>> ^Diogenes:
hmmm, well the vid does present quite a few inaccuracies... but one thing i do agree with is that it's clearly apparent that the bulk of iranians, most heavily represented by supporters of their current islamic republic, begin their 'timeline of problems' at 1953, and by this i mean their blame of the united states
unfortunately, for both them and us, it shouldn't begin there... there's quite a bit of prior history that truly puts both the events of 1953 and the current situation in much better context - most notably the flawed notions: that the us 'put the shah in power' ... that 'mossadegh was popularly elected' ... and that 'the soviets weren't involved through iran's communist tudeh party or tpi'
leaving for work in a few, so don't really have the time to go into it atm... but if anyone's interested, i can go into far greater detail and give excellent sources, which might increase our understanding of this very muddled account of history


You sound distressed.

Allow me to "liberate" you.

hmmm, well the vid does present quite a few inaccuracies... but one thing i do agree with is that it's clearly apparent that the bulk of iranians, most heavily represented by supporters of their current islamic republic, begin their 'timeline of problems' at 1953, and by this i mean their blame of the united states

unfortunately, for both them and us, it shouldn't begin there... there's quite a bit of prior history that truly puts both the events of 1953 and the current situation in much better context - most notably the flawed notions: that the us 'put the shah in power' ... that 'mossadegh was popularly elected' ... and that 'the soviets weren't involved through iran's communist tudeh party or tpi'

leaving for work in a few, so don't really have the time to go into it atm... but if anyone's interested, i can go into far greater detail and give excellent sources, which might increase our understanding of this very muddled account of history

In that model, awareness only "receives" or "detects" the damaged, impaired, or less-developed view of the world that a damaged, impaired or less-developed brain produces. But are you any less "aware" when you're drunk or dreaming? Less inhibited, less in control, and the perception is muddled, but you're still experiencing it as a unified whole.
A more compelling argument against the model, in my opinion, are those times when awareness is lost completely.
When you lay your head on your pillow and then wake up what seems like only an instant later without having dreamed at all, or when you wake up the morning after passing out from intoxication.
That said, they're still explicable within the confines of the model. During those times, you may have awareness, but no memories are formed (in the brain), so once your brain begins forming memories again, it seems as if that time has been lost.>> ^thinker247:
If your philosophy is based upon awareness as a non-physical entity, then how do you explain the fact that babies are not as aware of their surroundings as adults are? Or that Alzheimer's patients are not as aware as people of the same age? When I'm asleep, I am not aware as I am while awake. When I am high, I am not aware as when sober. If "awareness is distinct from personality and memory," can one be aware without a constant level of understanding?

^Atheism is essentially an ideology. There's a difference between a non-believer and an atheist, although the definitions often get muddled together.

All the different words are hard to define sharply, because so many people attribute different meanings to them: non-believer, atheist, agnostic, anti-theist, humanist, secularist, naturalist, free thinker, rationalist - they are all a different facet of the same gem, so to speak.

I'm vehemently opposed to organized religion, the concept of faith, the specific god of the bible and qua'ran (sp?), evangelical believers, irrationalists, people who do not accept evidence that are contrary to their beliefs, people who believe without any shred of evidence, people who are not grown up enough to see the world as it is, mysterianists, people with undeserved power, injustice, willful ignorance, willful confusion of the masses, deception, wickedness (as defined by my own sense of morality), exclusive knowledge, secret societies, secrets, censorship, bondage and slavery.

Whatever pithy label fits that, I'd use. For now Libertarian Atheist covers it fine, I think.

Winstonfield

Are you arguing with this boy's opinions, or as you assumed, the opinions of others that propose equal rights for all citizens, including those not belonging to a Religious belief or doctrine? Or arguing that the fact he has these opinions or any opinion for that matter, is somehow misguided because he is ten?

