It's like pure distilled truth.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Truckchase:
So what would you recommend to fix the problem? The Dems are'nt helping, and while some stand for a significantly slower societal regression than the 're-pubbies they're most definitely not a solution.
I'm not asking that question rhetorically. What do you want be done to fix this? I'll club a baby seal if it'll make you guys stop being apologists for apologists. Let's get this show on the road because we're running short on time.

Well, the short answer is that unless you're going to start stockpiling weapons for a revolution, you need to ultimately come up with a way to get what you want from political system through the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution. Namely, voting, and calling your congressman/senator/mayor/governor/President, etc.
As Michael Moore said, the 1% may have 40% of the wealth, but only 1% of the vote. Money doesn't actually buy elections, at least not yet.
Let's pretend for a minute that the Tea Party was some authentic grassroots movement. Look at how they went after their political objectives:

1. They were solely interested in getting conservatives elected
   
2. They were willing to put up primary challenges to Republicans who'd been disloyal to The Cause (and were very successful in winning those primaries!)
   
3. They were committed to showing up and voting for the most conservative person on the ballot in the general (aka, they supported the Republican, even if the Tea Bag favorite lost).
   

The net result was that they got a shitload of Republicans into Congress, as well as further increasing the ideological purity of the Republican party. Distilled insanity, and lots of it!
On the other hand, the left seems to be deciding that their big hat trick is to eschew voting, badmouth Democrats (as if none are good, and as if the party has never done anything good), and camp out in public parks all winter.
Again, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with the general idea of protesting wealth inequality, but at a certain point you've got to have some answer to "what do you want done, and who do you want to do it?"
I'm good if the answer is "End the War, Tax the Rich", but then the next point is Obama's in favor of those things, all his Republican challengers aren't, and the only people in Congress who want to do both are Democrats, and there's a national election next year...


1st: The tea-party comparison.
The tea-party was a bunch of blowhards who want to destroy government. They have seized well on misdirected rage. Destroying something is a hell of a lot easier than fixing something that is almost terminally broken. We can't expect results as quickly as those folks because we're constructive, not destructive.

2nd: The real issue. (money in politics)
I think you're missing my point. Why trash a movement that could very well be the beginning of a societal awakening? It took many years for most major causes to gain traction. (see: prohibition repeal, civil rights, suffrage, etc.) I never said don't vote and I never said don't take action. I do all of those AND actively back OWS. I haven't missed a caucus since I was 18. We're active; don't think otherwise. The OWS movement isn't perfect, but nothing we humans do is. It's a step in the right direction. Will this movement bring the all-encompassing triumph? Doubtful. Will the next? Increasingly less doubtful...


Why don't you come out here and help, or at the very least don't throw stones at those putting their neck on the line for you. When is the last time you personally got news coverage because you towed the party line? We need to get out of our armchairs. We need to make a difference!

>> ^Truckchase:

So what would you recommend to fix the problem? The Dems are'nt helping, and while some stand for a significantly slower societal regression than the 're-pubbies they're most definitely not a solution.
I'm not asking that question rhetorically. What do you want be done to fix this? I'll club a baby seal if it'll make you guys stop being apologists for apologists. Let's get this show on the road because we're running short on time.


Well, the short answer is that unless you're going to start stockpiling weapons for a revolution, you need to ultimately come up with a way to get what you want from political system through the mechanisms laid out in the Constitution. Namely, voting, and calling your congressman/senator/mayor/governor/President, etc.

As Michael Moore said, the 1% may have 40% of the wealth, but only 1% of the vote. Money doesn't actually buy elections, at least not yet.

Let's pretend for a minute that the Tea Party was some authentic grassroots movement. Look at how they went after their political objectives:

1. They were solely interested in getting conservatives elected
   
2. They were willing to put up primary challenges to Republicans who'd been disloyal to The Cause (and were very successful in winning those primaries!)
   
3. They were committed to showing up and voting for the most conservative person on the ballot in the general (aka, they supported the Republican, even if the Tea Bag favorite lost).
   

