OCinBuffalo

We do? Well, I wasn't aware of that. I suppose it would require me caring about "the fight"...but somehow I just don't. EDIT: Besides, there's no way I could ever keep up with you in terms of sheer volume ...and, so often I find myself reading something, getting ready to bash it, and then realizing that you already did, 2 posts later. Hehehe. Thanks for that. However, I will disclaim this by saying: there is a direct relationship between # of paragraphs in my posts and # of Sapphire and Tonics on the day. Just think you should be aware of this, in the interest of full disclosure. And, time of day doesn't always have a bearing on # of Sapphires Respecting your time? Hmm. Interesting take on this. Oververbously is not a word. And, look at that post again. I was responding to 5 or 6 posts in that one(just like I am doing here), and the point I was making required a response to each, because it is fundamentally based on showing a pattern. Would you rather I responded to each one individually? And, if you look at it, each response to each post isn't that big. But, provided I haven't been boozing, I will take "your time" into account from now on.. And I will ask: what's the point of expecting you to honestly respond rationally to anything we say every time any of us take you to the wood shed? It's been what? 6 hours now? are you telling me it takes you that long to read? You are still ducking me...so I will shorten it up for you and let's see if you make it about process and not content again.... Me calling your thinking stupid...is because it is patently stupid...and has nothing to do with whether you care about other people, whether you are a good guy, or whether I would have no problem giving you a ride home from the Bills game if you asked. One thing has nothing to do with the other. At the same time, me concluding that your thinking is stupid, because it is, as I have proven on multiple occasions, doesn't mean I don't want to fix problems, help people, or look out for my fellow man. It simply means I don't like your plan, because it's stupid, and I don't like stupid.

Wither under scrutiny? WTF? Where have you been? Apparently you haven't been here much in the last year, and haven't seen Palin average 3 threads a day. Every time I turn on any news program, I am sure to see her being criticized, scrutinized, you name it. In fact, I can't remember the last time I watched a news program that didn't discuss Palin. Hell, apparently this Glee show even wrote a cheap shot about her. And besides, she has already faced the scrutiny of a Presidential campaign...to the point that McCain hardly had to deal with any. She has been under consistent scrutiny, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Might be time for a rethink on the Palin/scrutiny idea. If you/your buddies have been soooo successful at marginalizing her, why does she keep ending up on my TV? The idiot MSNBC answer is: she's an easy target because she's an idiot, so let's put her on. The smarter Fox News answer is: she's very popular and popular means ratings, so let's put her on. The genius Republican answer is probably: move her to the front, let her take all the heat for the next 5 months. We will roll over the Democrats in September, when we come out swinging, and they haven't learned to say anything but "Palinbad". I love the fact that you, of all people, are now saying "Reagan thought about what he said". I would like to know: has that been your consistent position on Reagan? or, has your position "evolved". Also, what title will Palin get if she does the same thing Regan did? The Great Annoyer? Raspalin?(Rasputin?) EDIT: I forgot: You think the Republicans are going to go for a Mainstream Candidate? Just like the Democrats did?

Bah, you caught me! Nothing gets by you does it. Too bad you ruined John Adams' plan. Oh well. I was hoping that was going to go somewhere funny. I guess it's back to work for me...

I don't know about that. First, I agree with most here that Palin is, well, Palin. However, as I have said before, all the media has been doing since day 1 is attacking her. They are very rapidly running out of bad things to say about her: what's left? They have already hit her family, experience, being a hick, knowledge, etc....and yet she remains. Perhaps screechingly annoying as ever...but also, as effective as ever in terms of her message. This has happened before with Reagan. The "Great Communicator" was only given that title AFTER he had been able to consistently refute/ignore/marginalize the constant liberal media attacks on him. That title was their white flag. And they gave him that title...because, after all, it wasn't what he said that made sense, or, the fact that the ideas they espouse don't, it's just that he was so good at saying it. And of course it couldn't be that they simply failed miserably...nah, they were up against a superstar...so that's why they lost. I am therefore not so quick to call her a bad thing. How is Obama supposed to run against her exactly? Call her names? Say that she doesn't know what she's doing? Sorry, that's already been done. Frankly, an Obama/Palin campaign would put all of the focus on Obama...not Palin...and given his current performance?

