ParanoiA

Well then what's the point? If every president just plays optimistic then why do we give a crap what he says? That makes about as much sense as asking the car salesman for his opinion on the quality of the car you're trying to buy. Why does optimism increase or lose its effectiveness if that's the ONLY treatment ever given? Its efficacy would seem to be stagnant at this point. Why is it unreasonable to expect a clinical analysis of the economy? We don't need to inject any 'ism' in it at all. This is what bugs me so much about the political "game". We should demand better representation than flowchart posturizing, don't you think?

Sure, I completely agree it's a revolution, but what process is the revolt governed by? Any "revolution" isn't democratic with respect to those they are revolting from, obviously. But that doesn't mean their internal governing structure isn't democratic, I believe that was what DarkShade was talking about. I contend it is quite a democratic revolution...

No, but that would be funny as hell. And kidding aside, false hope doesn't do anybody any good either.

Those are all folks who believe in fiat currency. Their predictions may be sound, I certainly don't contest otherwise, after all, it's their voodoo playground. However, I question who's being served when we rationalize moving away from a representative monetary policy (like the gold standard), and continue to embolden and depend on a government-private banking collaboration where we have unelected officials making national monetary decisions. The other point I wanted to make to Trans, is why should any president be listened to about the economy in the first place? Unless he's an economist, why the hell do I care what he thinks? They're almost a walking joke to me anymore.

Ooh, that's got to hurt considering Rush is always going on about how the "drive-by's" get their news from him. While I always chuckle and presume it's a competitive 'dig', it's almost sad to see Kurtz validate the concept. Interesting post guys.

No less so than any other average self serving politician.

Also is coming from Dr. Paul and company. It's no secret the economy is top heavy, value judgements aside, and this is a problem. I think you're right that it's mainly coming from the left, but I wish we'd start hearing it more from the right.

Well it is though. By your definition any declaration of independence is desitined to be undemocratic since you apparently insist on counting the repudiated majority. Which still doesn't stand well, considering they are vesting and exercising power through their people, a democratic behavior. Why don't they change from 'majority' to 'foreigner' when Kosovo claims independence? Somehow this "majority" still has the necessary relevence to label this an undemocratic experience? Please...

Somebody give that boy some rep points, that's a sweet post. After watching a Jerry Springer show, it just baffles me how we've maintained our spot in the food chain.

No kidding, it worked for us against the British.

Why not? Is there another kind of "morally righteous" form of declaring independence? Doesn't it all really just boil down to whether or not you have the might to enforce your independence? There are pros and cons to national independence, but I never really thought of it as wrong or right. Just likes lines in the dirt that we implicitly defend with the threat of violence, what makes us so right?

Oh my, I'm still giggling over this. This is the best idea I've heard yet. I'm worried that success will be anchored to the bird. Bird dies = still smoking. Bird lives, but newness wears off = start smoking again. That sort of thing. One, because my post is really about the psychology of externalizing an internal issue - although I don't think I'm actually putting that right. And second, well I already agreed to the idea. The bird won't cost any money, in theory anyway, since this is a fostering program. Keep in mind, I don't know much about it, just that you raise them to a point and then have to give them up, or purchase them for a discounted price. I'm not about to thrash her idea and risk discouraging her. I voiced my concerns, she said she understood...and now we're getting a bird.

Right, and the children don't live inside their freaking bodies. If they did, then I would certainly never advocate violating their bodies to get them - like you and Severian seem to be cool with. "for convenience" is a subjective value judgement. If it wasn't "convenient" would you suddenly be all for it? So you have no issue forcing a woman to hike up her skirt and invite strangers to poke and prod her body and endure pain the likes of which no man could handle - otherwise known as assault - and you don't think that's evil? I don't have to be a complete anarchist to reject the idea of giving up our rights to our body the way we have in this country. I don't believe you have a right to force, nor deny anything I want to do to myself, or injest in myself. The original constitution wasn't complete anarchy, and none of what you outline above was illegal then. (not that I'm advocating a return to the original constitution, just pointing out the fact) But, we're just re-arguing points we've already agreed to disagree on. I do appreciate where you're coming from, and knowing some of your politics, it's obviously thought out and consistent with your principles. They just differ from mine.

I'm sorry, I didn't notice that my reply implied such silliness. Seemed rather obvious to me that I was clarifying my ignorance beyond my shoreline. That's the only option if you're advocating restricting abortion. If you don't allow them to terminate their pregnancy, then you're forcing them to be pregnant. No I don't. No since labor is not forced. The law doesn't say that people have to pick up their dog's shit - it says that their dog's shit is not allowed to be on the ground at the park. I can comply with that without lifting a finger. Yeah, like abortions. Nobody likes to do that, yet they still deal with the consequence. I don't know anybody who likes abortions or uses them for a contraceptive solution. I know alot of morality elites who claim so though. No, I was suggesting that to enforce anti-abortion requires violating a woman's body.

Ok, so my wife calls me up at lunch today to discuss the idea of getting a pet bird, a Cockatoo, in order to make her quit smoking. The idea being that since smoke is bad for birds, it gives her a goal to work toward, and it will help liberate her from boredom. I think that's psychotic thinking, quite frankly. I seriously think this is setting her up for failure. I can't seem to get my head around the glaring problem here, and yet it seems obvious to me at the same time. I asked her to clarify why increased life span, not stinking like smoke, smooth skin and voice, and etc was not enough - why a bird suddenly tilts the balance to a stop smoking campaign. This is the heart of my problem with this approach. Using the bird to HELP with stopping smoking makes sense, but even then this goes way beyond spending a few minutes with a bird - there are 24 hours in a day. 18 of which she spends awake. I don't think she's dealing with REAL reasons she smokes and what it's REALLY going to take to quit - permanently. A bird ain't gonna' do it. She's too focused on this bird, a redirection of some kind - the bird is almost a symbol of some kind. Isn't there a term for this in psychology?

