Who's on your ignore list?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : The link worked for me, but here is another one ( http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/inequality-and-happiness  ).  The data is from the OECD.  Honestly this is besides the point.  You aren't even arguing with me about whether there is inequality in China which was my main point anyways.  Saying that income inequality in the U.S. is higher (and that isn't entirely clear) doesn't change the fact that there is income inequality in China.  You are still wrong about that.
    Posted by pcmIV


    Yea, I guess you're right...so you win.  Because 3X the difference in average yearly income, 475X the difference...  It's roughly the same thing, right?  Both illustrate unequal divisions of wealth amongst workers in the same nation=Good call by you. 

    Hey ChrisakaWoody~

    RE: This:  "Paul scares me, as do most populists. Nice, superficial package. Looks like the noble renegade. But at closer inspection, absolutely nutso and dangerous."

    ~Yea, that pretty much sums up the common consensus amongst 99% of us whom were initially momentarily intrigued by Ron Paul, before delving in for a closer inspection, and inevitably coming to the conclusion you expressed from up above.  
    ~I guess I wanted to be angered, because for some absolutely insane, I saw that The Republican Iowa Caucus Debates were on television last week (this actually took 2 entirely seperate consciously !d!otic moves by your trully:  A. Watching exceptionally real sc#mb#gs debate other Real sc#mb#gs, and B. Turning on Fox News in order to do so; Hats off ta me!). 

    Anyway-Even though I despise party politics, I actually REALLY liked 1 Republican Candidate...<Although it's unfortunately becoming more & more evident that I'm gonna actually be forced to apparently vote Democrat until the end of time it looks like, simply for ZERO other reason except to attempt a feeble & meaningless personal check towards seemingly EVERY single (every...single...one) rampantly fanatical Republican constituent that I've talked to in recent times, and whom have ALL (every...single...one) expressed the same notion:  That it doesn't matter 1 single bit who gets the Republican nomination...Because THAT is the 1 person that they'll vote for...Because he's a Republican, and not a democrat, or Obama, or an independant...(because he's a Republican) />.

    The guy I actually REALLY liked:  Utah's Jon Huntsman.  The 1 tiniest "knock" on him from some posters I was reading, was that: He did not support same-sex marriages.  YET, upon closer inspection, He believed 100% that it was the right of the Individual State to decide where it stood, and whether it allowed it or not.  To me, THAT's sorta pretty perfect actually.  100% Absolute MUST for term limits on Congressmen.  100% open-book & regulations on Campaign Finance. 
         Check out how he kinda bridges the gap here in the economy:  HUGE tearing down of the power, influence & control of those "To big to fail" Banking & Financial Institutions, Extremely strict regulations, taxes, and certainty of penalties when there's unfair practices, Of all those still practicing the Derivatives Market for their respective companies.  Streamlining of FDA Approval Process time-wise.  Patent reform for backlogged-for-years US Patent Office in order to help cultivate innovative technologies coming to fruition quicker.  Check out his EPA stance (initially you're hesitant): #1. Scale back EPA's gross overreach with extreme regulatory controls (scary at first, right? 1 step towards toxic sludge openly dumped in The Ct River once more?)...but (and probably one of his BIGGEST stances) #2. END dependancy on foreign oil by developing as much and as many and as successful, and Greatly funded=Alternative Sources of Energy as possible.  I believe he is one of the very few who recognize the terrifying reality that: A) We are bordering on FULL national and even worldwide disaster in regards to the fact that we are both running outta freakin' OIL=GLOBALLY, and B) The depths of our foreign policy involvement depends less on the righteousness of ANY government or country...but on their particular importance (or non) in providing us with O-I-L...

    This guy had something like an 80+% voter-nod towards him verses his opponent in the last Utah Gubernatorial Election (ALL voters...Independant + Democrat + Republican, his own party).  Admittedly in the end, I didn't get the complete depth of details which I like...  And why?  Lmao, Because a guy with THESE types of sensible notions will NEVER- E-VE-R get the bid.  I believe he's right where he should be amongst approval ratings for Republican Voters:  By some estimates he's either dead last, or just second to last; And by the same estimates, he enjoys anywhere between a whopping 2% of the voter nod for the party bid, to upwards of 8% of the approval nod.          
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    I think there are a lot of reasons people succeed (or fail)--and I guess I think it's a little too facile to attribute success to "merit" and failure to lack of merit. Yes, people tend to succeed or fail because of talents and skills they either have or don't have.  But circumstances also play a big role--just being in the right place at the right time.  And many of the skills and talents people have are just things they were born with.  Is it meritricious to be born smart or ambitious? Or is it just the luck of the genetic draw?  It's also true that sometimes the skills and talents that allow one to succeed aren't exactly skills and talents we normally consider "meritricious." There are plenty of people who do well because they're scoundrels or ruthless and willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead, no matter how dishonest or unfair to others. Just look at all the world's many dictators--or Jeffrey Skilling if you want an example closer to home. Similarly, many people who "fail" do so despite being intelligent and hard working.  They just lack the right opportunity or the right focus--or maybe their interests lie elsewhere and they put their energy into things that aren't financially rewarding.  I know many people who think it's more important to be there for their children than to make the sacrifices necessary to get ahead at work.  Is that a lack of merit? I guess I'd say quite the opposite. 

