Teal Dear.
I meant: tl:dr.

>> ^kceaton1:

This is why you DON'T cut your education funding and allow parents to pull children out of school or allow kids to decide not to go. It's also a reason why we might want to continue education past your formative years, as you're a literal "crazy idiot" as a teenager due to the chemicals pumping in your veins. Yet, we're fairly good at memorization during this time and procedural types of learning (like apprenticeship for basically anything). Education is the greatest gift you can give your children no matter what you believe and, truly, if you listen to me let them form their own opinions and try to keep them NEUTRAL in stances on any subject (including even your own religion) as taking a side can injure development. If they do become sidetracked into an academic arena (math, science, English, or even sports) give them full support in these areas and let them know of possible opportunities for the present (if they excel, possibly a low level "advanced" book to help their thirst or a class if it can be found) and the future (such as jobs: fireman, astronaut, college, which college, classes to take, books to read).
Pre-adolescence is also a great time to be taught anything. It's also the time that you're the most susceptible to people forcing ANY opinion as "fact" and ANY "fact" as knowledge; experience, perhaps being a better way to teach at this age--along with below, finding a direction or what you excel at (yes, I know you may not now this till you're much older, due to how the brain sets itself up). Whether it be good or bad: religion, politics, abuse, swimming, dancing, sports, science, computers, etc... Pre-adolescence is perhaps the most important time in your life to get an idea for direction, as this helps you mitigate problems that you face during adolescence (stay on course). This is of course a luxury for some as self-discovery is not a perfect process and can as always be entirely, never found.
If you wait to learn in your twenties or after adolescence you begin to form extremely superior ideas and opinions that as a adolescent, due entirely to having a brain that isn't shit-canning itself at a lot of turns. Things that need to be memorized are better in these "primitive" years; but, like religion and learning to form an opinion that makes sense, this requires someone usually to be above normal intelligence at that age or for you to be in your twenties when the fog of hormones and neurotransmitters has cleared up and allowed you to maake FAR more rational decisions.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that formed their opinions early, to the point that they are nearly unchangeable. I don't necessarily blame them either, to some degree, as these issues that "stop" learning are ingrained into your neural-net and chemical-memory. To make these people understand something is a huge undertaking (which is why I usually provide the information, as the only person that can convince them at that point is themselves--BUT, STILL make sure to give them the information or they'll have no chance).
This is why you can tell Rush Limbaugh the truth till you're blue in the face, yet it won't help as he can't understand it, will actively deny himself of it, and he physically can't. The only way to get through to them is to literally know how their neurons have decided to arrange themselves. If you knew it might be a matter of approaching the matter via religion or it could be politics, science, etc... This is why sciences premise of allowing yourself to let go of previous, erronious, information is FUNDAMENTAL. If you can't do that as aperson, you'll be locked in a world you can't or hope, to understand.
BTW, if you're reading this and you have a thousand questions that need answering, yet you've tried and they do not make sense. Remember, that it's the physical layout of your brain that disrupts this ability to understand in some cases. Your brain physically changes when you can figure out something for the first time; sometimes called an epiphany. Try something easy and move from there. DON'T try the hard stuff first (which is why that works incredibly well for teaching people; only people with I.Q.s of 150+ are able to see something complex and know, fairly intrinsically, what needs to be done--or what opinion should be held...).
Some of this will sound preachy, and I guess it should. Some of this will sound simple and obvious, I hope it does. If it sounds particularly TOO preachy or TOO opinionated, "...don't tell me what to do with my kid...". Your kid is a human being like yourself and demands as much respect at age 3 as at 33. If you can't give them the breadth of width to leave them to learn untouched or with a balanced or neutral approach you will hurt them. They will also hurt you. You can disagree, but deep inside I think you understand what I mean by everything I've said here. AND if you don't try to figure out why you don't.
What you see in this video is seen by a VERY small minority of people as being "good" or "informed"; it's seen as the opposite. However, if you can approach this same situation knowing all of this, knowing the ways the mind can fool you into making you a fool, yet you can still find a unwaivering "faith" or truth. That is when you're free to share responsibly, but please tell this to adults or people that understand at your level. Otherwise, you're Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Pat Robertson, etc...
/Kind of a long point, but I think I made it. Hopefully, not too much on the cheesy side and not to "anti-religious".

This is why you DON'T cut your education funding and allow parents to pull children out of school or allow kids to decide not to go. It's also a reason why we might want to continue education past your formative years, as you're a literal "crazy idiot" as a teenager due to the chemicals pumping in your veins. Yet, we're fairly good at memorization during this time and procedural types of learning (like apprenticeship for basically anything). Education is the greatest gift you can give your children no matter what you believe and, truly, if you listen to me let them form their own opinions and try to keep them NEUTRAL in stances on any subject (including even your own religion) as taking a side can injure development. If they do become sidetracked into an academic arena (math, science, English, or even sports) give them full support in these areas and let them know of possible opportunities for the present (if they excel, possibly a low level "advanced" book to help their thirst or a class if it can be found) and the future (such as jobs: fireman, astronaut, college, which college, classes to take, books to read).

