ParanoiA

But he said people who "really" believe in God. That implies one who claims to be religious, or believes in god. If he was refering to the athiest, it would have been obvious. That's quite a stretch to make it about the athiest. Who's ignoring the context of the comments? Have you read the context of Imus's comments? I challenge those who say they do, because clearly Imus's sidekick is just as bad as Imus - but nobody said anything about his remarks. Interesting... In context, Sharpton was wrong. Sharpton said the words of a bigot.

Also, those who try to pretend bigotry isn't bigotry are often doing it to defend homophobics, racists and bigots. White america did this for several decades, so we know what it looks like... Sounds like homophobia to me does it not? Oh wait, he's not republican...never mind. Sharpton also refuses to apologize to the Duke Lacrosse players he tried and convicted in the court of corporate media. There is no defense for him. If he was white I doubt you'd be arguing with me about it. And you still haven't told me why Al shouldn't be held up to his own standard. This is as blatantly hypocritical as it can get.

Who said Mormon was a race? Read the entire message. With Imus going down for a racial comment while Snoop Dog makes millions with the same comment... Definition of bigot: n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Sharpton called Imus a bigot. Every popular corporate news outlet ran stories day after day about Imus the bigot. Sharpton made the same comment a born and breed bigot would make. Period. And, just like the network news, you don't care. Because it's trendy to bash religion, people are now desensitized to it and don't recognize the offense in it. That shouldn't get Sharpton off the hook. Bigotry is the word he and others have used to justify wrecking Imus's career, so why not hold him to his own standard?

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation." How could anyone interpret that he's talking about the atheist? It's quite clear what he was saying. No slip of the tongue. He took his time saying it, pointing out the "one mormon" and contrasting himself by implying he doesn't really believe in god. It's a huge stretch to say that doesn't compare to what Imus said. Maybe in today's anti-religious climate, the public just doesn't care - racism matters more. That's irrelevant, however, as to whether or not it is actually bigottry.

This is so sweet. Sharpton definitely should be made to apologize, over and over again on someone's radio show. And his apology should be met with hesitant forgiveness - depending on the wrecking of his career or not. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271162,00.html This "mistake" is obviously a reflex of his bigotted beliefs that he usually can cover up. Of course, none of that will happen. No one's going to make a big deal out of this except for Romney, and I hope he presses on. Imus made a mistake and admitted it like a big boy, in the face of an unforgiving Sharpton. Al won't even admit he did anything wrong. Interesting how msnbc.com, cbsnews.com, abcnews.com and cnn.com don't have this story anywhere on their front page - if at all. Only Fox news is being remotely fair and reporting it. Imus got never ending slaughter from these news sites - but Sharpton gets a free pass. It's almost like the media is biased.... Here's the message: Go ahead minorities...be as racist as you want, glorify double standards and practice all the bigotry you want...white people are too scared to call you out on it.

1. Snail 2. Bascule 3. the tree 4. Sisyphus 5. Azurephoenix 6.

As long as we're taking responsibility, fine. Exiting, as part of a larger plan to correct this mess would obviously not be the same thing and I'd be all for it - believe me. The problem is, exiting is all we're hearing - the larger plan part is non-existent. That's called cut-and-run. Not spin. Cut-and-run. Exiting and waving goodbye is not a "strategy", it's a trajedy and it's dishonorable. I'm sorry the administration is made up of fools at the moment, or at least foolish decisions, but that is irrelevant to our obligation to the Iraqi people. The rest is politics that operate irreverant to the people it effects.

And so is leaving the house without need. Your post doesn't change anything. It just adds emotion to an illogical charge. I guess I could call my dad for a couple of examples of non-smokers who died slowly in a hospital bed and maybe get an emotional dig myself, but that's just symbolism. You have made the point that you define life by how long you live it. Good for you. I have made the point that some people define life by how much fun they have living it. Smoking, drinking, jumping out of airplans, sex with strange women - all fun stuff that can kill you early - not good for long life, but good for fun life. Quit judging people so much...