Being apprehensive about dinner table values is one thing, especially when they are backed up with generalities. However, Gay rights are modern day civil rights. To deny them isn't a responsible, respectful protection of those "morally opposed to homosexuality," but instead a willful denial to respect the rights of others protected by the Constitution. Religion does not have a stranglehold on the meaning of Marriage, and the government should recognize a meaning that applies to all citizens, not just those part of an exclusive ideology. Your attacks on the validity of using the PoA as a place to express discontent are albeit right because, as you already said, the arguments for liberty and justice can be used just as easily by any opposition. But fuck semantics, those critiques don't change the validity of the boys opposition.

The hardest part of reading your posts isn't that you say things that are wrong, but snide. To have a lot of adult friends, "let alone gay ones," isn't nearly as disconcerting a thought as your clear assumption that having "gay ones" is somehow dangerous. You have an opinion just like this kid, and it seeps through. Except this kid expresses himself genuinely and makes his arguments unashamed, while you use formulated 'unbiased' criticisms to muddle the issue and confuse it with an argument about whether the chosen platform is philosophically sound.

Criticizing this kid for his refusal to stand and say the PoA as a show of his support for gay rights is comparable to criticizing Rosa Parks for boycotting public transportation, or civil rights leaders organizing sit in's in public courtrooms and offices because of the unequal rights African American's were subjected to. Don't confuse your opinions with unbiased criticisms about the nature of how someone expresses themselves.

Edit: Apologies, I just noticed you changed yours to private, so I will do the same now.
Edit 2: No fuck it, it's public. Say thanks to this moron: http://rasch187.videosift.com/#comment-897638

Hi again Rae,

First off, I'm sorry about the mile long wall of text. I do hope you will read all of it none-the-less.

I'm glad you came out yourself to address this, because it's better we get this over with properly, so we can move on with our lives.

I'll stress as well, that UP and Rasch got in to their fight on their own, I had no involvement until UP sent me a message about it.

I was under a completely different impression about being invited to bea's place and honestly I still am. I didn't try to force myself over there, but when she invited me, however casually, we discussed quite a bit on messenger afterwards. I wouldn't have gone over there if I had been given the slightest impression that she was not comfortable with it. I'm very sorry that she did feel pressured into it, but I never intended to do that. I just saw a trip to Texas as a golden opportunity to get OUT, get away from Denmark for a while. As we discussed in our chats, I had been feeling restless and bogged down in everyday life for a pretty long and her invitation was like a blessing to me (for lack of a better word). I may have been eager about it, but I don't know what to say - I just wanted to get out. I didn't buy the tickets overnight - we did discuss it, and we chatted quite a lot before I did come over there, and she never gave any indication that she didn't want me to come over.

In the very first chat we had on messenger, I very clearly remember it, you said.. "I could seriously fall for you" and followed it up by "but I'm actually already taken (...)" and we got into a discussion about jake and all that. I accepted it already then. We both carried on afterwards with talking dirty and watching all that weird porn (you were quite as much to blame for that!) and I had loads of fun, because you were much different from anyone I knew. You made me smile when we talked.

I'm sorry I didn't let the coming to meet you lie, but I was not being so frantically serious about it. I really wanted to meet you, yes, and to be honest I still would, in a crowded room, with many sifters. At a siftup, perhaps. (Incidentally, I have nothing against Jake. I think he's a good guy and you two ARE lucky to have found each other.)

I never meant to imply that he and you were not serious. You made it abundantly clear that you were very serious, I was just being a smart-ass, because if I had been in his shoes that's what I would have wanted to do. I never meant to imply anything about you and Jake with that, so I'm sorry you saw it as such. I really am.

About skype and messenger for that matter, I only asked for your skype address once and it was partly meant as a joke; and with your reply "no way, that's just for me and jake" I let that lie. The other part of that was that I wanted to just talk with you, to hear your voice, and it had been a long time since we chatted, so I wrote that message - as you said, so shoot me...

