ParanoiA

Obama's timing is perfect. I think this field of candidates is so bad, excluding my boy Paul of course, that Obama makes the perfect default vote, particularly for the white crowd. 'Since everybody sucks, let's at least get this black president thing out of the way...' Romney looks like he wants to sell me a car. He's the guy that claims they've already lowered the sticker price to the bare minimum to save me the hassle of having to haggle price with him. Gee, thanks for that. Obama looks like he wants to sell me a car too. He's the guy that acts like he's on my side as he nobley "haggles with his boss" to get it at my price. This election is going to give me a headache...

So the original constitution was extreme? I guess I don't get that. I think a million pages of tax code that requires people to go to COLLEGE just to interpret it is extreme. I always like to point out that while these are positions of his, he has never, ever hinted at the idea all of it could be done - or even should be done - overnight. These are just established ends that define the ideology - not his plan of action. His position also doesn't support social security - should be abolished. Yet, he very clearly laid out his "action plan" during the debates, which involves taking care of everyone that has paid into this plan - as promised - but giving "the younger people" a way out. His "action plan" is quite different from his "position" isn't it? And that's they way all of his views seem to shake out when you get to the plan of action. He knows it's insane and impossible to change the country on this kind of scale too quickly. However, he does a very poor job of explaining that. And that's too bad, because many would "get" him if he would clarify the difference between ideological positions and realistic political goals.

Well, he says the cause of the business cycle is linked to our monetary policy - paper money. And, of course, he blames the federal reserve. They have impressive control of our economy and government - yet they aren't elected by us. He believes in a monetary system that relies on hard assets, like gold. The implication being that we wouldn't be experiencing these "bubbles" - that aren't isolated to the housing bubble. I like to bring this up, because I don't really know any economists and I've yet to see Paul debate with anyone as knowledgable as he on the subject. He gets into nuts and bolts that the other candidates don't understand and can't really comment on or have a conversation about. Mcain's diversion to his "circle" of smart buddies was a classic response to Ron Paul's very specific monetary question during one of the debates. I don't understand economics well enough to judge what he's saying, though. I mean, like most, I could probably fake it and pretend that I understand how money REALLY works, but that does nothing for me. (I do know that Reagan, the conservative's hero, also expressed concern over leaving the gold standard with the quote "No country that left the gold standard ever remained great" - funny how they laugh at Paul over this...)

Yeah, cuz I was scratching my head yesterday trying to figure out why I posted some rant about Pit Bulls in a live stock thread. Not that it would be the first time I posted off topic...

We draw the line when your pet hurts someone or their property. We punish you for it and confiscate your animal that you can't control. Simple really. Why do we need to have laws enumerating every single thing we can or cannot do when we already have a natural check and balance system for this? You can't be objective, nor "celebrate our differences" when you dismiss innocence until proven guilty, by advocating the arbitrary wholesale removal of a right based on other's previous behavior. Not that you are saying that necessarily, but when you start talking about "drawing lines" - that spells legislation to me.

So, since we're all interested in solving the "problem" rather than just treating "symptoms", then what exactly do you all think the problem is? Where does the business cycle come from? Why do these bubbles, like the housing bubble, happen? No, I mean deeper than "those damn republicans"...it happens on the Dems watch as well. Hint...watch a couple of Paul videos if you need homework help.

Allow me to nitpick as well, since I had that same attitude until I was reminded that many folks who didn't pay income tax, DID pay social security and medicare taxes. I have no desire to validate the convoluted tax structure by allowing myself to believe that those taxes don't count. Granted, they may not have paid income taxes, but they still deserve some of their money back too. Another thing, why are the rebates not being given to those who actually pay the bulk of the income tax revenues? I believe the threshold was like $175,000 - so anybody making over that would be given nothing? Absolutely ridiculous and quite the insult to those tax payers. This class envy thing these jokers use to manipulate us is really getting old.

