zimmer it is evident from you're post here and everywhere else on this forum that you are pretty slick. The kind of slick you would normally expect out of a guy from the hills of West Virginia, but somehow you have been able to encapsulate all the negative sideways thinking that the conservatives sometimes do and epitomize it in a way that well has no real words. So instead I give you this:
Does this make any ****ING SENSE WHAT SO ****ING EVER?!?!? No.
DO YOU?
No.
Zimmer maybe it's because I am listening to it quite a bit nowadays, but you remind me of this song:
YouTube - daft punk - face to face
It's amazing what you find face to face.
Another thing I think should be avoided is extremely intense ideology because it cabbages up one’s mind. You see it a lot with T.V. preachers (many have minds made of cabbage) but it can also happen with political ideology. When you’re young it’s easy to drift into loyalties and when you announce that you’re a loyal member and you start shouting the orthodox ideology out, what you’re doing is pounding it in, pounding it in, and you’re gradually ruining your mind.
So you want to be very, very careful of this ideology.
It’s a big danger. In my mind, I have a little example I use whenever I think about ideology. The example is these Scandinavia canoeists who succeeded in taming all the rapids of Scandinavia and they thought they would tackle the whirlpools of the Aron (sp) Rapids here in the United States. The death rate was 100%. A big whirlpool is not something you want to go into, and I think the same is true about a really deep ideology. I have what I call an iron prescription that helps me keep sane when I naturally drift toward preferring one ideology over another and that is: I say that I’m not entitled to have an opinion on this subject unless I can state the arguments against my position better than the people who support it. I think only when I’ve reached that state am I qualified to speak. This business of not drifting into extreme ideology is a very, very important thing in life.
Charlie Munger
USC School of Law Commencement
May 13, 2007s
You brought points to the thread I dismissed. The government isn't designed to be a Nanny, and in doing so it's become an overbearing Ninny, breeding more of the same. People that look to government for cures for all their ills... what a pathetic way to go through life... as a parasite of the Ninny State.You see I have brought my points to this thread though and they were not enough for you.
Read my previous post; the opening lines. Barbs and ridicule are part of debate, so long as they are relevant to the topic and discussion. They serve their purpose, unglueing individuals when the truth comes close to home, as UtahBill has recently revealed. This "moderate", has become a little excited and revealed line by line he's nothing more than a Pelosi, Reid, Obama Leftist. He sounds like one.You tell me I am insulting you, but you use terminology with insulting insinuation towards other forum members, myself included.
"Whore"?Let me reiterate what I have brought up on this thread, and other threads with similar subject manner, so that you can deny it has any point once again:
-Palin is an idiot and will attack anybody just so someone pays attention to her. She is a whore.
That Cap'in Courtesy gave you a thanks on this post with such drivel of a couple of paragraphs illustrates the level of intelligence he believes is deserving of respect and attaching his name to.
I've made the case why Palin could win, and have linked and posted why. Reason after reason. She's gaffed less than Obi, is Reagan-like, holds similar views as Reagan and has received similar ridicule from the same culprits... from country club R's like Barbara Bush and all the lefties. The following article is a well reasoned argument why Palin could whoop Obama's lame ass. Right now she's 41-41 against The Hollow One.
The Palin Ultimatum
...
One of the more ridiculous examples of “common wisdom” echoed by the pundits these days is the idea that Sarah Palin can never be president.
I’m certainly not a particular fan of hers, but to think she cannot be elected is to be in complete denial both of politics and of the state of the nation today.
While polls show the general public is indeed sour on the idea of a President Palin — so far — what the general public thinks doesn’t matter in a primary. Palin, with her virtual 100 percent name ID...
The second part of the equation, the election itself, is also not out of the question for Palin. Politics, like basketball, is all about the matchup. You don’t have to be incredibly popular, just more popular than the other guy (or girl).
If unemployment continues at very high levels, and if President Obama continues his tepid, feckless ways — so bizarre considering the lofty rhetoric of civic engagement that got him into office — Palin doesn’t have to be wildly popular to beat him. She just has to be a viable alternative for a plurality of voters.
The secret the Obama team probably wouldn’t prefer to be widely known is the fact that Obama, even at the peak of his popularity, has never been popular with white voters — and I don’t mean just Southern white voters.