The net result was that they got a shitload of Republicans into Congress, as well as further increasing the ideological purity of the Republican party. Distilled insanity, and lots of it!

On the other hand, the left seems to be deciding that their big hat trick is to eschew voting, badmouth Democrats (as if none are good, and as if the party has never done anything good), and camp out in public parks all winter.

Again, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with the general idea of protesting wealth inequality, but at a certain point you've got to have some answer to "what do you want done, and who do you want to do it?"

I'm good if the answer is "End the War, Tax the Rich", but then the next point is Obama's in favor of those things, all his Republican challengers aren't, and the only people in Congress who want to do both are Democrats, and there's a national election next year...

>> ^marinara:

You miss the entire point.
Why would you concentrate on my characterization of the church, and ignore the fact that the elites in charge of this proposed bank would have unlimited money.
And the church is no stranger to power.
Yes, I love Ron Paul, Yes the Church is chasing power, Yes the Church will not care to use the proposed world bank to eliminate poverty.
Tell me how the Church is working to eliminate poverty now?
Tell me when the Church has given away power?
Tell me why I shouldn't love Ron?


Not really missing the point, just focusing on the part of your comment I find interesting.

Basically my read on all right-wing thought is that it's almost entirely motivated by fear. The modern, highly distilled version we have here in the American right is a particularly insane bunch who believe that every institution with any kind of power is evil. Not just too wrapped up in its own self-serving goals to meet the needs of ordinary people, but actually out to maliciously do harm to everyone else because they're all apparently inhuman monsters bent on our destruction.

That's what Ron Paul is a spokesman for.

The Catholic church is a lot of things, and it's made up of a lot of people. It's had a particularly awful history, but I do believe that in large part the modern Catholic Church believes what it preaches when it comes to social justice. I don't really see how or why they'd bother teaching social justice if their true goal was to abolish social justice. Take a look at right-wing churches in America for an example of how they could be twisting the teachings of Christ into some grand justification for Ayn Rand-style market fundamentalism, as well as hate and intolerance.

I also find the whole "fear the Fed" thing to be tiresome and quite misguided. If you think it's physically impossible for Central Banks to ever do any good, you simply need to go out and educate yourself on modern monetary theory. Read Milton Friedman if you think Keynes was some demon summoned straight from the bowels of hell. If you just think the institution is just being run by corrupt people, then presumably you're in the "fire Bernanke, and put a liberal conservative in his place" club. Or maybe you're like me and just want to modify the Fed's charter so there's more democratic accountability, and a clearer mandate.

Or we should just put the Pope in charge.

Mostly though I just find the very idea of a conspiracy amusing. The Pope isn't saying "the Catholic Church should be the Global Central Bank", he's saying "there should be a Global Central Bank whose mandate is to cure poverty". I like that idea! But, I think a) it's obviously politically impossible, and b) a global monetary union would be harder to pull off than the euro monetary union, and the euro is headed for collapse as it is...

But like I said originally, this seems tailor-made to get Ron Paul-style conspiracy theorists all in a tizzy, and apparently I was right!

The difference is probably in how things are regulated, we'll give you money to regulate yourselves, or we're paying an outside agency to do it etc etc. But its easier for the spinsters to say ZOMG OBAMA'S REGULATIN, rather than explain he's passing regulation laws they don't approve of vs. ones they like, or do little to actually regulate.

It would be interesting to see what the actual differences are. 613 vs 643 is a lot of comparing, but I imagine they can be distilled into relatively few general purpose categories.

(*#$&

I am getting a little annoyed at the science behind aquariums.

I know water quality via Ph and Parts per million in dissolved solids.

I put that aquarium salt in the water less than the instructions tell me, and my water shoots up to 850 ppm, which I know is "hard water" . so using this product I can only assume I have made my water hard.

I'll be joining another web based forum for aquariums, as this is blowing my fucking mind out.

It says to use it, but then it does that to my water.... I obviously do not understand tank dynamics fully.

Like hell I am going to be buying distilled water every couple days.

