Recent posts by karmakoolkid on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Originally posted by Belisaurius11:

Karma, are you a conservative? I saw you say that earlier but every time you say something it sounds like the exact opposite.

Ya see, this is one of the sad problems Americans have about how we “label” things.
We tend to view things as on/off, black/white, liberal/conservative.

I am fairly liberal in my SOICAL views and somewhat conservative in fiscal matters.
But, since I’m not a huge fan of spending massive amounts on the military-industrial machine and strongly favor better oversight for entitlement programs, I’m probably considered to be even liberal in that.

I tend to view myself as being square in the middle of the common sense road.
I simply hate to see money wasted on/in programs that could be wondrously beneficial in giving all manner of assistance to those who need it (the good kind of “welfare”, etc.) … in whatever way. I deeply hate to see my tax money going to support corporate welfare.
.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

I don’t know what my post has to do with yours at all Karma.

Our ideologies align in that there is some form of result from either promoting or inhibiting enlightenment (education). You put forth a more visible concept of how it works; I merely gave the overall blueprint of it.
.
I said libraries keep felons from wanting to felonize and that conservatives should help balance the books so they don’t get mugged.
Yup, more of your common application of my blueprint concept.
.
You said conservatives want to keep people dumb because it keeps them from being liberal, which I happen to agree with, but not based on my last post.

Let me make a couple of tweaks to that sentence.
Dumb (intelligence assessment) isn’t the same as ignorant (assessment of easily available information) …. at least for me. One of them can be “fixed” … the other, not so much.

Enlightening the ignorant won’t necessarily cause them to “become liberal”.
It could merely add cherry-picked data that would be used to support bias/bigotry (i.e. jhco)
I guess this is, again, one of those “degrees” thing.
One would hope that a higher degree of (broadly general?) learning would tend to yield a more “sophisticated” view of the world … which, in my opinion, tends to be essentially “liberal”.

You & I could likely sit down, knock back a couple, and come up with a long list of how much better off even the hard core “makers/takers” folks would be were their to be a lot more wealth equity for ALL those who are below the 10% threshold … esp. for those at/near the bottom.

I’ve long advocated that the “makers” have much more in common w/ the “takers”.
I promote a joining of forces of the two to “entice” that 10% to be much more generous in “sharing the wealth” that MOST OF the 90%ers generate for them.

Then, by doing so, there would be far less “takers” and the “makers” would then not be asked to contribute in order to subsidize the below-poverty existences of those who don’t have/aren’t blessed w/ better abilities for coping in our modern & somewhat cold society.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Originally posted by stanwise:
Originally posted by Belisaurius11:
You do realize a library doesn’t give any revenue back and that a sports stadium does don’t you?

Libraries don’t directly turn a profit, but they’re a vital tool for upward social mobility. They provide access to massive amounts of information and educational materials for free, removing the hefty cost of purchase as a barrier to entry for education. They also provide services like offering free internet so people without internet can search for jobs and run programs such as children’s summer reading programs, which help slow the rate of performance loss students suffer over long breaks.

This sort of all hinges on whether or not you acknowledge that free education for the poor is of great profit to society.

So, true story. My great-great grandfather was a dirt-poor Ukranian peasant who came to America to find a better life. His son, my great-grandfather, only got as far as an eighth grade education before he went to work for the rest of his life as a grocer. But he raised my grandfather to value education, even despite living in poverty. Every day after school, my grandfather rode the bus to the library and spent hours reading and educating himself. He eventually skipped two grades, attended MIT and Harvard, got his doctorate, and became an Apollo engineer. He helped designed the steering system for the lunar module that landed man on the moon. Sure, if he hadn’t filled that role, they would have found some other engineer, but like … don’t tell me libraries aren’t good for society.

Great story, Stan.
It perfectly aligns w/ that good ol’ American concept of how immigration is a boon.
But, interestingly enough, the political side that typically wraps itself in the American flag tends to not support PUBLIC education. That link is one view of why “conservatives” view public education as a waste.

I see this reason as a cornerstone for the bigotry held by “conservatives” that actually benefit the most from public education. One could mount a good argument that, since they are ignorantly shooting themselves in the foot, that indeed their public education was somewhat a waste. LOL

From the link:
“That the cost of education has been increasing, is not a coincidence. Conservatives hate education, especially public education. They are making education less accessible, and more corporate oriented in order to serve their agenda. The deterioration of public education is a result of decades of predominantly conservative government in the United States. But why do conservatives hate education? The reasons are very clear if one understands what education means. There is a reason that a broad education is called a “liberal education.” Education tends to liberalize people. The research on this is very clear.

