magekillr

This Do I really need to add anything to that? Yes, like the fact that this person that started this thread has no idea what they're talking about, and bastardized the legislation to mean something that it doesn't.

I love this article that explains people like Alex Jones: Reference: J. A. Whitson, A. D. Galinsky (2008). Lacking Control Increases Illusory Pattern Perception Science, 322 (5898), 115-117 DOI: 10.1126/science.1159845 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1159845 SOURCE: http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscienc ... eories.php (1) = http://acsprod.mccombs.utexas.edu/facst ... uid=174730 (2) = http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/fac ... linsky.htm (3) = http://whatstheharm.net/index.html

It doesn't matter if it makes it worse or better, it's the right thing to do. If the military is full of homophobic idiots, then we'll soon find out. The sooner gays are integrated into the military, the sooner it will be common place to accept them for who they are. Segregation worked out so well for racism...oh wait.... Lol, and since when does bailing out companies have to do with a higher tax on the wealthy? You're arguing for the Swedish model? That's what I argue for. We're bailing out a company in which our entire financial structure revolves around, not some car company that really won't affect employment. Besides, nationalizing is something we should do for insolvent firms, but of course your ilk of beliefs doesn't believe in that either....but wait, that's what the Swedes did! This is not a "business" cycle, this is effectively the biggest failure of the deregulations of banks (allowing for Shadow banking) since Ronald Reagan. And back on topic, it seems like you have nothing to say about your circus news network, or Alex Jones' craziness.

No age cut off, and it's right before we complete the roads for the North American Union, the New World Order has a leader, all pro-life activists are arrested, and when we ban all guns/don't allow people to grow tomatoes in their front yard! Tomatoes!

I guess everyone likes to continue to follow Alex Jones' word as gospel, especially because he appeared on Fox News! :wall: When will the internet just drop the loser off a cliff and actually "think for themselves?" People so callously call others sheep left and right, without actually thinking for themselves. The irony would be hilarious, if it wasn't coupled by sadness and stupidity.

Really? You're calling Foxnews a circus, and then you post a NY Times link? Hmm.... Yes, I do call a news network that allows a blow hard like Bill O'Reilly to blame rape on the rape victim [1], Glen Beck to talk about conspiracy theories about FEMA camps and significantly increase his air time [2], mocks Canadian Soldiers dying in Afghanistan [3], among other nameless things that would otherwise be censored on this board, to be one giant circus of a news network. The New York Times is fairly neutral in their reporting, and they occasionally are just as sensational as any other bit of the corporate media, but no network owned by Rupert Murdoch can even compare...how about the New York Post monkey cartoon? Oh yeah, so credible... :roll:

InfoWars? Really? Please, get this Alex Jones garbage out of here. This is worse than Fox News having him on their online show because no one should expect anything from the circus over at Fox News. This is nothing but a giant lie about some "Hitler Youth" designed to take over America for the world government and the CFR. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us/po ... 7cong.html It was a bill that expanded funding to groups like AmeriCorps, and increased funding for college assistance. Last I heard, "mandatory" and "voluntary" are both mutually exclusive terms.