Driver's licensing passes mustard with me only because the roads are paid for by the government. Should the government build roads? I think so. Certainly at the state level this isn't an issue, although I'm not sure the feds should. Driving on your lawn or acreage? I don't see any authority to require licensing and such, and I believe that is the present law actually. Physician certification? Well, if you want to see a doctor of medicine, I believe he will have to have earned the title or else he couldn't call himself a doctor of medicine. I don't see why he needs the government to tell him he's a doctor as well, nor me, otherwise he's commiting fraud - the punishment, I believe anyway, should be quite severe considering the potential consequences. And if he wants to compete with other doctors, he'll sport his credentials.

Someone should start a thread on that. I was under the impression, mistaken apparently, that allowing certain states to go first actually aided nationally known candidates by edging them out early over the others. Not so much during this particular primary, since we've had mixed results - but I thought Iowa and New Hampshire were more responsible for that kind of thing.

You don't have to prove competence to buy a gun. Good thing too. And neither should you have to in order to own a pit bull. Our founders chose to go with the idea of personal liberty limited to direct damage - not personal liberty limited to the subjective whims of competency. In other words, in terms of law anyway, it's up to you to prove I've done something wrong - not up to me to prove I've done something right.

Oh great, more licenses, fees, and bullshit because we don't want to actually punish people for their neglect. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Remember, this question is coming from someone who hates pit bulls. The pit bull owner down the street from hasn't done anything wrong, why should he have to prove squat to anybody? Imagine every conceivable combination of danger I can impose on you to prove to me you can negotiate. That's a bureacratic mess the intolerant big government human behavior regulators would love to get started.

Why not just punish the owner appropriately? Charge them with the severity of the attack/bite? Seems to me, once you start imprisoning them, the sudden glow of owning a Pit or similar will promptly dim. When folks have to put their own ass on the line after saying things like "with the right owner they're as playful as a kitten" then maybe they'll get the point...maybe. Instead, all I see are nominal intentions to charge the owners with no real weight behind it. As long as that's true, I doubt they'll give a crap. Doesn't matter how many kids their dogs mangle, just so long as they have a bad ass dog...

But doesn't it seem inherent to our design? Isn't that how our brains function? Labeling something and then sticking it in memory. Accessing it later - using the label as the index - without having to recall all of the specifics that fall under that label? Probably not making sense here. Just so happens I've been contemplating a similar line of thought to yours, but not in political terms. In that, I've been wondering if our labeling obsession is a basic inherent function of our brain design. A design that we have passed on to computers, perhaps unconciously, intuitively. Their "brains" seem to be designed similarly - blocks of information with labels, to be referenced for processing. Of course, yeah I totally agree with your premise. And I definitely can relate to 'seeing the gears working in the other person, listening intently for those all-important flags for identifying my tribe' - they usually nail me when I say something pro-profit. Of course, I get them back when they realize I'm not a simplistic righty.

Thanks Pangloss. I downloaded that program and it appears I've got a learning curve to deal with. I tried to simply add a text box and I got nowhere. I'm just not really experienced at all with HTML editing. It's too bad because MS Word was working great for me. Easy to open and edit and ftp. But it just doesn't work very well. If you look at my page now, you'll see the text boxes pulled extreme to the right - but it doesn't look that way in Word - just in a browser. I guess there's no way around a bulky program. Maybe I'll get used to it.

Wait a second... I took issue with this same paragraph earlier, and then ecoli took issue with it in reference to changing the subject: You told me: But you just told him: So, what exactly are you discussing? Honestly, I thought you were expanding beyond economics and immediate withdrawal. Oh, and I'll take "get out of the way", over leading and following the rest of the world.

My specific question is how do I add a banner on my webpage using microsoft word? I've got the code for it, but I'm just not sure how to add it. I'd like to put it in the upper left hand corner of the page, so I'm assuming I'm adding some kind of "box" so that I can drag it and drop it where I want. I'm trying to avoid using big programs for this stuff. I originally built my previous page using Yahoo's HTML based program - highly unstable and crashed all the damn time. Not to mention, I couldn't just FTP the files - I had to establish a folder and let the program connect and do the publishing "transparently". I don't like that. As a result, I never, ever, ever updated nor messed with my page at all - too much time and trouble to make the slightest updates. My meager handful of fans (I think I'm up to 3 now ) didn't appreciate that very much. So far, I like the simple nature of MS Word and using IE to FTP the files. But that simple nature, has a price I guess...