In fact, academics appear to be growing even more liberal than before (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/24/survey-finds-professors-already-liberal-have-moved-further-left). Also, people who define themselves as liberals have the highest average education levels . To quote Wikipedia, liberals “were the ideological demographic with the highest rate of college education. Of those who identified as liberal, 49% were college graduates and 41% had household incomes exceeding $75,000, compared to 27% and 28% as the national average, respectively.” Thus, when conservatives derogate education — especially “liberal education” — and make a good education less accessible to the public, they are serving their self-interests politically.

It is no coincidence that liberals tend to be better educated and have higher IQs. The primary way that access to education is being limited, is by making it more expensive, especially for the “better schools.” The second reason also involves money, but probably not in the way that you might think. While some people are becoming rich directly as a result of high tuition fees, increasingly, schools are turning to corporate sponsors, who make cooperative ventures with schools which are aimed at helping the corporations to profit.

I suppose it would be more accurate to say that conservatives love expensive education, then. Thus, education is being increasingly corporatized. Third, conservatives want to limit the types of education that people receive. Much as conservative Christians typically want children to have a Christian education, sometimes home schooling in order to do so, conservative business people want students to have a business-friendly education. It is no coincidence that the most politically conservative faculty, as well as the highest paid, tend to be economists.

Conservatives would rather brainwash students to advocate their world view, than let them explore the world of knowledge and ideas in an unbiased fashion. By limiting access to education, and the content of educational programs, conservatives can keep more of the public poorly informed, and thus more susceptible to their propaganda — and more likely to vote conservative and to endorse conservative values. That is really the crux of this issue. However, what I say of political conservatives, also applies to the ultra wealthy — the financial elites of society — who have been in cahoots with conservative politicians.

Not only is it in their short term (which is apparently all that they care about) interest to make people less informed and more conformingly conservative, but also, it is in the interest of most industries to limit advances in technology or cultural changes. They like things the way that they are, and most of all love having monopolies on products, making the public dependent upon them. Thus, while we can see that science is advancing in research labs around the world, most of them probably in institutes of higher education, and the impetus for cultural advancement is given validation by the academic social sciences, corporate owners do several things to minimize progress."

That last bolded sentence is what I see as the bedrock for the ("war on Christianity concept) disdain for public education “conservatives” espouse.

Note: The author of that link cited sources to back up some of his claims. But, the formatting so screwed up my post that I had to make two of them and eliminate those links so I didn’t create a wall of text.

It appears TheBSG aligns w/ my perspective.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Originally posted by Kazeelex:

He does all this non sense to get people to notice him. All the seriousness and not backing down about things he says is what makes him a good runner

NO.
He’s not at all a good runner.
Two things are holding his numbers so high:
1) That he (suprsingly?) espouses the radicalism of a much higher “zeal” over the more radical, irrational feeling regarding some of the Tea Partyish agendas … esp. the one on “illegal” immigration.

I say irrational regarding illegal immigration because the illegals are here because we “invite” them by giving them jobs & housing while having a very lax immigration enforcement effort. This mania over illegals is much like bitching about an increasing feral cat population all the while continuing to put food out for them.

2) The simplicity of “Everybody loves the circus” mentality … esp. the clowns. Or, another way to view it would be like how ppl just can’t look away as they SLOW DOWN and gawk at the accident scene on a highway. Yeah, I said it. Trump is the accident wreckage of the current GOP antique (ideas) auto parade down (take back)-America’s “main street” (or is it Wall Street?).

Way to go Donald. Gaudily demonstrate to the American public just how insanely wealthy a person can be … financing your own Presidential campaign. This is something akin to a butcher going on a safari and stating it is for the sake of providing food for his family. Trump knows he can’t win … gawd, I hope he isn’t actually that much of a megalomaniac to believe he can. He is merely salaciously padding his biography …. ooops, AUTO-biography. Ya just know he will write his own. LOL
.

Originally posted by issendorf:
You do realize a library doesn’t give any revenue back and that a sports stadium does don’t you?

Actually, public funding for sports stadiums is pretty much one of the only areas that economists of all stripes largely agree; subsidies for stadiums provide pretty much zero economic benefits – they’re pretty much purely corporate welfare.

