myusername
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2003
- 5,046
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: myusername
So how long before the purges and the burning?
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Scientists and professors are mostly liberals so go figure.
So, simply applying the term "liberal" to an individual invalidates anything they might say? If you REALLY think this is true you're a very scary person.
No, it doesn't invalidate anything they might say, but it means that they have collectivist ideals which I strongly disagree with.
Collectivist? That's some REALLY thick paint you're slapping on there, Dis. Besides a few braindead dupes in the general population, there really aren't that many true "collectivists" in our society, are there? On the other hand we have flag-waving jingoists by the untold MILLIONS.
col·lec·tiv·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lkt-vzm)
n.
The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Scientists and professors are mostly liberals so go figure.
So, simply applying the term "liberal" to an individual invalidates anything they might say? If you REALLY think this is true you're a very scary person.
No, it doesn't invalidate anything they might say, but it means that they have collectivist ideals which I strongly disagree with.
Collectivist? That's some REALLY thick paint you're slapping on there, Dis. Besides a few braindead dupes in the general population, there really aren't that many true "collectivists" in our society, are there? On the other hand we have flag-waving jingoists by the untold MILLIONS.
col·lec·tiv·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lkt-vzm)
n.
The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.
Forty percent of government outlays go to social security and income security. Income security is basically welfare for "poor" people, while social security is welfare for old people. This fact alone reveals that collectivism is very alive and well in this country.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Awww - so a bunch of scientists didn't think their stuff was looked at seriously enough by the gov't. And?
Is there some "hidden meaning" behind this?
CkG
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Awww - so a bunch of scientists didn't think their stuff was looked at seriously enough by the gov't. And?
Is there some "hidden meaning" behind this?
CkG
Are you a nobel laureate, CkG?
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Scientists and professors are mostly liberals so go figure.
So, simply applying the term "liberal" to an individual invalidates anything they might say? If you REALLY think this is true you're a very scary person.
No, it doesn't invalidate anything they might say, but it means that they have collectivist ideals which I strongly disagree with.
Collectivist? That's some REALLY thick paint you're slapping on there, Dis. Besides a few braindead dupes in the general population, there really aren't that many true "collectivists" in our society, are there? On the other hand we have flag-waving jingoists by the untold MILLIONS.
col·lec·tiv·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lkt-vzm)
n.
The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.
Forty percent of government outlays go to social security and income security. Income security is basically welfare for "poor" people, while social security is welfare for old people. This fact alone reveals that collectivism is very alive and well in this country.
And which presidents have supported and allowed Social Security to become the behemoth it has? Which recent president proposed a prescription drug plan for seniors?
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'm not a huge fan of Bush and I will be the first to admit that Republicans are not friends of the younger generation middle class, on the other hand liberals aren't anyone's friend even though some people may think so. Young people are going to pay in SPADES for all this, unless there is a change.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Awww - so a bunch of scientists didn't think their stuff was looked at seriously enough by the gov't. And?
Is there some "hidden meaning" behind this?
CkG
Are you a nobel laureate, CkG?
And that would be important why? This isn't about me - it's about some people whining about not being taken seriously enough(according to them).
CkG
Originally posted by: Orsorum
Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'm not a huge fan of Bush and I will be the first to admit that Republicans are not friends of the younger generation middle class, on the other hand liberals aren't anyone's friend even though some people may think so. Young people are going to pay in SPADES for all this, unless there is a change.
Of course we will. I have already accepted the fact that I will be providing for my own retirement, and that I will probably have to work well into my 70s to do so. Tough sh!t, eh? It is my generation and my children that will be paying for this mess, and I would like for at least one admiinistration to have the balls to deal with it, not just ignore it like it will disappear. So far I've been disappointed by both conservatives and liberals.
Anyone who allows their thinking to be distorted only by ideological or political lines is a tool.. There are a few people I dismiss out of hand, because they're both unqualified and vitriolic, and have been shown to use misleading and outright false statements in their writings - Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, to name a few.
Show me why you disagree with a statement, and I may disagree with you, but I will respect your decision. Tell me you dismiss it immediately because the person making the statement is a liberal or conservative, and I'll call you a fool and ignore you.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK OK OK - I give, you win.
Bush is teh EVAL!!1!!1
ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!
CkG
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK OK OK - I give, you win.
Bush is teh EVAL!!1!!1
ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!
CkG
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Scientists and professors are mostly liberals so go figure.
So, simply applying the term "liberal" to an individual invalidates anything they might say? If you REALLY think this is true you're a very scary person.
No, it doesn't invalidate anything they might say, but it means that they have collectivist ideals which I strongly disagree with.
Collectivist? That's some REALLY thick paint you're slapping on there, Dis. Besides a few braindead dupes in the general population, there really aren't that many true "collectivists" in our society, are there? On the other hand we have flag-waving jingoists by the untold MILLIONS.
col·lec·tiv·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lkt-vzm)
n.
The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.
Forty percent of government outlays go to social security and income security. Income security is basically welfare for "poor" people, while social security is welfare for old people. This fact alone reveals that collectivism is very alive and well in this country.
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK OK OK - I give, you win.
Bush is teh EVAL!!1!!1
ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!
CkG
Dude, ya got to realize that sometimes ANY administration does stupid or bad things that are just that. If you support that particular president, I think it would be best to acknowlege the shortcomings and perhaps fire off a friendly email. Sure the opposition is going to beat on him but who cares? We can think whatever we want, but you could expend the same energy to kick your guy back in line
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK OK OK - I give, you win.
Bush is teh EVAL!!1!!1
ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!