I know you hate hurting people and I appreciate that, but in the end this has hurt a lot more. If you had told me something to the effect "I think this coming over to meet me is making me uncomfortable, because you're too persistent - I like you as a friend, but I don't want to meet with you, at least not on my own or right now" I would have apologized right there and I would have learned to ease up with you. Instead I kept teasing you with it, and as I've said before, to jake and you, I believe, my common sense was just out of wack because of all the shit we talked about. I never saw it coming that you just did not want to talk to me, and when you wrote your "tired of the bullshit" I had no idea what you were getting on about, so it hurt.. to be honest, it really hurt. I was messed up all day from that and that's why I was so after getting a bigger reply after that. I felt as if I had been hit by a bus, because I truly considered you a friend.

About the trip to Texas. I did not get the impression that it was a disaster at all. She was a bit pissed with me for the boob grabbing, but it was only two days after she booted me because she had to tend to her father's funeral. In that two day span, everything was just dandy, I mean, she never gave any indication that it was so disastrous. Yes, the boobgrabbing was way over the line, we've been over that a million times and I've apologized as much as I can about it. The environment that they created was a factor in me doing it, it was not just "because I was drunk" - I wasn't THAT drunk, and I don't get grabby in general. When I am in good company, with people I consider friends, I can be quite dirty talking, sure, but I'm not a sexually offensive guy physically at all, I just followed their lead when they freaking made out on the porch I though, "well three can play that game" and did it. I know that was wrong, but that's the reason I did it. I didn't want to freak them out as bad as they clearly did, and they didn't do anything at the time, they just basically shrugged it off.

As we have discussed earlier, I portray myself here as pretty much myself - not completely, I take it to much larger extremes here, but mostly I'm just being myself.

Also I know that we have discussed your inability to find a woman. You yourself put it down to the fact that you had to get drunk to converse with them, and once that had happened you tended to become lewd and inappropriate, the drink was doing the talking

I think you are getting at this from a wrong angle. They are two different issues. One is that I don't have the nerve to approach strange girls, or really strangers altogether, but I loosen up when I get a beer in me. Most guys can relate to that, girls too, I would think. Second, I'm not lewd and inappropriate around people I don't know, even when I'm drunk, I only get like that around people that I like - as in if we're a bunch from my year on the university out getting smashed or something. The reason I got like that at bea's place the one night, was because I was having a good time and the three of them were good company. Yeah, I did swear to the three adults, but I never did so to any of her kids - I don't want to freak out kids, I don't really even like kids, but I think I behaved pretty well around her children in general, except for when we had that game of scrabble and I swore to iv or bea in casual conversation, when the little one had just snuck out from the bedroom. I was doing this partly to be intentionally teasing, because we had just had a discussion earlier about what one should and shouldn't say to kids. Bea had sworn as well earlier in casual conversation, so I did not take that as so terrible. Evidently, I was mistaken.

I never EVER said anything sexual to any of her kids. I'm appalled that she thinks that, because I don't do that.

The remark after the siftup was not aimed at you at all and I was perplexed that you saw it as such, because we didn't have any secrets at all. As we chatted on messenger about, I never intended it for you it was just a general remark to sifters.

Concerning rasch. I made it clear in private to you that I didn't like him. He was an obnoxious person and he should go suck a fuck. I still hold that opinion. If our roles had been reversed, I would have told YOU to take care of the situation, instead of interjecting myself as a fucking savior to get you poor women the rescue you so needed. That's because I'm a nice person, who don't put my own ego in front of everyone else's. The chat that he quoted between you and him seems to me to be pretty damn two-faced from you as well. You present yourself one way to me and another to him. That's not nice,, at all. I know exactly what he did and so does everyone else - it's plainly public. He acted like an aggressive brute trying to verbally punch me out in his comments. He attacked me way earlier than that as well, the comment you laughed about a while back, even though he did apologize for that afterwards. He deserves the tiny little corner of shame that he painted himself into.

The accusations made against me are many and plentiful (well, three in total counting boobgrabbing, gutter mouthing and your own), but I think it's a shame that yours and bea's have been muddled together, because they are really two separate issues.

