>> ^qualm:
Apparently someone at Fox News said Rick Sanchez is a "sucker." What does that mean? In one sense it's being allowed that "the joke is on you Rick Sanchez and CNN," as per Fox's usual tone of petulance, as if Fox got the best of the kerfuffle. But there's racist code in that word; Hispanics are forever being portrayed and treated as the leeches of AmericanProsperity. The people they used to call "wetbacks" are still thought of as the remoras attached to the otherwise sleek hide of good old USofA.


He's certainly spooky...

>> ^qualm:
Apparently someone at Fox News said Rick Sanchez is a "sucker." What does that mean? In one sense it's being allowed that "the joke is on you Rick Sanchez and CNN," as per Fox's usual tone of petulance, as if Fox got the best of the kerfuffle. But there's racist code in that word; Hispanics are forever being portrayed and treated as the leeches of AmericanProsperity. The people they used to call "wetbacks" are still thought of as the remoras attached to the otherwise sleek hide of good old USofA.


Damn, qualm! I certainly don't like to defend fox...but you're reaching up your ass for that one. Try again.

>> ^qualm:
Apparently someone at Fox News said Rick Sanchez is a "sucker." What does that mean? In one sense it's being allowed that "the joke is on you Rick Sanchez and CNN," as per Fox's usual tone of petulance, as if Fox got the best of the kerfuffle. But there's racist code in that word; Hispanics are forever being portrayed and treated as the leeches of AmericanProsperity. The people they used to call "wetbacks" are still thought of as the remoras attached to the otherwise sleek hide of good old USofA.


FOX News/The GOP is certainly not above using coded racist terms to fire up the base, but 'sucker'? Gimme a break. When you make these kinds of careless, over-reaching comments, it makes it tougher to confront actual conservative racism.

Apparently someone at Fox News said Rick Sanchez is a "sucker." What does that mean? In one sense it's being *allowed* that "the joke is on you Rick Sanchez and CNN," as per Fox's usual tone of petulance, as if Fox got the best of the kerfuffle. But there's racist code in that word; Hispanics are forever being portrayed and treated as the leeches of AmericanProsperity. The people they used to call "wetbacks" are still thought of as the remoras attached to the otherwise sleek hide of good old USofA.

>> ^Psychologic:
^ I don't think anyone is seriously questioning whether humans will be required for jobs... it's more of a question of how many will be needed. With people living longer and healthier lives, many of whom are willing to stay in the workforce, the question is whether or not job creation will outpace the growth of the available workforce. I have my doubts, but I can't exactly see the future.
Technology won't completely replace manual labor, but it will slowly reduce the number of people needed for any given task. It isn't some cataclysmic event, but I think that people with limited education will find it increasingly difficult to find jobs over the next few decades.


But isn't the core of the automation argument about processes replacing our jobs? Where else did these jobs go? In many cases, software and hardware has caused a job-loss, but my observation is that many more jobs will be created to maintain automation than jobs that are taken away.

Also, I disagree that people with less education will be out of jobs. I work in a technical field that hires people with little to no education. Obviously if you want a job as a programmer, you'll need to be outside this demographic -- but take this into consideration: over half of our company is related to customer support or quality assurance, which does not require higher education. They are full time positions and there is no end in site, only growth. We also have many positions which require you to simply have the proper skillset, not a degree.

As more and more technology is introduced into the general population, people gain the necessary skills to perform these new jobs. From my vantage point (which is very much a global perspective of new trends not seen until halfway through the first decade of the twenty-first century) this appears to be the way our world is turning. The company I work for, in fact, has spawned leeches in many other countries, namely China, where jobs like the ones I assure you require no education employ entire factories of workers.

EDIT: Twenty-first century, not twentieth. Old habits die hard.

Hmm - well let's see... The only estimate that I have found online was in the UK telegraph's article that said a million people were at this rally. All other articles say "no official estimate" or "tens of thousands". All I know from the news footage is that Washington DC was packed from the capitol and the crowd went out 17 full city blocks, filling up the entire street and spilling out in a lot of directions. Police reports said they were turning back people by the busload because they were 'already full'...

