Recent posts by karmakoolkid on Kongregate

Flag Post

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

Paul Joseph Watson also said this re feminism.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Citizen Rights to not be Filmed, Vs The freedom of movement rights of those with Visual Prosthetics

Originally posted by petesahooligan:

Then the person would effectively be blind.

Yes and no.
Blind if the recording OR seeing-only “eye” was the sole source of “vision”.
But, the vika’s point as I’m seeing (at least a part of it) is that we should retain the right to not be “recorded” by devices that we haven’t given permission to do so.

If the person wants to see, and ONLY see me …. no problem.
But, I’d rather have a device I could wear that would shut down the recording part of these LEGAL prosthetic “eye”. It would still allow the person to see as well as any sighted person.

It really wouldn’t matter if such recording was intentional or not; the fact remains that I was put in a situation not typical & not knowing. I certainly wouldn’t want, nor would think would be reasonable, such a sighted person “needing” to inform me I was being recorded as a mere passing of fact … esp. in what would appear to be "usual circumstances.

Just allow me the right to shut down recordings from being made of me …. if & when I so choose. I do think it would be grand to record ALL that I could of what I’m naturally, normally exposed to. I’m sure I’d lose a lot more arguments w/ my wife? lol But, having the ability for an “instant reply” would be stellar. The camera would see/record things that the person isn’t focused on; but, the recorded images could be of benefit in so many ways

Basically, someone’s right to “remember” me quickly leaps into the scary zone of “recording” me.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Citizen Rights to not be Filmed, Vs The freedom of movement rights of those with Visual Prosthetics

Maybe we would need have a microchip implanted in us that would key a shutoff on the camera?

 
Flag Post

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

ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz … ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz … ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by Kasic:

How many times do I have to say that my position is feminists who aren’t as I’ve described should call themselves egalitarians/humanitarians instead of feminists because of this topic that repeatedly comes up with every feminist?

A rose by any other name …..

I’m not sure if this is that Scottsman that Stan talks about, but merely changing the name of a movement, or placing it under an umbrella group, won’t change the focus of it; In fact, it just might greatly harm it: confusion of goals, dissention/deviation of methods … basically all of the negatives involved in reorganization.

At the same time, this change won’t stop those radicals from “infiltrating” or—by virtue of them then being solely the “loud voices” for STILL what will be deemed to be the “REAL feminist movement”—tend to focus the public;s attention on that sector of female , er, women’s rights … all to the detriment of what the lateral move was supposed to accomplish.

I’d advocate the “good” feminists stepping up their visibility and their de facto denunciation of the radical fringe by very strongly reinforcing their NON-radical agenda …. and emphatically emphasizing how damagingly counterproductive radical concepts are to their programs.

The “cause” will always be the same for either groups.
The important thing is for the greater group to “reinvent” itself; not in its ideology; but in how they go about presenting and carrying it out. Much like a Presidential political campaign, one has to “shout down” the opponent via the quite voice of reason.
.

I agree with many feminists (the non radical ones) and I’m not dismissing the issues. I’ve said multiple times that my criticism is towards any who operate in the described manner and those who try to link everything back to patriarchy theory/rape culture as an explanation.
Not particularly directed at you, Kasic, but isn’t making what ya just said some kind of tacit manifesto somewhat along the lines of my proposal?
.
I’ve never dismissed the issues – what I’ve said is that a very loud portion of feminists don’t understand what they’re talking about and are counterproductive to addressing those issues, which is completely unrelated to the topic of my position on the issues in the first place.

One: How do YOU know the Rad-Fems don’t know what they are talking about?
Are you meaning they appear to be misinterpreting the issues you don’t “dismiss”?
Couldn’t the Rad-Fems merely be one of the 5 Blind Men “touching upon” the same feminist/equality issue (Elephant) … just in a different area of the “shared” problem?
.
What I don’t understand is why anyone wants to assemble under a label most heavily associated with radicals, under a name that clearly implies that the movement is not for equality, while saying they want to advocate for equality, when there are other universal labels that far better describe one’s position and are not tied to any specific group that can hurt those positions under that label as a whole.
See above.
And, while I do appreciate that it is just your syntax probably being a bit off, I want to point out that the more reasonable feminists ARE ALREADY ASSEMBLED WITH (under) a label. That the label has become associated w/ the Rad-Fems wasn’t their intent or doing. What they need to do is KICK OUT the Rads from their label via the process I proposed above and for those very important reasons.