    So the word "merit" bothers me because it seems on one hand to give the successful too much credit for their success and to imply that the unsuccessful deserve too much blame for their lack of success.  The reality, in my mind, is that people are born with different skills and talents, experience very different things in their lives, and face very different circumstances.  If you're lucky (and lucky is the right word) your skills and experiences and circumstances will all come together to make success a possibility.  If you're unlucky, your skills and experiences and circumstances will end up being obstacles to success.  This is not to say that we are all helpless and our fates determined and there's nothing we can do to better our chances, but it does mean that advantages aren't spread evenly and so success will be easier for some and more difficult for others. 

    Which gets me to the reason I am unabashadly a political liberal and view government more favourably than most conservatives.  I think those of us who succeed succeed in part on merit, but also in large part because of the advantages we have that really are none of our own doing.  And I think people who "fail" do so at times because of their own foibles, but more often than not because of disadvantages or circumstances over which they have little or no control. Also, I strongly believe that power is unevenly distributed, in part because success is unevenly distributed, and those who have more power are not in any way guaranteed to use it for the general good.  For all these reasons, I think it's important for us to act collectively to ensure that those who struggle because they are disadvantaged are not left to suffer too greatly and those who are successful don't abuse their power and act in ways that exploit others. While private charity can and does help immensely, in our large, complex, modern societies I think ultimately government is the only way to ensure that necessary services to the disadvantaged and checks and balances on the powerful are effective. Government should be financially responsible and not overly intrusive--and here I often agree with conservatives--but the reality is that governments will never be perfectly efficient because they don't have simple goals (like maximizing profits) to direct their efforts and, especially in democracies, must be controlled not by a single authority who can set a clear direction but by multitudes of people with differing and often competing priorities. Democratic government is by it's very democratic nature always messy, inefficient, and to some degree far more imperfect than we'd like.  But as Churchill famously said, "Democracy is the worst type of government except for all the other types."  What I believe Americans need to do is restore their faith in our democratic system of government, to stop trying (as Grover Norquist wants) to shrink it to the point we can drown it in a bathtub, and instead to become more involved and active in making it both big enough and good enough to once again work well for the American people.  

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : Yea, I guess you're right...so you win.  Because 3X the difference in average yearly income, 475X the difference...  It's roughly the same thing, right?  Both illustrate unequal divisions of wealth amongst workers in the same nation=Good call by you.
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium


    I've already pointed out that your chart (which amusingly is criticized as being inaccurate on the link that you originally posted it from) is not a good comparison to the statistic from China about how workers in cities make significantly more than workers in rural areas.  It isn't the same population.  Virtually every person in the U.S. that works in a city does not make nearly as much as a CEO.  You seemed to understand this in a previous post when you asked for a more standardized comparison between the U.S. and China. I provided such a comparison via the OECD data on the GINI coefficient which is the standard statistic used to measure inequality countrywide.  In that case China was higher than the US.  The CIA data had China slightly lower, but the point is that they are reasonably similar.

    Again this comparison of inequality in China and the U.S. is irrelevant.  Even if the U.S. has higher inequality (and I have provided data that calls such an assumption into question) it is still true that there is a lot of inequality in China. You claimed it did not exist in your original post in our exchange.  That is factually incorrect, yet you keep harping on me about CEO pay in the U.S. as if that somehow negates the reality in China.

    CEO pay in this country is disgusting.  There is still inequality in China though.  If you do not want to acknowledge this fact that is your decision, but stop acting like I haven't provided any evidence for what I am saying.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rocky. Show Rocky's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    I have been gone for awhile...Did I make anybody's list!!!!?????
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    Rocky, I like your posts.  You are civil and humorous.