Pre-adolescence is also a great time to be taught anything. It's also the time that you're the most susceptible to people forcing ANY opinion as "fact" and ANY "fact" as knowledge; experience, perhaps being a better way to teach at this age--along with below, finding a direction or what you excel at (yes, I know you may not now this till you're much older, due to how the brain sets itself up). Whether it be good or bad: religion, politics, abuse, swimming, dancing, sports, science, computers, etc... Pre-adolescence is perhaps the most important time in your life to get an idea for direction, as this helps you mitigate problems that you face during adolescence (stay on course). This is of course a luxury for some as self-discovery is not a perfect process and can as always be entirely, never found.

If you wait to learn in your twenties or after adolescence you begin to form extremely superior ideas and opinions that as a adolescent, due entirely to having a brain that isn't shit-canning itself at a lot of turns. Things that need to be memorized are better in these "primitive" years; but, like religion and learning to form an opinion that makes sense, this requires someone usually to be above normal intelligence at that age or for you to be in your twenties when the fog of hormones and neurotransmitters has cleared up and allowed you to maake FAR more rational decisions.

Unfortunately, we have a lot of people that formed their opinions early, to the point that they are nearly unchangeable. I don't necessarily blame them either, to some degree, as these issues that "stop" learning are ingrained into your neural-net and chemical-memory. To make these people understand something is a huge undertaking (which is why I usually provide the information, as the only person that can convince them at that point is themselves--BUT, STILL make sure to give them the information or they'll have no chance).

This is why you can tell Rush Limbaugh the truth till you're blue in the face, yet it won't help as he can't understand it, will actively deny himself of it, and he physically can't. The only way to get through to them is to literally know how their neurons have decided to arrange themselves. If you knew it might be a matter of approaching the matter via religion or it could be politics, science, etc... This is why sciences premise of allowing yourself to let go of previous, erronious, information is FUNDAMENTAL. If you can't do that as aperson, you'll be locked in a world you can't or hope, to understand.

BTW, if you're reading this and you have a thousand questions that need answering, yet you've tried and they do not make sense. Remember, that it's the physical layout of your brain that disrupts this ability to understand in some cases. Your brain physically changes when you can figure out something for the first time; sometimes called an epiphany. Try something easy and move from there. DON'T try the hard stuff first (which is why that works incredibly well for teaching people; only people with I.Q.s of 150+ are able to see something complex and know, fairly intrinsically, what needs to be done--or what opinion should be held...).

Some of this will sound preachy, and I guess it should. Some of this will sound simple and obvious, I hope it does. If it sounds particularly TOO preachy or TOO opinionated, "...don't tell me what to do with my kid...". Your kid is a human being like yourself and demands as much respect at age 3 as at 33. If you can't give them the breadth of width to leave them to learn untouched or with a balanced or neutral approach you will hurt them. They will also hurt you. You can disagree, but deep inside I think you understand what I mean by everything I've said here. AND if you don't try to figure out why you don't.

What you see in this video is seen by a VERY small minority of people as being "good" or "informed"; it's seen as the opposite. However, if you can approach this same situation knowing all of this, knowing the ways the mind can fool you into making you a fool, yet you can still find a unwaivering "faith" or truth. That is when you're free to share responsibly, but please tell this to adults or people that understand at your level. Otherwise, you're Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Pat Robertson, etc...

/Kind of a long point, but I think I made it. Hopefully, not too much on the cheesy side and not to "anti-religious".

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

If who I support in elections causes people to dismiss me, that's fine. Those kinds of superficial people usually aren't worth the effort. I often feel pressure from media culture to not say certain things for fear of the judgment of others. In these cases I make it a special point to say them anyway, despite the anxiety that can sometimes accompany non-conformity. If I let the fear of other people's judgments stand in the way of speaking my mind, then what is the point of having a mind, or an opinion?

I'm not talking about succumbing to peer pressure, I'm talking about maximizing your audience. If you're debating a subject, the people who don't want to listen to you are the same people that you most need to reach. Adopting a label that puts you in direct opposition to them doesn't help your cause.

You've spelled out, in several ways, how the Democratic Party doesn't represent you. So why are you a Democrat?

Even if you were to find yourself completely in line with one of the parties, how long do you think that will last? Neither of the big ones stay the course. Let's not forget that in the past the Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives. Before that, they were the same party. Today, they're gradually becoming the same party again.