We can probably include multifunction arenas. Sedgwick County (Wichita) had a 1 cent sales tax—on EVERYTHING (no exemption for even food) for 3 years—to pay for a new downtown arena. We were “sold” an accompanying parking garage. We didn’t get the garage and the seating is horribly cramped. BUT, Intrust Bank has its name displayed on the huge “billboard”.

Basically, the poor disproportionately paid for something very, VERY few of them will ever be able to use. Tickets typically go for $60.00 and up. AND, the arena isn’t at all “profitable”. In fact, a couple of years, it lost money and had to get county tax money.
.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Yup, Pete …. that has been my song on SD ever since I stomped in.
I kept telling jhco that his looking “down” on those he felt so superior to was very silly because those from on very HIGH couldn’t really distinguish between the two classes …. merely because they and their wealth are so disassociated from that of “the 90%” because (please pardon the racial pun) all you poor ppl look alike to them.

Here’s a weird brick for my wall.
It really isn’t all that difficult for the wealthy to have more materials goods than the huge majority of us … they just “do the usual”.
SO. In order to much greater enhance the experience wrought by extreme disassociation (gap), we “lowlies” must also suffer in other ways to punctuate this difference. There is only so much wealth that can be pushed to one side of the currency wheel before the rotation of earning/spending of money soon becomes a wheel that is out of balance … as on a car and, when bad enough, will vibrate the car (economy) to pieces. When as much wealth as is “system-safe” can be transferred to the top; then, they go after the human spirit. Lowering ours perspective wise raises theirs.

James Bond thought Goldfinger wanted to rob Ft. Knox. No, Goldfinger just wanted to “dirty bomb” the gold in order to render it useless — thereby elevating the value of his own gold. The “bad” (greedy, power hungry) wealthy want to deny us as much in the way of even bare essentials of life (healthcare, safe water, etc.) so that, by comparison, their own STILL human woes will still be much more easy a burden.

It is that suffering that drives me to be the asshole I am on these social issues. I really don’t give a shit about having “luxuries”. It would be a little difficult for me to talk about which house I would be spending this Christmas at …. and be doing it in from of someone who was wondering if they could even afford to buy their kids some gifts.

Then, I look around and see a lot more of the real soul-sucking, harshness involved in how the working poor live. This recent thread on the FUCKING MINIMUM WAGE was utter bullshit. Sure, a MINIMUM wage is a damn good place to start … just as Gay marriage is. BUT, there is a whoooole lot more (tip-0-ice-burg) progress to be made in ALL socially decaying areas. Let’s toss in that of racism (maybe tie it to illegal immigration?).

It isn’t THE very bottom “minimum” wage that is the real issue …. again, classic misdirection.
It is that the entire lower AND middle classes’ wages are at a minimum of what they were a few decades ago …. and, even a long ways from what they should be.

I’m going to “borrow” from this link to show how a huge majority of Americans are so very far off from an accurate understanding of what this “share in the wealth of our production” this all about.

There are three basic views discussed:
1) How we “lowlies” think the wealth we produce IS distributed.
2) How we “lowlies” think it SHOULD BE.
3) And, how the wealth distribution is actually happening

Here in the U.S., we “lowlies” (90%ers in varying degrees) are being told to get all excited about this minimum wage debate. FUCK, look behind the curtain, ppl. Stop the economic hemorrhaging of the fruits of your labor. Stop letting the wealthy bullshit you about what you are worth to them. What we need today in America is a NEW political party that is basically a simple UNION that will negotiate w/ “management” (Congress) to see to it that a decent “contract” (laws) is enacted with the OWNERS of the factory. With better pay, we workers might actually have some disposable income to invest in “our” company …. thereby, having an actual stake in our labor. Fucking imagine that … a real incentive to work and be proud of it.

We have already paid our “union” dues, we are citizens who are registered voters.
If we are so fucking willing to vote against our own best interests, then I suppose this concept I came across last night is deeply true: For someone to MAKE a difference; they have to KNOW the difference.

As it is today, those magnificent rich bastards are doing a damn good job of keeping us focused on “differences” that just aren’t all that important …. at least not compared to the wealth distribution differences.

While looking for the above link, this one popped up.
Man, it is a 13 minute investment that is well worth the effort.
I wonder how many “Koolaid drinkers” would be able to shake the effects of all the bullshit that seems to be clogging up their brains were they to spend the 13 min. watching the video and maybe an hour or two pondering the message in it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Originally posted by TheBSG:

That was a really bad statistical analysis of republicans as Vika mentioned.