Edit- The PH down I use which is my old Phosphoric Acid, brings the PH down but also adds phosphates, phosphates are bad, Mmmm'Kay ?

My problems came from that I bet. the water hardness I am still figuring out. Very good to know though, I might have to invest in some Hydrochloric/ acid.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^csnel3:
I'm gonna wait for some more info, cause I smell a rat. This guy was too good and the reporter was too polite. There is no way this was a random "man on the street " interview. I'm getting conflicting impulses. There is more to this story. And....I want a hat like that!!

Or maybe this man actually knows what he is talking about and/or regularly discusses this with his companions.
I've met lots of people that are able to talk very succinctly about subjects they are passionate about. I would think that is mainly who is at the rally right now (and especially at the beginning.) As always, passion does not necessitate intelligence, but it does happen. I'm sure there are lots of interviews with people that are exceedingly less organized with their thoughts.


Also he's probably watched YEARS of man on the street interviews and we as americans have become much more media savvy and have developed the ability to distill our messages. If you went to college there is a good chance you had to argue a point up in front of hundreds of people. If he was in the debate club he could easily do this without blinking about a subject he read about the night before.

Not only is it illegal to distill (beer making is OK though) but in order to get a license to make liquor, you need to provide an example of your product. It's total bullshit. And the only purpose is to make sure that everyone involved gets their pockets lined.

NPH is the power of meme's distilled into human form.

>> ^ponceleon:

The problem is that people don't understand the mentality of the lunatic fringe. Evidence is not evidence for them, it is just "proof" of a coverup.
Basically, if they don't get the answer they want, they just continue to complain that it is all a conspiracy.


I think Obama knows this isn't going to satisfy fringe "birthers". They have long since immunized themselves against evidence; it's always been a faith-based position.

What it is going to do is make any Republican presidential candidate who persists in questioning his birthplace seem completely out of touch with reality, or like they're pandering to idiots. Mostly that was already the case, but Sarah Palin's lighter conspiracy theory that there was maybe "something embarrassing" on his original birth certificate almost seemed reasonable just by contrast with the distilled insanity of other theories. It IS a relief to know the president wasn't born with a barbed tail. I'm sure the doctor would have noted that in the comments section.

--> @kceaton1
--> @peggedbea

The only reason I upvote these is that I think it's good for discourse. It's more useful for the lurkers on this site than really the involved members. I knew I would be bringing up a very neutral standpoint as I am on the fence; especially, recently as more biological evidence has direct implications on who you may be later in life. That is VERY important to remember for everyone reading. You have to remember that your brain collects and stores information and then processes it through "filters" before it is distilled into what you would say. Biologically you may be far more likely to be an atheist than a believer (the study makes no distinction religion wise; so they are talking about Islam, Christianity, Norse, Greek, Roman, Buddhist, Hinduism, etc...).

We need a table that we can (we, as in, the religious versus non-theist) talk at. More importantly logical minds and compassion MUST prevail for society to remain intact. If Richard Dawkins (maybe I'm thinking of Hitchens) really can't talk with creationists then he is as much a problem as the creationists themselves (of course one of these parties ARE correct, but the lack of civility is extremely annoying--from both sides).

If you want others to learn sometimes you need to act just like Mormon, Catholic, Evangelical, missionaries. You must expect the vitriol and swearing that usually comes out as highly defensive "maneuvering" or hate; the same that the missionaries get day in and day out. Sorry, "my brethren", but answering the door to purposefully create an unnecessary rude or hateful situation comes off as hate/bigotry speech or dismissive attitudes which is just as bad. This is morally corrupt behavior in my eyes. I suggest answering the door and being able to identify to them issues you have strongly opposed views of and why compared to what they do and about what they say. You have to hope, in this day of the Internet, that people will take ONE aspect of what you said and learn more about it.

