much of the consititution was more or less a direct aversion to absolute monarchy. I used to make the same complaint; the lethargy of our government, but the alternative allows too much risk to the foundation of power to the people. It needs to be difficult to make massive changes in order to minimize the potential damage of a persuasive power - like the presidency. Imagine if George Bush had the kind of swift action, easy moving government you're advocating - can you imagine the fallout then? These layers are the "mangled to meet our whims" I was talking about. These layers is what Dr. Paul is advocating against. It's the lack of respect for the constitution that has allowed the layers to happen. It's the kind of thinking you and Phil are asserting that creates the momentum to dismiss the validity of these "old documents" and add a bunch of fluff and "social engineering" that has NO place in government. Paine disagrees with you too.

Ooh, I like that one.

So what makes Paine and Franklin so special? Why does it matter what they wanted it to be? I know that I trust that document written by them more than a brand new one written by modern opportunists and theives, otherwise known as politicians. I don't believe we have the same quality of legislators as they did of these men, in terms of honest intellect and motivations.

Yeah, I watched that too and was also dissappointed. I'm also not entirely comfortable with just pulling troops immediately because it's wrong to be there - in principle this is correct, but in reality that will make our original wrong, even more wrong. That's what Huckabee was saying, and that's what most of us probably agree with. I wish he would review his position in this regard. I did say that I don't think he would actually pull troops the day after inauguration and would listen to his military personnel, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea that he personally prefers to up and leave and to hell with the consequences. I'm also getting tired of the wienie stance by the libertarian ideology. I am quite libertarian, but I'm also all about defense. Libertarian candidates repeatedly reply "no war" to every scenario you give them. You can sink our ships, blow up our buildings, whatever and their answer is always something about war making it worse or some such pansy excuse. I think there are such things as "acts of war" that should be replied as such. I appreciate the libertarian idea of not instigating anything - I swear by it - but we can't be wussies about our sovereignty. Like it or not, borders and cooperation are maintained by implied force - militarily. He does this on sit-down interviews. I've watched several Youtube interviews with all kinds, and as long as he's not being asked to answer in 30 seconds he's quite spot-on with the logic of his positions, not demonizing the current crop. That's actually what I like about the guy. The Google one was good, and he answers most of the questions that were burning me, and several I've seen on this board. Anything on economics is impressive. He may be a doctor but he's sure got a handle on money, debt, the federal reserve, the gold standard...good stuff. Ok, I'll try to stop now. I know it's annoying...

You guys are totaly missing it. The conspiracy is in the design. They wanted these towers to come down from the day they built them. Their purpose was to provide a target that would be purposely weakened in just the right way so that they could take them down with planes. Prove that one wrong....

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but I don't believe the special rights/privileges (Ie. Tax breaks via "married filing jointly") were implemented to support a lifestyle deemed worthy of such - I think they were implemented to advance a "fair" tax code - the idea being that married with children was the obvious american experience and families were more important than single people. I say that because at the time this was initiated, homosexuality was, for the most part, universally oppressed and dismissed. I'm not sure gay marriage was seriously considered at all.

Yeah, I echo john's sentiment. I realize the 7 principals aren't known yet, so I'll just say that I'm concerned about how this will effect such things as cloning. A fair amount of suspicion is healthy in this case, I think. These are the kinds of things that can be used to disguise an agenda.

Firstly though, that's better and far more appropriate than the neoconservatives, which is what you said Ron Paul wasn't. Quoting the bible isn't appropriate in US government, but quoting the constitution is. Second, let's look at the definition of dogma: 1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church. 2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption. 3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma. 4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle. We are a nation of laws. For that to work, the documents of those laws have to be more important than men. If we aren't dogmatic about the constitution, then what is it's value? I would argue it's the dogmatic belief in constitutional law that prevents the majority from deciding that all red headed people should be executed on sight. How much of Ron Paul's message have you actually heard? If you're referring to 40 second answers on complex subjects and problems in the republican debates - I would say that's why you have that impression. 40 seconds gives you about enough time to state the constitutional position and the consequences of ignoring it - doesn't leave much room for expanding on these things. In this, the debates are a disservice. Try watching the Youtube video of the Google interview with Dr. Paul. You may still disagree, but at least you'd have a more accurate impression since they go into the logic behind these constitutional positions. As far as old documents go, Paul has confirmed the need and the intent of it's writers provide a balance between rigidity and flexibility to provide a mechanism to keep up with an evolving society. The problem is, we haven't been "updating it for the times", we've been "mangling it for our whims".