To be truthful, I'm not sure what China does specifically, because there's a lot of government secrecy. I can tell you that they're a state-capitalist system, and that's not a free market. So, regardless what they do, it's not a free market by definition, so continuing to discuss Foxconn is moot. Because the government gives capital subsidies, the businesses probably enjoy certain one-sided opportunities that create harsh and unrealistic work environments for their worker's. That's not a free market, though.

Let's talk about my "fallacious" argument. It's that you believe I showed theoretical evidence, right? But it was just as theoretical as the questions posed by you? When a free market advocate shows the mistakes of the regulated market by systematically listing how government uses corporate law to tip the playing field so egregiously in the direction of big business, the last ditch effort to discredit him or her is then to demand they show a system where free markets existed and thrived in their purest form. You want to talk logical fallacies, dear boy, you've pwned that can of worms.

Argument from fallacy: analyzing an argument for free markets and inferring that, since you believe it's begging the question, then its conclusion must be false.
Red Herring: A change of questioning to divert the attention on the topic.
Negative Proof Fallacy: Because something cannot be proven true it must be false.
Proof by example: If there are no free markets, then free markets are false.
Argument from repetition: You claim my defense of free markets is ad nauseum.
Appeal to ridicule: Oh my lord, this is probably your favorite fallacy to employ. It's when you present my argument as being ridiculous.
Appeal to consequences: Free markets are won't work because their lack of regulation may lead to some bad consequences.
And finally, your own begging the question: "Without democracy, there is no civic means of expressing the public will, which means the guy with the most money calls the shots."

I could do this all day. Maybe it's impossible to have an online political discussion without some fallacious rhetoric? Either way, I think it's important we stay on course with the discussion. Where were we?

I'm not making assumptions as much as I'm pointing out the biases of government intervention within the marketplace. I've given you a laundry list of corporate welfare and regulations that tip the playing field for Walmart, which are NOT theoretical, and you've not commented about those. Walmart's profit margins are immense, and you cannot deny that a large portion of those are directly caused by government intervention.

It would've been been way less funny if Hannity had backed off and admitted he was wrong....luckily this is the "Stay The Course" channel.

Where are all the FOX apologist comments? The usual suspects are strangely silent...

I read a diary at DailyKos that made an interesting observation about the Nobel Prize. The overall tilt of the piece is pretty partisan, but I do think they've got the right lens for sorting out the answer to whether the question of whether Obama deserves the Nobel Prize. The core argument goes like this:

The distinction between earnings and gifts is a key element in this moral analysis. Earnings implies an exchange of goods and/or services where, in theory, the exchange is deemed equitable by mutual consent. While the reality doesn't always match the theory - one party may not receive an equitable share because their bargaining power is very different - the underlying concept of an exchange of goods and/or services remains. Each party should get what he/she deserves.

Gifts are quite different. A gift does not imply an equitable exchange of goods and/or services. Quite the contrary, its status as a gift means that one party has freely chosen to bestow it with no expectation of any equitable return, except perhaps for gratitude. The necessary elements are that the giver is willing to offer it, and that the recipient accept it. It may be offered in the hope that the recipient will put it to good use, but ultimately that good use is for the recipient to determine. A gift with strings attached is not really a gift at all.

..snip..

Had President Obama sought the prize based on explicit or implicit promises - campaigning for it as he did the presidency - it would make sense for progressives to consider Fairness/Reciprocity. Then it would be earnings. But he didn't seek or campaign for the prize. It was a gift,

This makes a lot of sense to me, and actually fits with my initial emotional reaction to the news -- pleased surprise. The question "why?" was the next thought I had about it, but figured they undoubtedly would explain the decision.

In reading more, I think Rachel essentially has it right on their reasoning, coming as it is from an international/European viewpoint.

Bush had effectively turned the United States into the most dangerous rogue nation the world had ever seen, and Obama has entirely reversed that course. There's no more nascent resurgence of a Cold War with Russia. There's no more open disdain for the European powers. There's no more disregard for the UN. There is no more flagrant mockery of environmental issues. America has returned to being a citizen of the world.

There are still two active wars the US is engaged in, but one is being drawn to a close, and the other is under review, with a goal of establishing an exit strategy.

I do think it's more aimed at encouraging Obama to "stay the course", than a recognition of any tangible goal achieved, and it seems clear to me that Obama recognizes it as such.

Sounds like a good idea to give Obama a strong push to follow through on his promises. Again, I hope it works.

^ The debate you want to be having the actual Congress to be having is dismantling Social Security and Medicare. That's not happening. Why? Because they'd get slaughtered the next time they went up for election.

The problem with "stay the course" wasn't that he was doing the politically expedient thing, it was that he felt it was the "right and just" thing, and was going to stick to it no matter how clearly unpopular it got.

Libertarians seem to act as though the Constitution was carved into stone tablets, and furthermore that they're the only ones who have the "correct" interpretation of it.