Really bad?
Okay.
But, sometimes … where there is smoke, there could be a fire.
And, the same sentiment is held by those people.

I’m certainly not saying it is an off-on, black-white, dumb-smart polarized thing.
Hell, it might be a one-2-one comparison right down the line on “intellect” between conservative and liberal.

Where I see the difference manifesting itself—in what even the conservatives would see as being wrong,IF their actions/attitudes were being used against them—is the way the pushing of “not-so-stellar” thinking (a lot of it personally invasive, prejudice, racial, etc.) is being done MOSTLY by the conservative side. And, those social negatives are being fervently embraced by them.

When was the last time tree-hugging & whale-saving et.al was news?
How much actual serious harm is being done by those bleeding hearts …. well, compared to pro-lifers, gun nutz, beaner-haters, etc. You name it and a conservative will have an orgasm thinking you’ve agreed w/ them merely because ya said the words. LOL

Perhaps a bit clearer this way: for me, it’s not really a matter of which side has better “smarts”; it is what they are doing w/ what they have that is important. Under the U.S. current political scene, this “failing” to DO “smart” tends to be borne out by the oft stated: they vote against their own best interests.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Originally posted by mysticvortex13:

feminists are guilty by association with feminazis. they dont denounce their extremists.

And, we call that being prejudiced.
Sure, a blatant denouncement of similar, yet distinctively different, of activity of one group by the other, more prominent & non-radical group is a damn good idea … at times, if needed.

But, for those who have an interest in what is going on will know the difference simply by listening to the stated positions of the two groups. Those who are “low-level” informationites will likely see only bickering between the two groups should the non-radicals stoop to clash w/ a group whose agenda is clearly a tad too “irrational”.

The more moderate group’s abstaining from such clashes is somewhat similar to “ignore the trolls.”
.
.

Originally posted by 0Gamer0:
0Gamer0, ya’re kinda missing his point.
A 1 out of 5 members in the Senate (and about the same for the House) is far from a 1 to 1 ratio that reflects reality.

Oh, I understand his point, what I disagree with is his premise- that 1 to 1 ratio should be what we’re aiming for. Gender is not relevant to how well they perform their job → the ratio between genders is entirely irrelevant.

I was merely going by the quote I used. It related the U.S. Congressional scene. I’d thought ya would have picked up on that. In that venue, I strongly believe that a relative form of representation is a must … actually, a given.

Going into the private spectrum of a different kind of “representation”, I will totally agree about “the best suited person for the job” application of selection …. regardless of what gender numbers are represented. It is irrelevant.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Originally posted by Belisaurius11:
Originally posted by petesahooligan:
You have no proof that the tea party movement is anti-intellectual.

Seriously?

It’s the most anti-intellectual political movement that the nation has ever seen. How about, for example, a “vote of approval” for George W Bush as the candidate that voters would most want to have a beer with?

You still have to show me how it is anti-intellectual. Just because the people in it are less intellectual doesn’t mean what the tea party stands for is less intellectual.

Sure, it is highly & hotly debatable as to EXACTLY what the Tea Party “stands” for … even given that there can be some central designated platform that is well-stated. But, a party is made up of a large, widely & wildly diverse ppl. And, regardless of the “collective cognitive capacity” of that group, or of any prominent member individuals in it, a person STILL might be able to generate a bit of a skewed glance at it and see some base values espoused that could be considered worthy tenets.

BUT, overall, it is the METHODS by which the Tea Party, et.al wants to realize those tenets that clearly & cleanly smack of a particular brand of odious naïvete.

Or, stated in another way, the folks who are Tea Partyish might not be all that “classically” stupid, they just tend to be viewed as that , probably because they behave like that, somewhat because they are just that ill-informed about the issues they so passionately promote, and won’t give reasonable consideration to presented enlightenment.
Which, for me, tend to be its own special brand of “dumb”.
.

I do not think you know what an anti-intellectual is.
“a person who scorns intellectuals and their views and methods.”

LOL, ol’ Pete knows damn well what an “anti” is.
For me, this anti-intellectual type of mindset he’s referring to covers both the attitude of the person and a description of them.

