Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 12:11am PT
|
JRHedge...those male enhancement pills work....Locker uses them all the time and they turn his butt-plug blue...rj
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 12:45am PT
|
Interesting reading, skipt.
These must be right up your alley:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 02:56am PT
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams
Libertarians don't have much useful to say about government. As the great invention (so far) of the US is a more or less workable republican if not democratic governmental system (US = government by the people...), libertarian government is by definition an oxymoron. They don't invite atheists to Vatian councils, so why would libertarians participate in a discussion of government?
Also, you and Dr. F (and others) have a nasty habit, almost anarchistic or communistic, of quoting extensively from others without attributing the source, or any regard for copyright.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 09:11am PT
|
"I want to dispel any notion we want to inhibit your success,” President Obama told 20 CEOs this morning, according to a source in the room. “We want to be boosters because when you do well, America does well."
doh!
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 09:56am PT
|
Who's Brangalina?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 10:18am PT
|
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 10:27am PT
|
dmt, i don't "worship" ceos anymore than i worship the guy who fixes my car or michelangelo...i simply admire and respect them equally
and just because one (or one hundred) ceo is guilty of fraud doesn't lead me to condemn them all
just because one mechanic overcharges me doesn't lead me to think all mechanics are cheats
just because one artist convinces a bunch of people that submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine is "art" doesn't make me hate all art
apparently, your hatred is universal
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 12:50pm PT
|
CHANGE: Senate Democrats reject elimination of unemployment benefits for millionaires.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 12:58pm PT
|
The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. The GOP benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate. The results were apparent in the election last month as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information fed to them by Fox News.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 01:00pm PT
|
WHERE IS THE CHANGE: Obama not so long ago spoke out on the subject of earmarks. In 2009 Obama grudgingly signed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill filled with earmarks but vowed, “This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 01:01pm PT
|
Great post Dingus.
|
|
cliffhanger
Trad climber
California
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 01:08pm PT
|
Justice Department Prepares for Ominous Expansion of "Anti-Terrorism" Law Targeting Activists
Michael Deutsch
In late September, the FBI carried out a series of raids of homes and antiwar offices of public activists in Minneapolis and Chicago. Following the raids, the Obama Justice Department subpoenaed 14 activists to a grand jury in Chicago and also subpoenaed the files of several antiwar and community organizations. In carrying out these repressive actions, the Justice Department was taking its lead from the Supreme Court's 6-3 opinion last June in Holder v. the Humanitarian Law Project, which decided that nonviolent First Amendment speech and advocacy "coordinated with" or "under the direction of" a foreign group listed by the Secretary of State as "terrorist" was a crime.
For the rest:
http://www.truth-out.org/justice-department-prepares-expansion-laws-targeting-activists
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 01:11pm PT
|
Today's LA Times:
A crying shame
By Tom Lutz
December 15, 2010
We've seen Rep. John A. Boehner (R- Ohio) cry twice recently in public. On election night, addressing supporters, he was overcome with emotion while describing his up-by-the-bootstraps pursuit of the American dream. Then on Sunday, during a "60 Minutes" interview with Lesley Stahl, Boehner's tears began to flow as he worried aloud about today's schoolchildren.
So what can the tears tell us about our new House speaker?
One of our fondest cultural myths — one of baffling durability, like the idea that Republicans are fiscally conservative — is that crying is a sign of sincerity or authentic feeling. No matter what we may know of crocodile tears, we continue to read weeping as a sign of true, pure emotion. All the research suggests something else entirely.
Crying is often the sign of excruciatingly mixed emotion. Take the mother who cries at her daughter's wedding: She may be happy about the marriage and flooded with positive emotions — feelings of role fulfillment, of accomplishment, of pride, of happiness for her daughter. At the same time, she feels a sense of loss: A part of her life is over; she is losing not only a daughter but a purpose, a role.