I could very easily see this turning into a complete audit of each person's lifestyle and health issues. Kind of like how income taxes have turned into a yearly nightmare of endless legal beaurocracy to the point people actually go to college and make a living out of helping people comply with a law. One person smokes 3 packs a day, another person smokes half a pack a day. One person eats nothing but fried foods and ice cream but doesn't smoke at all, while someone who smokes half a pack and regularly works out and eats right has to pay higher taxes for it. If you're going to do it to smokers, then you have to consider everyone else too. There are plenty of other habits that can drive everyone's costs up as well, whether they engage in it or not. How about hang gliding? How about police officers? Building window washers? By the time you work out a tax system that's supposedly "fair", everyone will be back to paying every penny of their own respective costs per their own lifestyle choices, which circumvents the whole concept behind group insurance coverage.

Well, Bush and company can say what they want, but they created the mess and so we're obligated to deal with it. We are responsible for this situation and it is dishonorable to shuck that responsibility. That's my only point. Dissent and Dishonor are debatable, and I think that challenges to one's patriotism could come from that debate. I totally agree.

I linked wiki. Because I had a problem with the 97% water vapor number and where it comes from, how it's created. I have since learned that increases in temperature increases water vapor, which further helps increase temperature. From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming You know, from an outsider's point of view, this whole debate looks more like a system that snowballs through various forms of feedback - the only debate being what started what - the chicken or the egg. Rising levels of CO2 trap heat, raising temperature, increasing water vapor, melting glaciers and freeing permafrost, rising sea levels and methane - increasing these symptoms in a snowball effect, feeding each other. A GW advocate would say humans helped raise C02 helping to cause GW, whereas the GW denier says no, water vapor causes GW, to which the advocate says no, rising levels of CO2 would increase temperature which in turn would increase water vapor...and it goes on. It's just interesting how these systems depend and react to each other while we quibble about which system man affected and which system is a reaction to something else. What started what? Edit: After re-reading this, it sounds like I'm trying to lecture the forum on GW - believe me, I am not lecturing this room full of experts on anything! Rather I was trying to recite what I've gathered from this thread and the link Dak provided. Please correct me if I've stated something wrong.

Ok...how about multiple breathes? 1) Smoking should be legal - including heroine. 2) Our country should not get huge amounts of taxes, but rather standard sales tax like any other product or service. 3) No establishment has a right to emit mustard gas or allow others to do so, so why should smoke be any different? (This is an awkward POV for me to take, a recent development, but someone made this point sometime back and I have to admit, it's difficult to defend "smoking areas").

Sorry about that. Point taken. The "euphoria" concept was introduced to me by a stop smoking speech that made me think. It also reminded me of Pavlov's Dog. That may be a bit of a strong word to use, but it makes sense. By creating an addiction, I had, essentially, created a conditioned response - pleasure - when that addiction was satisfied. I basically had fooled myself into believing I needed this cigarette to feel good. The thing is..it works. I did feel good after a cigarette. Especially after meals and during drinking. And after a couple of years, I kind of miss them because I don't have that "conditioned pleasure" habit anywhere else in my life. Why do I miss it? Because it feels good to crave something and then satisfy that craving. Some could easily argue that what does it matter how you achieved the craving, when the pleasure is in the satisfaction of the craving?