The fun part is: they think that doing even more FUBAR'ing is going to turn things around, instead of merely making it worse for themselves. The hysterical part is: while they are doubling down they will also self-congratulating themselves for being "courageous"....which feels good....which means there is almost certainly going to be even more doubling down. It's an idiot's vicious cycle really. They are doing more damage to themselves than billions in soft money ads could ever do. I figure another year or so of this nonsense, and no one will trust the left...for at least another 30 years anyway, since it's been about that long since Jimmy Carter.

Yes, spend any time working at any county or state highway department and all doubt of this statement will be removed. I would only add: "while being grossly overpaid" to the end of that sentence.

Finally! I have an example of the right doing what I always get on the left for doing: seeing a problem, and instead of solving the problem, doing things that make the problem worse. Where is conner? Exiled is here...so good enough. Both of them can stop crying about me only making fun of the folly of the left after this post. Wisconsin: have you even considered that what you are doing is providing a cause for even further demonization? I don't think you have. If you see this demonization as a problem, and for the record, it is, why on God's green earth would you feed into it? Let's remove all doubt: your consistent posting of "minoritybad" is not having the effect you think it does. (Well, provided that your chief concern is: "enough already with the white male bashing". If your agenda is to look like a racist idiot, then you are doing just fine. ) Look, this is not about fighting fire with fire....because in this case, you only end up with...more fire. IF you want to counter the white male bashing, you should post examples of "when white men are helpful to minorities", not, "when minorities attack". Keep the focus on white males, and when they do good things, and don't say anything about minorities. That makes the jackasses think and forces them re-consider their white/male/bad positions. If you attack minorities, it merely makes them say "see, they are doing what I projected they would do". You are enabling idiots to be "right" about you, which, in idiot-think, means they can project that to every white male, and that doesn't help anybody. Get it?

No they aren't. This is perhaps the biggest of issues with this thinking = it is emotion-based, and not reason-based. Giving something away for free doesn't mean it costs any less. Every single salient detail points to massive insurance premium increases. So, while it MAY be true that these suddenly "privileged" 30 million are going to get some health care for a while. In 2-3 years they simply won't be able to afford it..and you will have solved nothing. The government will not be able to subsidize them without going bankrupt. Period. Why? Because, unlike Medicare, which is based on people paying in for 50 years and then drawing out for 10 or so, if they live long enough, this would be based on people paying in and other people, your "special" 30 million, immediately drawing out. There is no way for that to happen unless oppressive taxes are imposed, in which case we may find that your "solution" to a problem has, once again, caused an even bigger problem = open revolt. Or, again, the subsidies are curtailed, and ultimately the 30 million simply can't afford the premiums. In either case, this whole idea sucks, has sucked, and will continue to suck, until it is replaced by something that actually contains real cost control.

I doubt you could respond effectively to any of it. Short enough for you?