I find those who are anti-intellectual are highly likely to be UN-intellectual …. duh.
Would someone dislike their own persona?
But, I speculate the low-cognitive person is likely to be “anti” because of jealousy, distrust, whatever.
Yet, I personally know of several such ppl who know well their ability to understand/comprehend the many things “beyond them” and aren’t afraid to admit it and do what they can to change that status.

I find great personal joy in having “intellectual” intercourse with such ppl who are eagerly hungry to expand their understanding of the more obscure nuances of the world happening around them. I suppose a lot of my desire to share w/ them comes from my deep appreciation for the help ppl in my life gave me while on my journey to find answers to the many questions I had.

THEN, there are those many, many ppl who stop reading the book at the cover and will absolutely swear they can tell you the entire story within. I think that is somewhat the PERCEPTION given the “Tea Party” et.al. …. which is held by those who are converselly perceived as being intellectual …. or, they at least “sound” that way because then tend to have at least had the good sense to read the Cliff Notes.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Originally posted by petesahooligan:
You have no proof that the tea party movement is anti-intellectual.

Seriously?

It’s the most anti-intellectual political movement that the nation has ever seen. How about, for example, a “vote of approval” for George W Bush as the candidate that voters would most want to have a beer with?

Explained
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Something needs to be said about feminism/liberalism.

Originally posted by 0Gamer0:
The US Senate has 100 members. How many are women? Quick! The answer is 20.

Were there any women who were more qualified than men for the position, but were refused simply because they are women? No? Then it’s not discrimination of women.

My point is that we really DON’T have equality and equal representation of women. That’s what feminism is about… it’s more than empowerment. It’s also about just balancing things out.

Emphasis mine. And that’s a problem. Equal represantation is not what we should be aiming for, equal opportunities are. BC and vika have done a good job explaining this. I’d even go as far to say that forcing equal represantation would itself constitute gender-based discrimination. If that is what modern feminism is about, then it’s not really about equality.

0Gamer0, ya’re kinda missing his point.
A 1 out of 5 members in the Senate (and about the same for the House) is far from a 1 to 1 ratio that reflects reality.
We’ve had equal opportunity for women now for 3 generations. That much time and the results in the workforce should demonstrate that the gender representation for Congress is “lagging”.

I don’t care that much about “qualifications” …. there are some extremely UN-qualified men in those offices if one wants to be really frank about it. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that there are as many qualified women for those offices as their are men. “Qualification” really isn’t the issue … at all.

It is that those women wanting to be in Congress are pretty much being discriminated against simply BECAUSE OF their gender.
That is mostly what feminism is about … reducing and then eliminating such biases.
Biases such as equal “opportunities” to establish “equal representation” of …. WHATEVER would be applicable; esp. in Congress where those offices represent ppl that should be represented …..women.

That kinda makes this whole “most qualified” thing even more moot.
Do ya seriously thing men should be doing the “representing” of how women are “treated”?
Please park your male privilege at the door.

Somehow, I just can’t buy into a concept that men know better when it comes to what women are wanting/needing. THAT is where the “fair & balanced” part comes in. Do we need a third house in Congress where representation is 2 for each state, a division of population based representation, and one where the genders are accurately represented?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

DONALD TRUMP
MAKE AMERICA HATE AGAIN

Also, this cute and (imo) accurate political cartoon.

Trump is the perfect candidate for the anti-intellectual Tea Party movement.

LOLPERFECT.
.
Originally posted by Belisaurius11:
Trump is the perfect candidate for the anti-intellectual Tea Party movement.

You have no proof that the tea party movement is anti-intellectual.

I don’t think the bon mot is supposed to be taken literally. The Tea Party devotees aren’t necessarily lacking in “intelligence”; it’s just that they are displaying a horrendous lack of understanding the situations they are so rabid about.

An old saying comes to mind regarding how their behavior might match their level of IQ: The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it.
The newer version of it makes little sense: The proof is in the pudding.
But then, those that say that possibly have pudding for brains.
LOL
.

Originally posted by Mafefe_Classic:

Trump is the president America deserves.

Sadly, there is some truth to your words.
Maybe not “deserves” … maybe have “earned” …. by allowing/voting ourselves to go very far up shit creek and paying the wealthy for the “privilege” to do the paddling.

Our Constitutional forefathers thought we deserved better.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should sex offenders be given another chance?

As some of you might already know, I’m a huge fan of “degrees”.
So, I want to point out that, for this discussion to be fully comprehensive regarding what constitutes being a “sex offender” and having to be on registries, these links:
one
two
an interesting one

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

Pulitzer Prize winner Leonard Pitts said this about BLM:

Leonard Pitts Jr. Tribune Content Agency • Published: August 23, 2015

This is a column about three words of moral cowardice: “All lives matter.”

