For me, apparently Kucinich wins at a score of 36 (%?), but nearly all the democrats are in the 28-36 range for me, as well as Guiliani. The other republicans were between 3 and 20.
I don't know much about Kucinich other than he won't win the nomination so I need not consider him further. I have more or less resigned myself to the idea that although I am not a Hillary fan, she will likely win the nomination and will be much better than whoever (probably Romney) that the Rethuglicans nominate.
Yeah, I got a 43% for Kucinich, but that's like casting your vote for the Green party. You're wasting it. You have to cast your vote for the lesser of two evils and that unfortunately looks like it will be Hillary. Oh, and the poll said that I should try and assassinate Fred Thompson if he wins.
Yeah, Thomson was last on my list as well - which I'm sure has to be wrong since Brownback is the devil and he scored twice as good as Thompson for me. I've mentioned before how much I hate Brownback, though.
What this quiz has proven to me is that I'm undecided on a lot of issues. It does seem apparent that I'm a Democrat though. That was not a surprise to me though.
It would have been a surprise to me prior to Bush taking his first office - I had always more or less identified myself as a Republican back then. But there's no way to alienate people like... well, being Bush. Oh, and let's not forget his yes-man Congress (though to be fair about the only thing the current incredibly-inept Democratic congress has over them is that they aren't his toadies). And the Supreme Court that will in all likelihood set our country back 50 or more years on social issues.
Yeah, we're all Kucinich lefties. At this point, I'm relatively uninformed about the candidates, but the one Democrap who I've actually kind of liked is Joe Biden, even though he's sixth on the list of my quiz results. When I hear him speak, he seems less like a rubber-spined shithead politician than most others. Still, I'm far from enthused about any of them...
That is some despicable shit, though I'm hardly surprised. I don't know why news networks, whose job is nothing more than to procure viewers, should be actively (rather than passively) involved in the political process at all.
I personally disdain all television news. I'm not sure which I hold in greater contempt, though: local network nightly broadcasts or the cable news channels. Both are only useful as entertainment, if you can stomach that sort of sensationalism that preys on the credulous and undiscerning.
What I find funny is that I was listening to a podcast the other day (one of my primary sources of actual news) and they were interviewing an astrophysicist named Neil deGrasse Tyson, who has appeared on the Daily Show numerous times, and he was mentioning that statistically speaking, people who watch the Daily Show tend to be more educated than people who watch the nightly news. Not surprising if you think about it, but at the same time pretty sad.
Bert - Exactly my thoughts. TV news is in such an important position in a democracy yet continues to drop the ball. CNN is all about loud, obnoxious idiots and Anna Nicole Smith. Meanwhile, you have to seek out something like No End In Sight (HIGHLY recommended) to hear anything of substance and truth about the war in Iraq. Shouldn't CNN be airing stuff like this?
I watched it last night.... based on Zills recommendation. Very interesting. Basically it illustrates the Bush Administration blantantly ignoring Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) who spend months researching and providing direction for the administration. Its disgusting. They show, most likely, the real cause of the rise of insurgents and violence.... it was because of one decision - watch the movie to find out what. Then you get the F'n Bush Spin Machine. How the hell does the Media constantly swallow these lies? The Sec of Def is up there trying to hide the truth thats been uncovered by trivializing it. The movie also estimates the total cost of the war will be over 1.8 trillion dollars (I think it will be more). Check that.... the total cost of the war paid by the US taxpayer.
You are right about the media. I've been thinking about it for some time now. They used to be the watchdog for the people, sticklers for the truth and fair reporting. How can anyone explain how Bush have gotten away with everything from the Iraq war, the destruction of foriegn affairs, the economy, and plainly being the worst president in history, yet the media doesn't seem to notice this? But Clinton seemed to get scrutinized more and held to a much higher standard... all the past presidents seemed too (well from my short memory).
A few days earilier I watched SiCKO. OK - it had plenty of Moore's BS - bringing 911 volunteers to Cuba for healthcare. But it really made me think about why the US doesn't have universial healthcare? It is too damn profitable for the industry. Why give good healthcare to everyone when you can make a few companies rich? I hate the health insurance system. It is plain wrong. These non-profit (BS) and for profit (at least they are honest) companies are all about making money, not taking care of their insured. They look at ways to deny payments. This is from my own experience, not just from the movie. You have to fight and demand treatment from your doctor. If you mention a problem to your doctor, if you don't specifically ask him for treatment, then nothing will happen. This has been with multiple doctors too. None of my doctors have looked into why I might have High-Blood pressure from a age 22. Something fairly rare. I was not BigFatty then either. It is easier for them to prescribe pills than to find the cause. Plus, they don't get all those expensive tests on their docket. One of my professors (A heart specialist who happens to be the very best in GR and well known around the world... and he saved Jack's Dad's life once) told me there are two likely causes for my condition and it just takes a simple test to check. I brought this up with 2 subsequent docs.... Ok. interesting... we can look into that on your next visit.... lets concentrate on this minor problem I can take care of with some pills.
Ok.... I think I want a new thread on this...
One thing I definitely learned about health insurance: never get an HMO! Nobody except insurance companies like HMOs. Patients hate them, doctors hate them, they just plain suck.
It does seem very weird to me that we have a for-profit system paying for people's health care when it's plainly in their best interests to deny this care. I've never been one for socialized anything, really, but I do think that some governmental involvement in health insurance would likely be an improvement (provided it wasn't done by the Bush administration, obviously).
Anyway, I'm planning to watch No End In Sight tonight, I'll be back with my verdict soon.
Yes, I hate the fire service, the police service, the highways, libraries... dude, there are certain things that we all should pay into together and benefit together. Don't think I am for total Socialism, but there are some good ideas there. A democracy with socialistic tendencies.... Don't let those conservatives make Socialism a bad word... I hear people shouting it like it is a bad thing, which it can be done wrong. I know you know the difference between the 'isms', but a lot of people are spitting these words out without knowing what they are talking about.
Socialism, if you remove the greedy human element, is the best solution to society. The problem comes in when power hungry asses are put in charge of the socialist system. Then it's not really socialism or marxism anymore but a modifed dictatorship.
I definitely think health care would be better off regulated. The only problem is, the government is a for-profit organization in and of itself. Just look at all the raises they've voted for themselves, and the rest of the profit goes into feeding whatever agenda the current administration has.
Holy crap, I just about lept up on my soap box and started ranting about how it's not government for the people, it's government for the government. That we'll leave for another time.
But how can you remove the "greedy human element?" Humans are, and always will be motivated by money. If you remove that, you are no longer talking about humanity.
So while I agree that certain programs are better off having some semblance of fairness if they government runs them, overall, I am not in favor of dramatic redistribution of wealth. It's no accident that our capitalist country, with all its numerous faults, became a world power - our economy is almost entirely the reason.
I agree that capitalism is the best option we have, as proven over the last 200 years. But it will never generate a Utopia. Also, All these ideal governments and social structures will always have their fallbacks. It's capitalisms benefit that it works WITH the human element, rather than trying to eliminate it.
I would argue that America is capitalism taken too far. You got the super wealthy who bribe the government for favors. The rich (if they are smart) don't pay taxes. America is a haven for the rich that prey upon the poor. Our government should be serving the masses, not those who amassed the most money. Our citizens have no power of the vote.... because most people don't.
I am all for unlimited potential for a person who works fairly for it. But, each should pay their fair share (flat-tax perhaps) and realize we have a society to maintain. Lobbyist should be banned and governments should listen to the people, not business. What ever happened to 'for the people, by the people?'
Well, according to that one, Barack Obama is my closest match at 77%. Somehow, though, it has McCain and Huckabee tied at 32% for me which is absurd, so I'm not sure how much stock I put in this thing. But fun nonetheless.
What the hell?? I filled out that questionaire and apparently it determined that I needed a bunch of special offers and wasn't concerned about a candidate. I never saw my results, (don't need to, Obama) and jumped through a bunch of hoops.
I like McCain (49%) despite him being more socially conservative than I'd like. I wish there was a woman candidate named Barack McCain running.
I think it would be interesting to go over each of the issues on the site and see where everyone stands. It may prove a source of good discussion. Let's start with:
1. What would be your ideal candidate's position on the IRAQ WAR at the beginning of the war?
Would have opposed Bush’s original request to use military force against Iraq.
Would have supported Bush’s original request to use military force against Iraq.