This is an interesting thread because it comes close to the heart of one of the main issues that are currently dividing us. In my view, this is largely due to either innocent misunderstanding, or willful misrepresentation, of the views/facts. Fundamentally, it comes down to caring vs. thinking. If I question your thinking, it doesn't mean I am questioning your caring. Conversely, my questioning of your thinking doesn't mean I care any less than you do. I don't think most leftists are out of their minds. Rather, I think that they have been conditioned by their leaders to think that traditional American values are morally bankrupt and dangerous. Therefore, they respond emotionally, not rationally, and in doing so, open themselves up to all of the attacks, based on reason, and not emotion, that we see here. They think they are morally superior to others for no other reason than they define themselves as liberals. We look at that and say: it's not what you say or how you define yourself, but what you do and the results you get, that count. They interpret that, wrongly, as us saying we don't care. We do care. We just don't see how their thinking solves the problem, and in most cases, we see their thinking as causing more problems than it solves. Exactly what I am talking about above. In a word: this is Projection. Gene has no idea what Republicans are thinking or their real views on how to help people. Instead, he projects his thoughts onto someone else without consciously asking them a thing. This is the easy way out. It's much easier to convince yourself you know what others are thinking, rather than going through the difficulty and uncertainty of actually asking them. This illustrates another caring vs. thinking issue. Any of us that have given anything substantial to charity know: we do it because we are helping others, that we care about our fellow man, etc. Our thinking is: we hope that it will do some good....the only time we start thinking about the tax write off is...the last few days! The rest of the year, we give to charity because we care, the thinking that it helps the bottom line is a distant second. Gene has this relationship reversed, and, is once again projecting. Of course there are exceptions. Corporate "charity" work is often times a marketing ploy and many times the extremely wealthy do charity work as a way to justify their existence. But still, that is the distant second = thinking. Whenever I have been involved in "forced Corporate giving", even though it feels like a put-up job, I still always end up focusing on the good that it will do first...because I care. I never remember feeling any guilt about any of it. So, I guess we can chalk that one up to projection as well. As I said above, it appears that currently, most liberals consider themselves to be morally superior to everyone else. The problem is: nobody buys it. Not to mention that it's highly offensive to those of us who have dedicated our lives to making things better, even at great personal/financial/professional cost. The last thing we are thinking about is screwing other people to get ahead, or worse, ignoring other people and focusing on ourselves. And, again, this is another example Gene's confusing caring with thinking. We care about taking care of ourselves, first, as a moral responsibility, and something that we should take pride in...because we care about ourselves in terms of having self-respect. Our thinking is therefore: everybody has the same moral responsibility, and anything that leads people away from that is a bad idea, and bad for them personally. Quote: Self-control is the chief element in self-respect, and self-respect is the chief element in courage. - Thucydides And, we can't understand how anybody wouldn't want the same = the courage to start a business, the courage to take a risk at work and get a promotion, etc. We want to start with: take care of yourself if you can, if not, then we will help you out. Not, "we feel guilty because we have money we didn't earn, or we got illicitly, so, you are entitled to take some of our money because you don't have any". That is simply bad thinking, and has no bearing on whether we care about others or not.

Yeah...you can't beat the points...so out comes the name calling. How boring...

I always get a kick out the "Flintstones" theory = that we existed on the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. Yeah, that makes sense. I can see a bunch of humans, with sticks and rocks, beating a T. Rex Seems like merely getting stepped on would be enough to cause man to be extinct.

Sorry, this is "at the college level". Perhaps you haven't taken Western Civ yet? No Behavioral Psychology either I see...

But civilized '= lazy, selfish, or any justification for bad behavior, poor parenting, demanding money you are "entitled" to instead of earned, lack of respect for oneself or others, or any of the other crap. in fact, all of those things are the exact opposite of "being civilized". Only barbarians think that its ok to take other people's stuff, because other people have something they don't, and, because they can. Is that starting to make sense? By removing the consequences for "weakness", or, "inability to adapt to one's environment", we are enabling bad behavior, not stopping it. Most liberal policies treat the symptoms...but also have a causal effect on the disease. In this way, liberals act exactly like the pharmaceutical companies they supposedly despise. They never cure the cause of the disease, but, they will always charge us lots of tax money to keep treating it. See, and the single left-leaner exception proves the rule.

Wrong. There are 0 misconceptions. The new Liberal talking point is to run around and call free market enterprise "social Darwinism". No misconception there. Therefore, I am not the one invoking Darwin, they are. No misconception there. I have no idea why they are invoking Darwin, you need to ask them if we really need to invoke him. Misconception? Nope. Bah, I knew you wouldn't get it.

Put me back on ignore immediately! I enjoy doing my parodies of your posts, and its no fun if you can see them. OK. They only are, if the jackass liberals who keep using the term "Social Darwinism" say they are. I have a simple solution: tell your friends to stop using the term. It is ludicrous. It is retarded....but I am not the one running around saying it on TV and all over the internet. Think this is a stupid idea? Then get on the libtard websites and let them have it. Right, and the recent health care bill that no one read, that we had to pass in order to know what's in it....that was NOT the single biggest act of faith and not "science logic" you have ever seen? teehee...too easy Faulty logic.... ....given that SOME black culture REQUIRES subscribing to dog fighting, why is ANY black culture acceptable? Get it? Probably not....

I agree with what you wrote above...just cutting the length, etc. but......I am not the one who is making the comparison. People who describe the free market as "Social Darwinism" are. So, apparently you think that is a ludicrous comparison...I tend to agree.

