You know it's getting bad for hardcore right wingers when they're coming up with ridiculous, incomprehensible names like "TrogLibDytes". Are those liberal followers of the almighty Trogdor, who looks to spread burnination among all peasants and their thatch-roof cottages?

Or is that a typo for "ProgLibDytes", which is similar, but with less majesty?

I can't tell anymore. You should just keep the name calling to terms like "Communist" and "Socialist". It's easier for people without a brain to follow you.

As for obsessing over one economic statistic, which economic statistics should we be focusing on? Unemployment rate? Which one is going to paint the economy the way you want it to be, not for how it is. You can't just pretend severe economic inequality doesn't exist just because the policies you favor led to it.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Sigh.
ProgLibDytes really need to get over thier obsession with the GINI index, which was created by a fascist as a trick to gin up the sheeple masses. The whole "Income Gap" is just a new label to a decades old fascist propoganda tool. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together sees such naked hate-mongering exactly for what it is. Obsessing over a single economic statistic is like using one pixel in a 24,000,000 pixel image to describe a whole thing.
People like Cunk and all the TrogLibDyte acolytes that slurp down all his verbal diarrhea love to talk about nothing but the income gap because it is one of the rare few economic stats (out of thousands) that strikes a chord with the masses who are ignorant of real economics. Same motive as the reason the fascists created the GINI index. Get people mad at a small target and they are easy to manipulate. Hows it feel, ProgLibDytes, knowing that you are so easily suckered in by the same tricks used by the Nazis? Obama's mentor - Saul Alinsky - would be proud as he literally wrote the book on methods for flim-flamming the slow and the stupid. Change one word in his rant, and you can't tell the difference betwen Cunk and Gobbels.

Sigh.

ProgLibDytes really need to get over thier obsession with the GINI index, which was created by a fascist as a trick to gin up the sheeple masses. The whole "Income Gap" is just a new label to a decades old fascist propoganda tool. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together sees such naked hate-mongering exactly for what it is. Obsessing over a single economic statistic is like using one pixel in a 24,000,000 pixel image to describe a whole thing.

People like Cunk and all the TrogLibDyte acolytes that slurp down all his verbal diarrhea love to talk about nothing but the income gap because it is one of the rare few economic stats (out of thousands) that strikes a chord with the masses who are ignorant of real economics. Same motive as the reason the fascists created the GINI index. Get people mad at a small target and they are easy to manipulate. Hows it feel, ProgLibDytes, knowing that you are so easily suckered in by the same tricks used by the Nazis? Obama's mentor - Saul Alinsky - would be proud as he literally wrote the book on methods for flim-flamming the slow and the stupid. Change one word in his rant, and you can't tell the difference betwen Cunk and Gobbels.

Seems the entire hobbit company save one are for comedy relief. Hope I'm wrong. Can't remember one goofball in the book

Well - to be perfectly fair - very few of the 13 dwarves had any kind of role at all in the book. The only major exception was Thorin - who was given a very stubborn/arrogant/long-winded role integral to the end of the story.

Aside from that the dwarves only had VERY minor roles that hardly ever showed up.
Balin was sort of a friend/mentor role as he was the one who was most friendly to Bilbo. He also was sort of a 'background' teller as he was the oldest and had been around a lot. Also he was lookout. Bombur was a comic-relief useless fat load whose incompetence & weight caused problems. Fili and Kili were the 'young' dwarves but didn't do hardly anything. Dori a couple of times ended up carrying Bilbo around on his back or by his legs and whined about it. Ori, Nori, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur or Dwalin hardly did a thing at all. By and large, the entire company of dwarves were nothing but a bunch of hostages that had to be rescued. They were captured by trolls, captured by goblins, captured by wolves, captured by spiders, captured by elves, and then cringed behind rocks as Bilbo faced Smaug.

I knew this was going to have to happen though. You can't have a group of 13 dwarves on the big-screen for 2+ hours and have only two or three of them with a personality. I knew that PJ was going to give each of the dwarves a 'character' to play which would go WAY beyond what was provided in the book. So I'm not surprised by this at all. Neither should anyone else. It was inevitable that the dwarves (except Thorin) would probably end up having comic roles just so they weren't entirely without purpose. It will be odd, and seem out of step with the book but there really isn't anything else that can be done. The dwarves have to have SOMETHING to do, or they might as well just have Bilbo and Thorin haul around 12 logs.

>> ^criticalthud:

look, let's say i suspect my neighbor down the street is a terrorist, and i'm real real sure he is, cause he sure looks like one...and i'm fairly certain he is plotting against me. And under the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, continued and enhanced under Obama, I should be justified in planting a 45 caliber bullet in his forehead. right?
or maybe that is ridiculous.
and maybe it's ridiculous that we think it's just peachy to hopscotch around the world, blowing up people who disagree with our policies.