Neither
I marked opposed, believing that we acted too quickly for military action, were not properly prepared for post-war Iraq, and didn't have enough support from the rest of the world.
Hell yeah we acted to quickly. For us to begin a war just because we believe the country might pose a threat to us and has nuclear asperations??? Next we need to invade Iran, North Korea, Pakhistan (except they have nuclear capabilities, I think) a few other countries in the Middle East, Former USSR Territories, probably a couple African countries.... hell, the rest of the world hates us so why not invade the rest of the world. That way, we can make sure no one else is capable of not liking us.
Of course, I've always been against war unless it's absolutely necessary or there is obvious human rights violations. To be more specific, I'm not sure why we're dumping all of our troops into Iraq and Afghanistan and not trying to help the Sudan and some of the other countries in Africa experiencing genocide right now..... oh right, oil.
Wow Bunky, that really scares me: Sam Brownback? Really? At the risk of offending your sensibilities, I feel I must nonetheless shout from the rooftops that he is a crazy theocratic buffoon. Good thing he's already out of the running...
It's also pretty amusing to me that the only one higher on your list is a guy who is a caricature of conservative values!
I don't know how to feel about McCain anymore. I used to like him, and I'd prefer a lobotomized, stoked-out version of him to GWB any day, but in recent years he's been pandering an awful lot to to a lot of ne'er-do-wells - of course I refer to the religious right. He's repeated that old false canard about the US being a "Christian Nation" and it makes my blood boil.
Anyway, as for the first question, I marked opposed too, but I left it as middle importance because at the time, even I was very much on the fence. I definitely didn't think there was any connection between Al Queda and Iraq, but when Colin Powell testified in front of Congress about them possessing WMDs, I have to admit it was compelling (though largely trumped up, but we didn't know that at the time) and I was feeling kind of bloodthirsty. So I can forgive someone for being swayed to some extent too. That said, Obama still is the only one who had his head screwed on straight on this one.
Bert - Obama and Ron Paul, right? Isn't Paul against interfering with other countries? I kinda like him (how can you not like someone that wants to end the IRS?) but he's still half nuts, isn't he?
Bunky -
Stephen Colbert is your #1? He's a parody! HA HA! I love it! I'm curious about your answers now...
Yeah, Ron Paul is nutty, you're right. The latest scandal is his old newsletters, which he claims not to have read (come on!). This has some good quotes from them over the years:
It was no suprise that Republicans dominated my list. It was interesting the order they ranked in, not exactly how I would have called it. Brownback was a complete suprise. Colbert was a sweet treat. It made me laugh when I saw that.
I am a strong supporter of the military. My brother, father, and uncle all served in different branches, so my perspective is probably a little different from the rest of yours. This is a subject I would enjoying discussing with the Bone.
I should probably lay low on the opinions for a day or two. I am afraid Ross may kick me off his site (and XBOX friend's list) now that he has discovered that I am a Republican. He is probably vomitting as I type!
Bunky - Answer the question! Should we assume you took door #2?
Nothing wrong with being a Republican by the way -- no worse than being a Democrat really (excluding George W; counting him you're way worse :) ). I grew up in a Republican household but couldn't vote for W. I don't fall squarely into either camp. Best I can tell I'm a "social liberal, fiscal conservative" with a twist of lemon. It's some political half-breed apparently. Like an elf-dwarf.
I have no shame about being a Republican. I generally take a moderate stance on a lot of the issues, but as whole share the viewpoints of the Republican party.
Yes, I boldly walked through door number #2, shaking my Republican ass as I crossed the threshold! I remember a lot of democratic leaders taking the door #2 at the time as well...
I have a lot of opinions on Iraq. Some of which have changed since the war started. I am still a huge supporter of the military, and have nothing but tremendous respect and admiration for every solider who is currently serving, or who has served duty in Iraq.
I was spelling it phonetically I guess. As for political commentary, I think we all know by now where I stand on the subject of "times."
As far as Iraq goes...it was probably a good thing to go there, but I'm not fond of being lied to about the reasoning. Nobody likes Saddam, you don't have to make up stories about him to get us to agree to get rid of him. As for what's happened since, well that's a whole other mess that watching "No End in Sight" has enlightened me on.
First off, and for the umpteenth (and hopefully last) time, I have never kicked anyone off of Jackassery, nor threatened to, and certainly not because they disagreed with me! If I did, I would have kicked everyone off long ago.
As for being a Republican, I suppose I would have counted myself among their ranks up until maybe 6 or 7 years ago... you know, once GWB went off the deep end and the religious right and Tom Delay et al started to really rear their ugly heads. Combine the modern neocon lack of fiscal responsibility with their general social retardation and complete disregard for science or any other evidence-based policymaking, and I can no longer in any way condone the Republican party in any meaningful way.
As for supporting the military, I find that line of argument to be rather odd. Do I not support the military by not wanting them to fight in dubious wars, or die for dubious reasons? I often feel like this is the implication made by many conservatives. I too have great respect for those serving in the military, but when people (not necessarily you, Bunky) try to imply that not supporting the war is the same as not supporting the troops, I have to take umbrage. In fact I feel that I'm the one doing the more supporting role since I want them to stop dying!
Why don't we move on to another question (off of Iraq):
3. What would be your ideal candidate's position on BALANCING CIVIL LIBERTIES & SECURITY?
Would lean toward protecting civil liberties even though it might risk our security.
Would lean toward decreasing civil liberties as way to increase security.
I chose #1 and put it as very important. I think this question is kind of poor since there is a lot of room for nuance and my answer could vary quite a bit based on the specific situation, but since they threw the word "lean" in there, I'm going with the first choice.
Bunky - Don't confuse someone being critical of the Iraq shenanigans as someone being critical of the military.
If you read my comment, it said I, meaning me. That is how I feel. I firmly believe that you can be for the troops, and against the war. My point was regardless of what I think of the war, I still support our troops.
Ross, I really didn't think you would kick me off Jackassery....
I want to clarify that "times for all" includes democrats as well......
Bunky said:
Ross, why do I get random highlighting and have to go in and edit it?
I get this too sometimes. (If it helps it seems to happen most often when I start typing and then backspace until it's blank and then start typing again.) I usually notice the "direction left to right" button becomes activated and I expect trouble when this happens.
Also I can't seem to get any paragraph spacing to work.
I've noticed that highlighting thing too, and I don't know what causes it! It's never happened to me... are you guys using IE or Firefox? It could be IE related, since I never use it. Yeah, this editor thing is buggy but overall I think it's better than having none... I should look and see if there's a new version I can upgrade us to...
OK. I guess that's a better explanation than my own. I also can't seem to get the paragraph to work either. I've even tried the shift enter to see if that would throw it off and I get nothing. Even double enters.
Nick Nick- I don't want to bring up the Happy Thanksgiving incident..... I believe Fatty, my JA Master, will support the progress I have made in my training as his padawan (please see Zilla's birthday shout out). It just like a democrat to point his left finger at the Republican and lay blame!
I'm using IE. That's probably the bulk of the problem. I can get arround most of the issues, but the paragraphing I haven't figured out yet. Unfortunately I end up with long undecipherable posts as a result sometimes.
Fatty Knows!!!! It is definately a IE issue. It does not work with JA very well. I have to use IE with my work computer - like right now. IE takes a long time to process the editor. It is still loading for me while I type this. If you want paragraphs, you need to use the HTML codes for that. Yes, it is a pain!!! But if you can use Firefox, all this goes away. The Highlighting thing only happened to me once, but I don't know the circumstances on why it happened?? Plus, if you remember my beard picture-posting fiasco.... it was all due to using the IE. The pictures still show up normal when I view them on my work (IE) computer, but I see them all F'd up when using my home (Firefox) computer. So, when you see my long, no-spaced parapraphs, I am on my work laptop......
Back to supporting the troops: What exactly does this mean, anyway? I've always been confused by it. How does one not support the troops? To wish ill will toward them? How many people out there do not support the troops? To me, the phrase "support the troops" has lost all meaning, it's essentially a nonsense propaganda phrase that equates to being conservative or pro-war. I realize, Bunky, that you don't mean it that way. So in your case, what does it mean, I'm just curious?
Nope. I'm on IE as well. As a side note. There is a car here at work with a bumper sticker that reads "When Jesus said love your enemies, I think he meant don't kill them."
Just thought that was poignant.
Ross, Zilla and I actually had this discussion today. I am personally disgusted with the way our vets are treated.