Even our moments of extreme grief are complicated. The stages of grief do not follow each other in a neat therapeutic procession; instead, they are often a jumble. Loss is complicated by rage, by denial, by guilt. We weep and we wail, and we do so not because we know, without a doubt, exactly what we are feeling. We cry, in fact, because we don't.
Boehner's tears aren't hard to read. After analyzing hundreds of psychological experiments and sociological studies of weeping, hundreds of accounts of crying in different cultures and different historical periods, thousands of tearful moments in film and fiction and art, I have come to see that, like the mother of the bride,many of us weep because we are overwhelmed by contradictions.
Oliver North cried at the Iran-Contra hearings whenever he talked about how much he loved his country. His patriotism was real, but it was complicated by the fact that he was lying to Congress. His part in an illegal operation meant that he was subverting the very Constitution he spent his life defending. These moments when real honesty is coupled with bad faith, especially when it is personal — when the speaker who is at once telling the truth and a lie is, like North, talking about himself — these are the moments that call forth tears.
On "60 Minutes," Boehner told Stahl that he couldn't visit schools anymore; that he got too upset, worrying about whether today's schoolchildren will have the same opportunities that he and his generation had. As he spoke, he started to weep. Why?
He does, I believe, worry about the children, and yet his entire political philosophy is devoted to limiting the federal government's ability to help them. He has voted against providing health insurance for children (many times), against student aid, against unemployment benefits, against equal pay, against food safety, against money for teachers, against raising the minimum wage, against tobacco education, mine safety, alternative energy, pollution control, whistle-blower protection, science and technology research. If he were making his decisions based on what government programs might help today's schoolchildren reach their dreams, like the Kennedy- and Johnson-era programs that helped him, his voting record would be very different. It is a deep enough contradiction to make him weep for the future.
"Making sure that these kids have a shot at the American dream, like I did, is important," he told Stahl through his tears. Yet he and his Republican colleagues are working hard to make sure that they can't; that the middle class he once aspired to becomes smaller rather than bigger. His college received federal grants and federal student aid while he was there, and it continues to do so, including from the stimulus bill he voted against.
The America that gave Boehner a shot at his dream had a minimum wage that, adjusted for inflation, topped $10 an hour. In 2006, he voted against letting the minimum rise from $5.15 to its current $7.25. It took Boehner seven years to finish college while working minimum-wage jobs; how long would it have taken if the minimum wage had purchased as little as it does today?
Boehner put himself through school, he said on election night, unsuccessfully trying to stem the flow of tears, "working every rotten job there was." He mopped floors, waited tables and tended bar. One could feel both his horror at once having done that sort of work and his exuberance at having left it behind to become the golfing, jet-setting, deeply tanned man weeping before the cameras.
Would he agree with this assessment? Does he know that, despite his assertions to the contrary, cutting taxes for the rich won't do anything to produce those jobs he keeps promising? Does he feel conflicted knowing that his golf bill (reported at $83,000 last year) is six or seven times the take-home pay of someone working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, and several times the median income in many of our communities?
I suspect he does, and that when he thinks about the America of his youth, he knows it will never return if his party gets its way in Washington. It is all too much. He weeps.
Tom Lutz is a professor at UC Riverside, editor of the Los Angeles Review of Books and the author of "Crying: The Natural and Cultural History of Tears."
Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times
$83,000 on golf? Now I'm crying - - - - - - - - - - - - -FOUL!
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 01:12pm PT
|
Gotta love libs whining about Fox News. A channel that has some conservative commentary on it and the libs go nuts. Why? Because libs are taught and convinced that conservatives are eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil, which means there is no use ever listening to them, and surely there can be no use having them speak publicly on our airwaves.
Hey libs -- here is a suggestion -- OPEN YOUR MINDS to conservative points of view. I know it will be hard since you cannot possibly fathom ever doing so. But, for a change, just once, consider that the opposition on the right may have something worthy to say.
Believe me - I WANT LIBERAL POINTS OF VIEW TO BE SPOKEN. I want liberal ideas out there for all to see and evaluate? Why? Because soooo much of liberal orthodoxy, from tax policy, to foreign policy, to criminal law, etc. is so wrong. My view? Let the libs speak all day friggin long. Just that much easier to tear apart.
