"Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law."

Dispute it all you want. That's what her husband says, and she explained she did it because the Bible says wives must be submissive to her husbands. It's right there in the video. Again, spin that all you want. Even if it's a "suggestion", she did it because the husband said to because wives are to do what they're told. You can deflect all you want about why she got her first degree. I never said anything about that. I said she got the post-doctorate degree because her husband told her to, and she believes she's to do as told by her husband because the Bible says so. Period. Done. To argue against this is completely disregarding what she doesn't even deny.

So you don't deny he ever said Palin or Bachmann were dumb because they're women. Dude, that's the freaking definition of sexism!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism

sexism - discrimination on the basis of sex, esp the oppression of women by men
discrimination - unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice

Sexism = unfair treatment on the basis of sex, or action based on prejudice from gender

He didn't base one thing on them being women! NOT A SINGLE THING! You can't redefine words to fit your argument! He's slamming them because he thinks they're stupid people, not because all females are stupid.

Was he insensitive? Yes. Rude? Yes. Offensive to some for various reasons? Yes. Sexist? NO! He discriminated based on intelligence or even political philosophies, not on gender.

P.S. It's good to know if I ever invite a black friend over for dinner, I can't serve any of those dishes because that would make me a racist. I'll be sure to let them know that since I'm white, when he's around me, he's never allowed to play rock music, put hockey or golf on TV, ask if I'd like to test drive an SUV, offer me a Heineken, or ask what I don't like about my job. I should be offended if any of those occur.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You lose.
Do you even watch what you post. Bachman said "The Lord put it into my heart to go to law school". Not her husband. When she finished her basic degree the husband said she should get a post-grad degree. He didn't order her, "go get a tax degree". It was more that she - as previously - had options she came up with and he made his suggestion as to what he thought was a good idea. If she'd chosen something else there is nothing in his history that suggests he's have slapped it down. Quite the contrary. He has generaly come off as a guy who supports his wife in her decisions. It wasn't his choice to have her go into politics. That was hers. But he supports it. Oh - what a sexist pig.
Sure, but understand this - he never once implied that Bachmann or Palin are stupid or anything else BECAUSE they are women.
So what? If some jack-hole serves up watermelon & fried chicken to African Americans, he could turn and say that he NEVER IMPLIED that he chose those foods just because they were black. But that doesn't make the choice insensitive, stupid, and racist. Likewise - Maher's crocodile tears about not being a sexist just because he happens to hate conservative women is bunting tossed on a pile of crap.

You lose.

Do you even watch what you post. Bachman said "The Lord put it into my heart to go to law school". Not her husband. When she finished her basic degree the husband said she should get a post-grad degree. He didn't order her, "go get a tax degree". It was more that she - as previously - had options she came up with and he made his suggestion as to what he thought was a good idea. If she'd chosen something else there is nothing in his history that suggests he's have slapped it down. Quite the contrary. He has generaly come off as a guy who supports his wife in her decisions. It wasn't his choice to have her go into politics. That was hers. But he supports it. Oh - what a sexist pig.

Sure, but understand this - he never once implied that Bachmann or Palin are stupid or anything else BECAUSE they are women.

So what? If some jack-hole serves up watermelon & fried chicken to African Americans, he could turn and say that he NEVER IMPLIED that he chose those foods just because they were black. But that doesn't make the choice insensitive, stupid, and racist. Likewise - Maher's crocodile tears about not being a sexist just because he happens to hate conservative women is bunting tossed on a pile of crap.

Oh man, where to start...

Amazing how all leftists are criminally corrupt, all of them, apparently. Just because you're a leftist, it automatically means you don't care about the people. On the face of it, patently absurd. Yes, some leftists are corrupt. No question about it. So are many capitalists, too. Doesn't mean either philosophy is bankrupt.

Obama's big gov't spending doesn't do anything for the poor and middle class. You mean, except saving jobs when the economy tanked, the vast majority went to the poor and middle classes. Other than that... LOL...

I'm totally sympathetic to the argument the stimulus may do more harm than good in the long run, but it wasn't done to shovel money into big bloated, criminally negligent gov't troughs. It was done to save jobs, and help the economy. Even if I disagreed with waterboarding, I wouldn't go around telling people the Bush administration did it because they loved the thrill of torturing people.

Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution?! They just make it worse? I'm sure that's happened on occasion, but that's generally patently false. UN reports show the following:

In the U.S. the top 10% hold 70% of the country’s wealth
In France, the top 10% hold 61% of the country’s wealth
In the U.K. , the top 10% hold 56% of the country’s wealth
In Germany, the top 10% hold 44% of the country’s wealth
In Japan the top 10% hold 39% of the country’s wealth

France, UK, and Germany are significantly to the left of US in terms of their economic system without question. Japan is a weird beast, but still more socialist than we are. Their personal income tax rates are very low, but their corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. They also have significant elements of socialism in their economy, such as universal health care, publicly funded education, transportation, etc., but there is also a lot of free market elements as well. They also have a progressive income tax, although it has become less progressive as years have gone by.

So, I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion.

Finally, let me explain why some such as myself favor a form of mixed economy with a blend of socialism and capitalism: it works better for virtually everyone - rich, poor, and the middle class. As a very simple example, universal mandatory education, which was not a part of US society until it was publicly funded, helped businesses in the end because it increased the skill set and productivity of workers, which allowed businesses to increase profits in the long run. Universal, compulsory publicly funded education is socialist in nature. And how can society afford this? Partly by progressive taxation, which you claim is "poor people" believing that they have a right to the rich's money. Well, guess what? It worked BEAUTIFULLY! Universal public education and a progressive income tax coincided with the rise of the US as a global economic superpower as those first generations of publicly educated people came of working age. Weird how that worked, huh?

Now, I know people such as myself you consider a "neolib", but we're actually moderates, many of us are well intentioned, as I'm sure is true about conservatives, and we also have quite a bit of facts on our side to back us up, too. Raising marginal tax rates on the richest 1% of Americans is socialist in nature, but doing it a small amount isn't tantamount to socialism. And socialist ideas aren't inherently bad either (same for capitalistic ideas).

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Besides, leftists really don't care jack-crap whether or not the bottom 5% actually ever moves out of the poverty level. The crocodile tears about the 'poor' is a bunch of propoganda they use to advance higher tax rates - which help the poor only in the barest, most marginal, subsistence-only way. Neolibs use the poor as a manure shovel to trowel money into bloated, criminally negligent government troughs. Obama's entire regime is demonstrable proof that huge government spending accomplishes nothing for the poor or middle class. In fact, higher taxation & spending accomplish the exact opposite of 'helping' the middle class. Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution. If anything, wealth disparity is frequently much worse under leftist systems. "Rich" person money does more good funding private-citizen billionaire prostitute crack snorting addictions than it does in government.
So I reject the neolib premise that money "must" be shunted from the rich to government, or society is somehow less fair. Frankly, it is none of your cotton-pickin' business or mine what rich folks so with their cash. Neither poor people, nor the middle class have any right to anyone else's money just because they're jealous that someone else has more of it. If a guy is rich, it is their decision what to do with their money. Donate to charities, invest it in businesses, or use it to murder puppies - whatever - it's THEIR cash - not yours. Same goes for companies and corporations too. Just because a company is earning truckloads of cash doesn't mean you have any right to one jack-sprat cent of it.

I have the 'benefit' of actually - you know - having LIVED in the 60s. Back then the average interest rate on a home loan was along the lines of 16% to 18%. Needless to say this video glosses over a lot of the challenges the great middle class had in making ends meet.

The dini index is a rather foolish barometer - which is why neolibs like it so much. It allows a neolib to take perfectly happy, content, functional societies and act like everyone there should be miserable because they don't hit the right note on an artificial standard. Look instead at the relative standard of living enjoyed by a country. By any standard, the US has it pretty dang sweet. Just saw a report yesterday where those in the supposed "poverty" level have (A) homes they own (B) 2+ Big Screen TVs (C) 2+ cars (D) video game systems, DVD players, computers, and smartphones (E) and eat 'out' as often as twice a week. "Wah wah wah - the US isn't as good on the dini index as a bunch of pinheads think it should be!" Neolibs can whine all they want about wealth concentration. The fact that the bottom 5% is buying luxuries that many other nation's RICH can't afford (while paying ZERO income taxes) proves that the bellyaching is meaningless drivel.