The only white demographic Obama won in 2008 was the 18–29 age group. In the recent midterms, Democrats were destroyed among white voters, getting only 38 percent of the white vote nationwide.
...
It’s become a cliché of American life that George W. Bush wasn’t a very smart guy. But Bush was certainly smart enough to know who his supporters were and to keep them happy — or if not happy, at least engaged.
The first thing Obama did once in office, however, was completely ignore the young voters who provided his margin of victory — the bulk of whom did not show up to vote for Democrats this Nov. 2.
So who’s the dumb one?
Like Bush, Palin is also not book–smart. But also like Bush, she is street–smart. And in politics, the streetfighters always win in the end.
They can have all the causes they want, but not with taxpayers money. I said it about Laura, and said it about Michelle. If they want a cause, get the private sector to fund it. Nothing in the constitution says the First Lady is permitted to fund her cause through the public trough.-Every first lady has a cause, I had no problem in Laura Bush's cause of reading as well, she was a librarian made sense. Just as Mrs. Obama is a fit woman it makes sense she would do this.
Doh... The NFL is a private enterprise. It's not taking taxpayers money, it generates it... and how!-The NFL does something similar in which they encourage kids go out and play, no one seems to have qualms about that.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. So what do you want to do? Have government controlled jeans factories, or Chairman Mao Suits, and the government to have Food Police for every house and on every corner? What ever happened to personal responsibility?Not only that, we live in a society where billions is spent to make you feel bad for being fat and no one has a problem with that, despite the same companies getting you fat are the same ones coming out with the fat-free versions and skinny jeans.
Again, the parents responsibility or some non-profit or for profit group, but not the Feds. As I noted they assisted in increasing obesity 61% in 11-years with their ****ed up food pyramid!!!!-Something like this has a domino effect. If you teach children and parents healthy habits, or reteach them because they might not honestly know then it makes their lives better, they save money, insurance companies save money, insurance rates go down, and you have an overall happier, healthier nation.
The easiest person to fool is yourself, and you're doing a masterful job.You seem to think that I am in full line with the liberal Democrat agenda. This could be further from the truth. I use common sense.
You don't think people know it's good for kids to get out of the house? you don't need government intruding and wasting billions. But it's up to the parents to do this... not the government, for when government does it... it's wasted money.Common sense tells me that encouraging kids to get off their ass, go climb trees and get hurt every once in awhile, eating healthy stuff, etc is a very good thing.
Just look at that wondrous Food Pyramid and all the good it has done... or virtually any other government program.
.
I used to be like you and I know why I stopped being like you. It's an intellectually bankrupt position. It's full of emotion, which you falsely associate with common sense. Just as Obama dismisses the fact when Cap Gains rates dropped, revenues increased. No, for "fairness" he would want to raise the rates. That is idiocy. It's class warfare idiocy.Like I said. You dismiss everything and anything, believe there is some kind of agenda behind it, etc. I'm done arguing anything to you because I am wasting time, just as you would be wasting your time on me.
I love America, and believe people have responsibility to themselves. Government has gotten involved in "health" and as I pointed out with empirical evidence, 61% became more obese in short 11-years. They pointed millions in the wrong direction, and the damage is deep. People still believe their BS.You have no points, you use no common sense, your only point is you hate America and healthy people. I understand it I just don't get it.
I used to be like you and I know why I stopped being like you. It's an intellectually bankrupt position. It's full of emotion, which you falsely associate with common sense. Just as Obama dismisses the fact when Cap Gains rates dropped, revenues increased. No, for "fairness" he would want to raise the rates. That is idiocy. It's class warfare idiocy.
I love America, and believe people have responsibility to themselves. Government has gotten involved in "health" and as I pointed out with empirical evidence, 61% became more obese in short 11-years. They pointed millions in the wrong direction, and the damage is deep. People still believe their BS.
You attach yourself to emotion, ignoring the facts. The Constitution has been perverted, the concept of limited government trashed, and folks like you think the government should be The Great Equalizer and Nanny. It's both sad and selfish. It is ruining the country, and the American fabric.
.