CkG
Dude, ya got to realize that sometimes ANY administration does stupid or bad things that are just that. If you support that particular president, I think it would be best to acknowlege the shortcomings and perhaps fire off a friendly email. Sure the opposition is going to beat on him but who cares? We can think whatever we want, but you could expend the same energy to kick your guy back in line
Believe me - I've been to the post office to send certified letters more often than I care to admit I use the avenues provided to let my opinion be know to those who supposedly represent me. Some of the nastiest have gone to those with an (R) behind their names
The scientists can say what they want but that doesn't mean they are right. Their perception is one of data - not policy. The gov't isn't for science -they are for policy and they(scientist) are whining about it. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets looked at and fixed and other times it's just road noise.
But anyway - ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!! HE IS TEH EVAL!!!1!
CkG
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK OK OK - I give, you win.
Bush is teh EVAL!!1!!1
ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!
CkG
Dude, ya got to realize that sometimes ANY administration does stupid or bad things that are just that. If you support that particular president, I think it would be best to acknowlege the shortcomings and perhaps fire off a friendly email. Sure the opposition is going to beat on him but who cares? We can think whatever we want, but you could expend the same energy to kick your guy back in line
Believe me - I've been to the post office to send certified letters more often than I care to admit I use the avenues provided to let my opinion be know to those who supposedly represent me. Some of the nastiest have gone to those with an (R) behind their names
The scientists can say what they want but that doesn't mean they are right. Their perception is one of data - not policy. The gov't isn't for science -they are for policy and they(scientist) are whining about it. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets looked at and fixed and other times it's just road noise.
But anyway - ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!! HE IS TEH EVAL!!!1!
CkG
Let me try this once more.
Let's say that Clinton was under investigation by a grand jury. Half the people there were jurists familiar with the principles of law regarding the alleged violation. Now the jury is about to pronounce it's verdict, but half the members are taken out by Clinton and replaced by cronies who owe him favors, and do not even understand the charges against Clinton. They DO understand that they can benefit by deciding in favor of Clinton, and sabotage things.
The half of the remaining jurors complain that the verdict was rigged.
Are they whiners? Perhaps, but they have damn good cause.
This is the same thing.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK OK OK - I give, you win.
Bush is teh EVAL!!1!!1
ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!
CkG
Dude, ya got to realize that sometimes ANY administration does stupid or bad things that are just that. If you support that particular president, I think it would be best to acknowlege the shortcomings and perhaps fire off a friendly email. Sure the opposition is going to beat on him but who cares? We can think whatever we want, but you could expend the same energy to kick your guy back in line
Believe me - I've been to the post office to send certified letters more often than I care to admit I use the avenues provided to let my opinion be know to those who supposedly represent me. Some of the nastiest have gone to those with an (R) behind their names
The scientists can say what they want but that doesn't mean they are right. Their perception is one of data - not policy. The gov't isn't for science -they are for policy and they(scientist) are whining about it. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets looked at and fixed and other times it's just road noise.
But anyway - ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!! HE IS TEH EVAL!!!1!
CkG
Let me try this once more.
Let's say that Clinton was under investigation by a grand jury. Half the people there were jurists familiar with the principles of law regarding the alleged violation. Now the jury is about to pronounce it's verdict, but half the members are taken out by Clinton and replaced by cronies who owe him favors, and do not even understand the charges against Clinton. They DO understand that they can benefit by deciding in favor of Clinton, and sabotage things.
The half of the remaining jurors complain that the verdict was rigged.
Are they whiners? Perhaps, but they have damn good cause.
This is the same thing.
No, it's not. Your scenario is about a common perspective (finding guilt) whereas this is about different things. One is data and one is policy. A better analogy would be to say that half decided on the sentence while the other half decided guilt.
But anyway - like I've said. You win. Bush is teh eval!!1! ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!
CkG
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK OK OK - I give, you win.
Bush is teh EVAL!!1!!1
ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!
CkG
Dude, ya got to realize that sometimes ANY administration does stupid or bad things that are just that. If you support that particular president, I think it would be best to acknowlege the shortcomings and perhaps fire off a friendly email. Sure the opposition is going to beat on him but who cares? We can think whatever we want, but you could expend the same energy to kick your guy back in line
Believe me - I've been to the post office to send certified letters more often than I care to admit I use the avenues provided to let my opinion be know to those who supposedly represent me. Some of the nastiest have gone to those with an (R) behind their names
The scientists can say what they want but that doesn't mean they are right. Their perception is one of data - not policy. The gov't isn't for science -they are for policy and they(scientist) are whining about it. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets looked at and fixed and other times it's just road noise.
But anyway - ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!! HE IS TEH EVAL!!!1!
CkG
Let me try this once more.
Let's say that Clinton was under investigation by a grand jury. Half the people there were jurists familiar with the principles of law regarding the alleged violation. Now the jury is about to pronounce it's verdict, but half the members are taken out by Clinton and replaced by cronies who owe him favors, and do not even understand the charges against Clinton. They DO understand that they can benefit by deciding in favor of Clinton, and sabotage things.
The half of the remaining jurors complain that the verdict was rigged.
Are they whiners? Perhaps, but they have damn good cause.
This is the same thing.
No, it's not. Your scenario is about a common perspective (finding guilt) whereas this is about different things. One is data and one is policy. A better analogy would be to say that half decided on the sentence while the other half decided guilt.
But anyway - like I've said. You win. Bush is teh eval!!1! ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!
CkG
So is it better to base policy on data, or make the data fit the policy?