I'm quite angry with bea still, because it's because of her that this has blown up and blown so out of proportion as it has. This was not my doing - any of you could have approached me privately and that could have been that - if you had explained what I had done wrong. All of you, except Cari, just ignored me and left me in the complete dark. Cari kept me on facebook and was in general like she always was, but said she didn't want to get involved when I asked what was up with bea, because she had removed me from facebook. I respected that and I still do - she acted the most like an adult. I think you are out of line to suggest why she apologized, but while you may or may not be right, she apologized none-the-less. And we are still friendly around each other, even though she is the one that was slighted the most. I'm not going to visit her in person, probably ever, but that doesn't mean that we can't be civil. I still think she's fun and a boon.

It's likely that she didn't actually forgive you at all and that she is too nice of a person to really come out and say what she thinks. I can relate.

You are being awfully passive-aggressive here and presumptuous. I would welcome her saying all she wanted to me in private if she wanted, but she already has - and we've patched things up as far as we could at this time. We're in a good place now both of us as far as I know.

Bea got blamed for everything justly in my opinion - I got my share of grizzly attacks too, which I feel terrible about, but I owned up to my fucking mistakes - she just shits on the floor and slams the door behind her. She has as much blame in this situation as I do and if she wants to flame out, as she did, then I have no interest in patching anything up with her. She was fun to talk to, if a big damn bit more crazy than you, for instance, but fun non-the-less. Not so much anymore. I acted pretty well over there and if she had issues with me, she could have just told me. We sat on her porch and talked while she smoked plenty of times and no indication at all. Her family and friends were never there except Cari and their friend Rick on that Tuesday with the boobgrabbing (and of course the kids, who I was very nice to).

Have I lied to you before? Honestly, ever? I've only ever been painfully truthful and if I wanted to just talk shit, wouldn't I have painted a much more rose-tinted version? I'm sorry you are taking her version, because it is far more skewed than mine is - and dammit, I ought to have deserved some trust with you.. we were friends!

I've reflected on this long and hard, I truly have, and I think I have learned from it as well. I've toned down my lewdness and I find myself holding my tongue more often than before. But not much else is to change, unless I want to be a completely different person, and all my friends seem to like me as I am just fine, so I don't want to change into something I'm not.

I've also learned that there are people in this world, who will fuck you over. I am not one of those people and I don't think you are either. We all make mistakes and misjudgments and I think you are misjudging me. I still would like to be your "friend" in some capacity, but you make it pretty clear you don't want that. I'm sorry you don't. I will consider myself as on friendly terms with you and if you do come back to the sift some time, then I will treat you respectfully and I hope you will do the same thing with me.

I still feel terrible about how all this happened and about how our friendship fell apart. :-/

Nicki.

PS. Incidentally, I have found a woman, who I am very glad for and who for some bizarre reason likes me a whole lot too, so I HAVE grown a bit at least.

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
OK, first of all I want you to know, I happened upon this whole conversation between UP, rasch and yourself as I still visit now and again. Don't for one moment think that he's come crying to me.

If rasch was referring to anything creepy, then it wouldn't have been logs of conversations we've had, it would have been PM's. And also pointing out certain things you had written in threads, baiting me etc. Most of it was not private.

I wish I'd have come straight to you once everything had come out regarding bea, but honestly at that point I had already had enough of our relationship on here and had been avoiding talking to you for ages. Yes I'm a coward for not just straight up telling you things were bothering me. And yes, everything here could have been dealt with differently. The main reason for me not coming straight out and ever saying anything, was because I really felt that the way I carried on with you, that I had encouraged you. I am very open and broad minded. We have discussed numerous topics and I always came across like I was comfortable in anything we discussed. And for a long while I was.

Quite early on it became apparent that you had feelings for me. At this point I told you about myself and Jake, because I didn't want you to think that any relationship between us was possible. You will notice that Jake not once ever had a problem with the way we behaved around here or in fact on messenger. He just saw it all as a bit of fun and nothing to get possessive about. It was nothing to do with him, right? Because we were just friends, fooling around and being risque for a laugh.