I'm not sure, I can't find it. However, there were roughly 15 brackets, now there's only like six. And just to explain how taxes work so I don't see any faux news peddled like I did on ABC 1, your tax rates are not the same for every dollar that you make. So under Obama, the highest bracket of $336,000 (which is stupid to have the highest bracket so low) will be taxed 39%. Now, that's not to say every penny of $336,000 will be taxed 39%. If you make $336,001, you will be taxed at 39% just for $1, the rest will be taxed according to the other five brackets that we have. Eisenhower was a flaming liberal, probably about as liberal as Dennis Kucinich. I'd say the Red Scare and Ronald Reagan pushed the Overton Window to the right. --Dwight D. Eisenhower You honestly believe that? How did George Bush win then? It's not the best rhetoric, Obama got elected for a few reasons over Bush: 1.) Bush's presidency was such a failure 2.) The coalition built by Rove is crumbling 3.) The coalition built by Reagan is dying off, being irrelevant, and younger people are more liberal than the younger people of the past 4.) McCain was a bumbling fool that chose an idiot for Vice President I'm not a socialist lol, this is the exact crap that I'm tired of the GOP and the Media feeding the American people. I suppose idealistically I am a socialist, but in the real world I argue for the Swedish model. And to quote the former Swedish Prime Minister, Bo Lundgren, that solved the 1990's economic crisis of Sweden: And Matthew Yglesias makes a great point about this: I do extremely dislike conservatism, but only because of facts, not ideology. I mean, if you want to value freedom over your money over the fact that certain things of certain societies work better, then fine. But don't tell me that freedom over your own money is more efficient or better treats the masses, that's just a flat out lie. I don't care about what ideology says what, I care about what works the best for the most people. So I don't approve of the minimum wage because it's a fact that it lowers employment, I don't agree with Unions that much anymore because I think they've overstayed their welcome and solved the problems that they fought for back in Debs' day (unions are no less corrupt than any other person with power), I don't support protectionism (Europe, especially France, you need to drop your protectionist policies). However, most of those things, many of my liberal colleagues will openly support because they support ideology over facts. If the facts said that a free market was the best route, then I'd welcome it.

First point: I disagree with the economic shift because of the way the questions are worded. For this test, I answer the question, "Do you think people should get better health care if they have money" as "Strongly disagree" because I know that this question is seeing if you agree with universal health coverage or not. They don't have anything to do with libertarians, per se, but libertarians always complain about "printing money and inflation" when they really have no idea how economics actually work, or what "printing money" even is. They somehow believe that inflation is going to be a problem during this economic crisis, when the real fear is deflation; we currently WANT inflation, as it's really low right now (I think 0.2%). Second point: Because of Ronald Reagan. Americans are far more liberal than they understand, but the Overton Window in America has made such a radical shift that they don't even understand how far to the right both parties have shifted, and just continue down with the "tax and spend Democrats" and the "tax cut small government Republicans." They don't understand that there used to be a tax bracket of 91% for the super rich during Eisenhower (who was a Republican), or that Teddy Roosevelt was a very far left candidate even though he was a Republican. Reagan changed all of that by building a coalition of racist, homophobic bigots as the party line for Republicans, which is why you have the group "Reagan Democrats" and "Dixiecrats." The coalition now known as "blue dog democrats" is what went to the Democratic party from the Reagan Dems, whereas the racist and homophobic group (in general) stuck with the Republicans. Ronald Reagan is why the Republicans are so full of "God" and is the reason the Republicans are so opposed to science. Here's a list of how Ronnie Reagan was so against science: Just a list that I have saved. I know many old people that say, "Well my views haven't changed, but now I'm see as a radically left liberal when I was seen as a moderate in the past." It's all from Ronald Reagan. Lol, you sound like Ralph Nader. You know, corporations aren't inherently bad, and being strictly opposed to them and globalism makes you look like a fool. I see the big names in his admin, and I really don't know wtf you're talking about. I don't like Larry Summers, but that's about it. Tim Geithner has been a public servant his entire life, he's had opportunities to take jobs that pay far more than he received; his resume qualified him for far more money in my opinion. Just the selection of Charles Freeman that the extreme far right Zionists had to lambaste and deface was a sign that he is trying to solve the Israeli Gaza situation. So, yeah, you're full of it. This is like when Ralph Nader called Amartya Sen a "corporate shrill." If there's anyone that's NOT a "corporate shrill," it's Amartya Sen.

I would respectfully disagree and say that it's more leaning towards libertarian. For example, its question about health care, "Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care ," it's highly disingenuous. Of course those with the ability to pay should have the right to "higher" standards of care, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with Universal Health Care. This one as well, "Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment." Only a libertarian would word it like this.

I already had Spring Break. I took it down in Pass Christian, Mississippi on the Long Beach shoreline to volunteer with FEMA and Americorps. We went to New Orleans one night, and it was a good time. The amount of aid this area has been given has been staggeringly low; it's a pathetic sacrilege.

Speak for yourself. Nationalism and patriotism are cancerous poisons. On the topic of Scotland, I love kilts, and I wish they were mainstream in America. They're so comfortable.