Bah...ok dumbed down version: Why is Darwinism not immoral when applied to biology...cows...dinosaurs...Neanderthal Man(who was supposedly around the same time we were)....but suddenly becomes immoral, when applied to economics? The tenets of the theory itself do not define morality in any way, and are amoral. The theory is the the theory, and I am not the one running around using the phrase "Social Darwinism", liberals are: so, they are the ones relating these two concepts, not me. IF you have an issue with them being related, take it up with the people doing the relating and tell them to STFU... Thank you....is there anything else you want to tell me? Just be sure that it's at "the college level".

Oh come on->insulted? Please. Poking fun? Barely...but insult? Let DC Tom/Alaska Darin give you a good bashing...then you will know and insult when you see one. You want to know why you missed the point? Well, there are probably lots of answers to that. As far as polarization goes...I want to know why the ACLU will sue to demand that Darwinism be taught in school, but, then, will sue against it when it is applied in economics. See the contradiction yet? Because it's a puzzle, and human beings, well most anyway, hate leaving puzzles unsolved. Some like to have other people do all their puzzle solving for them(cough, ACORN, cough). But, most people won't quit until they get the answer for themselves????? I hope that is a good enough answer. Well, I will have to remind myself not to unleash punishing emoticons on you ever again. As far as freaking out? Who is freaking out? I'm not. So far, I don't feel very freaky at all...but, that may change I guess the answer is: keep looking for it until you find one you are happy with... ....and then fight like hell on a message board to defend it and ban people that don't agree with you... ....or, you could have a reasonable discussion with people to see where they stand in relation to your ideas... ....or, you could just do...this heheheheheh, did it again!

Hey poky: I just wanted to state the so-called "objective" view of God, in the manner that most atheists would describe it....for effect. So, that when they start saying "yeah, yeah, yeah" and then, I hit them with the government thing, it causes a little dissonance, and God forbid, some thinking to occur...are you telling me you missed that?

You don't care.....and yet...you post.... And, none of this is my point. (Every so often I catch some foolish liberal I know in real life in a logical contradiction...like: Bush was a great liar, and an idiot, at the same time, or, "we should be tolerant of all cultures and those who aren't are racist homophobes"/Mike Vick learned dogfighting from his culture/"Mike Vick should not be tolerated"!/but what about his culture?, etc., then, I bring it here to see if there's anything I am missing.)

I do. And, you shouldn't fret over being banned by those people. If that's how they behave, and think, then its a good thing you ended up free of them. There was literally nothing to gain by continuing to interact with them. Maybe, you made them think a little...and that's a good thing. I prefer to think of it as a LOGICAL construct, first. And, logic has existed for 13 billion years as well. (That we have only recently been able to perceive it, doesn't mean it didn't exist this whole time. And we don't have a full handle on it...just look at conner's posts! ) But anyway, I think you missed the logic. I said "of this world"...to include existence in it. By definition, God cannot be of this world, and, only something not of this world could create it: If he created the universe, he would have had to exist outside of it, in order to create it. He would have also had to exist before it, in order to create it. And, the universe didn't create itself since we "know" that a big bang supposedly did. Something, not of this world, and with enough power, had to have done the job, since it's not like big bangs just "happen"...since, in 13 billion years, we have no evidence that another big bang has ever occurred My explanation that God or some sort of super-natural(remember, not of this world?) force did it, is the simplest explanation, and therefore the most likely one...if we want to use Occam's razor.... And, I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that if God could pull off creating the universe, creating himself might also be in the bag of tricks. Also, if God is a "consciousness" then it's quite possible that he never had to be created at all. Now, if he could just twinkle his toes and make me a flying car powered by manipulating gravitons... EDIT: For no reason at all other than I just remembered it: "Are you trying to tell me that Jesus Christ can't hit a curve ball?"