First, this is why I didn't say remove all regulations, I said review the regulations - which I'm assuming would cover this sort of thing. Second, I've heard it said - and I'm not asserting this myself but rather throwing this out there to get your take on it - that monopolies don't happen in a truly free market, that monopolies are always enabled by government interference. Obviously, this sounds suspicious, but then the monopolies that I'm aware of were enabled by regulation of some kind. As capitalist as I proudly am, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable testing that theory out though....

Very true, words of wisdom. Point taken.

That's too bad too, because I thought you restrained yourself from beating him up quite well.

I don't know. I completely agree with the fact he's going to have to really want to change, or else it will never stick. They'll fall of the wagon over and over again, and sometimes this is worse than all out abandonment because it wears on peoples hopes and disappointments. But I don't know about patience and acceptance. Maybe I've just dealt with too many alcoholics, I will admit a pessimistic bias toward them. I've known one that quit and stays sober, and I know countless that quit over and over again and never stay sober for any respectable length of time. They usually stay sober enough to get things going positively again, then drop the ball with a binge and ruin it all.

Intervention. Do whatever it takes to make him stop or do nothing at all. He's going to die early. Could be much early, or just a little early, but he's killing himself. If it was my dad, I would consider the value in quiting and let that determine my course of action. If he's 60 years old, been drinking all his life, then I probably wouldn't bother, it's rather pointless in that case. However, if he's in his 30's with a family to support, I would do whatever it takes. I would start with intervention and end with absolute force if necessary. It's their life we're talking about, and the lives of his offspring that are raised and effected by him - all of them are at stake. If I have to kick his ass and drag him down to the basement and feed him bread and water for a couple months, followed by spying and stalking to be sure he stays clean - I'll do it. I don't give a crap how legal any of it is, family trumps all.

It wouldn't, but I have no way to prove that assertion any more than you can prove it not true. The point is, how is it really better? So you want to spend who knows how many billions of dollars and bullshit to switch over to a system that may or may not be marginally better or worse. What's the point? Why are we setting the bar so low? We're americans. What happened to our pioneering spirit? Why do you want to look like everybody else? Socialized medicine has as many disadvantages as our current system does so why do we want to switch problems? Blow a bunch of cash and manpower just to have a different set of problems. Wow...what kind of cold, hard pragmatism is that? Come on, we can do better than that. I say give the free market an actual shot. Review the regulations and quit cowtowing special interests and trying to control everything and everyone. Drop the tax incentives or punishments - well the whole tax code really - and level the field. Here's the crux: The problem with healthcare is cost. And competition has solved that problem time and time again - so many times that I hardly see the logic in ignoring its possibility. That's cold, hard pragmatism.

Well he was pretty close. I'm 36 and haven't had a date in 17 years...cuz I married her.