Case in point: Zilla has a customer who did a tour in Iraq. Zilla can give you all the facts. Anyhow, it is pure bullshit that this kid comes home after risking his life and has no job or income to even buy a few f-ing comics. I would have bought them for him myself if I was in the store. Shit, I would have bought him the whole freaking series.
I call on the VA hospitals for my work. Don't even get me started on that rant. It sickens me that an unemployed (by choice) individual who contributes nothing to the system can get on Medi-Cal and have better benefits and coverage than someone who has served his country. We have the same issue with inmates out here. They commit a crime and then we take care of all of there medical issues courtesy of the state.
When I can assist vets with getting free medication when it is denied through their system, I make sure it happens to the best of my abililties. I will access any programs available to to help them out.
It is hard to sum up in text what I mean. How do I support the troops? I extend soliders courtesy whenever I can. If I am at an event and they announce that they have a returning solider in the audience I stand and applaud. I was waiting for a cab at the airport along side some returning soliders yesterday. I let them take the first cab because they have been waiting a hell of a lot longer to get home than I have.
Here is what is comes down to. I do what I can. Am I making a difference in the big scheme of things? Probably not.
If legislation was on the ballots to increase benefits for military personnel returning from war, I would vote yes even if it meant raising taxes. I would vote no on base closures and reduced military spending.
On a less emotional side note, I have IE too.
Making things better for vets sounds pretty good to me, too. I have also heard horror stories of how bad the health care for vets can be. But I guess what I have to come back to is this: why would anyone think that Democrats wouldn't want them to be treated better too? If anything, as I said earlier, it seems to me that they'd be treating the troops a whole helluva lot better.
This thread had me laughing my ass off. To throw in my perspective:
Question #1: I was opposed to the war in Iraq before it ever started. The invasion was a grievous violation of international conventions and Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be tried for not only that but held responsible for the almost 4000 US soldiers killed and the countless innocent Iraqi civilians killed as a direct result.
Opposing the war wasn't particularly popular at the time and I applaud Obama for making that stand. Clinton on the other hand was smart enough to know better but played the politics game and for that I have no respect for her credibility.
Of course I'd vote for her over any of the lunatics from the Republican side. Huckabee for christ sakes! I'll become Canadian if that asshole wins. You know he has mentioned changing parts of the Constitution and criticizes the other candidates form not wanting to change it?
For question #3. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty - Ben Franklin. I'm with answer one. Edit - just noticed Zilla tossed out the same quote. Have to agree it's sweet.
Fatty - break up your paragraph into smaller chunks like Ross does. It makes it easier to read. I'm too lazy to read that big ass paragraph you wrote.
5. What would be your ideal candidate's position on EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH?
Would support federal expansion of embryonic stem cell research.
Would oppose federal expansion of embryonic stem cell research.
Neither
This is a no brainer. Basically, you're a fucktard if you chose anything other than #1.
And speaking of candidates and republicans especially, who, more than the democrats it seems, like to prey on our fears of terrorism, this article pretty much sums up my feeling on the "war on terror." Another reason I probably won't be voting republican anytime soon.
So, I'm catching up with this thread the day after the Michigan primary debacle ... turns out Clinton beat "uncommitted" by only a couple of points, and Romney, the second biggest Republican fucktard behind Huckabee, won.
Considering I couldn't vote for either of the two viable candidates I'd prefer to support (Obama and Edwards), I had a number of options at the voting booth:
1. Vote "uncommitted" and make a statement, but throw my vote away.
2. Vote for Kucinich, and throw my vote away.
3. Vote for a write-in candidate, which won't be counted.
4. Vote for Hilary, begrudgingly, not liking how she played politics to get on the ballot. I'd rather reserve my vote for her should she get the nomination.
5. Vote (shudder) Republican, and vote for Romney or Huckabee, because the Republicans deserve what I believe to be an essentially unelectable candidate. Shaky ground.
6. Vote (shudder) Republican, and vote for McCain, because a vote for him isn't a vote for Romney or Huckabee. Not quite as shaky as option 5, but still kinda shaky.
7. Vote (shudder) Republican, and throw a bone to Ron Paul, who seems to have his head on straight, but has a marginal-at-best chance of winning anything, and isn't a vote for Romney or Huckabee.
8. Stay home and be pissed off.
I ended up going with option 6. So what happens? There's a new voter ID law in Michigan, which means you have to sign the form on which you check which party ballot you're going to vote on. (What was that Ben Franklin quote again?) I pick Republican, of course (first time in my life!), and the girl at the table says, "Aren't you the guy who writes columns for the Press?" Arrrrgggghhhh!
So I voted for Ron Paul, threw my vote away, went home to be pissed off, and have an apparently loyal newspaper reader thinking I lean right. Felt fucked, any way you look at it.
(Just for that, I forcibly wedged a reference implying that evolution is at the heart of everything into a movie review this week.)
Just another day in the American political system...
I was disappointed that McCain didn't win Michigan. But at least we kept Huckabee at bay. Mmmmm... I could go for a Pancake Breakfast at Huckabee's this morning!
(by the way, can we bring the Health Care discussion back to this topic?)
Bunky - What the hells happening in California? They're cloning people! Maybe now the Republicans can clone Reagan instead of just bringing up his name all the time!
Seeing as Michigan has gone Democrat the last several contests (at least the last 3, if not more), the Republican primary doesn't seem that important to me. Plus, Michigan is sneerworthy for moving their primary up in the first place, and the Dems were right to pull their delegates.
Yeah, I guess there is not enough dumbshits out here already. You can't go by California.. My post office has an autographed picture of Heidi Fleiss hanging on the wall.
Reagan would be sweet... They we could move on to Elvis for all of the people who just can't seem to let go....
I guess it is acceptable to go Brave New World and clone people as long as we don't take stem cells from the embryos....
So I pose this question to you JA's: Who would you clone?
I am interested to see Fatty and Rad's response and scared of the Bone's.
Didn't I start this thread earlier.... but to limited interest..... US Healthcare - Bullshit! What, Fatty's topics are not good enough! Well, I am going to throw my 2 cents back in. I disagree with Bunky too. Universal healthcare is such an ambigous term. It can mean many things. For me, the main problem is healthcare became a profit driven industry. Normally, I am very pro-market, capitalist, whatever. But with a person's health, this is a different matter. The healthcare industry has created a very desired product - health. By restricting this, they have created vast profits. What other countries allow corporations to profit while its citizens get sicker and die? The sicker people get, the more expensive it is to treat (new drugs, procedures) and the more profits these companies make. Ok - a bit simplistic, bit this example fits BigPharma pretty well.
No, healthcare should be a serivce that is provided by the government. Health is something all the citizens need and will benefit from. Government gives us roads, military, police and fire.... why not healthcare. Sure, taxes will have to be raised a lot, but aren't you paying high premiums anyway? Will it be perfect - Hell no. But look where the US is today compared to everyone else.
IMO - Capitalism in the US has went too far. Now Big Business has too much influence on the government and laws are passed more by the strenght and power of the lobbist than the benefit it brings to the people. The American people have the largest lobbist group, but fail to exercise its power through the vote.
I gotta agree with Fatty. And would only add that Lobbyists and Special Interests aren't the problem: Elected officials' need of lobbyists' and special interests' money is the problem.
I don't believe I am doing this.... but here is a paper I wrote about 5 years ago when I took a class on healthcare costs. There is only so much you can put into a 4 page, double-spaced, margins optimized, college paper. But, I think I properly identified a lot of the main costs of healthcare. But, obviously missing is BigPharma and BigInsurers. What can I say.... I was blinded to this.
I can't believe you're doing it, either, Fatty. Your paper is definitely a step up from what you gave Professor Gerry, but suffice it to say, I don't think president Obama will be appointing Fatty Heiss as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
And Bone: I agree - I'd cone myself too. The question is, waffle or sugar?
On healthcare. Canada seems to be doing pretty well with it. The only argument against, in my eies, would be from the copmanies that would lose the large profit margins. If it's universal, it's regulated and ideally would be for the taxpayer. The only problem is when you start getting the inside deals from the phamarcies to get the government contracts.
I would say that I would clone myself, but my clones would get so sick of each other that it would end in a bloody battle with all of my clones killing each other.
I think Bone meant traffic cones. Back in the day, he got valuable traffic cone experience working as a traffic attendant at a local hospital. I had the same job and gave the Bone the hook up. One of the things I remember is the Bone damaging 2 or 3 of our company buses - all within a week. His sweet driving style was called into question by the bosses.
