ParanoiA

Kind of like Biden and his apparent stupidity concerning wheelchair bound paraplegics? Healthcare is a real world issue and he doesn't even know what a wheelchair is for? He obviously is out of touch with medicine, modern and antiquated if he can't even identify a wheelchaired man and recognize the poor man can't stand up. A man who's a big supporter of stem cell research, a democrat issue. Right? Hey, I'm just judging what people ACTUALLY say and do. Who cares if it's one incident taken out of context? Who cares about clarifying it? Who cares about all those threads we participated in months before the primaries where we all nodded about how stupid it is that we don't allow candidates/legislators to be human? That they're not allowed to misspeak, nor given a chance to clarify statements because we, the people, expect them to be slicker than shit salesmen? Sorry, but I'm not playing that stupid game iNow. Palin has plenty of stands and positions that are wrong in their substance. There's no need to play along with silly games and sound bites recorded here and there, partial quotes with no context, that supposedly show how stupid a person is. If they're that stupid, you won't need to grab a "snipet" from your favorite liberal rag, rather the entire conversation will be a highlight. Between Palin and the disgusting shit coming out of the extreme left, and McCain and their stupid lipstick game... Vote for Ron Paul people, or write in your favorite guy/gal. Stop letting the elite lecture you on morality while they demonstrate their impression of children on the playground.

And NOT drilling is like refusing to treat cancer. It may not be the cure, but the cure isn't available yet. This is where I think Pickens is right, that debate misses the point. We need a bridge.

No, it's USSA. We don't use the R.

Yeah, I think they're getting a bit seduced by the fun of being able to say they sold it on "ebay", when it would still have plenty of bite if they'd just say they sold it and find some other way to work in their initial ad in ebay.

Oh, I get what you're doing now. Well, Bombus, tell us how every country except the US is not a de facto oligarchy. Using the same standards and metrics you place on the US, tell us how the rest of the world escapes the clutches of the rich elite.

Correct, you did make an appeal to the public's rights and a good one. And to explain, in lieu of parental rights, I don't believe the "problem" is large enough, nor horrible enough to trump those rights. That's just a statement on reconciling competing principles. It's not a statement about pregnancy or STD's not being a problem. I think there are better ways to deal with the pregnancy issue, but maybe not STD's. I don't know though, the more I think about it, the more I like the public safety consideration.

Yes, you're highly liberal for drawing those conclusions. Why? Because most of the stuff you draw conclusions on are statements that scream for context and clarification. For instance: Ron Paul says inflation is a tax on the poor. He also says printing money causes inflations which is rhetorically a tax on the poor. He could be caught saying, at any given time, any of these statements and you could turn right around and say "WFT? This dude doesn't know shit about the economy. He obviously thinks we pay taxes on printing currency...what a dumbass, blah blah blah". Out of context, far away from the statement that defined what "printing money taxes the poor" means, it looks hideous. Taken in context, the rhetoric being defined, you can still disagree with him but recognize he's making an analytical statement and clearly understands the economy. She said Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are too expensive for taxpayers. How do I know whether or not she's reaching for her canned rhetoric? How do I know the context of the conversation to know if she's already made some kind of connection between taxpayers and the private mortgage markets? I'm not coming to her defense here, I'm just answering your question, yes, you are a liberal for assuming the answers to these open ended statements as you have. As a conservative, you would assume something more flattering. As a person who doesn't have a horse in the race, you wait for more evidence, or dig for it. I'll just wait. Plenty of diggers out there, I think.

Same here. The housing crisis absolutely sucks. It's kicking my ass. I'm drowing in left over debt from bad business management of flips and etc. And there's no getting out of it anytime soon. The market is just going to have to struggle and struggle until it levels out. And the sky is not falling. The economy is humming right along. We're nowhere near the resemblance of a depression era any-damn-thing. We need to stop it with the unhealthy, illogical, paranoia that our entire economy is going to collapse over one market - it's not. I don't agree with the bail outs, and now the government is getting more and more comfortable buying private debt. Scary. Really effin scary. And the more we cry and whine and make this out to be the 9/11 of the economy the more the government is going to do shit like this. The economy will always have something wrong with it, it's a dynamic process. That's a given. Acting like every blip is hurricane katrina smacking down on our economic coastline is crying wolf at the sight of a Labrador. And that sucks because we have real economic problems with the dollar and the way the federal reserve is manipulating the economy, but no, we're all carrying on about the housing crisis - giving them even more reasons to print more money and continue the destruction of our dollar, our number one problem, in my humbled opinion. Stop giving them reasons to continue making their bad decisions, drowning the poor in inflation. Tell them the economy is fine - quick! Before they print more freaking money!