Something along the lines of what Stan and Pete do when it comes to self-identifying as a “feminist”, I, my wife, and those we are close to highly promote equality—and a host of other women’s rights—“under the label” of being feminists.

Kasic, you & I have had this discussion before.
At that time, I fully understood your position on Rads vs. Rationals as being the status quo.
I got it that you believe the few (tail) was loudly, aggressively, and highly effectively wagging the dog; and therefore, the “dog” should somehow admit some form of tacit defeat by “admitting” that they lost to a “superior” group … regardless of what their ideology or methods were.

You seem to be saying that the rational feminists are FINO’s (feminists in name only) where the concept of feminism is seen as being “owned” by the Rad-Fems. You seem to be wholesale discounting ANY of the efforts of the NSRF’s (not so radical fem’s) …. the true feminists.

I’m not putting words in your mouth … but rather, saying what I was understanding your position to be. As I recall, I had a very difficult time trying to establish even the concept that the Rad-Fems WERE NOT the de facto feminism movement …. so strong was your position that the Rad’s utterly dominated the scene. Hell, I wasn’t even getting much traction for my concept that we stop identifying the entire dog via the more visible (esp. to you) tail.

At that time, I asked you about what was causing this particular focus for you. The best I could get was focused a lot on “it’s those feminists I talk to” …. and, “no, it’s not my field of study”. It is a given that any of us will have our opinion directly influenced by what we experience. HOWEVER, those of us who are rational well realize this and will allow for any deficiencies our opinions might (probably?) have due to quality/quantity of experiences.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Liberal vs Conservative view on education.

Anyone remember what I’ve been saying about our Gov. Brownback, and his stooge Congress, is trying to kill public education here in KS?

Crowson editorial cartoon

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Migrants In Europe

Okay, much as I expected or anticipated because …..well, because that if LIFE when allowed to happen without “good management”.

But, and I think this was brought up before …. a bit, since one could presume that the United Nations is something tasked w/ application of good management for the world, what is keeping it from being much more effective in how it handles a crisis like this?

Can be actually be that the UN is more interested in the economic success of nations than it is in humanitarian issues? Is Pete THAT right about what is being done by those in power to be proactive rather than reactive? Where is the fucking U.S.? Is there no $$$$$$$$ to be made doing something for ppl who are suffering?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Migrants In Europe

Okay, please give me some middle East update (a very short one) on the (continuing?) war(s) there. What is behind them ….. wealth, or the wealth disguised as a principle? I am a bit up to my eyeballs in a fucking mess right here on this side of the pond and am only skimming that the current issues over there.

My guess is that it is usually SOME form of wealth issue, likely bad distribution, that is core to the problem. I’d think more “neighbors” would be willing to help out if bad times were merely the making of some natural disaster. But, when it is despotism that is the cause, few ppl want to throw money towards a problem that won’t ever be resolved … but, likely only increase …. sadly to sometimes show up on their doorsteps.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is Abortionism misandristic?

Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Ultimately the parasitic offspring (that’s what it is) is inside the woman’s body, leeching off her resources. If she does not wish it to leech off her body anymore that is her decision yes – her body, her choice. Hers is the only mind in that body so it gets to make the decision.

Practically a couple should work the issue out between themselves and councillors if appropriate, but when it comes down to it, it is her choice to get the unwanted parasite out of her body if it comes to that.

Ideally we’ll eventually go on to develop artifical, implantable wombs, as that’ll deal with the issue in an effective way: If she does not wish to carry to term and he wishes to keep the foetus, then implant it and a life-support system into him. It is thus no-longer her right to abort it, but his alone; as it’s now his body that is the one affected.

Really vika, babies are parasitic now? You are down to considering babies as parasites? You do realize you were a parasite yourself once. You are so lucky your mom didn’t take an antibiotic.

Ya know, jhco … if ya were more of a mind to actually try to keep it open, you’d be more likely to not look like ya’ve lost it.

“noun
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.”

But, that’s what vika said.
Were ya not so crazy about skewering vika, at any cost to your own image, ya might be able to come up w/ some argument that actually would be give some thought to …. by adults.