Those words have risen as a kind of counter to “Black lives matter,” the movement that coalesced in response to recent killings and woundings of unarmed African-Americans by assailants — usually police officers — who often go unpunished. Mike Huckabee raised that counter-cry last week, telling CNN, “When I hear people scream ‘black lives matter,’ I’m thinking, of course they do. But all lives matter. It’s not that any life matters more than another.”

As if that were not bad enough, the former Arkansas governor and would-be president upped the ante by adding that Martin Luther King would be “appalled by the notion that we’re elevating some lives above others.”

“Elevating some lives.” Lord, have mercy.

Imagine for a moment that you broke your left wrist. In excruciating pain, you rush to the emergency room for treatment only to run into a doctor who insists on examining not just your mangled left wrist, but your uninjured right wrist, rib cage, femur, fibula, sacrum, humerus, phalanges, the whole bag of bones that is you. You say, “Doc, it’s just my left wrist that hurts.” And she says, “Hey, all bones matter.”

If you understand why that remark would be factual, yet also fatuous, silly, patronizing and off point, then you should understand why “All lives matter” is the same. It’s not about “elevating some lives” any more than it would be about elevating some bones. Rather, it’s about treating where it hurts.

And as for Dr. King: I cringe at his name being invoked by yet another conservative who has apparently never heard or read anything King said with the possible exception of the last few minutes of the “I Have A Dream” speech. No one with the slightest comprehension of what King fought for could seriously contend he would be “appalled” at a campaign geared to the suffering of African-American people.

Whose rights did the Montgomery Bus Boycott seek to vindicate? For whose freedom was King jailed in Birmingham, punched in Selma and stoned in Chicago? In his book “Why We Can’t Wait,” King answered complaints that we shouldn’t be doing something special for “the Negro” by noting that, “our society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years.”

Does that sound like someone who’d be “appalled” by “Black lives matter”?

No, that cry would likely resonate for him for the same reason it resonates for so many others. Namely because, while police abuse is not unknown in other lives, it is disproportionate in black lives. This is what Huckabee and the “All lives matter” crowd quail at recognizing. To treat where it hurts, one must first acknowledge that it still hurts, something conservatives often find hard to do because it gives the lie to their self-congratulatory balloon juice about how this country has overcome its founding sin.

That sort of willful ignorance has unfortunately become ubiquitous.

Which is why, for me, at least, the most inspiring sight to come out of Charleston following the racial massacre there was not the lowering of the Confederate battle flag, welcome as that was. Rather, it was a march through town by a mostly white crowd chanting, “Black lives matter! Black lives matter!” To see those white sisters and brothers adopt that cry was a soul-filling reminder that at least some of us still realize we all have access — connection — to each other’s pain and joy by simple virtue of the fact that we all are human.

God love them, they did not slink guiltily from that connection. Instead, they ran bravely to it.

And you know what, Mike Huckabee? Martin Luther King would have been pleased.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

The Me Party.

Would that be the Mini-Me or the Meanie-Me?
I’m going for the latter.
LOL

Okay, enough for the fun stuff.
This wall idea has to have a practical (as opposed to the “political” side) to it.
Would the huge expense of building, maintaining, & monitoring such a barrier be cost effective for the “product” for which it would be built?

I’m wondering if the U.S. might not create a border zone where we built a mini-country where we utilized the cheap labor and used it to compete w/ China for production of goods. The money generated by the workers likely wouldn’t go back to Mexico. It would be spent right here in the U.S. on goods & services.

That way, we wouldn’t be diminishing jobs from the interior; the jobs would be ones the Chinese would being losing. Americans would have their Walmart priced goods and this whole immigration issue would be greatly lessened. Likely, there would be development on both sides of this zone. But, America would likely be the dominate one for production. The Mexico side would be mostly housing. Yeah, we would lose some money that way. But, the American capitalism would hopefully be competitive and see to it that the money stayed this side.

Those Mexican citizens in the zone would be working towards full citizenship in the U.S. …. IF, they showed that they were paying taxes (esp. income) and spending the bulk of their pay IN the U.S.

I see this as WINWINWIN.