Why does it require military action to NOT stick our heads in the sand? Play the game better? Like where and how did that happen? Our games, that you seem to think we're so good it, are what lead to a 'friend today, enemy tomorrow' relationship with some pretty ugly characters in the middle east - one of which is responsible for over 3000 american dead in one attack, and the other got so bad we rationalized an invasion since we had the receipts from the shit we sold him. I'm not into your games. This is real life. Not a freaking game. Yes, this is not the kiddie pool and acting like a jackass isn't being grown up. And that's how we're acting in international politics. Todays conservatives love to sell this crap. Like anyone who isn't for military intervention throughout the globe is some love child pacifist fool that doesn't understand the stakes of international maneuvering. I'd argue the other way. We look more like a drunk in the bar at 2:00 am looking for a fight with everyone who looks at him wrong (preemptive strike), mumbling about his wallet and how we're all jealous of his car (target numero uno). We know we are the king of the hill in terms of might, and should be in terms of economy. We know we're a target. This is why we should be on defense. This is why we need our troops here at home, not in Korea (not a success story - unless of course you view our money and blood as part of a "game"). This is why we need an international face of dignity and respect - a nation that will only unleash its impressive military might when it has been attacked. A nation that assumes no international role - a humbled international presence. That's not sticking your head in the sand, that's gaining the moral high ground in the international adult pool.

This is why I have a hard time participating in politics in general. I have nothing to really relate to, since it's so far out of whack. Consider the fact that after every political speech, the first thing we see is experts "interpreting" the speech. They're going on and on about what this politician really thinks, what his intentions really are and so forth. Is this not proof that we think the politician is lying? Why would you ask about what a politician really thinks when he just told you? Unless, of course, you didn't believe him. So, to me, it appears we all think or know they're lying and we're past that - we're moving on to "how much" they're lying and other things, presumably having given up on honesty altogether. (Part of which I blame on unrealistic "superman" expectations we place on politicians which creates an atmosphere that only a great liar and cheat can prevail in) I can't relate with that. I can't have a conversation about which front runner is hot and which is not, when none of them remotely come close to my expectation of a legislative expert. And aren't we, the people, to blame for this? Shouldn't we be smarter than the brainwashing exercises by corporate TV news? Some days I wake up almost militant about it. I think, 'why in the hell don't you people go to some trouble and learn something about your damn government' - aimed at the blissfully ignorant, of course. I hear people glorify their refusal to watch or read about current events "because it's depressing...life is too short", or some politically contemptuous argument that supposedly justifies their ignorance. This is a cop out. You don't have that luxury in a republic. Well, actually, I guess you do...and we all have the luxury of being relieved of our precious union because of it.

You took issue with my comment about teary, save-the-children music and how most of us don't understand poverty in the world. So, I basically replied by asking how this matters. They're making the case the 2.4 trillion could be so much better spent - on socalist crap that government shouldn't spend money on EITHER. It would be like criticizing "spending 2.4 trillion dollars on subsidizing ethanol, when we could have gone to war with Iraq". I would reply the same way - neither is what we should be spending the 2.4 trillion on. Yes, and it's exactly these "could have beens" that create the fallacious framework - that's the fallacy right there. All of the "could have beens" are just as invalid as the "what was" - the war. We could have bought trillions and trillions of pink ping pong balls - perhaps a thousand for every child...just think of it... No, you don't agree with that or you wouldn't take issue with it. I also never said it was a point the video made - it's an elaboration on my position about "impoverishment" not being the job of government, thus invalidating the "could have beens" in the video.