The honest truth is that nobody knows what the framers would think if they had watched history unfold as it has, and had access to all the knowledge we've accumulated since. They should be respected for having forged concepts that have withstood the test of time, but they were not omniscient supermen whose words and thoughts should be held sacred and immutable.

You guys are the ones who have the conceit of thinking you are the sole arbiters of what is right and wrong, and that you do not need the consent of the governed to shape government to your ideal vision.

But I guess I need to quote a framer to you to lend my argument credence, so here you go:

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Ya, and congress passed and repealed the prohibition act, and passed and repealed the separate but equal mess. Trusting the courts or even congress to "interpret" the constitution leads to oppression and tyranny. It is a straight forward and easy to read document, the interpretations from those cases and the ones you mentioned only lead to the perversion of the document. To say something so Carte Blanche as this is absurd. It is the reason we are having this dialogue in the first place.

My point is that you're many Overton window steps away from having the kind of conversation you want to have in your heart of hearts, and really it's shifting in the other direction.
Getting rid of Medicare and Social Security are unthinkable. Universal healthcare is popular and well on its way to becoming law.
The short answer is that yes, it falls under the category of general welfare, just like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, scholarship programs, public schools, etc. etc.
But hey, it's nice to see that libertarians are dropping their pretense of constructionism and going for the idea of fresh reinterpretation of the Constitution as a living document, and judicial activism...


Heart of hearts? I have no idea what you are talking about. I speak from both my heart and my head, your insinuation is rather ambiguous so I can't address what you are even speaking of.

And getting rid of those things are not unthinkable, it is exactly that closed mindedness that has made them the crazy things they are today. Just because universal health care is popular has no bearing on weather or not it should be a law. This is just as much a bush "stay the course" liberal fallacy as I could think. "Keep going with the illegal and unjust thing...because to do the opposite wouldn't be politically expedient". Like I said previous, there have been MANY bad laws in history..ask Socrates how the hemlock tasted. ("Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy." --Thomas Jefferson)

Madison talked so extensively on the General welfare being a phrase that embodied the enumerated powers listed by the judge.

"I will end with a quote from my favorite American framer:

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
James Madison

...then there are those of us for whom MJ's death means next to nothing because we never really cared for his music and felt his post-allegation actions revealed his guilt. I mean, are you really going to marry Lisa-Marie Presley and give her a disgusting kiss on television to prove you're NOT a pedophile? No no, that's not transparent at all. <rolls eyes>

So no, those of use who fall in this camp are not hypocrites. We're staying the course.

I love when the Republicans vilify people who dare to say that being too extreme is what made them lose the election this year.

Stay the course, my friends, stay the course.

Ill give him one thing, hes a bloody good politician.

I also cant understand why the media is so vicious when a pollie changes their mind.
I mean, for fuck sake, if pollies aren't allowed to change their minds, we might end up getting into an ilegal, unjust war, under false pretenses, and be stuck there because of the rigidity of the regieme running the show.

....Oh wait...

My history revolutions teacher back in school had a saying about political regimes, and he was speaking in the largest general terms possible, encompassing not only a small few people, but an entire societies legal system, the administration, and their policies, are analagous to a tree blowing in the winds of change.

Rigid trees in the winds of change cannot stand up for very long, they start to sheer from the middle and snap off under the immense pressure, its only those that have the flexibility to bend with the winds, that can sustain the assault, and maintain its structure.

Thinking back on that, its really a brilliant analogy as to the cause of revolutions, and even why politicians dont get re-elected in general.

Somehow "staying the course" has become the bravado macho thing to do, instead of being flexible and shaping your policy to the will of the people, because that would be traitorous to your original policy...

Its a joke.

>> ^NetRunner:
I'm a bit surprised they didn't work in a crack about "stay the course" or "the surge is working", or something about it preventing the possibility of a tell-all book.


These features were planned, but were pushed back for inclusion in Spokesbot Mark II due to budget cuts and an urgency to get Mark I into the field.

I'm a bit surprised they didn't work in a crack about "stay the course" or "the surge is working", or something about it preventing the possibility of a tell-all book.

"The iraq war was a tactical era"? how long does he expect this war to last? "this is a war on terra"? a war against earth itself?

yea, i know, nitpicking, but i found it funny.

i also love how donahue said "you wanna stay the course, dontcha?" i lol'd at that, kinda like, "you just used a popular propaganda statement, so now its my turn." awesome.

Heh. Just saw this. To answer your question, both thighs, and I'm very, very expensive.

In reply to this comment by choggie:
loved "bunkerfaust" and snakes eating tarantulas-otherwise, what the world needs now are more sifters "staying the course"..."going all the way"...

Question: on which inner thigh is your, "Hope for Change" tattoo, and how much is the campaign paying you for gratuitous tea-bagging???

Congrats, Sea of Fermented Soybean Cake!!