Or, another definition of parasite comes to mind:
“2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.”

This might be a good opportunity to ask a very easy, yet very direct, question of YOU.
Why is it that you continuously whine about being “insulted” when ya just made that comment about vika’s mom?
Are ya actually just that hypocritically lame?
Insult away if ya must;
BUT, for gawd’s sake, stop the shitty whining when all anyone is doing to YOU is challenging these hateful ideologies ya ever-so-poorly promote/defend here on SD.
.
.

Originally posted by Ethan719:

Wrong the spouse won’t be having a baby coming out of them… The spouse wont get a huge ass belly and a weird ass looking belly button. You know what the spouse did? The spouse had an orgasm and now the wife has to incubate, give birth to, and raise the result of his orgasm :P the spouse has no right in deciding what is done with it.

Think again

What if we use that concept and turn the tables.
A woman who gets pregnant would then have no right to INVOLVE that “spouse” in the caring for & raising of the child. Responsibility usually is, AT LEAST, a two-way street.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Migrants In Europe

Originally posted by vikaTae:
It illustrates how desperately a total reform on immigration is needed, and at least has gotten the EU powers talking about how this situation must be changed.

One would think that those who so believe they are qualified to lead for us would also have the simple ability to learn from the past … and, be able to better and more quickly address issues like this.

Hell, while I’m dreaming …. let’s go for getting at the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM; rather than continuing to address the fallout of it: wealth distribution issues and the asshole that cause it.

 
Flag Post

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

Did you guys hear the joke about the homophobic electrician who couldn’t find the ground w/ both hands ….. shocking?

But, why would SENSITIVITY, for that which isn’t “normal”, be anything considered “unmanly”?
Both are social constructs that are blindly followed by those who wouldn’t even know the differences if they didn’t have someone pointing them out.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Migrants In Europe

Originally posted by Mafefe_Classic:

Better idea: If they refuse to follow the laws, send them back to where they came from.

Better idea:
Make a law that such immigrants will be shot on sight …. AT THE BORDER.
Even give bounties for privateers killing them.
Then, use the bodies to build a massive wall.
Win – win.

I think this is going to be a plank in Trump’s Presidential Platform.

 
Flag Post

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

My post here is going to be as related to the thread as is the current focus on private vs. public education.
Although I haven’t heard much of anything from TRUMP (the thread’s OP) about his views on education, segueing into how his thinking in a “conservative manner” would align in this debate certainly isn’t anything for us to worry about re how OT the thread is going.

My post is to show why I don’t think “the conservative” approach to this school discussion is all that meaningful.

Typically, the harsher social-issues & the strongly pro-big-business factions of the GOP aren’t all that well known to be any too rational on so many issues that correspond to this “school vouchers” one.

I don’t give a damn what pros they present … even IF some of them are well-intended and COULD ACTUALLY WORK. That isn’t where the problem lie.

My thought is, given the track record for how the GOP tends to operate, any such superficially good looking plan will ultimately be butchered and vandalized much as how the Fed allowed Motorola to totally fuck over all levels of law enforcement in Amverica.

I’m going to give three links.
The first one from April, 2011 and shows the problem was known even then.
The second one touches on a local happening for me. My involvement w/ the Wichita Fire Dept. allowed me a great insight to what is happening in the scandal.
The third one essentially outs the “program” by which the Feds oversight has allowed Motorola unfair advantage over competitors This at the expense of not only increased costs (of tax dollars), but decreased safety management for citizens … a lose-lose.

So, why in hell would I want to give much trust to the “conservative” thinking about their ideas of how school vouchers would be a “much better BUSINESS approach” to generation of higher education results? I think my links show that I should at the very least be a bit concerned about just how honest the result would be.

I well imagine that all but the very few GOPers have the best of intentions in mind for such improvements in both public & private education. It is those “very few” that concern me; not only for what they think, but that they are the ones that those others will very likely be led by … in the end.

I’ve already cited the “reasons” those elitist few don’t want public education.
None of that isn’t any big secret … except that somehow it actually seems to be one.
The very ppl who currently benefit from public schools are being jacked to give in to their own “superiority” ideology about how their kids go to school w/ “those other” kids. It is their support for an idea that won’t be all that beneficial to them in the short run that will come home to haunt them. By that time, it will be waaaaaay too late and the irreparable damage done. How many times do the American ppl have to be utterly fucked by the GOP before we wake up and say: NO MORE?