Now - say what you like - but those kinds of numbers are not attainable if it is nothing but a few isolated kooks. This is a broad swath of the American people which represents a true groundswell against large government.

To me it is similar to the Iraq War protests. Bush's Iraq War was not popular. The American people didn't want it. And so when they held protests, they were able to get tens to hundreds of thousands of people to show up. Why? Well - that's what happens when the MAJORITY of the American people are 'against' what Washington is doing.

It was also VERY easy to pick out kooks, freaks, lunatics, blowhards, and jackhats at the Iraq War protests. That's because the kooks want to look like they are representative of larger crowd (when actually they aren't). People like Cindy Sheehan. However, just because a few kooks have attatched themselves like leeches to a saner majority did not mean that the sentiment against the Iraq war wasn't genuine. Nor did it mean the Iraq protesters were just a bunch of lunatics.

Same thing with the 9/12 protest. Yeah, there are some oddballs in the crowd. But you don't get hundreds of thousands of protestors when it is nothing but kooks and oddballs. Obama and the Democrats ignore these protests at thier own peril - just like Bush. Bush ignored them, and his numbers plummeted because he was swimming against the majority. Obama is ignoring the majority too, and look at his numbers... If Obama wants to be "Bush2" then that's his affair...

I'll give Michael Moore credit where it's due: Moore uses his OWN money to spread communist propaganda, unlike this leeching asshole of taxpayer dollars.

Extended families = the tribe.

Not the Pope. Not the Pharaoh.

It means that I as a leader will protect my people, not suck off of them like a giant leech.

Not beg them to trust me as I rob them blind.

What imstellar28 describes is simply a way to leech off : he's proposing a way in which only those who have money (like him, presumably) can leech and game the system. Why is that? Because by having the option of not paying insurance, he can still count on the chronically sick/fearful/socially minded/provident to maintain healthcare facilities and services, drug manufacturing, R&D, etc. for him. So he only pays if he needs to, but in the meantime he doesn't contribute to the establishment of the future services he will inevitably need at some time.

What I'd like to see for those who don't want to pay insurance, is the whole bunch of them building their own hospitals, making their own drugs, forming their own medical staff, etc when they finally need it. That is to say, they couldn't use the facilities already in place. After all, they didn't want to shell out for them! And if you look at it that's the real "american way" : when a community was in need, everyone in the same predicament pitched in to build what was needed (provided remuneration of course). But I bet they'd sooner let each other die than do this though, because they've lost their ways : the rhetoric of the individual communities fending for themselves has now become the excuse of selfish individuals trying to run off with their neighbors' money. "E pluribus unum" my ass!

>> ^gtjwkq:
>> ^bareboards2:
But remember, you folks who hate taxes so much -- remember where the internet started. It wouldn't be here without having been developed at the government level first. Roads. Schools. The university you went to.
Seriously, how can you say the internet wouldn't exist without being developed by government first? That's ludicrous. Roads, schools and universities weren't invented by government either and I'm not the least bit thankful for things that were created at the expense of high taxes that diverted productive resources and applied them unproductively.


Have you looked at the history of the internet before you responded? The government funded a great deal of the research.
Basic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet

In addition, it was the government funding and contracts with telephone companies that build the backbone of the internet. Do you think the telephone companies laid all that fiber / copper lines for new customers? No, it was funded by the government. BTW, the US National Science Foundation is a government agency. Not from wiki:

"Thus, the first Internet backbone, called the NSFNET because it was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), linked six supercomputing centers (University of California-San Diego, National Center for Atmospheric Research, National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois, Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Cornell University, and the John von Neumann Supercomputing Center/Princeton) and their associated regional networks in the United States in order to provide supercomputer access to scientists. Today, a single government-managed Internet backbone has been transformed into a multitude of different backbones, most of which are private commercial enterprises."

You can't have an internet without a backbone. The government is responsible for the first backbone that the private networks "leeched" off of while building theirs. Also, the government has given much money to telephone companies for laying of fiber, etc.

