ParanoiA

Ain't it great? Of course, now they're going to beat you up again...

Colbert's was much funnier...sorry iNow.

Sounds like our very simple plan too - convert to our cause or die. You're either "with us or against us" right? Of course, their silly ideas of god and death wouldn't be a problem if we weren't over there with guns, tanks and flags for them to use as convincing recruitement props.

Nah, that's why I asked how was it?

No, I'm not sure that's the right interpretation, just a valid one. Pangloss laid it out already, which is why I also stated that it "wasn't very damn realistic". I do believe the founders and framers intended on state militia, with no standing army. This was seen as the components of royalty and monarchy. However, I don't agree with them that we should have no standing army. Perhaps they were right in that we seem to be pretty pleased with ourselves being the world's police force, growing an empire, just like the royalty they despised. However, I don't think militias can realistically protect the US as various militaries advance. I prefer a strong standing army. To be honest, there are several valid points of view here, in terms of interpretation. This is why I'd like to see the second amendment rewritten. Or, I guess, a new amendment to overwrite that one. Oh man, I almost subscribed to HBO just to get this series. I sure hope they do a good job of it and not try to weave modern political ideas into it.

I believe that's exactly right. And not very damn realistic either. Although, I'll bet we wouldn't be the imperialist police force of the globe if that were the case today. Perhaps this was about more than just keeping the government in check with its people?

No kidding..so how was it? I hope I get to see them someday. Not sure they even plan on touring at this point. I will sell whatever I have to, to get tickets.

So do militias get to have missle launchers then? I'd like to see the second amendment revisited and rewritten, ratified, the whole nine yards - if that's even possible?. If so, now is a great time. The current administration stirs up the much needed reminder to the american public that oppressive federal power can be directed on its people with the right excuses. So maybe that helps people understand the check value in being armed, at least in principle. At the same time, we have the luxury of hindsight. Plenty of history of gun laws and regulation to examine, so we can debate with real data. Would be nice to dig in and grind out the dynamics and rediscover the principles that we should stand on, and rewrite the damn thing - clearly this time.

1 death per 100 anti-pitbull people

I still don't see the predatory part. I got an ARM, and will likely go up to an exploitive amount and I agreed to this when I closed. THAT's why I got the good rate to begin with. I plan on having my home sold before this rate increase happens and that's business. I'd hate to think that because this loan is labeled "predatory" that this option wouldn't be available to me. It was a calculated risk and no one in this business is so stupid not to see the potential catastrophe - that's where the word "risk" gets its power, that's kind of the whole point with "risk" in the first place. So, when you have risk, you have fall out. You HAVE to have fall out or else there is no risk in the first damn place. The market is learning a lesson. A lesson it should have already learned but with the current nanny state people sign things without even looking because "the government wouldn't allow me to get screwed". Seriously, I know of two people who claim to have thought exactly that. In fact, the first house I bought, our realtor told us not to worry about reading everything at the closing table because "the government regulates them so there's no need". Yeah, I don't get this either. We bail everybody out and then wonder why we feel the need to regulate them to death to keep them from doing this crap. Gee...maybe it's because we never make them sleep in the bed they made? Let them share the streets with those that lost their houses. The victims here are the tax payers getting their money stolen from predatory legislators that don't have the spine to say "No, you're not getting the people's money to clean up your mess...go find a job and get out of my hair". Yeah, I'm in the same sector and consolidation and job insecurity are the only things in my future. However, that was the case 4 years ago too, when I was forcibly moved here. My point was that we don't bail out Mars Inc when candy prices take a fall. We take advantage. That's capitalism. Now, however, it's the american people's capital taking a dump - not XYZ company. It's my house, and yours. Now all of the sudden we don't think it's fair and demand government come in and fix it. Interesting how we rationalize interference for our own benefit, yet hold others in contempt for the same.

Damn that was good. I'm impressed.

Well, at least we're not literally throwing poo at each other. I suspect in-group/out-group dynamics creating a partition that goes against our nature to remove. Are there any phsychological studies to support the notion that we compete on a race level as well as by sex? In other words, we know we compete with other males, but is there any evidence to suggest a natural inclination to compete even more intensely with males of other races? Seems like group psychology would explain that, but I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination. I ask that because it would seem competition escalating into conflict would be a natural progression. And with white dudes outnumbering other dudes...