And, for some ON-topic stuff.
We should remember that BLM isn’t much of an organization at the moment.
It is very grass roots and DIS-organized …. much like the Tea Party.
“Organized” only in that they are semi-united by similar interests & causes.

Something else that might help were it to be kept in mind: Blacks play the “race card” frequently BECAUSE those are the kind of cards they were dealt for a long time.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I’m sorry, Zacahary, but I simply couldn’t track your Manifesto of Denial and Ignorance. In fact, your cyclical logic is so misinformed that I’m not even sure what fundamental error to start with, so I’m not going to bother.

This sums your position perfectly for me:

Whites have NO responsibility for racial matters.

I’m with ya on that.
I tried to wade though all of that “stuff” and I became as confused by most of it as I was sickened by the balance of it.

I’m a bit curious, tho.
What side of the political spectrum would he self-identify with?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Pedophiles, people like that

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Well, our society has identified pedophilia as a mental illness and culturally we consider it one of the most heinous of acts. And we do condemn the ACT of pedophilia yet rarely do we talk about pedophiles that don’t ACT on those taboos.

I seem to recall that criminal psychologists bemoan the fact that pedophilia carries such a stigma that those suffering from abnormal feelings for children don’t seek help or share their feelings with others. Instead they are isolated (by choice) and quarantined for fear of being ostracized.

Interesting.
That’s two of us.
Somewhere back in the 223 posts on this thread, I said that very same thing.
[page 6, at the very top]

While we can maintain our extreme “distaste” and intolerance for the ACTUAL behavior/actions, we will NEVER be all that human and humane if we don’t go that extra mile by doing much more than hang the ones we catch and see that extreme position on the issue have NO SERIOUS EFFECT on PREVENTION of the act occurring. This is much akin to the “War on Drugs”.

In essence, our shortfall leaves our children STILL vulnerable to predatory behavior ….. behavior that we know very little about and appear to not want to do so. Were we to face this issue head-on and come up w/ decent plans to help those ppl w/ said urges deal w/ them, I’d say there just might be a serious reduction if harm being done to kids.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

Originally posted by mysticvortex13:

i think you’ll find cops dont actually care about anyone who isnt wearing blue and a badge, regardless of skin color: http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/26/kristiana-coignard-shot-in-longview-texa

Seriously?
You actually believe this load of crap?
I know cops that are highly dedicated to helping ppl … regardless of race.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should AMERICA build a wall along the Mexico border?

Yeah, Mafefe, let’s use technology that was used centuries ago. lol
A wall is old hat.

Today, we simply send up drones w/ various detection capabilities to watch for the illegal crossings in the outlands. We keep tabs on them until authorities arrive to apprehend them. Troop stations 20 miles apart, fast road along side the fence, 10 min. or less to anyone seen approaching the fence. We install a double fence (30 feet between), 16 ft. non-climbable w/ razor wire at the top. We install line of sight laser motion detectors.

The money spent on that would be better used and a whole lot more effective.
The United States has 1,989 miles with Mexico. Each year, more than 500 million people cross the borders into the United States, some 330 million of whom are non-citizens.

If we seriously wanted to stop the land flow, we very easily could.
Very easily.
Stopping the water routes is quite another …
BUT, it could be done also …. cost more, but be done much the same way: drones.

Why doesn’t Trump put some of that great wealth he brags about and show how a couple hundred miles of the above would work? That’s a whopping 10%.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

If nobody is held accountable for the fault, how can it be corrected?

Exactly.
If the source of the problem isn’t identified, and identified as actually being the cause of the problem, a solution to the malfunction is pretty much going to be like a shot in the dark.

It isn’t always a person that is the problem … a plan, machinery, etc. can be.
But, assignation of “ownership” of the cause of the problem is often quite necessary in not only solving the immediate negativity; but, keeping it from reoccurring.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Issues and Characterizations

Originally posted by vikaTae:

What do I consider is a leading way to be perceived as a jerk? Well:

An inflexible mind, unable to shift their position off a single dead straight run of track, absolutely certain their view is right, unwilling to look at any contradictory evidence, and a proclivity to liberally insult anyone who provides such evidence, whilst simultaneously being unwilling to leave alone any attempt by others to try and discuss the various problems inherent in said issue.

LOL Ya nailed it.
.
Originally posted by petesahooligan:

I completely and utterly agree.


However, that is not an issue but rather a style of communicating a person’s position.

NO.
It IS very much a part of it.
It is in your: “…some issues are easier to engage people on because their opinions are disassociated with their “alignment” as a human.”