All that's missing now is him using some leeches to drain excess blood and reduce swelling.

didn't your mother teach you to STFU QM? Pansy.

Or are you depending on society to do it for you? Leech.

Greedy, grubby, evil, wicked con-man, who robs people that do not have the intellectual defense against him. He was a leech and we're better off without him.

/spit

Why can't people like this just let such an ugly thing as Racism die? Why do they always get away with their fear-mongering? If the propaganda machine can make Obama look like he is actually qualified to be our President in three short years of campaigning and with no experience other than the campaign itself and the backing of Leftist News Papers and TV News spots then why can't it just as easily tell us that Racial Prejudice is totally gone from American Culture? Just think of it. It is actually gone, but in just three short years it will be actually gone because the News said it was so! Think about it for a minute.

The Democrats are perpetuating this lie for us right now that it is some great big thing getting in the way of freedom or justice every where you look. They and the Leeches who make a living on it such as Faraqakan, Sharpton, Jackson and Obama (and his Church Pals) thrive on the lies and perpetuate it wherever and whenever they can. The Republicans don't have anything against minorities either in speech, writings or actions. Democrats tell minorities how shitty their lives are and how badly they are treated even when they themselves know it isn't so. Republicans tell minorities how much better their lives COULD BE!

Stop listening to the haters or Democrats as I like to call them and your life will be so much happier. Want to end Racial Tensions in America and I mean TODAY! Stop doing it! That's right, just stop it. Cut it out. Quit it. Shut the F*** up about it. Let it go. Don't be thin skinned about every attempt someone else has towards humor.
Taking turns at injustice won't work. Don't contribute to any politician who says they will make your life better by giving you something you know you didn't work for or deserve. Democrats have promised everything for as long as there have been Democrats and so far they have delivered nothing except higher taxes and bad feelings.
Don't believe me? Look around right now. Still not convinced, read about it in your History books.

Why are so many Democrats Lawyers? So they can pull the wool over your eyes and you will thank them for the Blanket. I like this better: Where do Vampires learn to suck Blood? AT LAW SCHOOL!

So, Pinky, I read those articles and they completely cemented my opinion for me, thank you.

I didn't disagree that pornography is addictive, just that it is psychological and not to be compared with real physically dependent addictions. Just as you said, "the panelists themselves acknowledged, there is no consensus among mental health professionals about the dangers of porn or the use of the term 'pornography addiction.'"

I also love the generalizations in these: "people who use pornography feel dead inside" right... how about: "Pornography does damage because it encourages people to make their home in shallow relationships," I know that one is bogus.

This quote is my favorite: By the time Nick Samuels had reached his mid-20s, it was altering his view of what he wanted from a sexual relationship. ‘I used to watch porn with one of my girlfriends, and I started to want to try things I'd seen in the films.’ Married for 15 years, he admits he has carried the same sexual expectations into the marital bedroom. ‘There's been real friction over this: my wife simply isn't that kind of person. And it's only now, after all these years, that I'm beginning to move on from it. Porn is like alcoholism: it clings to you like a leech.’

If his wife wont do these things with him then that is her problem, not his and definitely not porn's fault. My girlfriend and I love to watch porn together. Part of the fun is trying new things out and it keeps the sex interesting. Sex is an intensely important part of a relationship, and a marriage in which the partners don't agree on matters of sex is a marriage that shouldn't last. This is something that had been known for thousands of years by nearly every civilization... until Christianity started forcing itself into the bedroom.

As for your personal experiences, they are what they are, but a few examples of porn addiction cannot make for a suitable base for a consensus. Consider how many people are users of pornography and compare that with the number of people who have a serious problem and you will no doubt find that there are much more important issues to worry about (including America's obesity - a point which I stand by).

Anyway, I am done with this discussion as neither of us will sway the other. I'll just leave you with one more fact. The only concerted efforts to stop pornography (not including the obviously harmful child pornography), whether in the US or worldwide, have come from religious groups or feminist groups. No one else wants pornography to end.