    But if you feel left out of being ignored because you are too nice, in the spirit of Christmas I can give you the gift of a token ignore, by which to feel inclusion by exclusion.  How long would you like to be ignored?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rocky. Show Rocky's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    Rocky, I like your posts.  You are civil and humorous. But if you feel left out of being ignored because you are too nice, in the spirit of Christmas I can give you the gift of a token ignore, by which to feel inclusion by exclusion.  How long would you like to be ignored?
    Posted by chrisakawoody


    Until Sunday, Christmas day....To celebrate another Pats victory!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    Laz,

    If by some fluke of politics (Clinton, Carter, Truman, Reagan) Huntsman became president, I would not jump off a bridge.  But there are a few things I have heard are on his website that make me uncomfortable.  Won't get specifc here. And he is starting to pander, which is always a bad sign.

    This will truly be an election of the lesser of two evils.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    This will truly be an election of the lesser of two evils.
    Posted by chrisakawoody


    When was the last time it wasn't?  Curious about people's thoughts on this.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : Until Sunday, Christmas day....To celebrate another Pats victory!
    Posted by Rocky

     

    OK, will do.  You are not ignored for the next few days.  Merry Christmas.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : When was the last time it wasn't?  Curious about people's thoughts on this.
    Posted by pcmIV


    In some ways, the real problem is that Congress is a mess. Presidents shouldn't matter as much as they do, becuase Congress should be more powerful than it is.  At this point, though, American politics are nothing but a continual fight for power, which usually results only in grandstanding (in public) and dirty deals (in private).  Really a sad state, I'm afraid--and I'm not sure what to do about it.  
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : When was the last time it wasn't?  Curious about people's thoughts on this.
    Posted by pcmIV

    I don't think Carter nor Ford were evil.  I liked both.  But Carter was attacked by media sharks right out of the gate, and never had a chance, not to forget he was a self-debilitating micro-manager.  It was Carter who launched are most successful weapons programs - stealth bombers and fighters, Trident subs, the best fighter planes, etc. - that helped Reagan later leverage the USSR into capitulation.  Reagan got the glory, but those who know know that Carter was the one who launched those hi-tech programs while slashing spending on conventional forces by reducing personal.

    Ford was a good guy who had few ideas and made a huge faux pas by pardoning Nixon.  If Nixon had been prosecuted maybe we would not have had so many subsequent political scandals.  Nixon suffered comparitively few consequences for a guy that was using the IRS and FBI to dig up dirt on donors and then extorting them, laundering money, bombing a local Dem campaign HQ in the LS, hiring the Hell's Angels to terrorize peace demonstrators and a host of other serious crimes. I could never forgive Ford for that.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : I don't think Carter nor Ford were evil.  I liked both.  But Carter was attacked by media sharks right out of the gate, and never had a chance, not to forget he was a self-debilitating micro-manager.  It was Carter who launched are most successful weapons programs - stealth bombers and fighters, Trident subs, the best fighter planes, etc. - that helped Reagan later leverage the USSR into capitulation.  Reagan got the glory, but those who know know that Carter was the one who launched those hi-tech programs while slashing spending on conventional forces by reducing personal. Ford was a good guy who had few ideas and made a huge faux pas by pardoning Nixon.  If Nixon had been prosecuted maybe we would not have had so many subsequent political scandals.  Nixon suffered comparitively few consequences for a guy that was using the IRS and FBI to dig up dirt on donors and then extorting them, laundering money, bombing a local Dem campaign HQ in the LS, hiring the Hell's Angels to terrorize peace demonstrators and a host of other serious crimes. I could never forgive Ford for that.
    Posted by chrisakawoody


    To be clear I wasn't interpreting the phrase "lesser of two evils" literally (i.e. both candidates are evil), but more in a figurative sense (both suck, but one sucks less than the other).  Interesting that you have to go back 30 years to find an example.  That is fascinating/disturbing.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    And before Carter vs. Ford, you had Ike vs. Stevenson.  I don't approve of much of the things done under Ike, but I think he had the best intentions.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : In some ways, the real problem is that Congress is a mess. Presidents shouldn't matter as much as they do, becuase Congress should be more powerful than it is.  At this point, though, American politics are nothing but a continual fight for power, which usually results only in grandstanding (in public) and dirty deals (in private).  Really a sad state, I'm afraid--and I'm not sure what to do about it.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid

    Brother, you are so right.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : To be clear I wasn't interpreting the phrase "lesser of two evils" literally (i.e. both candidates are evil), but more in a figurative sense (both suck, but one sucks less than the other).  Interesting that you have to go back 30 years to find an example.  That is fascinating/disturbing.
    Posted by pcmIV

    Go back 35 years, even.  Yeah, it is sad.  But if you look at the history of the presidency, it has mostly been a parade of bad candidates and presidents occasionally interrupted by a fine candidate/president (who might also have been shot).