You may need your eyes checked. Here are the two 'suspects' you are comparing:

1.Neighbor that looks suspicious, they maybe even wear a turban.
2.Man who's written multiple books and essays on how and why to wage Jihad against America on it's own streets. A man who we have phone records for his mentoring of a person that shot and killed multiple Americans on American soil.

Do those two look the same or remotely comparable to you? There's no question the precedent is troublesome, but you don't think your example is a touch.... extreme?

>> ^chilaxe:

Did the researchers consider the counter-argument to their speculation before publishing it? Did they bother to ask rich people for their perspective?
Poor factory workers don't interact with a lot of people in their job, but many well-off careerists' jobs are almost entirely managing relationships... managing team members, managing advisers and mentors, selling clients, making a good impression at industry events, etc.
I'd say more likely than that the well-off are 'not dependent on relationships with others' would be that they have trained their minds to focus on solving problems, closing deals, and ignoring extraneous stimuli.


How many of the poor actually work in factories? Low-end jobs tend to be service jobs- retail, restaurant, beauty industry, sales etc. These are all jobs where you need to learn to read/please strangers, or you're going to have a crappy day.


While I think that most managers would fall more into the middle class category than super rich, delegating to the same group of people all of the time, and selling to other well off/management types doesn't offer the same skill set. You're just simply not going to encounter the same variety of people, and have to try to make them all happy.

Did the researchers consider the counter-argument to their speculation before publishing it? Did they bother to ask rich people for their perspective?

Poor factory workers don't interact with a lot of people in their job, but many well-off careerists' jobs are almost entirely managing relationships... managing team members, managing advisers and mentors, selling clients, making a good impression at industry events, etc.

I'd say more likely than that the well-off are 'not dependent on relationships with others' would be that they have trained their minds to focus on solving problems, closing deals, and ignoring extraneous stimuli.

"Hey, Macro, mentor and supporter, you know how you and I were such good friends you let me bugger your wife in front of you? Well, I charge you with letting her sleep with me, so now you must die!"

I'm voting this up pretty much purely because I want to see the discussion on this, not so much because I agree with him.

There are truths in what he says, that those who partook in the riots are self involved, self pitying shits who have no justification for doing what they did.

But... this whole 'how/where you were brought up is no excuse for the way you are' line of thinking is rubbish.

It's much easier to have a sense of worth and see that work = reward equation when you've been brought up in a supportive environment where all your basic needs are taken care of without thought and time is then spent on your self esteem and treating other with respect etc.

If you were brought up in a low income environment with parents who don't have any self esteem themselves and pass on that feeling to their children. If time after time you try to do the right thing or work hard and yet are shot down by negative others in your environment or just otherwise shown that cleaning up or doing work doesn't change your situation much... then yeah, you can start getting a world view that doesn't include making an effort because you've never seen it work, you've never been told that if you try you could actually accomplish something.

Sure you can wheel out examples of hugely successful people who dragged themselves out of such situations, but they are BY FAR in the minority, and come from either pretty exceptional character traits in themselves, or you may find that they had one or two mentors who made a huge difference in how they lead their lives.

So Pat's rant about it all being their fault is not entirely true. It's a case of society as a whole not having in place ways of breaking the shitty cycle of poor, self abusing, self loathing parents = the same type of kids.

If programs of one sort or another can be introduced that can show those kids that hard work can make a difference, that they are worthy, and give them opportunities to use any skills they may have productively, then you CAN stop this sort of mentality. You CAN instil a feeling of pride in your neighbourhood, you CAN reduce this ME ME ME thinking.

Pat's thinking doesn't help anything. To help things he could be starting up some centres to start these things moving in the right direction, he could be volunteering for groups that I'm sure already exist who are trying to do these things, but I'm sure are woefully understaffed.

But no, he'd rather just call them all scum and pretend it's entirely their fault and that his upbringing and education have nothing to do with him living comfortably.

Being the biggest backers doesn't mean it's being done for religious purposes.

I'm not debating some see it that way. You also have a bunch of people who didn't, too.

Where in that link did Tony Blair was quoted saying this was part of a Christian struggle?! It's loosely about believing it's a good versus evil thing. It's not about killing Muslims because Muslims are evil, or demoralizing Muslim culture to make room for Christian culture.. If you believe it was about killing Muslims, or advancing the interests of Christianity at the expense of Islam, you need your head examined. At no point was Blair ever on a Christian Crusade.

A VERY small group of evangelical Christian soldiers doesn't make the case.

Now, about Obama and Christianity. You do realize Obama at this point pretty much goes to church because it's a political liability if he doesn't. He quite possibly is the least religious president to ever be in office.