It was a pretty sweet job for college kids. Mostly we f'ed around and had a good time. I also remember him 'Bus Surfing' by hanging off the back of the bus while I drove around the parking lot.
Back to the original topic, though. I think most of us are in the camp of agreement that "Bush Administration" is a synonym for "callous incompetence" (thank you, Economist) and are generally fed up with the Rethuglicans, hence we seem to be leaning toward Obama. Bunky, you were the main dissenter, and I'm still unclear why: based on the reasons you gave, I don't see how any of the questions in that poll would have skewed you so differently. What answers in there made you identify so strongly with Brownback, for instance?
I saw Hiliary speak yesterday in Nevada.I was one of 3 people in a suit in the crowd and they tried to get us to go on stage and stand behind her. I politely passed. You had to wear a sticker supporting her to get in and that pissed me off. We I get home and off the blackberry, I will jump into the Obama discussion and how he wants to f me on taxes because he thinks I can afford to pay more.Fatty,I will overlook the whole Democratic thing since you wrote me a sweet song.
Well I just upgraded the version of the comments editor... hopefully it's less buggy. At first glance, it seems so. All you (inferior) IE users, let me know how it works.
Okay, so I am a horrible tester... the link/image popups aren't working for me in Firefox - they did on my local development installation but not on the real site...hopefully I can find a fix for it...
It seems to have gotten some use in the past... and it is a nice way of highlighting things. So, sure, if it is not a pain in the A. I'll try and find some beard pictures to upload on my work computer for the real test.
Your Flickr JA Pool photos did not load onto JA. I stumbled on them when I put one of mine on. How did Logan roll into some pudding?
Yeah, I don't understand why my latest additions to the pool won't show up on the site. Jack once faced this problem, as did Creeko, I believe. I am the latest victim. I've tried adding several others but lately I have been completely striking out.
Actually, I would have answered yes before I clicked on the link. But for Walker Texas Ranger, I may have to change my mind! Was Chuck wearing his super tight jeans at the rally?
If there was a Democrat that appealed to me, I would be willing to give them my vote. I was willing to listen to Hilary speak. She did not earn my vote and like her even less now.
I was surprised at how petite she was in person. I have to admit I was fascinated by the process. The amount of detail that going on around you is amazing. It was fun to watch her aides strategically arrange the crowd for the cameras. She had a gentleman playing an acoustic guitar for the crowd prior to her coming out. He was singing John Mellencamp, Keith Urban, Tom Petty, and Tim McGraw songs. The crowd was an interesting group in itself.
I did however, pick up a shirt at Edge's request and shipped it to him.
Well if she should get elected, I hope she gets herself some young, hot male interns and a sweet cabana boy to help her out in office. She could be the female version of the Bone and stick it up Bill's ass.... She have my vote next time fo sho, fo sho.....
I know! If Fucklebee had any good PR folks, he'd have a one-time special exibition match. Chuck, would be in his corner, but the action would be all from the Huckster!
Again, I'm no Hillary apologist, but I have to ask you to clarify: what do you mean, she's anti-military? I've never heard her say anything that I would consider anti-military... maybe I just missed it. But more likely, I think you have a definition that doesn't mesh with mine - throwing around terms like that to me seems to be obscuring the debate, rather than fostering it.
It is very interesting talking about this. Bunky, please don't feel ganged up on. It is obvious you are a one-women, one-republican show here. Your different point of view would be most welcome. 'And if we are not careful, we just might learn something before we're through'. Hey Hey Hey.
What I find fascinating is, we all seem to be fairly intelligent people, similar interests, etc. How is it that we are so polarized when it comes to this topic. No offense Bunkster, but I cannot see how you can be so pro-republican. But, it must be the same with you wondering why all these fucktards are pro-Obama (Or is it an Irish O'bama?). I think this is were Ross is coming from too. You are certainly well respected in our circle, we are curious on how and why your opinions are so different.
No one here is looking to change your mind and attack your opinions. I hope you feel comfortable enough to get personal and discuss them. I would like to see what is it that steers you away from the Democrats and towards the Republicans. I hate this 2 party system. It seems so stupid to have only these 2 groups to choose from.
For the record... I do not affiliate with any party, but my ideas seem to run Democrat.
First off, I think we are all fed up on the war in Iraq. Whether we supported it initially or not, we are at a point where something needs to be done.
The term anti-military I suppose is kind of harsh. Hillary did help author legislation that would extend family and medical leave for the families of wounded soliders. She also called the called the Pentagon out for requiring wounded soliders who received medical discharge to return sign on enlistment bonsuses.
The war in Iraq has been a huge platform during this presidential election. I understand why.
What bothers me with Hillary is what is her true motivation? I think her own political aspirations are more important than what the people want. Do I believe the legislation she has submitted regarding soliders the last year or two is anything more than a tool for her campaign? No. I think she will do whatever she needs to to get elected. I don't believe she is a president for the people. I think she is Hillary for Hillary. Having a General endorse her is nothing more than a tool as well.
When Obama speaks, he at least has an energy that draws you in. You want to listen even if you don't like him. Is he still a poltician? Yes. I think there is a little more sincerity in what he says and the changes he wants to make even if I don't plan on voting for him at this time. He tends to focus more on what he is going to do to make things better, than on what everyone else did to make things worse.
Hillary's speech included a lot of finger-pointing and blame. Really, I am that stupid that I don't know what's f'ing wrong in our country? I have never been a fan of mud-slinging to win an election. I don't like it on either party side. I was not the only one walking out of her speech. Many people who are undecided came to her speech and were turned off by her arrogance and complaining about it on the way out.
Fatty, I don't feel ganged up on in the least. Suffering from jet-lag and exhausted, yes.
I love the passion on this website. I can see how people can be drawn to Obama. He has a great energy and some good ideas. I actually like some of his thoughts on healthcare. He talks about national health plans as well as a National Insurance Exchange to reform the private insurance plans which I support.
I also agree with Obama and his idea of separation of state. I don't believe there is a place for religion in politics. While religion is a part of my life, it is not a part of most of yours. I still find all of you to be intelligent and interesting people who have a lot to contribute.
My concern with Obama is his proposed tax plan. My concern is what is his definition of middle class versus wealthy. My husband and I are getting hammered in taxes already, and while we make a nice living, I am by no means wealthy. I am concerned under his plan I will get hit even more. I actually support a flat tax plan. Steve Forbes spoke of one years ago. This way, everyone is paying the same percentage in relation to their income.
My husband's pharmacy school loans are currently equal to my house payment. Unfortunately, we can only write off the house interest because we make to much according to IRS rules to benefit from the student loan interest deduction. So I am obviously concerned by any additional changes that would have a direct impact on me.
My father has owned his own engineering firm since I was 5. I am in favor of keeping Bush's tax cuts for both individuals and small business. I support the Republicans in preventing Congress from raising taxes on small business. I also think the tax codes need reform.
I support President Bush in offering standard deductions for health insurance similar to those offered for dependents. I am for deploying a missle defense system.
This is just a few things for starters. I will move on to education, gun control, and immigration as the blog evolves to these subjects.
I was (mostly) with you until you said you were for the missle defense system. If ever there was a bigger joke, I've never heard of it. I can't think of a bigger waste of money and time, honestly.
Also, as far as Bush's tax cuts, I think they're outrageous. I like low taxes as much as the next guy, but for crissakes - you can't have it both ways - start a war that costs $275 million per dayand then take away the means to fund it. If you want to avoid the responsibility of paying for this debacle, that's great - you'll just be passing it on to your descendants, though.
I'm glad we agree that church and state should be kept separate, at least!
The good old Republican tax break. It certainly gets them elected. You cheap, penny-pinching repubs always looking for someone else to pay your way. Fact is, these tax breaks cost you more in the long run. When the government can't get enough from the taxes, it has to borrow it. That costs money. Does that sound very smart? Repubs LOVE the debt! Reagan/Bush really ran it up. The Clinton years tamed it some, then Bush Jr went right back to bring it up where his papa left it.
Now debt is a necessary thing... and I'll admit a good thing to some degree. But the level of debt we have now is getting scary. You want the ability to borrow when times are bad... recessions, and pay down the debt when economic 'good times' happen. Our national debt is about 70% of GDP (highest since WWII) and it looks like we could go into another recession. Um.... Mr. President... isn't this the point where we should be going into an economic boom?
