I dunno. People are pretty fed up with both parties at this point. I think Paul can keep his private convictions private (i.e.: evolution vs. ID, Global warming, etc.), and work for what's best for the country. We'll see.
I have my issues will all of the front-runners in this current GOP crop. Perry's stance on real as compared to pseudo-science is fuzzy at best.
I have my issues with the FED and Bernanke. True Fiscal Conservatives have no use for the FR that creates money with instant debt attached to it, with no accountability and no transparency.
In ancient times, policy was decided by which way a flock of birds flew...(Augury)...
The white birds flew east at sunset. Let's kill all the unbelievers...
Sometimes a sign is just that, a sign...I was driving down the street and I saw a red hexagonal omen...I think it meant I was supposed to apply the brakes...
I work for a major search engine in internet advertising, and there are two types of sponsored ads most prevalent on the net; search related sponsored ads that serve based on an actual search made by a user - (input "bite shoes" into google, yahoo, and bing and the sponsored ads tend to appear at the top, side, and bottom of the raw results based on the PPC (pay-per-click) bidding related to that term.) Search ads are driven by a fairly straight-forward algorithm.
And then, there's content related ads, which is what you're talking about. This derives its relevance from the page-content wherein the ads are placed. The crawler that inputs data into the algorithm to serve content ads is based largely on extrapolation. The more certain key phrases appear on the page, the more a certain type of ad will serve. 4 years ago those anti-Obama ads were anti-Bush ads. Infer from that what you like.
Again, if we had the choice to love or not to love, I think most people would choose their path differently than the one they have. We do not choose love, love chooses us.
If you choose to withdraw its expression, love doesn't just disappear. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Thank you, Mr. Peart.
Most of us labor under cathexis and choose to call it love. This absolves us of responsibility, of ownership, of the overwhelming need to express our concern for another persons welfare as actions. Love is (at least in my experience) a verb, not a feeling. The feeling most people choose to define as love is attachment, and that is not the same thing.
The Buddha experienced two extremes in life (extreme materialism/extreme asceticism) before reaching the enlightened middle path. I think extremes have their value, in that they teach us our personal limits. But, once a boat has been used to cross a river, should we carry it our backs once its utility has been realized?
The past is there only in our minds, and the future exists only as yet another intangible. Again I refer to the Bruce Lee quote, and to clarify I do not state "go with the flow" but rather "BE the flow".
I think all of us have a tendency to think in terms of absolutes regarding relationships, and I also think that this is dangerous to all involved.
Things are changing all the time. Circumstances, opinions, roles, etc.
I continue to use a phrase from Bruce Lee when he was describing his fighting (or in this case loving) style:
"Don't get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." -Bruce Lee: A Warrior's Journey (2000);
I think the roles we play within a relationship dynamic are not as important as who we are to ourselves.
People are often driven to seek out the skraling, the other, the alien, when what they really want is a reflection of themselves. This is our xenophilia at war with our xenophobia. We think we want something new and different, when what we really want is something warm and comforting, and familiar.
We recognize our faces in the mirror, not because they are an accurate representation of ourselves, but because the similarities outweigh the alien factors. They are not us, but they are close enough to produce no anxiety based on our innate and ingrained atavistic xenophobia.
As usual, just my honest, humble, and admittedly fallible, opinion.
I refuse to answer the postulated questions of the OP on the grounds that they may be used against me at a future date.
I plead the virtual fifth. I did not use chloroform on myself in order to remove my own opinion.
"Now any dogma, based primarily on faith and emotionalism, is a dangerous weapon to use on others, since it is almost impossible to guarantee that the weapon will never be turned on the user." - Isaac Asimov, Foundation
I am absolutely sure of only one thing, Joel. My own ignorance.
"Now any dogma, based primarily on faith and emotionalism, is a dangerous weapon to use on others, since it is almost impossible to guarantee that the weapon will never be turned on the user." - Isaac Asimov, Foundation
Again, refer back to my post on a revolution within human nature itself. At this point, its just a dream. But its not impossible.
One of things it requires is for people to stop thinking in terms of absolutes. That is very hard, I know. I only argue (at this point) for people to entertain it as a possibility.
I think all government (at least in the beginning) has to do with what Hobbes laid forth as a social contract. In terms of the so-called Putsch as you described earlier, there will always be an anti-social element in society who is discontented by the idea of having to follow ANY rules, and will either seek loopholes, or will seek to invalidate the contract completely.
In some ways, I'm beginning to see politics as a disease, and the political animal within society as something of a typhoid mary of ideas. It is not enough that they believe, everyone else must believe as well, even if it is expressed as their antithesis.
Anarchism has a bad rap because it literally means "without government". What many people fail to realize is its ultimate expression is: "without the need for government".
That is why politician's demonize it. If we no longer needed government, what would they do for a living?
You have seen many reasonable people come to consensus.
Reason seems to be in short supply these days, replaced by partisan dogma.
"He who thinks a great deal is not suited to be a party man: he thinks his way through the party and out the other side too soon." -Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, I.579
I would agree, Conrad. However, I still think that human nature will out, and revolution will (sooner or later) require yet another revolution to redress the corruption that inevitably rots any bureaucracy.
Nope. Going on three weeks sans anything but coffee and nicotine...
I've had my profile hidden for months because...
The wheels on the CS bus go round and round. Everybody is right, everybody else is wrong. We are the microcosm that empowers the status quo.
If people on an online forum can't agree or come to consensus, how can any of you expect your representatives to do so? This is a free site. There's real money involved in Congress.
Change we can believe in? Here's a hint. Stop believing in the politicians (all of em), and start believing in yourself.
(not directed at you personally l. This forum makes me hurl anymore)
The seeds planted by violent political revolution are the trees that become the next violent revolution. The freedom fighters of today are the tyrants of tomorrow.
And the wheels on the bus go round and round...
The only revolution that promises permanent change for humanity is a revolution in human nature, and that begins on an individual basis, within the hearts and minds of people as individuals.
Until human nature undergoes a real and significant change the Human album will continue to play the same music over and over.
Do not fall into the trap of thinking Hegelian dialectics are a reflection of reality. This is engineered perception, divide and conquer, unleashed into the population as memes by the people set to benefit from human nature AS IT IS.
See each other as you really are, not as the labels that divide, categorize, and subjugate (liberal/conservative, dem/rep, etc.). See each other as humans, in desperate need of real freedom, and not track 12 on the same CD we have played since time began.
Libertarian BS is equal to or greater than GOP BS in terms of danger?
How about you tone down on the hyperbole and opinion and back that up with something other than stinky piles of your own BS? Oh, wait. That's all you have...
IF you can't beat them with logic, dazzle them with BS.
Here's my contribution to the stinky pile that is Dude's latest thread. I would have used the bathroom, but this was closer...
And now, back into hiding so I can enjoy life without the hate mail disguised as the PC social conscience of people living in a dream world.
My first exposure to the Doctor were the Fourth Doctor books, specifically "Doctor Who and The Loch Ness Monster", long before I ever saw the TV show. I grew up in the country without TV so I read a lot. When I finally saw the show, it was Loch Ness again, so Tom Baker is and always will be the Doctor for me. My favorite companion is and always will be Sarah Jane, although Romana is a close second.
Galactic_bodhi Forum Posts (9,196)
RE: PERRY THREATENS BERNANKE !
Suddenly I'm thinking of the old Planet of the Apes.Apes and politicians both hate to be told "No!"