We don't obligate military service either, it's a choice. At least here in the US. So since you advocate forced pregnancy, how long until you advocate forced insemination? It's interesting watching folks rationalize violating another human being that way. How about forced labor, aka slavery? Oh, the ole good intentions excuse. 'I love childbirth so everyone should love childbirth, even if it means putting them in jail, death, rape'. Yes, childbirth is miraculous and I'll never forget those moments. The feeling you get as you realize you really are a dad, that what you're holding is instantly the most important thing in your life. And I have no right to force everyone else to appreciate it too. I can and maybe should persuade them, but their personal soveriegnty trumps any new life form growing inside them. And I see evil in violating a woman's body. You cannot acheive good by evil means.

That sounds reasonable to me. And it would really put the administration in a bind if that kind of legislation was passed first. Then, at least to me anyway, they would have zero reason to grant immunity or protect them in any way.

No the law is not the same regardless of intent. That's why we have 1st and 2nd degree murder, manslaughter and etc. However, will you wear that badge proudly while you send some guy to prison for making a bad decision while trying to rescue your child? Intent matters. Context matters. Why wouldn't they? (And this is coming from the guy who's always criticizing "good intentions"...) Now, the argument I've been waiting for just hasn't presented itself, although I think you're hinting around it. Why shouldn't they at least be investigated for malicious practice? And what's stopping them regardless of this legislation? If they cooperated with federal authorities on good faith, I have no issue. However, if they've used this cooperative effort to mask malicious activity then they should go down. (And no, I don't believe that cooperating with the feds in this context is "malicious" - although on the part of the government it most CERTAINLY is.)

Preaching to the choir, I already agree with all of the above and everyone here already knows that. This is our rhetoric and I believe in it. However, half of our country does not, and they matter. So, when I say "wartime", I mean this crisis that has split our country in two. Exactly! And we're talking about the PAST, not the present. I know they've changed their minds and I hope they keep it up. I agree. And that would be those we elected in office, not AT&T or Alltel. But you did. You and bascule both keep going on about how the "war" is invalid. Just because WE see this as an invalid, unconstitutional joke does not make it non existent. We can take issue about it all day long but that doesn't make it go away. Half the country, actually more, was freaking out about terrorism for a long time after 9/11 and have been running scared ever since, supporting a scorched earth policy on our constitution. This pressure by the american sheeple is very real. Business has to deal with that pressure and they are effected by it, whether they agree with the war or not. Their cooperation is not an endorsement of the "war" - they may hate the freaking war but still feel compelled to cooperate through legal and regulatory threats coupled with the pressure felt by the general public. It seems as though you refuse to accept that this pressure exists, as if our anti-war rhetoric makes it all go away. I can't go along with that. You're trying to punish telecomm companies for what you CAN'T punish the government for - even though it's the government that created this invalid, illegal exigency, not the telecomm biz. I can't agree with punishing folks for benevolent mistakes in judgement or performance during a time of perceived crisis. I just can't. I can't sue or criminally charge a guy for giving cpr to a dying child and accidentally kills him in the process. I can't sue or criminally charge a person for moving a bleeding body from the street, exacerbating the injuries in the process. I can't agree with that concept at all.

With all due respect, my post was specifically aimed at iNow based on a reply from iNow. I have no love, nor any hatred for mega anything. I have a natural negative feeling about them, a distrust, which they have proven true more often then they have not. And I work for one and consistently find myself tangled up in Union pros and cons alongside Company pros and cons, and I think I have an idea of the dynamics at play - everyone seems to be driven by self interest masked in principle and appeals to class injustice. So, while I may have ruffled your feathers here, it wasn't thoughtless. I agree completely with your point about how they impact and undermine the free market with their financial influence. And, I still agree that they should NOT be punished for cooperating with federal authorities during wartime in this case. I would be quite happy if a Wal-mart truck ignored the "no driving on sidewalks" law to get around a traffic jam to get food to a Katrina victim in New Orleans. I believe that telecomm cooperation with warrantless wiretapping was done under similar if not greater exigency. I just don't share the animosity towards these entities and I think it's a horrible example to set. It says that we care more about legal ins and outs than human life in the event of a crisis. When we find ourselves in another crisis, some may be isolated from those who would help, but are afraid of any legal consequences post-crisis.

No, I wouldn't, and don't. To do so is to place a higher moral obligation to that "life" than the moral obligation to the "lives" that form that country. Not the best analogy, agreed (since you disagree when life begins). However, why does the older, prerequisite life form not trump the rights of whatever is inside them that you're trying to save? I guess I'm unclear why you're against abortion if you don't believe it is "life" yet. And when it does become a life to you, THEN what has it done to earn MORE rights than the host it's feeding off of? Or are you seeing this a completely different way?

Nothing personal, iNow, I'm just not seeing where we line up. I do appreciate that you've heard and interpreted my point though.

I don't think we align much at all. I see elementary class envy being emboldened by those who help to level that envy. It's pretty obvious to me that if we were talking about poor working class americans cooperating with the NSA, you wouldn't be seeking punishment. Only the fact that these are corporations seem to feed this nonsense. Just my opinion, but prejudice is playing a big part here. By the way, I stand by google and their obfuscation. You forget how real and potential "internet regulation" is to companies like this. Some would say they're not doing themselves any favors by not cooperating, while others will point out that AT&T cooperated and tried to be the good guy for decades and was rewarded with divestiture.