How does this make the case the government should force it's citizens to give up their money for its moral ideas of generosity? Humanitarian aid should be given freely by the public, persuaded by these same kinds of videos - with the exception of asking for the money, or other kinds of help, not telling me how the subsequences of robbing my wallet could have been so much better. Our disagreement is that I don't believe government should fund the things in that video any more than they should fund Iraq - with the exception of police and the sciences. There are things I believe the government should do, and they should do them well - policing and national security are among the most important of those. Taking care of the impoverished is not an appropriate government function. I don't believe the answer to the world's problems are found in governments, but rather freely organized people that aren't saddled by institutionalized beaurocracies and intransigent constitutions of law. Bill Gates could wire a billion dollars to Darfur tomorrow afternoon - how long do you think it would take to get that transfer going with our government system? Our government is cool, but it's job is clinical, in my humbled opinion. Because I view government more like a referee and free society as the players. I don't understand why people automatically think "government" when there is something in the world they don't like or don't agree with, or want to change. The free market is where all the action is supposed to be at, refereed by the rules of the constitution. But instead of going to the trouble to change the hearts and minds of the masses, they take an easier path and rationalize government interference. So, in my view, obviously most of those comparisons in the video on various ways we can blow everyone's money were invalid and ineffective at proving their point.

Well, the overall message is good, but it's definitely propoganda, which undermines it's intent - if that is to persuade people. And that's without my speakers...I'll be willing to bet there's some teary, save-the-children music backing these slides. I was in desparate need of that line toward the end, that we should have done "NOTHING" with the 2.4 trillion since it was money we didn't have. But that was after something like 4 or 5 minutes of sappy socialist brainwashing exercises in creative math. Gee, just think of how many children you could save with your car payment. You really choose the convenience of driving over the lives hundreds, if not thousands of human beings? I mean, hell, war in Iraq is it least driven by some far fetched idea of survival - but driving? Sorry, but it's a fallacious framework that the majority of the flick uses. That said though, I do dig the message in the end. I thought it was definitely pro-military and demonstrated a thoughtful concern for this war, and the direction we're heading. There was a qualifier caption on one slide "Not that I think we should do it, just that we could" - that should have been on all the slides, except maybe the police, the sciences and the waste bit.

I was watching the latest republican debates from Thursday night on Youtube, and became more disturbed than usual about the rhetoric coming out of these salesmen. (Not to mention the priceless moment I haven't seen anyone write about yet - Huckabee said, to paraphrase, 'We can not only win the White House, but we can keep the country safe too' - as if keeping the country safe is second in priority to winning the White House - did anyone else catch that? Yeah, keep telling me how Ron Paul is the nutcase...) Romney, particularly, but also Huckabee and Guiliani all seem to be running for president of the world, not America. All of their comments concerning international politics sounded like a game of Risk being played on TV. Romney talking about how we need to "get them" evolved into democratic nations and so forth. They all have their little 'plan' for the middle east and how we need to continue our military presence and augment it with a non-military presence. And no one in the audience seemed the least bit concerned about this kind of talk. It just gets worse, debate after debate, election after election, we have rationalized becoming an imperial republic. We have thousands of years of history to review and realize how power corrupts, and we demonize the imperialist heavy hitters in our history books - yet we never seem to realize the dynamics that empowered these leaders. We still seem to think that these people were straight up "evil", easy to pick out - as if their hatred and illegitimacy was as obvious to their people as it is to us now. Now we have an entire panel of republican imposters using 'promotion of democracy', or 'bringing peace to the region' or appeals to supposed moral obligations to restore liberty throughout the world - all with that televangelist, car salesman smile. Why do we not see how we're romancing ourselves into the notion of our world police obligation? Why have we allowed ourselves to rationalize american military expansion and control all over the globe? Why have we let our superpower status corrupt us into following the footsteps of empires past - dead empires?

From what I can tell, Severian's been duped into responding objectively, so that the anti-religious can beat on him about rights, and over sensitivity to his faith. A quick summary: Severian: To the OP, yes of course it can be taken offensively...duh. Anti-Religious: OH YEAH?? WELL HOW ABOUT PRACTICING A LITTLE FREE SPEECH!!! WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SOOOOO SENSITIVE!! ....blah blah blah... How about the atheists in the room stop being so sensitive about your lack of belief in god? Get over it. Yes, it's free speech, and everyone is perfectly free to be offended. Offense does not equal censorship. Severian never even hinted to it. Read his posts carefully. Why so sensitive? Are your anti-religious views so precious that they can't be criticized?

Hmmm..well you definitely have more gods on your side, but they merely "favored".. Israel's god is outnumbered, but he straight up "promised" them. I don't know, this still looks muddy to me.