SO tax breaks?? Hell no. Sure I'd like to pay less too. But we got some problems that need fixing. Sure it takes a government that doesn't waste trillions of dollars on an unnecessary war (That money could have fixed social security ). But we elected the dumb, incompetent fucks, so we got to pay to fix it.
I love the flat tax rate too. Everyone pays the same percentage. No tax breaks for anyone. Everyone pays their fair share. Why simplify a tax code that stands taller than me? Why disallow the rich to pay little or no taxes? Also, what would all those tax accountants do? There is a whole (rich) industry that lobbies for the current tax code and helps to keep it complicated. Shit, I have an MBA, studied Finance and Economics, and I still have a difficult time doing the taxes of an ordinary citizen.
First off Fatty, Fuck Clinton. Don't even get me starting on that asshole....
Ninja please! Cheap, penny pitching bastards? Whatever... I more than contribute my fair share of taxes, and then some at the end of the year when I bend over and take it again from Uncle Sam.
I believe in paying taxes. I think everyone should. All I am asking is that everyone pay their fair and equal share. I believe my Dad should get the same tax breaks and incentives that big business gets. He gets boned every year because he is a small business owner.
The Democrats need to look at all the waste that is going into all these social programs they want to keep increasing funding for. I am not opposed to social programs, but lets fix the waste in the current system before we through more money into them.
At my last job, we had a pregnant patient on service that was on state aid and assistance. She was 21 and pregnant with her 5th child. She had her first child at 13 and each one has a different father. That is just one of many examples I can give you.
I believe it you said your "rich uncle sam" financed your two year work hiatus. Think about how many people are doing that currently. Do you think that is good for the system? We should be getting these people back to work as quickly as possible so they too are paying into the system, and not draining it.
Ross, as far as a missle defense system, I do not necessarily agree with the current plan, but we do need to be prepared for a nuclear attack.
Fatty, I need your MBA to help me with my taxes!! What are you doing in Budapest with your MBA? You need to get your ass back here and help us out!!!
I enjoy all of these discussions. You guys have increased my blood pressure though. Thinking about all of this shit and my kids' future stresses me out!
Fatty, get a freaking XBOX! Then we could chat live...
There is the Spunky Bunky Brewster! Thats what I am talking about!
You and I agree on taxes. Tax breaks can be good ecomonic incentive. I want to do away with all of them and go with a flat tax. Tax breaks just make things complicated. There are other ways to give incentive to business. Plus, many Big Businesses are just milking them. The oil industry still has massive tax breaks.... oh they need them. Shit think of all the taxes they would have to pay on the largest profits made in any industry of all time. We need to protect the profits of those rich bastards so......
Social programs can be underfunded. Where 13 year old girls can begin making babies. This is your argument against the waste of social programs? Well, I would say this is a perfect example of why we need social programs. I'll agree with you that whatever program this poor girl was involved with was not doing what it needed. So, in this respect, it is a waste of money. It is worth the extra money to design a program that stops poor women from becoming baby factories.
And, I am the poster child for social programs! They took this laid-off, ex-factory worker, put him into a federally funded re-training program, and BOOM! You get a higher-skilled worker ready for the new economy. OK, so maybe living and working in another country was not a part of their plan. Technically, I pay taxes... just not to the US. But I would if I made a lot more!
What wrong with Clinton? I can't say he was a great president, but he was a damn good one. He let the good times in, and let them roll! Him and the god-like Greenspan steered this country into a period of historic growth. This allowed him to pay down the deficit which made money cheap, which continued the growth. He did not F things up by, um, starting a war (forget the Balkans - at least the one he did start was failed quickly!)
I hope you are not brainwashed enough to take Bush II over Clinton! I'll take him over both the Bushes. I was too young to form a valid opinion about Reagan (GASP... would he even go there?!?!)
Bunky, I still fail to see how your (valid) complaints about social programs make you want to vote Republican. After all, it was the reviled Clinton who did more than any other president to clean up and toughen up welfare. Right now, I view the war in Iraq (I refuse to call it the war on terror, it's anything but) as the biggest "program" we have, and I'm really sick of funding it. The republicans used to be the party of fiscal responsibility, but evidently that section of the party has turned and fled.
I do agree that we need to be prepared for a nuclear attack. However, I believe that it's probably a matter of when, not if we get attacked in this fashion, and building an easily-defeated, ramshackle (pardon the phrase) system is not a wise allocation of resources. Instead, we should run agencies like FEMA with competence and put an end to Bush-style cronyism in appointing their management. We have to know how to mitigate the damage and plan adequately for these types of scenarios. To some people this might sound like admitting defeat, but to me it's called facing reality. Again, in my opinion, something the current republican party is loathe to do.
While all this discussion about which politician is the best choice is interesting, I think the thing we all need to remember is this: It's not one political party that's the problem. It's the entire process. Welfare is f'd and needs to be fixed, but no one can provide us with a viable solution. Iraq has gone batshit but I don't think the proper solution is to just pull the troops. The country would collapse. We've done stuck our peepee in the trap and we can't get it back out. Healthcare needs to be fixed as well. And all our grand leaders can do is point fingers at each other and name call.
I wish that we could just have one candidate stand up and say "You knnow what, I voted this way and it was a mistake." "Our party thought this would work and it hasn't" The republicans/democrats have a great idea in trying this, maybe we can revise it a little bit."
I think this discussion is a great reflection on what's wrong with our government. We;ve become so engrossed in trying to determine who's at fault that we're forgetting to that there's something that needs to be fixed.
I think the perfect analagy is a car headed towards a cliff and two people are fighting over a steering wheel, fighting over wether to turn right or left, when all they need to do to save themselves is to put their foot on the brakes.
I think everyone realizes that what you're saying is true, NickNick. The problem is, we're not going to be eliminating this two-party system anytime soon. So you have to work within the framework that's provided for you. You still have only one vote, and since right now we're trying to decide who becomes each party's nominee, the talk becomes somewhat partisan.
You should draw a political cartoon on your analogy. But the secret to making it funny... you have to have a little bug in it delivering the punchline. So you have two old carpet-baggers fighting over the wheel in the front seat and in the back seat, a little bug wearing a sign saying US Citizens. The bug says 'Why don't you just hit the brakes?'
Dude - if you do it, I'll bet you get it published. You have to include the bug, otherwise it is stupid. Jack - am I lying here????
Swerb - after he makes this sweet cartoon, how would he go about getting it published? No rinky-dink GR PRESS either. We want BIG TIME. We're talking Kalamazoo Gazette!
I think Pat Oliphant might have copyright on that bug.
Ross, I understand what you're saying. I just think it would be a little refreshing to have a candidate available that tried to have solutions and promised to work with both sides to GET THINGS DONE, rather than just saying how we need to a "change."
Bush style croynism? Let us revisit the beginning of the Clinton years. A big part of his campaign was healthcare reform...hmmm. Didn't he appoint a planning committee with secret members to reshape the system? I do believe he was sued by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons for disclosure of the committee financing, expenses and membership.
Didn't he also say he would have the most ethical administration ever?
As far as healthcare goes, the Medicare D prescription plan was the work of the Republicans. Bill Thomas, head of the Ways and Means committee, was responsible for that bill. He is from my hometown so that is pretty sweet!
Allen Greenspan (R), I love that man!! I think he was a great example of what can happen when the parties work together.
Nick Nick, I do not want this to be taken as an endorsement for Obama, but earlier in the week, he and the other candidiates were asked what is their weakness. He answered first and said he was disorganized. The Bitch immediately picked up on it and ran with it. What was interesting is that the two other candidiates had no weaknesses. I guess Hillary couldn't answer women.... Props to Obama. He later joked that if he had answered last he would have said "helping old ladies cross the street." Anyhow, you were talking about candidates not admitting mistakes....
Fatty, I think we met years too late! Greenspan, flat taxes, theological idealist.... Together we could have made the perfect Independent......
Did I mention that I drove a Miata? You called me out my little Bunkster.... I am an Independent at heart.
Greenspan... well any respectable JAssarian knows that the man is sweet as F! I have not heard this, but I will go so far and say he is one of the most important and influential American's of the last century. Yeah... he is frickin up there with FDR, who in my book shits Chuck Norris' and wipes with Ninja Wet Wipes (tm). FDR is the motherflippin man. Funny thing is, I have not learned much about the dude, but came into awe at his Memorial in Washington. Same thing happend with me at the Jefferson Memorial too. But, shit ninja.... what can you say about TJ!