See, it's not this logic that I'm challenging - it hardly ever is really. But you're not parsing the difference between your personal take on the matter verses what the legal take on the matter should be. I agree with all of the above, and support sending my kid through sex-ed, I just don't see how you all automatically conclude that it should be legislated for all to have to do it. Was thinking of starting a thread on it actually, this conditioning where we seem to think our personal opinions on things should be mirrored in law. I don't like hearing people smack their gum, yet would never think such a thing should be legislated. I never see too much in the way of folks drawing a line on their own authority - everyone seems to think the intricacies of their thoughts should all be advanced by government. As if we're all supposed to believe in this higher power of moral enforcement. None of these points on the sensibilities of sex-ed are all that relevant to me since I'm looking for the principle of authority to force this point on others to begin with. Why should people be forced? Why are their rights being trumped? Remember, a law is implicitly enforced by incarceration - so would you incarcerate someone for not complying with sex-ed? Mr Skeptic is the only one who really offers any justification for the enforcement. Any others?

I don't know, but I'm betting more of a "Let's not make this into an economic 9/11" kinda horn. You know how emotion can effect the perspective.

No, that still doesn't quite work since if he does eat peanuts he will be hurt, whereas if he does have sex, he still is likey not to be harmed. However, I do like your point. I'm not sure I agree that STD's and pregnancy have quite hit the threshold to presume children's rights here. But the perspective is compelling and I'm still pondering it.

But are we talking about a class on peanuts? Again, my issue is on forced training. I don't think that any parent has a right to restrict conversation from another person. In other words, I can physically pick my child up and move him away from your running mouth, but I don't have a right to make you shut up so my kid doesn't hear it. Same with school officials, although I think we must partition operating in the capacity of a teacher from operating in the capacity of regular ole person. Teaching sex-ed in a class setting is different than a teacher sharing information in the lunch room about peanuts. No matter how offended I may be, I don't see how I have the right to force a teacher not to say something in my child's presence, unless of course it's within the commision of training or academia. It's still a tough point you bring up though. Preliminarily, I'd have to argue for the child's rights, in your example, since eating peanuts will kill him, or at least harm him, and implies a decent case of child endangerment too. But if he doesn't get sex-ed training, that doesn't mean he will get an STD or get a female pregnant, rather it suggests so statistically. Until you can predictably prove which particular child will be endangered or whatnot, I don't see how you could make the same case.

But day-to-day measurements is an argument from ignorance really. Just because I don't know there's a world war going on involving half the planet doesn't mean I'm not about to get invaded. It just means that I can appeal to my base and say "see, look around you, nothing but peace". I realize we don't live next to the polar bears, which is why we rely on those who do. We also haven't developed the sensory perception to measure CO2 levels without instruments, so again, we rely on those who use such instruments. Rinse and repeat for just about every point on iNow's list. I understand your position on global warming being a hoax, or a religion, but you have to counter science with science. You may be able to counter each instrumental measurement and their conclusions - like challenging the notion that storm systems have actually increased verses being documented, accuracy of records and etc - but looking around and concluding there's no issue because your water tastes better is not going to cut it, except on the Rush Limbaugh show.

I drink ever now and then. Quit smoking, cigarettes anyway. My weakness is Tex Mex and ice cream. Ah, cheese, the most amazing, fattening, artery clogging food and I just can't get enough of it. And Dove ice cream...need I say more?

Of course they have that right. They have that right, naturally, today. And whether it's better or not is a false premise for the government and law to function from. It would be better to make everyone eat vegetables and ban fatty foods, but it isn't right. I agree, I think we can do both and I think it's done by modern societal or cultural pressures in combination with respect to their rights by offering parents to sign off, just like any field trip and some special classes like we presently do today. I just don't think teen pregnancy and STD's are a big enough issue to set such a precedence overriding parental rights. There is a threshold, and I don't believe we've reached it. IMHO.

I totally agree. We've had a few of these conversations before, and I would love to see a change. Not sure how to do it though. By the way, you could have used my earmarks argument against me here. Dr Paul engages in the game of earmarks even though he simultaneously stands against earmarks. You could say the same of your position here. You're engaging in the system for the interim choosing not to be disenfranchised, while advocating a better system.