I am not going to get along with you. #-o Why? Because you want to control people's lives, spy on them, condemn homosexuality as immoral based on nothing but prejudice, bomb other peoples' countries while ignoring state sovereignty in the name of "freedom" and indirectly contribute to crime and poverty by saying, "You're on your own?" You're a fascist, no one should get along with you. Spoken like a true liberal, god you people are funny sometimes. The hypocrisy is astounding. Don't give me that crap about controlling. You want to control what we drive, what bulbs we use, what toilet paper we should use, what food we should eat, how much we should pay people, tax rates, talk radio content... the list goes on. All in the name of whatever the hell you believe in. 1.) What you drive and what bulbs you use is directly causing the demise of our society. Go ahead and denounce global warming as a hoax to steal your tax dollars and "control your lives," but the smart people and the scientists will continue on with what we call "facts," "data," and "trends." 2.) If you feel controlled through taxes, then maybe you should reduce your party's spending? You know you would never do that, because you'd lose your favorite talking point: "Our children are going to inherit this deficit that you liberals are handing them!" You know, even though Bush killed the economy, and drove the debt you like to complain about sky high, it just doesn't matter; facts, evidence, data..it's all a liberal conspiracy to control your life. 3.) The Fairness Doctrine is a piece of garbage, and it is not going to be brought back. Don't worry too much, I'm sure you'll fret when we take away your AK-47's.

I am not going to get along with you. #-o Why? Because you want to control people's lives, spy on them, condemn homosexuality as immoral based on nothing but prejudice, bomb other peoples' countries while ignoring state sovereignty in the name of "freedom" and indirectly contribute to crime and poverty by saying, "You're on your own?" You're a fascist, no one should get along with you.

Taken it before, several times: Economic Left/Right: -8.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92

No to the supernatural, definitely no to the occult, and I think aliens are likely, but I don't believe in them.

How does god existing make life any more meaningful? Because you believe you'll get a reward in an afterlife? Because you need some cosmic father figure to feel significant? If god doesn't exist then we still have something to live for, and that's life in the here and now. Life should be reward enough, especially so if it's the only one we have. We all have hopes and dreams to make something of ourselves, to be surrounded with good people and to enjoy all that life has to offer. We all have things that are meaningful to us and dreams that drive us. Life is not meaningless without god. Who really cares about meaning anyway? As George Carlin said: Do we really even need meaning? Who cares about meaning, just live your life to the fullest.

Wanna date? I got coffee :D

So your single atm? Actually, no. What's so hard to conceive about those two characteristics? I don't mind calling everyday, I'd rather it not be a chore to the point of 'getting in trouble' if it doesn't happen, though.

The expansion wasn't necessary; all that was required was your statement that you were not making a joke. The point is, regardless of how much you want to argue semantics, you're equating the possiblity of God's existence with that of the dinosaurs. Some would venture to call that dumb. Most of them have scientific minds. I'm going with them on this. Note: If you're merely arguing semantics, stop, it's annoying. If you're actually trying to go somewhere with this argument, uh, please stop. Awesome, so awesome. I lol'd, thanks, Reb. :lol: .

Independent to the point where I don't need to coddle her with phone calls everyday, and pro-universal health care. I don't date women if they don't have those two characteristics. I could care less how many people she's had sex with if we were looking at pure numbers; that's her business and her right if she doesn't or does want to tell me (I'm probably not going to ask anyway).

Probably in Pakistan. It really doesn't matter where he is, or what has happened to him. If he dies, "another" Osama will take his place.

Homework is necessary; revision is far more important than school lessons. As a matter of fact, far more time should be devoted to hw than in the classroom.

Of course they should be obligated to join the draft if there ever was one. It would be sexist not to do so.

Of course regular life is dull, this is why I refuse to live one. The regular: go to college, go to grad school (maybe), get a good job, make money, get married, have kids, retire, die; throw in some vacations and random odd [cabbage], and you've got a life. My plans: travel on little to not money, work my way as I go, and live in the Peace Corps/Americorps/etc. I mean...I don't want money, I just wanna travel and stuff. A number of things give these opportunities, for example I'm in New Orleans for a week for $200. I volunteered to help out for Katrina relief during the day, and get to enjoy life 4:00 pm and on.