And, as Pete pointed out, in the long run, the accrued negatives from the shortfall of public education, for those who won’t be able to “enjoy the benefits” of a competitive private school system, will eventually begin to creep into the lives of better-off folks well beyond where “those ppl” live. The same is true in this debate about how raising the minimum wage wouldn’t benefit society at large simply because a few dollars find their way into the pockets of “those ppl”. If “those ppl”. don’t soon find some increased money in THEIR pockets, guess whose pockets it is going to be coming out of …. well, MUCH MORE than it already is. We can’t eliminate poverty by RELATIVELY making ppl poorer.

This shit about fixing the school systems via broken tools is ridiculous.
The GOP can’t fix shit … simply because their basic ideology doesn’t include the things that need fixing in America.

POVERTY is what needs to be fixed.
Ya know, that 47% that Romeny mentioned.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Migrants In Europe

I hope I don’t have to qualify myself as being NO “expert” on this EU immigration issue; the obvious should do just fine.

But, I do think I can safely say that this is probably germane to issues in this thread.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by issendorf:

Out of curiousity, am I dumb or ignorant for thinking liberalism is fucking moronic? No wrong answers here – whichever one you choose will highly amuse me.

Neither, you are downright evil for not following the Holy Liberal Elite, you are a pitiful, unenlightened cretin for agreeing with the anti-humanitarian belief of conservatism!

While likely somewhat “on target”, it’s probably a weeeeeebit “harsh”.
LOL

But, in truth, it wouldn’t take a search party very long to find a “fair number” of such folks.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by 0Gamer0:
I’ve never experienced a better treatment than other people on the basis of my gender. As such, I don’t appreciate the assumption that I am privileged simply because I am male (not saying that you made it, but this assumption is often used when arguing about feminism).

Ya really, REALLY need to talk to my wife.
She comes from a place AND A TIME when such privilege super-existed.
And, THAT is NO “assumption” at all.
Even right here in the good ol’ “heartland of America”, I grew up w/ genderism … and didn’t even know it existed.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by issendorf:
Dumb (intelligence assessment) isn’t the same as ignorant (assessment of easily available information) …. at least for me.

Out of curiousity, am I dumb or ignorant for thinking liberalism is fucking moronic? No wrong answers here – whichever one you choose will highly amuse me.

YOU are most definitely NOT “dumb”.
Unless we were to consider the to your question there was staring you right in the face; or, didn’t ya read that far?
.
.
Originally posted by petesahooligan:
Out of curiousity, am I dumb or ignorant for thinking liberalism is fucking moronic?

Yes.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
To be fair, he did say he’d be happy either way … so, why not BOTH?
.

Charter school vouchers will impact our communities in lots of ways. While affording families with greater educational liberties, it will eviscerate inner-city school budgets. It will compound a failing infrastructure and reinforce a cycle of white-flight and gentrification.

YUP. That’s a serious problem.

But, on a purely rational level, I feel that if a parent opts to send their kids to a private school rather than the public one, SOME FORM of “discount” should be given for not using the public system. I have no problem w/ those particular parents STILL kicking in some money for the “public good” … ppl who never had kids do. All I want if for there to be a deliriously happy medium attained.

On a realistic level, if we had a much better distribution of wealth, BOTH private and public school would be magnificent bastions of sacred dispensing of knowledge …. for the simple reason that funding sports over education is about the fucking dumbest thing we can do.
.

(I agree with fixing tenure in public schools. However, I also support teachers unions… so, I’m conflicted.)

Me, too.
I certainly don’t want to see a GOOD teacher be fired for bullshit reasons.
And, I certainly don’t want to see a BAD teacher ride the coattails of the good ones …. AND, have the students suffer the consequences.

 
Flag Post

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

Originally posted by stanwise:

My point is that nursing is patently a field where physical strength is really important, and yet, the overwhelming majority of nurses are female. Funny that.

Probably just as “funny”; I remember when there were male nurses and female doctors. Both were considered to be a little “odd” … esp. the guys. They OBVIOUSLY were fags.
 
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.