It's not. And doubly so if you can offer your service tax/hassle/government regulation free. Which is also not hard. Look the government has a hard enough time protecting itself from the relatively small number baddies who attack them on a daily basis. They don't want to force millions of us onto their bad side through dopey legislation. They will lose big. It will be just like prohibition. Epic fail, and then, inevitable repeal. It's the same thing, just like every time some newly elected politico, says "we are sick and tired of these internet people not paying taxes, etc. I am gonna go after these people and force them to do whatever I say...blah, blah, blah!" Remember the whole "we are gonna tax email!" thing? Ever wonder why that died just as fast as it started? Dumbass lawyer turned politician, who thinks he knows IT, because, he is a lawyer, and lawyers know everything, comes in and talks smack on day 2 of his term...then, they bring in an actual IT consultant....and 2 days later, loud mouth lawyer, with tail firmly between legs at press conference says: "this issue needs more study"... ...translation? IT guy said: "you have no idea who you are f'ing with, better get out there and publicly back off or you will wake up tomorrow with half the state's hard drives scorched"...and, it's over, never to be heard from again. Last time? it was Spitzer, now? Obama.

Horsecrap. The result of what you propose will be the exact opposite of what you intend. I doubt there is a finer example of "unintended consequences". It's simple really: and Google is already doing it = making their own ISP. Also, you are predicating your analogy on the fact that the hardware companies, in this case, cable/Verizon/Satellite, will all stand together on this for all time. There is no chance of that. None. The second that Verizon thinks it can get over on the cable people by cutting a sweetheart deal with Google, they will jump at it. I said above that hardware is always looking to differentiate. Is there a better differentiating feature for Verizon than "install Fios, and Google Movies will run 3x faster, cost less, and you will get Google premium content that you can't get from the cable company"? Of course not. And, as soon as (insert ISP here) signs said deal with (Insert pervasive software company here), it will be like musical chairs, with everybody running around singing deals etc. Mark my words: all of this will happen, it's just a matter of time, and some good sales guys. But, if you make it illegal for anybody to do anything, and that everybody has to serve the same content, get the same bandwidth, etc. you take away any possible competitive advantage out of it, then all that will happen is: suck. Prices will go up, with no increase in quality, service, innovation. Look when it comes to the internet: you benefit from chaos, not order. The last thing you want is some tool in DC deciding what you get and how....and besides, if any of this does happen, I can guarantee you that I, and millions like me, will simply expand the undernet...and tell that DC tool to blow it out his azz. EDIT: and that's just what the good guys will do. The black hats will make making DC tool's life miserable their mission in life.

We all know that we are supposed to believe in evolution, well, according to some anyway. In fact, you don't have to look very had to find tons of arguments for evolution, and, tons of disparagement of anybody who dares question it. Things like fruit flies evolving in months, genetics, etc. seem to provide a lot of evidence for evolution as "how we got here". Personally, I look at creation in terms of physics: if there was literally nothing, and then suddenly, there was everything, somebody or something, had to decide to flip that switch, and that something, by definition, could not be "of this world", or Universe, for that matter, since neither existed. However, once the switch was flipped, I see no problem with Darwinism as a reasonable explanation for how things changed, but I don't see it as a reasonable explanation for what started things off. And, it seems, evolution is largely a good thing: it has forced us, and everything else, to continuously adapt, and as a result, grow stronger/improve. I don't think you can find an atheist, or any left-leaning person anywhere that would tell you that evolution is a bad thing. And, I especially don't think you will find one that will tell you that God, coming down from on high, determining who lives and who dies, gets sick/doesn't, prospers/fails, would be better than letting evolution, or "nature", run it's course. I think most people, while they may not agree, can see the logic in that position. Hmm. That seems like a very good argument for Darwinism and not believing in the "plan" of some nameless, faceless, entity that has nothing in common with human beings and whose top-down interference is based on its own agenda, with little regard for what makes humans happy, wealthy, etc. So why then, when we talk about free market enterprise, does the left, and often, many of these very same atheists, turn on Evolution and start calling it evil? We are told that the free market, low taxes, letting people who have earned wealth, keep it = "Social Darwinism"...and it's immoral. Is it immoral that the dinosaurs don't exist anymore? So, is Evolution/Darwinism a good idea, or a bad one? Why is it that God coming down from on high a bad thing...but another nameless, faceless entity...the government, with a similar, human stifling, top down agenda, a good thing? Or, if you are a left-leaning atheist, how do you resolve telling me that God is bad/doesn't exist....but, at the same time, tell me that I should put my faith in the Government, or Global Warming, or worse, the current government's plan for Global Warming?