It isn't if you're Bill Clinton. If you're a DEM president with a wandering cigar, then taking advantage of an underling is not only believable, but some people won't rest until you're impeached.
But nobody believes a conservative could be human and have weaknesses, or that they would take advantage of their position of power. Unless you're Arnie and you father a pup with "the help".
Don't mind me. I'll take my cynical, moderate views about both parties elsewhere.
How things have changed in terms of government spending since the 1900's:
In 1900 the richest man in the nation at the time (Rockefeller) could have pulled out his checkbook and payed the ENTIRE national debt as a fraction of his total worth. A fraction!
Today, the richest man in the nation (Bill Gates) could pull out his checkbook, write a check for his ENTIRE gross worth and it wouldn't even pay the INTEREST on our debt.
Taxing the rich is not the answer; getting control of government spending is. If people can't see this common sense need for our nation because of their partisan rhetoric, than their party deserves to fail. Its not just class warfare, its STUPID class warfare, because its: NOT GOING TO SOLVE A DAMN THING AS LONG AS GOVERNMENT KEEPS SPENDING BEYOND ITS MEANS!
In addition to their marketing of dangerous/substandard products is their complete disregard for Intellectual Property. Trademark/Copyright mean absolutely nothing to the Chinese, and if you buy a counterfeit product thinking it's the real thing, chances are it was made in China, marketed fraudulently, and priced to suit people who don't want to pay for quality branding, but want the quality branding for status in our "conspicuous consumption" culture.
You can't cheat an honest man. Caveat Emptor (buyer beware) means exactly that. An honest man doesn't mind paying for quality, and if he can't afford it, he does without. I think this is something Americans have forgotten in their mad rush to Walmart.
"Controlling." It almost amounts to a curse word when used in relationships. Sometimes there's no "almost" about it. What is controlling behavior, and how do we distinguish it from merely being "pushy" or from attempts at persuasion? When does it become something we'd classify as abusive? What do people usually mean when they call someone a "control freak"?
I'm curious how CSers would define controlling behavior. I'd also be interested in seeing them discuss their own experiences with partners they considered controlling.
I have no context to comment within an adult relationship, because I simply won't tolerate any form of abusive manipulation. Controlling can be very subtle. As a person who had a control freak as a parent, for "your own good" often means for "their own good", especially when they seek to live through you vicariously.
Everything from the people you date to what you major in school for can be this way for a child, if the parent is a control freak.
More-so if they're addictive personalities that require an extreme amount of privacy within the family, a code of silence to keep their addictions from being scrutinized. Its almost like being in the mob.
Manipulation: Mani = "hand" or "handling". I find this thread manipulative, but not in an abusive sense. Let me clarify. You pose a question or set of questions, with a desired result, even if that is an open-ended result. That is manipulation. You may not even recognize it as such, but it is.
"Are you going to eat that?" with the desire to eat it yourself.
"What time is this show over?" With the desire to watch a show either on right now, or upcoming.
"Do I look fat in this dress?" With the desire to receive either a denial or a compliment.
What is it with the fringe these days? Mavericks? Tea-Baggers?
What happened to common sense? Like not opening your mouth until you know where Russia actually is in relation to your house? etc.
Defending stupidity is just that...stupid.
As Ron White said, you can't fix it...
One doesn't have to be blond to be a blond. And a bimbo is a bimbo, regardless of whether they're really popular or not.
Jessica Simpson thought Chicken of the Sea was really made of chicken...from...the...sea.
There are lots of people in mental hospitals that see Russia out their window. I'm sure Palin really does see Russia from her house, but imagination doesn't equate to intelligence. Or there would be better programming on the SyFy Channel.
"Neither party can claim to be better than the other because neither managed one three month period in our economy where actual economic growth was sufficient to pay down, on balance, one dollar of debt anywhere in that economy." -Labor Day Musings, Karl Denninger
Gov is not saving trees. Gov is out of money and creating imaginary money via pixels and bytes. Those who want control of their money in tangible cash now have to rely on banks and insecure fallible data networks, whether they like it or not!
Its about the evil triumvirate of political lobbying machinery within US healthcare: Insurance, Big Pharma, and the AMA. These three bodies will do whatever they can to avoid Universal Healthcare that makes sense. There is too much money involved. They will spend millions to milk billions.
Huffington post links are no surprise, nor are thinkprogress links.
As much as liberals accuse conservatives of narrow mindedness, their window on the world has the same framer, just a different alley to look out on.
After a gazillion of these threads, its like watching the voting record of a particularly distasteful congressman regurgitating party rhetoric again and again.