I had Mormon seminary teachers that taught creationism, but creationism is extremely limited in acceptance within the Mormon church. For crying out loud BYU (Mormon based university for those that don't know; just south of Salt Lake City) accepts evolution WITHOUT ANY hesitation. They are very active in the sciences as well which is why they do believe; furthermore they are huge researchers when it comes to genealogy which eventually loops into evolution. In many situations the Bible is a work of allegory and followers that take it literal are the uneducated Mormons; even unto their own religion.

So when I have these seminary teachers it truly makes me wonder how they got to their position as they seem to follow their own set of tenets which ends up creating Mormons like Glenn Beck who literally don't stand for church beliefs as I knew them (and again why hasn't he been excommunicated--this actually bothers me a lot as he only hurts the churches standing; which is poor to begin with and is nothing like the Mormons I know). Science was always taught to be incredibly important; if not the most important as it was a way to "uncover even more of Gods truths"; plus it is the applicable "science". That is that it gives us our modern day of living and quality of life (like airplanes, microwaves, TV, energy, etc...). I may not believe in any religion now. But, I appreciate that sentiment; as I think it's a very healthy objectivity to have if in a religion: adaptability.

/ I have to agree somewhat with @gwiz665 as religion (like all things) from an atheists vantage point looks a lot like fear manipulation. I love the Golden Rule as it truly does incorporate perhaps the easiest summary of what it is to be good. But, I know religious people use this to their own ends, including what we see in Libya or on Fox News. To them, people and their beliefs are a joke and they abuse it. It often makes me wonder if these CEOs are truly religious (the ones that say they are) or just using it as a gateway--who knows. Which goes back to my first point. It's entirely possible that we as a species have a tendency to vote "sociopathic" or likewise people into office as they themselves, much like drug seeking personalities (like bi-polar) seek out these positions. The abuse of these positions are partially hard wired into their makeup. All this means is that we must be more diligent. We've come too far as atheists and the religious to let this civilization slip away out of our hands.

//If this is tl;dr, to you, go watch a monkey flinging poop on youtube.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

But how are we supposed to help the private prison industry if we can't pack dope offenders like sardines into their overcrowded convict warehouses? And how are we supposed to help our pharmaceutical industries when they can't patent a weed? And how are we supposed to help our beer, wine, and distilled spirits industries when there's a new legal competitor on the market?
Pro-marijuana = anti-business, and
Anti-business = anti-American, ∴
Pro-marijuana = anti-American
Why do dopers hate America?


The weed industry will eventually have enough money to buy more "representation" in congress, just don't expect them to push hard for people's right to grow at home (bad for business).

You're most welcome, and I'm glad you enjoyed our little routine. Blankfist and I are going to be the next Abbott & Costello. The next Martin & Lewis. The next Siegrfried & Roy.
Wait, not the last one.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
Thanks for the Quality! And the conversation that followed it. LOL

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
But how are we supposed to help the private prison industry if we can't pack dope offenders like sardines into their overcrowded convict warehouses? And how are we supposed to help our pharmaceutical industries when they can't patent a weed? And how are we supposed to help our beer, wine, and distilled spirits industries when there's a new legal competitor on the market?

Pro-marijuana = anti-business, and
Anti-business = anti-American, ∴
Pro-marijuana = anti-American

Why do dopers hate America?

Thanks for the Quality! And the conversation that followed it. LOL

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
But how are we supposed to help the private prison industry if we can't pack dope offenders like sardines into their overcrowded convict warehouses? And how are we supposed to help our pharmaceutical industries when they can't patent a weed? And how are we supposed to help our beer, wine, and distilled spirits industries when there's a new legal competitor on the market?

Pro-marijuana = anti-business, and
Anti-business = anti-American, ∴
Pro-marijuana = anti-American

Why do dopers hate America?

But how are we supposed to help the private prison industry if we can't pack dope offenders like sardines into their overcrowded convict warehouses? And how are we supposed to help our pharmaceutical industries when they can't patent a weed? And how are we supposed to help our beer, wine, and distilled spirits industries when there's a new legal competitor on the market?

Pro-marijuana = anti-business, and
Anti-business = anti-American, ∴
Pro-marijuana = anti-American

Why do dopers hate America?