The things that started bothering me were that you wouldn't let the coming here to see me lie. I'd give you a thousand excuses as to why it couldn't happen, at least not any time soon. But it was so regular, and the comments you made about how if you were Jake you'd have been here with me already (implying that he wasn't serious about me? that's kind of how it felt) and always with the questioning. Why did you have to wait til after he had been here, where do you live, what's your skype address (even though I told you that skype was only something I used for me and him). And telling me you'd found out how much it cost to get here etc etc. It built up and built up, and I didn't know how to tell you to back off without hurting your feelings entirely. I HATE hurting anyone, and like I said, I blamed myself for having not said anything before and letting it get to the point it was at, and potentially giving you mixed signals, by first telling you I was unavailable and then carrying on flirting with you (out in the open)and sharing graphic (although always sickly amusing) porn, and discussing other such personal subjects. I hadn't been careful, so instead of fronting it out with you, I ignored you. So shoot me...

When bea messaged me after you had left Texas, she did it not to gossip, but because your visit there had been a fucking disaster, she felt that you didn't understand any boundaries, you made her feel uncomfortable with the things you were coming out with and you had told her that you intended to come and see me. She felt like she had to warn me about how you had presented yourself there. The thing was, so many things rang true on what she was saying. That she hadn't outright invited you - just in the lounge she'd said off the cuff as she does, that yeah you should come to Texas one day, and the next thing she knew you'd booked tickets and she didn't have a clue how to say no. Well, you were relentless with me about coming here...

That you had made inappropriate sexual comments in front of her children. Well I remember one time you making one about my daughter too, something about when she came of age, blech. I took it as a joke, at the time although it didn't sit comfortably with me. Also I know that we have discussed your inability to find a woman. You yourself put it down to the fact that you had to get drunk to converse with them, and once that had happened you tended to become lewd and inappropriate, the drink was doing the talking. Now considering that you spent time there getting drunk and you definitely thought it was ok to grab IV's breast (btw, justifying that by saying that bea had just done it, what the fuck???) it didn't take much to come to the conclusion what with everything else that you were indeed not in your right mind. Whether you agree or not, that's how it all came about. It felt like the character you "played" on here, wasn't just a character after all. And that was fucking disturbing to me.

I sat on it forever. I wasn't going to bring any of it up because bea did not want the drama, and neither did IV. She also felt partly responsible for giving you the wrong idea about things because of the way she converses with everyone. And she didn't want it all to drag out like it has. But as I told you, after numerous PM's and references in video threads, then the limerick, and THEN what I truly felt to be another jab against me when you mentioned in the sift up thread that anyone who had secrets with you weren't secrets any more, I finally blew my lid. I just didn't want to be here any longer.

If you had have been on the outside of this looking in like rasch has been, I'm pretty sure that you would have, after all the evidence presented to you, felt that it needed to once and for all be addressed. I'm not saying he couldn't have gone about it in a better way, he definitely could. But then, so could we all have done, isn't that right? I'd like you to stop blaming him for everything now, it's somewhat projecting rather than really taking a look at how and why things have happened how they have. He has freely admitted that he should have been more discreet, and now he is just left defending his corner without really being able to say anything at all. Enough is enough.

I hope this explains what you have wanted to know. Whether you agree with the accusations made against you, they have been made. Not just by one person, but two and that's not including her family and friends who were around too I'm sure. IV apologised with you to keep the peace and not let it all get blown up publically like it has and to stop bea being blamed for everything like she was after she flamed out. It's likely that she didn't actually forgive you at all and that she is too nice of a person to really come out and say what she thinks. I can relate. I hope you reflect on all of this and you consider how things can end up, as have I on numerous occasions. And yes, it's your word against hers. Either of you could be talking shit. But I'm taking her version, as have people chosen to take yours.

Rae

From Dr. Theophrastus Seuss' timeless classic "Fox in Socks":

Now wait
a minute
Mr. Socks Fox!