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
The power of addiction is more about "too lazy to change" than anything else. Moderation is key to any behavior. Sugar is not inherently bad for us, if we eat it in moderation.
The problem is, we are conditioned from a young age to crave sugar, in excessive amounts, making candy companies rich, dentists rich, pharmaceutical companies rich, etc.
Its all part of the machinery of consumption. Sure there are healthier carbohydrates, but they are not the choices we are given. They don't fit the industries that are built around massive sucrose/fructose consumption, and so, their availability is less, and thus demand is less.
Demand is manufactured via contrived supply curves and supposed lack of healthier substitutes, and populations and their habits are controlled via these contrived economics.
Diabetes is just one example but its a good one, thanks.
Cheney's book is full of 'Cheap shots', says Colin Powell.
Google: colin powell cheney book. I won't post links. There are a plethora, so you can pick and choose.
He also took a few shots at Ms. Connie as well. Seems he didn't get along too well with conservative blacks. Just a good ole boy, shooting from the hip.
Its a good thing Colin never went hunting with him...
For all the lefts rhetoric that right-wingers want to take us back to the 18th century in terms of labor laws, I find it funny that they're in bed with these Sharia Law folks who would like to take us back to the 12th century.
I stand corrected on the percentages. However, I did not intentionally inflate the numbers. My reasoning is still sound, despite the error in arithmetic.
Some cases of what appears to be a progressive consumption tax are actually regressive consumption taxes that reinforce class division. Such as sales taxes. The overall percentage of income that a poor or middle class person spends on toilet paper is significant to their lives; if they make $100 a week and spend $1 a week on toilet paper, and there's a 5% tax on that dollar, that's 10% of their weekly income plus 5% (or a nickel) on each dollar they spend.
If a person that makes $1000 a week spends that same dollar, its 1% of their income plus that same nickel.
If a person that makes $10,000 a week spends that same dollar...
I think you get the idea. Its not switching to consumption tax that solves the problem of class division in this country. Its the tax on what kind of consumption. Tax the purchase of yachts, high-dollar real estate, luxuries, etc. and leave the things I NEED alone!
The burden of taxation always falls on the middle class because rich folk can spend influence money to make their necessities practically if not totally free while making the poorer people pay extra for what they need.
Where do you get these metaphors? How do you come up with this analogy that America is some sort of Mad Max state? Again, we have the rule of law, which is based on personal responsibility, not the dreamland interpretation of our nation that you seem to have. Not being a citizen of our country has everything to do with it, since its obvious from this analogy you put forth you have no idea what our country is like beyond what you read.
There is no such thing! Freedom is not tyranny of the majority, by either party!
That is why we have the rule of law. You're the one that believes in saints! Saint Obama!
Statements of opinion as arguments of fact. Science is very divided on the idea of Anthropomorphic Climate change. Environmentally proper? Who are you to say apples and oranges? Delusional? Wrong without a doubt...Opinions!
Yes. America is a country. One you're not a citizen of. Everything else is moot from that fact alone!
As far as senseless crap, you should know, since you're so experienced at it.
And how do you propose enforcing this? Through larger and larger government! And, thus, larger and larger government debt...
That's certainly something to bequeath our children. Government oppression and staggering debt. Yep, kids...you have clean air and water...Now get out there and work for the state, so they can pay their credit card bills off! Never mind about freedom. Freedom is under-rated; Big brother will take care of everything! As long as he has you to pay for it...
Looking at the red thumbs on this thread, one would think if red thumbs were rocks, someone wants to stone anyone to death who doesn't agree with Sharia Law.
Go ahead. Thumbs down me. It will only prove my point. Sticks and stones may break my bones but red thumbs will never hurt me.
I think its safe to say we get more (or less) than what we bargained for in every election. Campaign promises are not realities. Voting records and gubernatorial records are almost always a reflection of the "real" positions that our leaders will follow once elected. Which is why our current leader is merely "present" and not a real leader at all...
At least with Ron Paul we have a consistent voting record of voting to uphold the Constitution. That I can live with.
Galactic_bodhi Forum Posts (9,196)
RE: Democrats mobilize over Clarence Thomas ethics investigation
It isn't if you're Bill Clinton. If you're a DEM president with a wandering cigar, then taking advantage of an underling is not only believable, but some people won't rest until you're impeached.But nobody believes a conservative could be human and have weaknesses, or that they would take advantage of their position of power. Unless you're Arnie and you father a pup with "the help".
Don't mind me. I'll take my cynical, moderate views about both parties elsewhere.