That would be an interesting JA list to compile - the top 10 most important and influential Americans of the last century. Einstein is another obvious one... but part of me doesn't really consider him American... more of a displaced European. If that Hitler thing did not happen, he might not have had his eureka! moment at all. But, he decided to stay here.. so that counts more than enough. Who else we got... MLK - might not make it.... was his impact international enough??
Alright Ross, Rambotox is supporting McCain now. You can check it out for yourself on America's trusted news source. I bet it surprises you that I love Fox News....
Do you really? Even with that garbage I posted from them about Mass Effect?
Still, Sly is definitely a step up from Ric Flair and Chuck Norris. No celebrity endorsement adds to a candidate's value in my view, but they can definitely detract. I don't think Stallone qualifies - he has that stupid stroked-out patois, but he's actually a reasonably intelligent guy from what I can tell, unlike Chuck "Theocracy Now" Norris. So basically, my opinion of McCain remains unchanged upon hearing this news.
Your suprised that repubunky likes FOX. Didn't you know that FOXnews is the live feed for the conservative nation. It's a way they keep the masses happy and complacent.
I have to admit, it is pretty funny to flip back and forth between CNN and FOXnews to see the comnflicting takes they have on a subject. Boy, it's a good thing our news networks are unbiased. Am I right?
There may be some truth to the Mass Effect story.... Radmobile is all about the Mass Effect when Annie is away... He would rather play that than Halo 3 with us....
Everything does go back to porn with Rad now that he has been "deflowered". Fox maybe on to something.
I think I may have offended Bunky. Perhaps there needs to be some "damage control" this weekend. I'll try and set aside some time for some Bunky diddling.
It's gonna take a hell of lot more than that to offend me Bunky. I've got some pretty thick skin. You have to in my family. :)
One of these days, I will have to join y'all in one of your diddlefests. Of course, with all my experience, I will most likely be the one presenting my rump for the exploitation.
Bunky!! No!! Its not true..... Wait, I can see why you like Fox News because it panders to your likes and needs. But surely you can see this! How do they call themselves a news show?? At least they could change the name to 'Conservative Republican Viewpoint' to keep themselves honest. They 'report' on their own opinions, show one-sided stories, and love to show the non-news (Celebrity crap, car chases...) Yes CNN is BS too. I watch it because at least I can get a bit of international news from it, but the American news from it is shit as well.
In the last decade, our news has jumped right into the toilet. What happend to the news journalism where it was full of objective integrity? The last of the great newsmen are on still. They have been replaced with pretty, talking heads which spout off drivel disguised as 'news'.
I suppose I should have added the word "respectively" to the end of that sentence.
You can't honestly like
Fox News, can you? You're joking, right? You have to be. If you
actually watch Fox News on a regular basis, by now you would have lost
your ability to process language and would be wallowing in a pool of
your own feces. In fact, my IQ has dropped several points just from
contemplating the ridiculousness of that station. I can't even be in
a room that has Fox News on.
I have to take a shower now, I feel violated from the garbage that has just passed through my brain...
I agree, news as a whole sucks. I actually go to FoxNews.com. They report, you decide! I follow their You Decide 2008 political section. Go figure... I don't like watching the news on television because it annoys me. Journalism has lost it's integrity. There is no such thing as unbiased journalism anymore...
Interesting enough, I majored in journalism with a minor in political science because I wanted to follow politics. I wrote for my college paper for four years and did several media internships. By the time I graduated I was disgusted with the media and fell into healthcare by accident and loved it. Where is Walter Cronkite when you need him?
Typically, the only time I am watching television is when I am playing XBOX. Well, with the exception of the Colbert Report....
I guess I will just have to rely on Jackassery for my trusted news source!
I can't stand the frakin' ticker tapes they scroll all over the screens on today's News programs. It's ironic that in their attempt to get more data across -- talking heads, data scrolling right, data scrolling left, info sidebars, etc etc -- they actually get less useful information to the viewer than they did a few years ago without it!
I suppose it's their attempt to compete with the internet. But all they really need to do is their job: Investigate and report on real issues. Not feature some loud, idiot jackass spewing nonsense or hours and hours of coverage on Anna Nicole's Love Child or "The Breakdown of Britney!"
And how about the coverage of our political process? The news is all about the polls, what so-and-so has to do to win this state, political strategies, etc. How about looking into the actual presidential nominees and their platforms so we could be intelligent voters?
Amen Zilla, I can't stand the scrolling bullshit either. It seems to me that the candidates themselves don't try to win anyone over with their political platforms anymore, just the amount of mud they can sling at one another.
Good lord, that is so perfect of his administration. Bush would come in front of America and tell you things he wish were true. Telling us does not make things true asshole! Its like he was talking about another world. But what makes me sick is everyone put up with it! No one called 'Bullshit!' on the president. Why the hell not? How does Bush get a free pass with the shitty job he has done? Where are the journalists investigating the real story? My suspicion is the Bush White House is so full of cover-ups and corruption, that most of them would go to jail. Where was the special investigator to uncover the truth behind Bush's crap? He just fires people left and right and nothing happens to no one...... I call Bullshit!
This is sad.... look what our American ideas of a President were 40 years ago..... What the hell happened? How did we go backwards?
I feel al little better Guiliani is out. He's basically and asshole. At least he's backing McCain. McCain is the most acceptable of the Republican options other than Ron Paul who won't be invited to the dance.
I agree. At this point, I'd be more or less satisfied with all but 3 of the 4 candidates. Now I'm basically just against Romney. Though I think at this point I prefer Obama to Clinton, but I'd still take her over any of the republicans except maybe McCain - between the two of them it's more or less a toss up for me.
It's a tough call between McCain and Clinton. I don't really care for either. I think McCain will be ineffectual but he won't make things any worse than they are now. Clinton might be able to get some things done but I completely disrespect her for her support of the illigal invasion of Iraq.
I expected McCain to support the war given his background and I think he believed it was the right thing to do, but Clinton joined in on the mob rule basically because it was the popular thing to do at the time. I don't buy it for a second that she really thought Iraq posed a danger to the US, that there were WMDs, and that there were any real ties to Al Quaida. Being a leader is about doing the right thing even if it's not popular. So F' her.
Isn't Romney Mormon? Mormons are essentially a wealthy but retarded cousin of Christians.
I just want to reiterate my sentiment that I'll change my name and leave the country if Huckabee were elected.
I agree with everything you said. However, I'm still in the mode of "our current president is the worst in history" and I just can't help feeling like sunnier times are ahead, and I think they would be with McCain, Clinton, or Obama as president.
I forgot about Huckabee there, damn, why is he still in the race?
And yes, Romney's a Mormon, which doesn't really matter to me any more than the fact that Obama is a Christian (which bugs me slightly with all his god-talk) but when he made that speech with the "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom" bullshit, I knew I was out for sure. Fuck him.
I can live choosing between McCain, Clinton and Obama for president. Like Bert said, with Bush gone it's sunnier times ahead!
Bone - What makes you think McCain would be ineffectual? He has a record of working with both Dems and Reps in the past -- you'd think he could get some shit done, no? It's really too bad he wasn't the GOP pick 8 years ago...
The Mormon beliefs are beyond a retarded view of christianity. However, there is a lot of money tied to the church. Members are required to give 10% of their earnings each month, and have to provide income verification. I used to work with a some Mormon people. I offered to have a bike rack installed at the office for them....
F Clinton. I will write in Ross Perot before I vote for her.....
When I made my annual donation to the CA GOP last night Ross, I made it in your honor..... Just kidding!!
Billary scares me. She seems to me to be the democratic version of Bush. I think it will have to be McCain or Obama if we want anything to get done in this country.
Question for everyone? Does anyone think it's possible for a complete withdrawal from Iraq or have we demolished that country so much that we'll have to keep a presence there for years?
Ideally, I'd like to see us get our kids out of there and bring them home. Not necessarily take the isolationist approach we did before WWII but try to focus more on our country's problems than those around us. I think, however, that if we just withdrew from Iraq we would only succeed in creating a power vortex in the middle east.
So in what way would you consider Mormon beliefs "beyond a retarded view of christianity"? Near as I can tell, they're both absurd in the extreme. Though I suppose you could argue that it is possible to have a retarded view of something already retarded.
Granted, with the Mormon religion, we have the benefit of its recent creation giving us a clear view into how it was formed, and it clearly came from a common con-artist. However, I have no doubt that Christianity's roots are every bit as offensive to reason, they're just obscured by the sands of time.