But you see -- libs' first reaction to conservative speech is to ban it. Why? Because liberals don't believe in free speech -- hell no. That first amendment is a bastard since it protects views liberals hate. Just go onto college campuses these days and see the liberal "free speech" point of view -- speech codes, etc. Watch the Dems trying to ban Rush and implement the "Fairness Doctrine". But hey, the libs did so well with Air America, right -- you can't blame them for being a bit resentful of conservative media.
Hey libs -- please -- speak your mind, all of it. We want you to. But then, don't go around complaining because the right objects to your ideas. Get over it, learn to argue back. Yelling "racist!" and "hater!" and "homophobe" at every conservative point of view is now just juvenile and hilarious, because when you libs do that we conservatives know we have beaten you.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 01:14pm PT
|
Gotta love libs whining about Fox News. A channel that has some conservative commentary on it and the libs go nuts. Why? Because libs are taught and convinced that conservatives are eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil, which means there is no use ever listening to them, and surely there can be no use having them speak publicly on our airwaves.
Hey libs -- here is a suggestion -- OPEN YOUR MINDS to conservative points of view. I know it will be hard since you cannot possibly fathom ever doing so. But, for a change, just once, consider that the opposition on the right may have something worthy to say.
Believe me - I WANT LIBERAL POINTS OF VIEW TO BE SPOKEN. I want liberal ideas out there for all to see and evaluate? Why? Because soooo much of liberal orthodoxy, from tax policy, to foreign policy, to criminal law, etc. is so wrong. My view? Let the libs speak all day friggin long. Just that much easier to tear apart.
But you see -- libs' first reaction to conservative speech is to ban it. Why? Because liberals don't believe in free speech -- hell no. That first amendment is a bastard since it protects views liberals hate. Just go onto college campuses these days and see the liberal "free speech" point of view -- speech codes, etc. Watch the Dems trying to ban Rush and implement the "Fairness Doctrine". But hey, the libs did so well with Air America, right -- you can't blame them for being a bit resentful of conservative media.
Hey libs -- please -- speak your mind, all of it. We want you to. But then, don't go around complaining because the right objects to your ideas. Get over it, learn to argue back. Yelling "racist!" and "hater!" and "homophobe" at every conservative point of view is now just juvenile and hilarious, because when you libs do that we conservatives know we have beaten you.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 01:18pm PT
|
Liberals hate -- I mean hate -- Fox News.
Yet, I don't "hate" the liberal media of the New York Times, Wash Post, NPR, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, LA Times, etc. Why? Because this is America, and if these libs want to publish their ideas, so be it. It lets us know what they think. I will fight for their right to publish their views that I oftentimes consider wrong.
But then libs -- please -- dont try and ban speech you dont like. Labeling something "hate speech" today is merely speech libs disagree with. "Hate speech" -- what a nice Orwellian term.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 01:22pm PT
|
Hope and Change!
Earlier today it was reported that far left Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) proposed a $48 billion earmark to redistribute taxpayer money to the inner city.
Rep. Cleaver will lead the Congressional Black Caucus next year. (CBC Blog)
The $48 billion would go to Cleaver’s friend, a gentleman named Lamar Mickens, president of the not-for-profit Quality Day Campus who runs the organization out of his Kansas City home.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 01:26pm PT
|
SUAP,
I'm not liberal and I hate Fox News. Trouble is I hate almost all TV news
now that CNN is basically People Magazine 24/7. Anybody here old enough to
remember when they actually did news?
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2010 - 01:26pm PT
|
Dr. F -- man are you angry. Hey dude, lighten up. Fox News exists, and provides a conservative balance to the other networks who merely cheerlead for the Dem party. Do you really trust the Dem party that much?
A question for ye -- have you ever watched Fox News, or listened to Rush, or Hannity, or Levin, or Ingraham?
Another question -- can you tell me the percentage of newscasters that contribute to the Dem party versus the Repub party?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!