Instead of pissing all over the room, why don't you respond to my points? After all I'm stupid right? So you should have no problem with it. If you can't respond point by point and prove yourself, then that implies I'm smarter than you - you wouldn't want that right? So, put on your intellectual hat and prove my points wrong. Apparently it is acceptable for David Letterman' date=' Jay Leno, Carlos Mencia, Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert...the list goes on and on. You need to deal with this, because your statement is quite bold and implies these people shouldn't be on TV. They make their living making fun of people. People who put themselves in the lime light and opened themselves for criticism. This is a childish statement confirming your teenage angst. Rather hypocritical I might add. Try again. I'm 36, married with two beautiful children - and we all laughed at miss teenie i'm-so-pretty usa... Oh' date=' is [i']that[/i] what that was? Sparky? The only thing you missed is the "make my day" at the end of it' date=' that would have sealed it. I would a' been shakin' in my shoes. Sorry, I'll try to be mad next time, but it takes a respectable opponent to do that, and so far all you've done is repeat teenage crybaby garbage. Oh my, lookie here - an argument. Finally. Well, you'd be right if we were talking about a confrontational bullying routine. Similar to persistant picking and bullying of certain kids in school. Confrontational assaults, verbal or otherwise, can be abusive depending on the context. Some kid in school gets labeled "the weird kid" or something and everybody seems to fall for that lynch mob mentallity and pick on him which basically ruins a big portion of his life. But that's apples, and this is oranges. We're not picking on her or bullying her - we're laughing at a mistake she made. All of us get laughed at, and no one gets out of it - not you, not me, and not miss teenie usa. I think the bottom line is you're taking things way too seriously. You're equating laughing at miss teenie usa with columbine style bullying. She's not tied to a post in town square where we're all laughing, jeering and throwing tomatoes. She's a person on TV who did something stupid and we're having fun with it. What you're doing is overcompensating with pity. Many times that's your conscience speaking.

Yeah, he's fine and now he thinks his stitches are cool. Despite my previous instruction on proper cutting technique, he did not pay attention to his other hand being in the cut path, so when he tried to cut some internal wires out of the poor thing he cut two of his fingers from the follow through. One was cut quite deep and freaked him out a bit. The funny part (in hind sight) was him running to me with his hand all bloody looking for a band-aid. He knew he was doing something wrong because all he told me is that he was playing with this teddy bear and it cut him. I knew he was full of it, but you should have seen me examining this teddy bear trying to figure out how on earth it could cut. I thought we might have another recall on China made toys again!

We don't agree on any such thing. I only said that in a socialized system you might get one or the other, but not both. There's no internal push to achieve anything beyond a bare minimum really. Moreso, my contention is that a free market will work much better than a controlled one - and right now we have a controlled market that you want to compare to a socialized market. I have no interest in defending the current market as it's not what I'm contending. Just last night, my son had to go to the ER after an altercation with a razor blade and a teddy bear - it's a story in and of itself. Later in the evening my wife told me they had a sign posted in the waiting room, which is a recent development, that stated a gaurantee to see a doctor within 30 minutes, no matter the condition - or you get free movie tickets. Now obviously, this isn't all that meaningful, they can just have you wait back in the ER rather than the waiting room - get a doctor to poke his head in and say hi - and viola! - no movie tickets. But apparently they're feeling pressure to address the wait time and they're trying to do something about it - appeasing the public, the consumer. A taste of benefit from competition. I don't believe I would see this in socialized medicine.

I think another possible problem is too much time on their hands. I think we over estimate the amount of children's playtime as necessary. I don't see why we can't squeeze the 12 yr curriculum down to 8 years so high school graduation is around 14 years of age. This should keep them in school a bit longer on a daily basis. Perhaps this would deflate the disaster of teen pregnancy too, when college years are compromised rather than basic high school. I would think this would motivate more college attendance and make it easier on us parents trying to afford to pay for college - yet kick the varmits out before their twenties. Maybe then miss teen USA would at least be a college attendee, if not a graduate...

She's not being bullied and it's quite acceptable to make fun of other people. How do you think Jay Leno and David Letterman pay the bills? And this time it's her turn. Why should she get a free pass from karma? Maybe she laughed at a stupid girl once... Yes they laughed and jeered and it hurt my feelings. Now I'm a grown man and know how to put things in perspective. How about you? Humans not being perfect provide about all of the humor on the planet... She's not being classed, or dehumanized. We're just laughing at her dude. It was funny. Did you not see the video? Man, the little time I spend laughing at her fault is but a brief interuption in worrying about mine. Trust me. That's why most of us aren't ball bagging about poking a little fun, because if this is a problem, it's an easy one compared to the crap life dishes out on people. Spend a day downtown with the homeless and listen to their life stories. Ask some elderly folks about their life struggles. Ms teenie I'm-so-pretty USA is doing just fine stormwarrior. I'm sure she's taken it quite well and probably laughed herself at this point.