I have boldly entered the JA political arena as a Republican, but I am not retarded enough to tackle religion on this site as well!!! I will answer part of your question.
There are several different branches of christianity, so it is hard to compare christianity as a whole to the Mormon beliefs. While I do believe in God, I personally am not going to judge or distance myself from those who do not. I respect everyone's right to have their own beliefs, and I like to surround myself with interesting individuals. Some religious groups would not find this acceptable.
My 2 closest friends are catholic, and I was in both of their weddings even though I personally do not agree with some of their aspects of religion. But I couldn't ask for better friends, so that that doesn't matter to me.
Anyhow, back to the question. If you are not Mormon, you cannot enter their temple. Whatever. Here is where it is retarded to me. I know a nurse from a physician office whose daughter converted to Mormon for her husband. Her parents were not allowed to attend the wedding because they were not Mormon and could not go into the temple.
There are many other examples, but what is the point. I will say this. The Mormon's who I worked with did have a very strong sense of family and community. And regardless of their religous beliefs, that is a good character quality.
Religion should stay out of politics and out of the work place. I am sure you will agree. As with Obama, you shouldn't let his belief in God offend you because you don't. And yes, he brings it up in speeches. So what. You guys rip religion on this site often, and I don't take offense to it. It makes me laugh. The fact he believes in God isn't going to change whether or not he will make a good president.
This site has been interesting to me. I don't know many people who don't believe in God. I am amused by the Santa poster and comics that you post. I find you all to be intelligent and entertaining. Our different views on religion are just what they are. You can't really debate it because it is all subject to interpretation.
I am going to take this time to reflect on Fatty's Hamburger fetish and distance myself from this topic. Rad, do you have any new porn updates for us?
Oh Bunky.... I feel so close to you right now. You'd be getting a BigFatty Hug (tm) right now if I was there. We might even incorporate a little ketchup if you are lucky.
I think most, if not all of us, believe in the right to believe in whatever the hell you want to. But, the core JAers come from West Michigan, a hot-bed of religious nutjobs, where hypocrites go to church every Sunday (plus multiple times during the week). Announcing you are an atheist just was not done. You instantly had a village of incredulous people debating you, questioning you, praying for you. Most people in West Michigan do not seem to be cognizant of beliefs other than Christianity.
As youths, we quietly kept our beliefs to ourselves, not wanting to waste our breaths on another worthless debate with an idiot. Don't get me wrong, I hardly think every religious person is an idiot.... I am talking about these WM folks who have no clue to what the rest of the world is like and cannot imagine thoughts contrary to what they've been brainwashed with their whole lives. All their arguments where the same, broken-ass record shit.
We were kind of repressed, in a way. We had to live our lives based on the whims and wishes of the Christian Majority. Don't mow your lawn on Sunday, you want to buy alcohol... not on Sunday..... the bible says we should to this... so we do it. We are tired of having to live by a belief system we think is ridiculous. As bigger smarter adults... well we are much more knowledge on how the world really is, and much more vocal with our beliefs. Fuck it... we don't have to hide them anymore. So when we see some Religious Yahoo trying to tell us how the bible wants us to live.... it kind of hits a nerve.
PS... I don't mean to speak for all JAers... but I think others mostly feel like I do.
Ross.... the editor went away, so the paragraph problem popped up again. I was forced into HTML again *gasp*
Ahh, Religion. Sounds fun. I think the thing that bothers me most about these debates is how exclusionary everything tends to be. I speak not for everyone here.
The extreme christians refuse to believe in proven things such as science while the extreme of science is to believe that there is no God because his existance can't be proven. I don't understand why there can't be a liddle road for these people. I think the majority of people do take the middle road but it still astounds me how aggressive people towards one extreme or another.
Why can't a god exist in a world ruled by science? The whole purpose of faith is to believe in something without proof. And vice cersa. Why can't God have created the world that includes evolution and possible other worlds out there, as scientists describe it.
I could go on and on.
Porn updates??? Well there was this funny video that someone mocked up to look like it was in Mass Effect. It's not safe for work and it should be stressed that this is not part of the game. It's just to be funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVC80fSFFAk
As for religion, I'm close to what Nick's saying probably. I was raised as a Methodist. I went to church most every Sunday until I was 16. I was then mature enough to decide I didn't necesarily believe all that stuff and didn't gain anything from church. The Bible was written by people. People are likely to make things up for excitement. I am grateful for some of the values I learned at church about being a decent human being, but I take most of the stuff in the Bible with a grain of salt. I feel I'm pretty accepting of what everyone wants to believe though, as long as they don't believe killing people for their god is justified or that sort of thing.
Fatty's two cents on the election. I am going to call it already - McCain will be the next Prez. I too like Obama and Hillary, but.... when I think of their electability in a general election... Hate to say this but, America is not ready for an African American or a woman for President. There are far too many ignorant-asses out there who will vote against those two purely for those reasons. It is a shame. I'll be happy for any of them. Its true.... anyone will be better than Bush.... well except Bush. Don't let him near the Term-limit legislation!!!! He has a funny habit of getting things his way....
NickNick said: The extreme christians refuse to
believe in proven things such as science while the extreme of science
is to believe that there is no God because his existance can't be
proven.
Well, I suppose I would represent "the extreme
of science", if there really was such a thing. The inherent fallacy of
your implication is that science says there can't be a god because it
can't be proven, as you say. If you notice, in all my rantings against
religion, I have never said that there cannot be a god.
I could go on and on with this topic, so let me try to be brief and summarize this problem:
There
are an infinite number of "gods" in which people can believe. When you
write "God", you are making an assumption that the person you're
talking to has roughly the same understanding of it that you do. What
about multiple gods? Or a non-conscious god? Zeus? Wotan? Shiva?
Many
conceptions of dieties cannot be proven nor disproven. Using this kind
of logic as a basis for belief is a poor idea, however, as it is a very
slippery slope: do we believe in anything just because it
cannot be disproven? Of course not. For most atheists, gods are just
one more of those things. Could there be a diety or dieties? Sure.
But I lack any good reason to adopt the view that there are, and I
think it's simpler to assume there's not. Just like I don't assume
that there's garden gnomes, fairies, or leprechauns.
I
don't understand why there can't be a liddle road for these people. I
think the majority of people do take the middle road but it still
astounds me how aggressive people towards one extreme or another.
Why can't a god exist in a world ruled by science? The whole purpose of
faith is to believe in something without proof. And vice cersa. Why
can't God have created the world that includes evolution and possible
other worlds out there, as scientists describe it. I could go on and
on.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I think what you're
describing here doesn't make a lick of sense. Believing in something
without proof (evidence is a better word) is the definition of faith,
you're right. But it's also a generally poor way to formulate beliefs,
whereas with science, we only use evidence as our criteria for belief.
It is not possible to exaggerate when I say that this realization has
been the crowning achievement of mankind.
My other qualm is the description of "god existing in a world ruled by science" - science doesn't rule anything
- it merely describes how it works. Since "God" presumably set the
universe up, science just describes the result of his actions. This is
all well and good, but if this is the limit of what you call God, there
isn't much room for the tenets any modern religion. In fact, as soon
as you start to characterize "God" in some way that jibes with a holy
text of some kind, you butt up against our observations of how the
universe (according to God's design if you wish) actually works. You
can try to posit that God breaks his own rules from time to time, but
the problem is, again, that there is no credible evidence of this ever happening.
Thus, I have no reason to believe in any gods.
One
last thing: I'd like to address the idea of tolerance and being
"accepting" of what people believe. I absolutely believe in freedom of
conscience and a person's right to believe or disbelieve in religions.
But there are different kinds of tolerance: I think it is our duty to
be intolerant of ideas that we know to be false and have a detrimental
effect on our society if held in large enough numbers. Do you tolerate
flat earthers or neo nazis? Well, sure, you don't try to kill them, so you tolerate them in one sense, but you do try
to argue with them, and show them and everyone else why their ideas are
wrong or dangerous. I lump most religions into this category. So I
asbolutely agree with the practice of conversational intolerance, and I think it's very important difference.
Basically,
I think people who hold crazy beliefs often cry "you're intolerant" or
"not accepting of others" when you question them on believing in
something that absolutely should be questioned. I am tired of
letting them frame things this way. If people want to spread nutty
beliefs, it is well within my right (and in my view my responsibility)
to represent the side of reason. So if that's what you call being
agressive, so be it. But I think there are very real reprecussions
that come from zealous religious belief, and I think doing my part to
combat it is completely necessary.