When a fox is
in the bottle where
the tweetle beetles battle
with their paddles
in a puddle on a
noodle-eating poodle.
THIS is what they call...

...a tweetle beetle
noodle poodle bottle
paddled muddled duddled
fuddled wuddled
fox in socks, sir!

Fox in socks,
our game us done, sir.
Thank you for
a lot of fun, sir

It also hurts the poor because when people's skills fall below the market rate of minimum wage. So if you have someone who has skills that merit him a 3 dollar wage, you can't hire him at that rate, have to give him 5.25 or whatever it is now. Charity isn't bad, but most smaller business's can't afford to engage in charity for such a lowly position (that difference is about $4200 a year per person employed at that rate vs the min wage rate). The result is that he becomes perpetually unemployable until his skill set increases, which isn't likely given he can't find a job to gain more skills and experience in the market place.

My church has stated up something to counter this by helping the poor and disfranchised find proper employment instead of messing around with mandatory prices of labor. Remember, prices are the method that capitalism sends out messages to buyers and sellers at to what to buy and sell, how much to pay for commodities and capital goods. When you mess with the pay rate, you muddle the messages and start to grind away at the teeth of the price engine.

http://letsgettowork.wordpress.com/

Perhaps you can help others in your area with a similar idea.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^Mashiki:


I didn't read anywhere that this guy vandalized anything. Did he? Either way, I don't care if the guy broke the law or not, no one should be bumrushed by a group of militarized police and shoved into a car then driven away like that. If you don't see that as a gross overreaction and cause for concern, then I suppose shooting them in the street will be par for the course in your Patriot Act world in a couple more years.

Yeah he did. You can feel free to dig through the g20 news reports they're buried in the muddle. You much like most other "western" nations have this thing called "detention short of arrest" aka "questioning, without arrest based upon actus reus." To boil it down simply.

So no I don't see that as a gross overreaction, you know what a gross overreaction would have been? Beating the piss out of everyone in the area, for being in the area. How about this one, instead of getting one trouble maker in a crowd, we just grab all of them and lawfully detain them. Nah you like most people don't understand the law either, and have a poor fundamental grasp of it as well.


>> ^longde
"Neither would you"? That doesn't make any sense.
How do you know due process was followed? I'm all for people bearing the consequences of breaking the law, but how do you know due process was followed?
In the United States, we have a law that says that the president can declare anyone, even a US citizen, an "enemy combatant", and that person can be put in a hole indefinitely, without redress. How do we know this guy wasn't classified as a terrorist and put in a hole?

What don't you understand? Blankfist made a hyperbole of a statement. Missed that one as well, here's the point. If it was a police state, the protester would have disappeared forever, or been shot in the street. Blankfist would now no longer exist, for a dissenting point of view. You, would no longer exist, or would no longer exist in a very short period of time, for having a dissenting point of view. Then those in this thread would also slowly disappear and every part of their existence would be wiped out, as they're branded as traitors by the government for having a dissenting view.

Would you like me to tell you how I know due process was followed? Read above to my other post. Then you can follow through the other steps. I realize you might simply watch "cops" and think that's how it all goes down, hard and fast. But no, not really it doesn't. Evacuating a person from the scene is still legal as long as they're given their rights, in the time of a criminal act as long as they're told what charges are give against them.

Guess what? Canada can declare people enemies of the state(or similar) and we've been able to do that since the 1940's with the war measures act. Well whatever the hell they call it now(we really like renaming stuff), actually they have a much more extended regime of power under the anti-terrorism act. I believe it's been used twice, might have been 3 times. But there are other sections of the law under the Criminal Code that we used in the Cold war that were used much more often to protect our spies, you know the ones who were doing your dirty work. But what the hell, and please. Put in a hole? Nah. You don't put people into holes to make them go away. That's what despots do. Dictators kill people privately for their enemies, to instill fear and to keep them in line.

And in a police state, they go on display for the public in major city centers. That is providing that the 3:1 ratio of civilian spies simply don't help them go poof. You do know what the STASI did right?