Besides, leftists really don't care jack-crap whether or not the bottom 5% actually ever moves out of the poverty level. The crocodile tears about the 'poor' is a bunch of propoganda they use to advance higher tax rates - which help the poor only in the barest, most marginal, subsistence-only way. Neolibs use the poor as a manure shovel to trowel money into bloated, criminally negligent government troughs. Obama's entire regime is demonstrable proof that huge government spending accomplishes nothing for the poor or middle class. In fact, higher taxation & spending accomplish the exact opposite of 'helping' the middle class. Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution. If anything, wealth disparity is frequently much worse under leftist systems. "Rich" person money does more good funding private-citizen billionaire prostitute crack snorting addictions than it does in government.

So I reject the neolib premise that money "must" be shunted from the rich to government, or society is somehow less fair. Frankly, it is none of your cotton-pickin' business or mine what rich folks so with their cash. Neither poor people, nor the middle class have any right to anyone else's money just because they're jealous that someone else has more of it. If a guy is rich, it is their decision what to do with their money. Donate to charities, invest it in businesses, or use it to murder puppies - whatever - it's THEIR cash - not yours. Same goes for companies and corporations too. Just because a company is earning truckloads of cash doesn't mean you have any right to one jack-sprat cent of it.

I understand why this is confusing as hell;

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~jdirnber/InvertZoo/LecIntro/TreeTime.jpg

... here is a relatively straight-forward 'evolutionary tree' cartoon,... the biggest thing to note is the Time axis... you have to trace the lines to see where species diverge and then look around to see if that line split happens before other line splits with respect to the Time direction.

Even in this simple diagram, you have to look at it for a minute to realize that reptiles, birds and most of the dinosaurs we think of split off from what became mammals, then reptiles split off from that group, then some dinos split off, then birds... So this is to illustrate that the split between what became mammals is farther back in time than the split separating birds and most dinos, and birds and reptiles. So this illustration really functions like a family tree, showing relationships with time and allow you to pick out that birds are closely related to dinosaurs, and that we have to go pretty far back to see where animals diverged into what became mammals and what became reptile/bird/dinosaurs.

If you're interested you should look for bigger ones trees,... when you start including plants, bacteria, archaebacteria, etc.... stuff gets pretty wild because you're reaching the edge of the science... and the complex smaller trees that just cover one group of critters can be really interesting to see... so much variety.

Oh, last note for transparency; they generally make these 'family trees' by researching comparative anatomy and tons of fossils, but have been using DNA to produce new and correct old 'phylogenetic trees' for 20 or 30 years now.

(image from this page, which focuses on terminology, but has good pictures: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~jdirnber/Bio2108/Lecture/LecPhylogeny/LecPhylogeny.html )


>> ^Jinx:

>> ^heathen:
>> ^Jinx:
Same logic: What are we then?

Mammals - which birds aren't and dinosaurs weren't.

Yes ok, but Mammals are as much Reptile as Bird are Dinosaur.

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^Jinx:
Same logic: What are we then?
We are devo.


WHIP IT! Whip it goooooood.

>> ^Jinx:

Same logic: What are we then?

We are devo.

Thanks! Indeed, it has been a while!

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
*promote... Hi MGR longtime no see.

>> ^heathen:

>> ^Jinx:
Same logic: What are we then?

Mammals - which birds aren't and dinosaurs weren't.

Yes ok, but Mammals are as much Reptile as Bird are Dinosaur.

>> ^Jinx:

Same logic: What are we then?


Mammals - which birds aren't and dinosaurs weren't.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Alternate soundtrack:>> ^deathcow:
That's only the first part, next you have to jump from log to log in a fast moving river while avoiding crocodiles.



Or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCnjgAkDXvk from my childhood days!

>> ^ant:

>> ^deathcow:
That's only the first part, next you have to jump from log to log in a fast moving river while avoiding crocodiles.

He did better than George Costanza! http://videosift.com/video/Seinfeld-The-Frogger


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

I like you now.

In reply to this comment by sepatown:
I've got to be careful. So, what I'm gonna do is sneak up on it and jam my thumb in its butthole.