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : I disagree. I feel Congress is controlled by lobbies which control law.  Congress has TOO much power which is why we see nothing done, regardless of logically progressive it would be for society. The whole reason Congress has stonewalled for 3 years is to get back the presidency, so we see nothing being done with an effectiveness with regards to the gov't working as a mediator between private sector entities and what the public sector provides a society. We have the least amount of harmony between the gov't and the private sector arguably in the nation's history. We need a more powerful pulpit of sorts from the presidency, not a weaker one. Think Teddy Roosevelt for this era.  One way to help this situation along would be term limits and more visivibility with and for Americans to finally realize that it doesn't matter if you think you are right as a Republican or Democrat, but to realize you've been had by a system that you need to get back. Problem is, the criminals in Congress are the ones who would need to write these laws, which will never happen because they're criminals. You have to ask why anyone would want to be a lifetime politician.  There's something not right about that. This is 2011 and our country has been hijacked by lobbyists/lawyers who create law to be maneuvered around to manipulate.  That's all we've seen, especially in recent years. We're all for sale on the backs of what lobbyists want to do and how COngress aligns itself with each lobby. So, it doesn't really matter who is president, who your Reps and Sens are, because they're really all the same person working for a system that certainly doesn't represent you or I. We need to reduce Sens' terms to 4 years, with no chance for multiple successive terms (max 8 years total).  Reps stay at 2 years (max 4 years). Lobbying is illegal with punishment up to life in prison if caught and convicted, other than legal lobbying which is to be done in front of Congress on live TV. You must register as a rep from a lobby and be approved to spend the taxpayers' time and dollars in front of Congress for a specific order of business, This way, the consituents can see just exactly what the topics of discussions are all about before the next election, when these dirty back door deals have already been set up. Obviously, this will never happen, because again, Congress writes law, not the president. Further, part of the issue is the fact the general public is absolutely clueless to reality.  On each side, we see one person believing by voting Democratic they're right. On the other, Republicans feel the same way.  The majority of them can't tell us the difference between basic politcial or historical concepts so they even understand the world they live in, they just want to feel they're doing right. We have way too many voters who vote based on party, when they don't even realize the political shifts on the spectrum and where the money is coming from in each political party.  They don't know that the Republican Party has moved way right over the past 25 years or that the Democrats are far more crooked than you'd like to believe. We also need a larger 3rd political party, not some Perot or Ron Paul type to pop up, with us knowing that candidate really isn't a threat, only a candidate to make it easier for one of the lead candidates to win. More people who vote need to think for themselves instead of thinking for a party.  Huge mistake by our country in terms of understanding what Democracy was meant to be.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKingII


    Three words.  Public Campaign Financing.  Instead of trying to stop lobbying you need to destroy it's effectiveness.  That being said it will never happen since the guys with the power to change the law have the incentives to keep it the way it is as you already mentioned.

    Without changing the way campaigns are financed a 3rd party candidate is not viable imo.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : Just curious, what neighborhood?
    Posted by RidingWithTheKingII

    It was in Aurora, IL.  I won't say which ward.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : I disagree. I feel Congress is controlled by lobbies which control law.  Congress has TOO much power which is why we see nothing done, regardless of logically progressive it would be for society. The whole reason Congress has stonewalled for 3 years is to get back the presidency, so we see nothing being done with an effectiveness with regards to the gov't working as a mediator between private sector entities and what the public sector provides a society. We have the least amount of harmony between the gov't and the private sector arguably in the nation's history. We need a more powerful pulpit of sorts from the presidency, not a weaker one. Think Teddy Roosevelt for this era.  One way to help this situation along would be term limits and more visivibility with and for Americans to finally realize that it doesn't matter if you think you are right as a Republican or Democrat, but to realize you've been had by a system that you need to get back. Problem is, the criminals in Congress are the ones who would need to write these laws, which will never happen because they're criminals. You have to ask why anyone would want to be a lifetime politician.  There's something not right about that. This is 2011 and our country has been hijacked by lobbyists/lawyers who create law to be maneuvered around to manipulate.  That's all we've seen, especially in recent years. We're all for sale on the backs of what lobbyists want to do and how COngress aligns itself with each lobby. So, it doesn't really matter who is president, who your Reps and Sens are, because they're really all the same person working for a system that certainly doesn't represent you or I. We need to reduce Sens' terms to 4 years, with no chance for multiple successive terms (max 8 years total).  Reps stay at 2 years (max 4 years). Lobbying is illegal with punishment up to life in prison if caught and convicted, other than legal lobbying which is to be done in front of Congress on live TV. You must register as a rep from a lobby and be approved to spend the taxpayers' time and dollars in front of Congress for a specific order of business, This way, the consituents can see just exactly what the topics of discussions are all about before the next election, when these dirty back door deals have already been set up. Obviously, this will never happen, because again, Congress writes law, not the president. Further, part of the issue is the fact the general public is absolutely clueless to reality.  On each side, we see one person believing by voting Democratic they're right. On the other, Republicans feel the same way.  The majority of them can't tell us the difference between basic politcial or historical concepts so they even understand the world they live in, they just want to feel they're doing right. We have way too many voters who vote based on party, when they don't even realize the political shifts on the spectrum and where the money is coming from in each political party.  They don't know that the Republican Party has moved way right over the past 25 years or that the Democrats are far more crooked than you'd like to believe. We also need a larger 3rd political party, not some Perot or Ron Paul type to pop up, with us knowing that candidate really isn't a threat, only a candidate to make it easier for one of the lead candidates to win. More people who vote need to think for themselves instead of thinking for a party.  Huge mistake by our country in terms of understanding what Democracy was meant to be.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKingII



    Rome went this way in its decline to.  Abolish the Senate, appoint a King.  

    Personally, I'd rather see statesmen in the Congress again . . . but maybe a King really is what the country needs.  "A republic, if you can keep it."  Maybe we just can't keep it anymore. 


     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list? : I disagree. I feel Congress is controlled by lobbies which control law.  Congress has TOO much power which is why we see nothing done, regardless of logically progressive it would be for society. The whole reason Congress has stonewalled for 3 years is to get back the presidency, so we see nothing being done with an effectiveness with regards to the gov't working as a mediator between private sector entities and what the public sector provides a society. We have the least amount of harmony between the gov't and the private sector arguably in the nation's history. We need a more powerful pulpit of sorts from the presidency, not a weaker one. Think Teddy Roosevelt for this era.  One way to help this situation along would be term limits and more visivibility with and for Americans to finally realize that it doesn't matter if you think you are right as a Republican or Democrat, but to realize you've been had by a system that you need to get back. Problem is, the criminals in Congress are the ones who would need to write these laws, which will never happen because they're criminals. You have to ask why anyone would want to be a lifetime politician.  There's something not right about that. This is 2011 and our country has been hijacked by lobbyists/lawyers who create law to be maneuvered around to manipulate.  That's all we've seen, especially in recent years. We're all for sale on the backs of what lobbyists want to do and how COngress aligns itself with each lobby. So, it doesn't really matter who is president, who your Reps and Sens are, because they're really all the same person working for a system that certainly doesn't represent you or I. We need to reduce Sens' terms to 4 years, with no chance for multiple successive terms (max 8 years total).  Reps stay at 2 years (max 4 years). Lobbying is illegal with punishment up to life in prison if caught and convicted, other than legal lobbying which is to be done in front of Congress on live TV. You must register as a rep from a lobby and be approved to spend the taxpayers' time and dollars in front of Congress for a specific order of business, This way, the consituents can see just exactly what the topics of discussions are all about before the next election, when these dirty back door deals have already been set up. Obviously, this will never happen, because again, Congress writes law, not the president. Further, part of the issue is the fact the general public is absolutely clueless to reality.  On each side, we see one person believing by voting Democratic they're right. On the other, Republicans feel the same way.  The majority of them can't tell us the difference between basic politcial or historical concepts so they even understand the world they live in, they just want to feel they're doing right. We have way too many voters who vote based on party, when they don't even realize the political shifts on the spectrum and where the money is coming from in each political party.  They don't know that the Republican Party has moved way right over the past 25 years or that the Democrats are far more crooked than you'd like to believe. We also need a larger 3rd political party, not some Perot or Ron Paul type to pop up, with us knowing that candidate really isn't a threat, only a candidate to make it easier for one of the lead candidates to win. More people who vote need to think for themselves instead of thinking for a party.  Huge mistake by our country in terms of understanding what Democracy was meant to be.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKingII

    Fine post.

    I just heard recently - not sure if true, though - that federal legistlators are exempt from SEC insider trading prohibition laws.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    Did 1966 just post a smiley face?  Did that just happen?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Who's on your ignore list?

    In Response to Re: Who's on your ignore list?:
    You guys are still going? 
    Posted by Patsfansince1966



    A fine thread you've started here, Patsfan.  Ignored by some, no doubt (as it should because it's way off topic), but not ignored by us. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share