But this is a subjective argument. It isn't pointless. It reminds me of pity offered to a crazy person dribbling on himself while starring out a window...smiling. The gut instinct is to feel sorry for him, when really he should be feeling sorry for you. He's happy...all the damn time. Not exactly fact, but you should at least appreciate the point. Smoking isn't pointless. You create the illusion of "euphoria" by getting yourself addicted to nicotine, then you simply satisfy the craving - creating your euphoria. Yes, to most of us this is self dillusional and destructive. To others, it's a kick ass way to be euphoric relatively easy. I have to do illegal and more dangerous drugs to get there. I'm an ex-smoker. And I can't stand the anti-smoking nazis. Whether SkepticLance wants to admit it or not, he thinks he's better than you. He thinks you're weak. And like the pushy bible thumpers that insist on "saving" everyone, he thinks he's noble trying to get everyone to quit. I think he's arrogant and foolish to assume his "life view" should be anyone else's. SkepticLance- My dad smokes too, although after neck surgery, I think he's required to quit - something about vertabrae not fusing correctly?? Anyway, he's seen lots of non-smokers die. Old people who are in terrific shape - everything working perfectly...except for one part. Just enough to stay bedridden and die slowly for years and years on end. Quality of life = nil. So, how smart is that? My dad's personal "life view" was to drink and smoke and be merry so when any of his body's parts start going bad, then perhaps the whole thing will go bad and he'll just die - instead of wasting away in a white hospital room in depression. Is he an idiot? Maybe doesn't jive with your life view, but how smart are those other people who took such great care of themselves that they wouldn't die and stayed bedridden while their family waits for them to die - a cloud hanging over everyone's happiness that never goes away. Maybe he's wrong. But he's not an idiot. He's a critical thinker. A true critical thinker is not always going to agree with the masses...that's why they call it critical thinking. You should try it. Instead of always assuming a certain group is "stupid" or "idiotic", try realizing that other's ideas of life and happiness are different than your own. Not everyone measures success by money and assets - just like not everyone measures a good life by how long you live.

Do you eat cheese? Grease? Fried chicken? Do you inhale automobile exhaust? If you ever leave the house without need you are engaging in a self destructive act. You will more than likely die from transportation per statistics. So, while going back and forth to work is a necessity, going to meet friends, or taking a drive and etc is not a necessity and is therefore idiotic right? It's a needless self destructive behavior, which is, in your words, idiotic.

Right, you call it dissent, I and others would call it dishonor. The comment on cut and run is accurate, imo, it is dishonorable. Dissent would be not supporting the invasion to begin with, dishonor is when you've already invaded and made a big mess and now you want to leave it for the Iraqis to clean up.

And what was that point? That people who don't know shouldn't ask questions? Was that it?

From Wiki: Is this a subjective measurement? Unless clouds fill in the rest, 36% to 70% is quite a way off from 97%. Edit: Forgot to add the link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Now that sounds more like it. It's not as if the money trail is useless. And I'm no fan of corporations (see "Are corporations good for America" thread...), but refuting them on a scientific basis is by far, to me, the best way to prove their corruption. Once you prove their science "trickery", then the corruption is obvious. Rather than the other way around... Can it really be reduced down to this?

Oh yeah...

No offense, but the ones "impugning" with words like "surrender" or "cut & run" don't equate dissent and dishonor. Maybe that's why you infer your patriotism being questioned?

And I would agree. "Education" is quite subjective and is ripe for beaurocracy and elitist filtering. See, the thing is, while I can't stand the "uninformed voter", there really is no legislative cure that doesn't introduce worse problems, or potentially worse problems. I'd rather see society take care of this by ending the glorification of lazy pop culture intellectualism, and promote critical thinking and wisdom. Somehow you have to make that cool. Maybe someone could strike a deal with Snoop Dog...

You know, I remember going to community college and being blown away at how we got to debate and discuss subjects as part of class time during History and Political science. They never did this in high school. I graduated without even knowing the general ideology of either of those parties, much less any others. I got so much out of being able to debate and discuss as we went through History. I got even more out of the political science class. Why isn't this encouraged quite early on in life? Why aren't 12 year olds being engaged like this? I'm always asking my kids what they think about things. They act kind of surprised that anyone would ask them, then they care about how you think of their opinion. Yes, they know they aren't "qualified", but they do matter. It sure would have been nice to have been knowledgable when I first voted. Instead, just like Rock the Vote, I went in blind and voted with half baked intellect and cancelled out someone else's more informed, thought out vote.

Oh, now that would be sweet... I think that's the first time I've seen that argument. Excellent. I'm going to start using that as my opener...

I doubt that's freshly indoctrinated 18 year olds. They're all out "Rocking the Vote, man..." Another campaign to swindle those who don't care and don't pay attention, to vote "blind" per the local rock station. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced every properly seasoned person with a pulse should be allowed to vote. I have no alternative, just concern.