OGTEleven

If you have the link to MJ and SW can you post them?....I lost them and can't find them on web

You're a quick one.

Rapport I have a few problems with the content of his diatribe, but by and large making kids think is a good thing and outweighs the fact that he is a loon. If the teacher makes you think, who cares if he is a loon? IMO, geography class is not the perfect setting, but it's not too bad. I can see how it relates depending on the rest of the curriculum. My concerns with the actual content: He defines capitalism "from the dictionary". He defines it incorrectly. He then states that it does not fulfill the basic human needs of everyone on the planet like any good economic system would. His tone sucks. Although he throws in 2-3 "good point"'s and "form your own opinions", it is basically a 20 minute session where he is LOUDLY and aggressively running down the US. Someone loud and aggressive in a position of relative power is not typically someone looking for stimulating conversation. I don't really think he was. A couple of side notes: Decaf He needs to get laid. As a side note to Coli: My high school had good teachers who stirred debate. I feel bad that yours didn't. The only people that didn't engage at my school were burned out losers from bad neighboorhoods. Other than them, pretty much everything was perfect.

Generally speaking: I don't think one can judge a freedom based system in general or democracy in particular as better or worse for a culture without taking a few things into account. I don't necessarily think Adam Smith was the greatest economist in human history. I do think he was one of the greatest observers of human nature. (Actually his stature comes from the fact that he wrote it down....many people make similar observations every day.) People act in their own self interest. This is a simple statement but an unflawed guiding principle. I do not believe that there are any cultural differences that transcend this notion. You can be in Iraq, Cleveland, or Tahiti and you will see people acting in their own self interest. Individuals have widely varied self interests, but they always act upon them. Cultures may tweak those interests over time (Europeans are more interested in obtaining a World Cup ticket whereas Americans want Super Bowl tickets) but the underlying principle remains. Representative republics/democracies, in general, tend to allow for more discretion on the part of the individual in obtaining their self interest. This may be why some people see it as a "natural state" and they may have a point. Specifically speaking: Is democracy the best thing for Iraq in 2006? That would be hard to prove. I don't know everything about their culture but it's clear that they do not have a great exposure to the economic aspects of democracy. This will make any transistion difficult at best. Meanwhile, groups that have been supressed (Shia) have collective self interests that are religious in nature, at least in part. These supressed interests now rise to the top and create strife with other groups (Sunni) who lash out to maintain power. The positioning for who the next boss will be trumps the notion of opening a new beauty shop on the corner by a wide margin. I think it is good to know that people will act in their self interest. This should send Iraq in the right general direction, albeit on a slow crawl. I don't think there is a way to snap our fingers and create new conditions. People won't see change like this as being in their self interest because it will create uncomfortable situations. Comfort is a strong self interest. I think the best thing we can do is to sell Iraqis on the benefits democracy will bring their children and grandchildren. On the War: I think the administration should have known that the current period would be difficult. My guess is that they probably did at some level. With that said, we have to look at was in our self interest through the prism of our alternatives. If we had not gone to war, it would stil be an ugly geopolitcal situation, just a different one. It is impossible to say what it would be, but is clear that the ME situation is/was heading more rapidly toward a "resolution". By going to war, did we improve our odds of having that result being favorable? It's hard to say, but hardly one sided. I doubt there is a single person on the planet that has enough facts to know for sure. There are precious few that have enough facts to even offer a well educated guess. From my limited point of view, I think the US acted according to our interests by doing what we did.

I swear he broke into english a couple of times. In the middle I thought I heard him say....."positive thinking....positive thinking".

I wasn't even going to click on this thread. At first I wished I hadn't. Then, from out of the blue, CTM starts his reply with the word "Dude". Now I know that in life, anything is possible.

Would you trade a penguin?

Our offensive safety is the 3 yard pattern on 4th an 9. Our offensive corner is where Moulds sits when Losman throws to Evans.

I'll point out two things I don't like. First, while I agree with most of his stances, I don't think he comes clean and explains the real reasons behind them. I think he has reasons that are real and then looks for reasons he can sell. That's dishonest. I'll list a second because I have to give him a pass on this one to a degree because every politician does it. The policy oriented concern I have is with demographics based social programs. Our society is aging and social security, medicare, etc. are not going to get cheaper. He took a shot at helping social security but it was far from a complete overhaul. He has expanded medicare and sooner or later someone will have to pay the bill.

El Bingo.

That sounds just like Adam Smith.....oh wait, I'm just viewing it my way.

Do you consider pulling yourself out a a game and pouting on the sidelines a character issue?

I've always liked Moulds. I like his skills. I feel bad for him in that he has been with Buffalo for what largely has been a rough stretch for the team. In 2005, he had an opportunity to truly become a team leader and help out a new QB. This would have been role reversal and in a way repay the older Bills he credits for his own development. Instead he chose to complain about how the QB was handed the job and get into "office" politics. This involved pulling himself from a game in which the same QB threw 3 1st quarter touchdowns against our most hated rival. All of this despite the fact that reports have stated he had a Drew Bledsoe doll that he stuck pins in. Who is good enough at QB for Eric? Someone who throws every ball to him? If Moulds decides (he still can) to be a team leader during this time of turnover and help along the "new Bills", and the team excels, he will certainly be remembered as one of the greatest Bills ever. If he continues do display his 2005 attitude, I hope he leaves.

I'm sure there are cogent arguments both for and against legalizing some/all drugs. His argument is incredibly simplistic and lame. I like could have like totally written that in like high school dude. P.S. He can't even spell groovy.

His play didn't exactly look like the play of someone that wants to win. Question: If you leave a toxic environment that you helped create, who benefits most?

In 5 years we can't assemble 5 good ol? It's not like there weren't good choices out there. We only need 5

It was very late and he only had an hour for cooking.

You throw at or away from corners much more than safeties. The point is not whether Hope is better than TP or not. The point is whether Hope is better than our players. Me, I think we have bigger needs (although in a perfect world i'd like better safeties).

To avoid throwing interceptions you throw toward the guy that had more interceptions?

This thread was started (by me) as pretty much apolitical. I was asking what everyone thought about whether this had spun too far out of control to ever return. I purposely asked it in a hypothetical way that intended to eliminate the underlying right/wrong of the issue itself. You responded in the spirit of the thread. Why, three pages later did you come in with this?

The Outlaw Moans and Wales.

Agreed. He said the Bills have the lowest cap $ left over of the teams that were under the cap. Well, about half the teams are over the cap so the Bills are in better than average shape. Poor Levy my butt. If Donahoe the great was so great at the cap then why poor Levy? He wants it both ways.

Now you made me go and defend Clayton. I heard Ferguson give a radio interview in which he stated his name was from the miniseries. I realize the book was first, but Clayton was basically quoting the ultimate source on this one.

That will NEVER apply to Chuck Schumer.

That's interesting and would make a nice thread. I started this thread to discuss something else. Starting a thread is really pretty easy. You should try it.