He is not intentionally trying to kill Civilians. #1. The statistics you sited are skewed concerning civilian casualties, although I'm not dismissing civilian casualties. Significant civilian casualties have been a mainstay in military action since WWII on all sides, after a brief reprieve in WWI and other wars leading up to it. You do the best you can to limit them while achieving your objectives. The reality is you won't achieve anything if you try to avoid any civilian casualties.

With that said, the article is discussing Predator drone casualties only, which is a small fraction of total casualties. And even then, you have a dispute on statistics, and I agree the US military is not going to give an unbiased number either. However, it's very difficult to tell what the accurate number is at this point.

See the above about civilian casualties as collateral damage. It would be difficult to achieve anything if the primary focus was to avoid them instead of achieving objectives.

Does all this add up to terrorism? No, for several reasons:

1. It isn't intentional, not any part of the objective in conducting them. Terrorist acts are specific explicit targeting of civilians. Often, the more civilians you kill, the better when you're a terrorist.
2. You sited bombings in Tripoli. Part of the objectives in that raid is to topple the oppressive regime in Libya, is it not? And yes, I completely accept that we're not just there for that. Libya has oil resources, etc. we're interested in, but it doesn't change the fact that part of the reason we're there is to free the Libyan people from an oppressive regime. It's pretty silly to site an operation that inadvertently killed civilians to achieve a better life for the Libyan people at large.

Extreme progressives are critical of Obama for many of the things you're siting. Obama isn't an extreme progressive, socialist, communist, etc. as much as QM and WP would love for you to believe. He's a moderate politician who leans to the left. If that's the indictment, I don't think anyone would disagree he's not the most liberal progressive politician since FDR. He's not. To say however he isn't progressive at all is not true either. Honestly, as much oil as there is in Libya, it's not worth military action. There's a bit of idealist progressivism to conduct air strikes against Libya.

And again, I fail to see how that's relevant to the debate of the religion of this guy. He is a Christian, there's no doubt about it. Granted, he's got a warped Christian ideology, but it is Christian. You can't say someone isn't Christian just because you don't agree with their interpretation.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?


And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:
-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)
-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)
-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)
-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)
These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.

As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)
Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)
Is this not terrorism?
Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?
There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)
Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)
Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?

>> ^heropsycho:

The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?




And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:

-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)

-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)

-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)

-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)

These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.




As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)

Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)

Is this not terrorism?

Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?

There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)

Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)

Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?

Abortion is an erring problem of every state. Every state, they hold up different abortion bill that is being manifested by their leaders and people as well and one of the hottest state is Ohio which I read here Ohio bans late term abortions. For me, a life of a baby is a precious gift that God gave since He is the mentor of life. It is quite disappointed on my part to hear about abortion method. Abortion for me is an intentional destruction of an innocent human life. It tears my heart to see those little ones die under the method of abortion. I really don't understand the true concept of abortion and maybe I really hate to understand too.

Abortion is an erring problem of every state. Every state, they hold up different abortion bill that is being manifested by their leaders and people as well and one of the hottest state is Ohio which I read here Ohio bans late term abortions. For me, a life of a baby is a precious gift that God gave since He is the mentor of life. It is quite disappointed on my part to hear about abortion method. Abortion for me is an intentional destruction of an innocent human life. It tears my heart to see those little ones die under the method of abortion. I really don't understand the true concept of abortion and maybe I really hate to understand too.

Right, why should we care whether or not society is functional and minimally intelligent?

People like you and the decay you cause (thank you for turning California from one of the best places in the world into the worst US state according to some metrics) are the reason it's rational for the smart fraction to be capitalists and let society sort out it's own endless self-caused problems.

You have more to lose from such an arrangement than the smart fraction does, and there are workarounds for them to minimize their personal costs from your dysfunctional society.
>> ^messenger:

Where to start?
Well, speaking English isn't setting a good example. Also, he's nobody's father nor mentor, nor leader. He's a representative. You're the one who has decided it's bad for him to speak Spanish. I disagree.
Next, you seem to think this guy is into human trafficking or something, "importing" labour from other countries at random. He's not. He's just a guy who has decided (possibly on a volunteer basis) to help out the people in his own immigrant community who need support from government. He doesn't choose which country to "import" people from. He just represents whoever's there.>>

Where to start?

Well, speaking English isn't setting a good example. Also, he's nobody's father nor mentor, nor leader. He's a representative. You're the one who has decided it's bad for him to speak Spanish. I disagree.

Next, you seem to think this guy is into human trafficking or something, "importing" labour from other countries at random. He's not. He's just a guy who has decided (possibly on a volunteer basis) to help out the people in his own immigrant community who need support from government. He doesn't choose which country to "import" people from. He just represents whoever's there.>> ^chilaxe:

set a good example

...

importing workers from other societies

[edited]