I'd say I'm surprised at the amount of hyperbole in this thread, but I'm not.

Yeah, sorry thatavguy and Jaace... I've been there done that with nutters in the conspiracy brigade, it HAS been scientifically shown to be completely plausible and even likely that what happened did.

Everything you could possibly need to shoot down any of this dribble is to be found here A collection of resources and demonstrations that what those claiming that it was controlled demolition are talking out of their collective bums.

And I'm very sick of the 'wake up man, are you blind? The government is evil brigade, you believe anything they tell you'. No, damn you, I don't take everything spewed forth by the media on face value, I think about the sources, I look at the agendas at play, and I think for myself. These people have gone way over the edge and mistrust EVERYTHING except things brought up by those who have no good place talking about that topic.

Really... the more unlikely and unrelated the person is who is talking, the more they seem to believe them. The more that person seems to actually be knowledgeable about a given topic, or be involved in that area, the more they mistrust them and discount anything they say as being from 'the man'.

I'm done here. I've already spent far too long elsewhere on this ridiculous topic.

And the sad thing? They bring complete and utter mistrust and incredulity to anyone who questions things about the official version of who did the attacks, which is a far more valid question. But because they've muddled that up with their bullshit demolition plans they have made any questioning seem batshit crazy.

And for that... for that they have done us all a disservice.

And again

Charlie Sheen!

I'm firmly of the believe that we'll continue to muddle on in our way, and things will change, but will do so gradually, such that we barely notice... until we take stock and realize how much has actually changed over our lifetimes.

I would love for the colonization of Mars to begin in my lifetime, but sadly, that's not going to happen.

Yeah, but make sure we teach the kids about a benevolent cannibalistic zombie from outer-space who's father is the sole reason America exists. Dumbfuck. I think the thing I hate most about Fox is that when someone is making a good counter-argument, the host just talks over them to muddle what they are saying.

50% would only make sense if you had half a chance of getting it right, which woudn't be the case with something you'd never read.
Also it's got to be BS about reading two lines at once (except for kim peek), it would just be a muddle of words.

Because I don't need to. I know what the bill is designed to do, the information on the health care reform need has been circulating around for the last 30 or so years. I have outlined countless times that I don't agree with the Obama plan, but i understand its need to work with the insurance industry that is there and is actively lobbying for support in Washington. Because they don't want to cease to exist overnight. Am not the one trusting clearly what is a email circulation designed to undermine any rational discussion of health care reform. It's not the words. It's what people hear.

The opposition to health care from the right wing and republicans is so predictable, Frank Luntz warned the GOP back in May that health care reform is a issue that is gathering massive public support and outlined the exact kind of opposition that is seen now. With various foot soldiers taking far more extreme positions.

Because any one can see that if Obama's plan succeeds it would solidify a democratic majority for the next decade. The GOP are trying to mount an opposition that is only there to make sure they do not lose more political relevance. They won't succeed, but what they will do is muddle the argument enough that any success or credible path of change is nullified. So they can stay in the game.

Americans are buying it, forgetting the amount of no bidding government contracts that the GOP gave out during the Iraq war. Not really free market non government interventionist of them.

Fiscal conservatism is dead.

Its not though, its an accurate portrayal of your views, is it not? When you say "I agree with it, as long as it is used wisely" are you not saying "I believe that the ends justify the means?"

Such a statement is really a philosophy - how else could you describe the manner in which you form that belief? When you see an ends that you agree with, you justify the means in any way you can; most often, by citing the alleged benevolence of that particular end.

The problem with that is how do you explain your philosophy to others? All it is is a muddle of arbitrary opinions, of which no other person could possibly have in common with you. What you do when you support a statement like "I agree as long as it is used wisely" is give support to other people who are seeking to implement their ends.

And I don't think we have to debate the danger of such a philosophy.

To illustrate this point further, please try to justify your support for eminent domain - without citing the ends.

>> ^NetRunner:
That seems like an uncalled for swipe