Most ANY issue of worth is likely to become contentious when engaging someone vika describes …. a “jerk”.
Take for instance some of the discussions here on SD regarding guns and Gays.
vika perfectly described XXXX.

Once we have “fixed” the jerk-factor, we could then work on your: “Why are these issues more explosive than traditional valence issues? What is it about them that ignites so much passion while others seem to achieve widespread agreement,…?”

Your thread is a good one.
This is something that I’ve wondered for some time now.
Why are Americans so divided on issues that really don’t merit if one actually can understand “liberty, justice, and freedom for all”?

But, for the answer to all of that, merely look at how much weight far-right “conservatism” is applying to the political scene. “They” seem to want smaller govt. but have it enforce strong regulations that curtail the freedoms/rights in your list … plus a lot more—all the while loosening regulations that screw us over.

Then, there is the issue of separation of church & state.
Sure, it is a degrees thing when it comes to numbers; but, the more “conservative” folks aren’t able to see there is any difference in the two.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Buy him food!

troll thread

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Abortionism misandristic?

Good gawd, I feel like I’m eating Chinese fortune cookies and watching the movie I, Robot …. all the while at Disneyland on the Mad Hatter’s Ride. Hell, I’m being clichéd into a state of “stuporific” befuddlement … and, the irony of it all—I’m beginning to actually like it. lol

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Abortionism misandristic?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Dogs have an extremely limited grasp of abstract concepts. I’d even go so far as to say they have none at all.

I’d go VERY FAR to say just the opposite.
And, there is agreement with me.
Also see

I’ve been around dogs all of my life.
Just like ppl, some of them are “smart” and some are “dumb” … w/ a whole lot of “in-betweens”.

We once had a dog that would play “ring-the-doorbell-and-run” on us.
He’d scratch the metal kick plate on the storm door, right next to the dog door, in the middle of the night. My wife would hear this and think one of the other dogs was, for whatever “doggie reason” (there are many), blocking the dog door. She would get up to go let Lucky Dog in and just as she was opening the door, here he would come bounding in through the dog door. He knew exactly what he was doing.

If I’m giving out treats and one of the (4 right now) dogs isn’t around to get his/ers and the others are looking at me holding it, all I have to do is say the name of the dog who is to get it and they will then know they aren’t going to get it and will go on about their business.

Believe me on this, dogs are far smarter than most ppl know.
My dogs are typically better behaved than a lot of 3-4 year olds I’ve been around.

But, back to topic.
Abortion is a fact of life (pun not intended).
It has been practiced since recorded history: from Wiki: The practice of abortion, the medical removal of a fetus, has been known since at least ancient times. Various methods have been used to perform an abortion, including the administration of abortifacient herbs, the use of sharpened implements, the application of abdominal pressure, and other techniques.

The real issue is do we want oversight on who & how it is done?
Do we want SAFE abortions for those who can’t afford a hush-hush rich doctor to do it for our kids (or us)? Back alley butchery is what was once—and is now making its way back—what the whole Roe v. Wade thing was about.

ABORTIONS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.
Are we going to make a woman pay for one w/ her life because SOME ppl want to butt into her life? Does a woman not know if she and her circumstances are able to PROPERLY handle the RESPONSIBILITY of raising a human? Shouldn’t there be as much assistance for such women to be able to handle this situation w/ as much dignity, conscience, knowledge, facility and decency as humanly possible? This moral judgment of others can continue …. BUT, it has to cease being a deciding factor.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Abortionism misandristic?

Originally posted by mysticvortex13:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by mysticvortex13:

technicality. but true. we are animals. animals with the capacity to bend the entire universe to our will.

Okay … YOU have now officially pegged my Weird-0-Meter.

that’s what science can do. make us gods. scientists who dont believe that to be possible have an insufficient scope of imagination and deterrmination.

Oh, I am very full of imagination …. been that way all of my life.
I think YOU are full of it, too.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Abortionism misandristic?

Originally posted by mysticvortex13:

technicality. but true. we are animals. animals with the capacity to bend the entire universe to our will.

Okay … YOU have now officially pegged my Weird-0-Meter.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Abortionism misandristic?

mystic, once again your lack of information is harming your position: fetal homicide laws

And, what is this crap about a pre-2 y.o. being just an animal?

And, please try to keep your analogies w/in the realm of reason …. loss of blood is far different that loss of a fetus.