Shit. So I guess this means that I'm not going to be able pass off my penis as creator theory?
I guess the main thing I'm trying to say is that I have a hard time falling in either direction. I have a hard time in thinking that there is some "being" up there that created this complex existence. I mean, when you start getting into things like string theory and stuff like that. Those concepts are beyond anything human, so how can someone truly say that it was someone just like a human that created the entire cosmos. It's just preposterous.
Conversational intolerance is all well and good as long as you're view isn't the one that's wrong. :) I once had a devoutly christian friend take the same path and it drove me crazy. There was no give and take at all.
No, conversational intolerance has no bearing on whether you're right or not. It's all about having no taboos, having no beliefs be sacred. Nothing cannot be questioned. That's the extent of it.
From the sounds of it, you have fallen in one direction: you've fallen in the one that doesn't say that there definitely is a god as described by one of the major world religions. Already you're in the camp of a 10% or so minority. To many believers, you're already extreme.
Brother Bert comes a-preachin..... Amen brother! I knew NickNick was in trouble when I saw the Wiki-links in Ross' lecture. I'll say it again, Ross' mini thesises are better than most college papers. (I should know... I've written many at the graduate level and am always embarassed to even compare them to Ross' casual remarks) It takes him about 5 minutes to whip one out, and you can see it even comes with sourcing.
Sorry NickNick, I am slightly biased.... but I'd say Ross drove the yellow bus up to your house. Better polish your apple, he took you to school!
This is why religion is a scarce topic on this site..... thanks Bunky......
Hey, I'm not trying to take anyone to school, I just want to set the record straight and say that needing evidence for your beliefs is not extreme. It sometimes takes a lot of words to get that simple idea across, though. Forgive me if I'm being too verbose.
This response gets full marks! Brevity! (and no footnotes) See it is not that difficult. Eight words. Damn, what happened to those smileys!!!! Ross, IE is not being very compatible with JA today!!
Now can we go back to Fatty's Burger Fetish (tm)?
This is exactly why I don't want to participate in religious debates on this site. It is just mental masturbation with out the happy ending!
I have been wondering where the contempt for religion started with you guys. Thanks for explaining Fatty!
Rad thanks for the porn update!
Well out here in Los Angeles, we are putting in vending machines for weed. Individuals with a medical weed card can pick up their sack from an unmarked vending machine.
Hey Bone, did you get to play around with the High-Powered Electromagnetic Railgun?
This is also another reason why I never joined the debate team or got into politics at all. I don't really KNOW where I stand but I know the general area and somehow, I feel the need to argue my point like a bull. I also have a hard time bringing up points that don't sound like a "yeah, but..." reply.
To be honest Ross, I probably lean closer to "your side" than that of the religious right.
I never joined the debate team either (I wish I had), but my understanding is that debaters do not usually argue for a side simply because they believe it's true - they are told which side to take - so it's purely a competition to see how convincing you can be, regardless of how you really feel.
As soon as I started reading Nick Nicks post, I knew I'd eventually get to a classic Bert Johnson retort. I knew exactly what I was going to read before I read it - literally point by point. There is hardly anything I enjoy more than reading a well crafted piece on religion by Bert J.
Bottom line, the negative effects of religion on humanity far outway any positives.
It's definitely going to be a tight race between those two with Hillary pulling in CA and NY among others. I just hope the two of them don't dirty each other so much that they ruin each other's chances after the nomination.
I still think it would be cool if we could have the loser of the nomination be the VP. I know that probably won't happen but it would be nice to have the difference in approaches at the White House.
Also, remember that the rules for primaries being fucked up as they are, Hillary "winning" California isn't as impressive as it sounds: CA is not a "winner-take-all" state. I am yet to figure out how many delegates each candidate got there.
It might not be until late summer. I just found out that Cisco is putting on a training seminar in Hawaii in mid June. Me and my boss get to go. So, I just might hang around here for a spell so I can spend a week back in Hawaii. Plus, I might use some of my 28 vacation days to spend another week with the Bone.
Would you work 6 months for a Hawaiian Vacation? I sure would! Now it is the wife I have to convince that an extra week there is justified....
I am assumming your seminar is on Oahu. When will you be in Hawaii? I am going to Oahu June 16-18, and then flying over to Kauai until the 23rd.
I am just going to play, not work....
Where is your conference at? We are staying in Waikiki. I think I may be at the Marriott. I will have to check...
The Maui Babe tanning lotion smells like brown sugar, so it may pass for the Sweet Baby Rays hickory and brown sugar.....
Zilla, what are you doing in that chair? Is this that 10 minute, one man amusement park thing you were speaking of yesterday?
So this might come to a disapointment to many.... but the Hawaii trip is just Fatty BSn. Sorry to crush your dreams Bunkster! I saw an opening for teasing and I stormed through! I know... F the Fatz!!!
But to answer you original question seriously.... I am not sure. We certainly want to come back soon. At least for a visit. But, I am pursuing a number of job options. Some in GR and some in Budapest. The sweetest job option is not fully developed yet, but it would be in GR. It is not Meijer either. It would be for my current company. It will take a few more weeks to see how it pans out, but, the job is so sweet, it is worth the wait for the opportunity. Part of me wants to stay in Yurope through the summer - I have a lot of things I'd like to do here still. We will see.
Remember JA for all the up to the minute, Fatty-news!
Didn't crush me Fatty, I love Hawaii and I am still going! You may owe Zilla a change of shorts though!
It is probably best for you that you are not running around Oahu with the Bone anyhow. I suspect you would get into some trouble...
Back to the candidate thing. I found this on a political cartoon a week or so ago (probably MLK day) and thought everyone would enjoy it. It's not humorous or offensive, but poignant.
At this point I am for anyone but Hillary... Dancing Kitty was a nice random touch! XBOX is out, this Marriott does not have RCA jacks on the TV's! WTF? Check this hotel off this list next trip!
Hey Fatty, I just realized when logging into VPN Client for work that is says Cisco in the corner. Is that who you really work for or is that just more of your lies?
I would add a smiley face after the last line, but my tool bar is currently unavailable....
If I had to guess, since Fatty works in some kind of call center management asylum, Cisco products are probably what they use in their operations. So they'd merely be a key vendor.
Yes, I am but a middle management cog in a large international call center outfit. Cisco is not just a key vendor, but we are a Gold Partner!!!
The Cisco stuff is not very impressive. My company's team has built far better tools to interface with Cisco Products than Cisco provides. In fact, we have shown Cisco some things their setup can do which they said was impossible.
A surrender to terror? Good Lord. Who writes this stuff?
Oh my golly-gracious!! I watched the Feb 7th episode of 'A Daily Show'. Man, Jon Stewart completely tears into Mitt. I was LOL hard! I did not know what a fuck-tard Mitt is.... Good bye!!!!!!!
What until you see Swerb's new head-do! It is already on the main page, but just wait when he makes a comment. It will be flippin sweet! Ya - just you wait.
I don't like Bunky's smaller head. It is a smaller target for me to aim for.
I'm home sick and just watched Part 1 of PBS FRONTLINE's "The Bush War". Recommended to those that liked "No End In Sight." It certainly shows how the Neo-Cons have F'd all of us!
Fatty - This should put the rest of the non-Barackers over the edge: TOM HANKS FOR BARACK! (I would post this comment with the actual video above but I keep F'in things up)
Don't need to! He also starred in Newhart. I just did not want to attempt his last name. Also from Newhart.... Hi I'm Larry. This is my brother Darryl and this is my other brother Darryl.
You know, being as ultra conservative as she is, she must be an absolute freak in bed.
I just thought of something?!? That must mean Bunky's a freak in bed as well?
Nick Nick, I think you maybe spending a little too much time thinking about me in your basement!
I am actually more of moderate than an ultra conservative in political views. While I am personally Pro Life, I don't think I have the right to make that decision for another woman.
I actually watched all of the Democratic National Convention and currently not supporting the Republican ticket. The way the Republican Party has run this campaign so far is disgusting. Unless something changes in the near future, they have lost my vote.
I think McCain's choice for VP may bite the Republicans in the ass. I will have to wait and see.
). But we elected the dumb, incompetent fucks, so we got to pay to fix it.
. You guys have increased my blood pressure though. Thinking about all of this shit and my kids' future stresses me out!