Now how about telling us how he's wrong? I too, haven't seen any evidence that this generation is less pissed off than any previous one. If anything, they're more empowered by it. I would be too if I were them. It's always good to understand why people feel or think things. And it's never an excuse. Ever. I understand their plight, and how much worse and real racism was in previous generations, which only supports the notion that it is inappropriate today.

I would think it plausible to suspect pandering to anti-white psychology, validating that mentallity, giving it merit, which is destructive to any society bent on ridding itself of hate. This is the biggest problem I have, however I'm still watching him deal with it. Not that it matters much since I'm not voting for the dude either way.

Great point. Dittos, although I would add the dangerous emphasis on externalizing thier plight in general, not just the white government thing. It's understandable to play with the hand you got dealt, but nowadays this is getting ridiculous. We should be way past this by now.

Yes, I was quite taken by the filth and hate spewing out of his mouth, and if that's what's going on in black churches then it's time to march against the hate. KKK is a legal institution and it's wrong and we speak out against it. This is absolutely no different. I don't care how much "white guilt" everybody's ready to shed, I don't support hatred in any form. This is sick. It's also more disgusting and reprehensible than anything I've heard out of the religiously indoctrinated in a long time. Where's the christian bashers? You know who you are and usually you're all lined up ready to bury the republican...er I mean...uh..the guy aligned with the religious right. I guess unsubstantiated belief is all cool when it's a minority candidate, your candidate, spewing hate for white people. Excellent consistency there. Well I for one will continue to enjoy watching you Obama worshippers do your intellectual tap dances around his racist ties. Is Obama a racist? Doubtful. But his preacher is, and he endorsed him and has shown he will not discourage black on white racism and bigotry. Obama ought to be leading the charge against this, not just shrugging his shoulders and disavowing association like a teenager caught drinking with his friends. Sounds like an open and shut case - and this thread would only be for cheer leading the hanging if this were a white dude. So why exactly are we making excuses for him again? Is this what I can expect from white america with a black president? No one is going to stand up to him? Yeah and our forefathers and framers did some great things while still owning slaves and refusing to even discuss emancipation. Racists are dynamic people with good qualities and bad ones, not just rednecks with pick-up trucks with gun racks and beer-on-demand. However, I thought we expected better from our politicians nowadays. What words were those?

First of all, what's a "predatory" loan? What practice are they in when they finance people with tenuous credit and low income to own a home in a decent neighborhood? Not to mention the recent pressure on the real estate market to respond to these low income families, to 'share in the american dream'. They came through and everybody involved got carried away and we got a bubble. Now we turn it into predators and victims. Whatever Second of all, why aren't we appreciating the flip side to this business cycle? This is a great time for buyers. Right now is the time for other low income families to get cheap housing, on better loan terms. If this was the oil business taking a hit, or Halliburton stock going into the tubes we wouldn't be freaking out so much. I wonder if it's only because we happen to own the capital that's taking the hit, that we even consider it a crisis. I say let the market correct itself on its own.

I think they're off the mark on that one too. I do believe they are trying to unify the middle east into a transnational opposition to the west. I don't think they have any "plans" for global domination (although history shows we must concede the possibility since Power and Imperialism just seem to attract each other like man and woman). But that's just conjecture, and it's irrelevent really since we, as in the US, should be a defensive nation rather than an offensive one, which will allow us to stay out of expensive wars and maintain a strong, cutting edge military.

Great post Sisyphus. Tried to give you some rep but it said I had to spread it around first. At this point, I'm not thinking a boycott is a smart approach. But then, the level of violence could change all that.

I've noticed no difference Cap'n. Seems to be off and on, for me anyway. One page will load quickly, but with a weird bit of delay. The next page won't load for a minute or so.

No, I don't think it would be a better world. I'm not sure violence isn't a good trait to have. Also, how does evolution enrich the species if natural selection is undermined? I thought animals killing other animals was a big part of natural selection. I'm not sure evolution would be as effective if we're all eating vegetables. Or are you suggesting that indirect killing, by outperforming other animals in finding and eating veggies would compensate? Sometimes I wonder if our "morality" is responsible for the idiots that cause so much violence and death in humans in the first place. Couldn't civilized society be responsible for allowing the weak, anti-social, anti-group serial killers to grow up and commit murders? Would they have been weeded out much earlier in life if we didn't "carry" the weak?