Hmm, well I've got Spybot, and it's always running I guess because it's always in my system tray. Sometimes I get a little box giving me the option of denying or allowing a registry change, which I always deny, obviously, unless it is a spybot command trying to get rid of a registry entry. But this never happened with Virtumonde. Suddenly, I was infected. Oh, and I've got Symantic anti-virus also - niether of these programs stopped Virtumonde. I don't remember using Java for anything though. Wouldn't I have that little coffee cup icon in my system tray when running Java? I can't think of what I've done recently that involved Java, unless I was running it and didn't know it. I guess I need to try this ubuntu. I try not to load additional programs on my computer so I always avoid internet browsers, p2p gui interfaces and etc.

It does mean you accept it when you vote for them. Are you voting for liars and those that present themselves falsely? If so, that's rewarding bad behavior. Doesn't work real well for halting bad behavior. Maybe if we would stop accepting this nonsense we might stop this 2000 year hemorrhage. I just can't relate to this at all. You're actually ok with the notion that people that are in charge of making LAW that you and I can be punished for - from tickets, to jail, to prison, to execution - can essentially lie and falsify their positions and be considered common? Is that not malfeasance you're rewarding? Wow, talk about lowering the bar. My countrymen have accepted the idea that we must interpret and guess the truth buried in statements made by our leaders. How sad. I will write in Dr Paul. I will reward good behavior, even if it is fruitless.

And yet it doesn't matter what her particular intent might be - the principle is still present whether you're looking at it or not - it's a parental rights issue. And parental rights doesn't deserve to be trumped just because group "x" wants to use the issue to teach abstinence. It's not my fault you've drawn your particular conclusion. It's akin to trying to deny free speech rights because the KKK wants to march downtown and preach discrimination. It doesn't matter that it's the KKK that's doing the fighting - the principle of free speech rights covers more than that. Same with parental rights on education. It doesn't matter that Palin and the religious right are the ones doing the fighting on this point, the principle of parental rights is bigger than their focus point. BTW, my gut feeling is the same. But I separate unsubstantiated belief from substantiated ones. Believing is a bit too much of a leap for this presumption. Well sure, but pointing out how it is isn't an argument for how it should be. The subject isn't of terrible interest to me, personally, but it's still wrong to override the parents. Weird how that is tough to accept for many in here. Yet, I'll bet all of you would change your minds if our government was teaching our kids about Islamic terrorism and how we need to be on offense, preemptive strikes, spreading democracy and freedom with our military might. Suddenly, parental rights would be right up your alley, I'm betting. I was talking about balancing the thread. There's a lot of passion and drive to find everything that's wrong with her, but nobody in here, including myself, is matching that passion and drive with any defense of these articles. Since I happened upon that one almost by accident, I figured I'd provide it. And you're right, I do want to see her in a bikini. That's so wrong...

Well then who gauges when business has been taken care of? A set of standards perhaps, by the state? That's a threatening precedence to accept over parental convenience. Such ignorance would seem remedied by predictable modern cultural pressures.

Virtumonde is such a bastard. I can't shake it and I'm going to have to wipe my drive and blah blah blah, I hate it. What do I have to do to keep from getting this freaking thing again? I think I'm getting it from peer to peer. I just use bit torrent and download a movie or tv show once or twice a week maybe. It's always a popular one with lots of seeds and comments, so I don't know how to police my search any better than that. I never download the little text files or info files that sometimes come with them. WTF?

Why do you accept this? Is that not false? How would this "force" ever hope to be countered without an opposing force?

You're right to pull it out, but to me her answer implied as much. Same with non-support for sex-ed classes in school. That's not teaching abstinance, as you're not teaching anything at all, that's leaving the teaching of sex to parents, or more accurately, keeping the teaching of sex out of public schools. I can only assume that concluding it's about "teaching abstinance" is an opinion one draws on their own. On that subject, as long as they're minors, I don't agree with the school having more right to force that curriculum than the parents. The point, to me, gets its leverage because public school is compulsory. If you're going to force me to jeopardize my child's life on a daily basis traveling back and forth to your learning facilitiy, trusting the officials you have put in charge with their safety and security, then what am I to conclude when you further decide you can train them for anything you want? To teach them anything you like - hate, propaganda, terrorism, brainwashing, cleverly disguised in your curriculum - and I have no say? The parent must serve as the check. They must retain the ultimate right to restrict what their kids are forced to be trained in or learn by the state. The fix seems simple enough to me, why not just let parents sign off on the course on a per child basis? How hard is that? You erase the force, which to me is the only legitimate issue there, and you retain a course that most kids are going to take - including mine.