john5746

Aren't corporations similar to a feudal system? King - CEO Nobles - Large Investors Lords - Upper Management Serfs - workers I guess it is just too hard to compete without a strong King and Nobles. America's Kings seem to require more ransom than others for some reason. Maybe Americans in general want more? I know I do.

I have some carbon offsets for sale, right next to the ocean front property in Arizona!

http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/publications/alperovitz_06.html I think employee ownership is superior to investor ownership.

Yeah, Rush is a political professional with a staff, etc. Rosie is a comedian/actress/??, with far left political views. When she spouts that stuff, she is serious, so I am not excusing it, just that she is far more likely to say something out of ignorance. When Rush starts talking out of the realm of politics, such as global warming, he can sound just as ignorant, but that isn't taboo.

Maybe we need some guilt redistribution!

We argued about it before and agreed to disagree. Actually, the trend in America is going towards more wealth inequality. That may be one reason why there is more talk about it. Redistribution of grades != Redistribution of wealth

I wonder in what context? This has nothing to do with him or his comment. Or is this the white man's fault as well?

I don't think so. I think both sides were frustrated on that deal. Rosie is too big a mouth to share the spotlight with anyone, especially if they disagree. O'reilly is the same way, of course he isn't as stupid as she.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality According to this link, many countries redistribute more than the US, so I wouldn't say it is an American ideal. Not implying anything else with this link, just that the numbers don't support your statement.

Man, what are you smoking?.... Oh, I forgot

Correct! IT IS NOT A WAR. It is a peace-keeping, nation building mission. Darfur would be similar, except that it is already a big mess.

I disagree. I think it is a cost/benefit decision like anything else. Trouble is that the costs are difficult to measure and the benefits even more so. That is why we invade Iraq and not Korea or Darfur. The perceived costs were low when compared to the perceived benefits. Maybe we should get involved, but we can't fix all injustices, especially those of the mind and spirit.

IF Religion is at a different corner of the spectrum, it is because science has pushed it there. IMO, religious belief arouse from man's attempt to understand and control his environment. Religion assumes an intelligent agent, then tries to appease that agent to get the desired result. Science assumes no intelligent intervention in existing rules, then tries to discover the rules and use them to get the desired result. They do come from two different starting points, but they collide and have been colliding for some time. While the overall question as to the starting point cannot be proven, many of the resulting claims can be tested. As science wins the battles, the testable claims diminish. One reason why you don't see many God-men taken seriously today. With all that said, some religions get along better with science than others, so religion and science can get along fine.

I don't see any reasonable person watching or playing any game and then act it out in reality either. WE can, but maybe the psychopath cannot. To me the main thing preventable was this guy getting guns. He should not have been able to legally get guns. Next step would be to eliminate guns altogether, but that seems almost impossible. If keeping a gun out of the hands dangerous people seems impossible, how can we keep IDEAS out of their minds?

Bomb Iran? more like: Republican: "Rebuild Iran with a blank check" Democrat: "Ignore Iran, hope it goes away"

Imus' remarks in context was comparing the looks of the Rutgers girls to the Tennessee girls. He was basically saying they looked low class. His attack was personal, against young women for no reason at all. Rosie's comments are usually not personal, except against Trump, who can defend himself. Anyone would get fired for saying what Imus or Coulter said. While I agree that we shouldn't judge a person on a few sentences, I can't feel sorry for any of these talking heads. They get more money then we will ever see with very little talent for the most part. They have a right to free speech, but not a right to their job. Imus and Rosie makes money by attracting viewers and sponsers. So, their companies will decide their fate - largely on public response. So if they irritate enough people or bore enough people, they will get the axe. The Rutgers coach mentioned something about not allowing another persons words demean you. I like that comment, but the rest of her speech was about her trials and tribulations. She did say that the term ho's should not be used by anyone and demeans everyone, so that was good. If there are inconsistencies, well that is life. We all have to deal with those, especially minorities. If white talking heads have to be more careful than others or conservatives have to be more careful, well that's life. They get paid well enough to be professional and take the heat.

I think you are confusing quality with safety. Cigarettes might have an excellent quality, but they are not safe. Regulations are sometimes required in order to make companies adhere to safety standards, at a reduction of thier profit. Meth addiction rates and its devestating effects on the population correlate to the purity of the drug. The more pure, the higher the addiction rate and subsequent damage. The chemical itself is a poison to the body. So, no I don't think it is possible to make meth safe, especially with people who only seek to make a profit from selling more and more of it. Why does society have any laws? Because we have a certain segment of the population who are morons. They do stupid things that are dangerous to them and to society. Drugs change the chemistry of the brain. It destroys the person and their potential. Many of these people have an effect on others, so their destruction harms others.

I agree completely. The solutions need to be effective and not damaging in some other way as well as economically viable. We should be discussing the possible solutions instead of dismissing the problem, IMO.

Yeah, I think we are sending our money abroad and they are paying for our mortgage. We get nice, cheap trinkets for awhile, but once they take their portion of the equity - it hits the fan.

The human body is complicated also. While it is very difficult to know what will happen to my body tomorrow if I eat McDonalds and smoke, it is very likely that I will be sick if I do this for 20 years.

I think we will be going to war with Iran within the next 5 years. This IS a slam-dunk. We know they are trying to get the bomb. So, we need to finish Iraq, then take on Iran. Take out their nuclear plants, then take control of their oil.

Some probably did predict a difficult war, but they were laughed at after we steamrolled into Iraq. I think the plan was that after the battle, we would be welcomed as liberators. I don't think they actually thought they would have such a difficult occupation. Maybe they have borrowed from the compassionate conservatism ideal. You know, stand on your own two feet, expect more from people, teach people instead of doing everything for them. Maybe a faith based initiative would be a better approach, government just sucks - can't do ANYTHING right! I am starting to think we should outsource the training. Our military probably can't imagine not having all the technology they enjoy.

Well, if there is no change to the DNA in subsequent generations, then it isn't much to think about in terms of evolution. Thanks,

I basically agree with this view, I would only add that the problem isn't always "the wrong people". More risky investments will result in more defaults on average. People lose jobs or get lower paying jobs, etc. But making people qualify on the higher rate would help the situation while still allowing more people become home owners, IMO

http://www.democrats.senate.gov/agenda/real_security/act_2006/ There are some. Do you think Bush got rid of Rumsfeld and changed course because things were going to slowly? No. He did it because of the Democrats. The Democrats wanted to concentrate on the terrorists, instead of Iraq. The compromise is to allow Bush to escallate, to try something different. That is how politics works sometimes, opposing ideas and compromise. That being said, I think the democrats as a whole are too soft on terrorism. I think terrorism is mainly a war of intelligence, so I think the Patriot Act was needed. I would rather sacrifice a little freedom than invade every country we think might harbor terrorists.