Yeah, I would absolutely love to see multiple parties. Seems silly to think of 300 million people in america, each with their own individual preferences and ideals, none of which completely match another, and out of all of the possible dynamics of thought, philosophy and principle, we force ourselves in one of TWO categories. WTF? That suggests that to even classify yourself in one group or another requires massive, insane amounts of compromise, depending on exactly how you differ from the "party position". Then when you consider the compromises made in the legislative process between the parties - you may have compromised your beliefs and principles to the point there are but mere traces of them codified in the legislation produced. Seems like multiple parties would provide for a more accurate representation of the party individuals. Less give and take to fit yourself in a slot. Multiple parties could also dampen the effect of towing the party line, I would think. It would almost be preferable to be a "party guy", when you have several different parties involved. I don't know how true that is, but it's interesting.

iNow - you're missing this by a country mile. The whiners are the ones being accused, yourself included. Pangloss countered all of those points and INCLUDED the label of politically correct - he didn't use the label of political correctness to dodge those points. So you're ass out there. Why don't you just man up and quit crying about it? It's been pointed out to you and everyone else that the SFN PC Club doesn't care about the logic that drives anyone's positions, just that they match. So why deny it? You won't take anyone to task that criticizes Bush, or any other conservative no matter how insane their logic may be. If you feel offended by it, then try some critical thinking and pretend you're a republican and make an argument. You should be able to make an argument as a republican, a democrat, a libertarian, a statist... If you can't do that, then you're not even trying.

If you think that it's completely unrelated, then what's your point?[/quote']Your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning So is your deductive reasoning, then. Halliburton is not an oil company, and its stock rise is due to the fast-track, bidless contracts they received from the Bush administration regarding the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure, not the rising price of oil or the reopening of Iraqi oil production, neither of which benefit Halliburton in any way. You would have been better served linking ExxonMobil stock. But then you can't just throw an ellipses after it and auto-link them to the Bush administration, huh? This is what I mean by SFN political correctness, by the way. You can just scream "Hallburton!" and throw an ellipses on the end of a post and nobody on this board challenges your "argument" except for me. That is political correctness, bascule. This is the beginning of the exchange, Reaper. The only one appearing to be avoiding countering a point is the unchallenged oversimplified, overgeneralized pop culture endorsed rhetoric by bascule. Seems pretty obvious Pangloss was going out of his way to find out what his point was, so he could then counter it - and then he charged right into the face of it. Look how many posts it took to do that. So, where exactly did you get the notion he was avoiding anything? At this point, I'm beginning to believe it may be PC on this board to bash Pangloss. From what I've seen, those here who resent the Bush admininstration also resent you. I've seen it on several threads. In fact, the ones who scream the most about you "misrepresenting" their views, are usually the worst ones about misinterpreting yours.

Nonsense. Pangloss has a tendency to lose confidence when the whole room is against him. He is absolutely right on about political correctness in this forum. Bascule's reponse was the intellectual equivalent of "Oh yeah, well your mama's so fat...". It wasn't a reply to Pangloss's point at all, it was a straight up red herring without any subsequent logical support. And the only person to call him out on it was Pangloss. This board should have been all over that. But nobody cared because the majority of the board believes Halliburton = Evil, Oil = Evil, Bush = Evil and another dozen oversimplified appeals that lack critical thought or analysis. It wasn't challenged because the position matched the board - despite the obvious complete lack of logical association, let alone sound reasoning. Positions are for politicians, I thought this board was about reasoning, logic - the support behind the positions. Who cares if someone's final position matches yours if their reasoning sucks? We may all agree that slavery should be illegal, but if person "A" comes to that conclusion because he thinks blacks are superior to whites, then person "A" is wrong and I'm going to take him to task over it - and I would expect the same from others. I don't know if I've interpreted Pangloss's point correctly or not, but he seems to be saying that dissenters are not "appreciated", but rather are bullied into shutting up. Personally, I appreciate all who disagree with my heavily libertarian-like ideals. It forces me to own up to the faults associated with my reasoning, keeps me honest with myself and actually strengthens my position and my logic supporting it. I want to know that my beliefs are right - that REQUIRES dissenters to challenge them so I can be sure they hold up. There are actually only a small handful of folks all of this is aimed at, and they know who they are. They view any challenge on their beliefs or ideas as a personal affront and consistently go into attack mode. (Reminds me of the "touchy christian" accusation I hear from iNow). As if a right leaning dissenter deserves to be beaten and humiliated, not used for good, logical testing and critical thought exercises. And on a science board no less.