Yawn. Let me know when you quit going in repeat, talking about a country that never existed.. since you were born.
It is ruining the country, and the American fabric.
I'll keep repeating the truth, and shoving the constitution in your face. You know, the thing our elected officials swear to uphold... but have done a marvelous job ignoring.
It looks like we're in for a roll-back. People seem pretty tired of people like you advocating government intrusion in every aspect of our lives.
Y'know, Greece seems like a nice place for you.
.
I'm pretty sure if Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, etc saw how totally screwed people are in the heads right now they would add a few things here and there. They also would have been asking Biden why his slave was so nicely dressed.
Yeah, they would think how immature, lazy and illiterate our citizenship has become, and then raise the voting age.
They would wonder how in the world the federal government could end up being a massive, unaccountable conglomerate; the nation’s largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider and pension guarantor”.
Where in the constitution did we put this crap in they would ask one another? What happened to limited government? Liberty? Since when is the government allowed to tell businesses and people what candles (light bulbs) and toilets they can have?
Then they'd say stupid is as stupid does and turn over in their graves.
.
:roll:Wow a graph that shows federal spending that doesn't take into account inflation, and that nearly all of that spending you are showing, shows that no matter what the party, they have all pretty much been assholes the past 25 years.
:roll:
Yeah, we're not taxing and spending enough. We've got no spending problem. From Washington and Adams, they said... spend baby spend. And you keep defending government's intrusion.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
.
:roll:
Yeah, we're not taxing and spending enough. We've got no spending problem. From Washington and Adams, they said... spend baby spend. And you keep defending government's intrusion.
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
.
The only thing Palin is good for is beating fish.
"...Among preschool children aged 2–5, obesity increased from 5.0% to 10.4% between 1976–1980 and 2007–2008 and from 6.5% to 19.6% among those aged 6–11. Among adolescents aged 12–19, obesity increased from 5.0% to 18.1% during the same period.
Obesity Prevalence Among Low-Income, Preschool-Aged Children 1998–2008:
One of 7 low-income, preschool-aged children is obese, but the obesity epidemic may be stabilizing. The prevalence of obesity in low-income two to four year-olds increased from 12.4 percent in 1998 to 14.5 percent in 2003 but rose to only 14.6 percent in 2008...read
Obesity and Overweight for Professionals: Data and Statistics | DNPAO | CDC
Overweight and obesity and their associated health problems have a significant economic impact on the U.S. health care system (USDHHS, 2001). Medical costs associated with overweight and obesity may involve direct and indirect costs (Wolf and Colditz, 1998; Wolf, 1998). Direct medical costs may include preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related to obesity. Indirect costs relate to morbidity and mortality costs. Morbidity costs are defined as the value of income lost from decreased productivity, restricted activity, absenteeism, and bed days. Mortality costs are the value of future income lost by premature death.
National Estimated Cost of Obesity
According to a study of national costs attributed to both overweight (BMI 25–29.9) and obesity (BMI greater than 30), medical expenses accounted for 9.1 percent of total U.S. medical expenditures in 1998 and may have reached as high as $78.5 billion ($92.6 billion in 2002 dollars) (Finkelstein, Fiebelkorn, and Wang, 2003). Approximately half of these costs were paid by Medicaid and Medicare.
Obesity and Overweight for Professionals: Economic Consequences | DNPAO | CDC
•According to the 2008 Rudd Report from Yale University, low-income areas have fewer supermarkets and grocery stores that carry healthy foods compared to higher income areas. Additionally, stores in lower income communities tend to stock less produce and have lower quality produce. Public transportation in these communities can be a barrier for some people to get access to healthy foods, and the cost associated with buying healthier food is another cause of unhealthy eating behaviors in low-income communities.
Effects
•In 2009, two thirds of the American population were either overweight or obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Low-income communities, and minorities in particular, have higher rates of obesity and diabetes. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the lack of affordable, healthy foods is directly linked to obesity and diabetes in low-income communities. Fast food restaurants are prevalent in low-income communities, and many people turn to this type of restaurant because of the cheap, convenient food; however, fast food only increases the problem.....
Read more: Low Income & Its Effect on Healthy Eating | eHow.com Low Income & Its Effect on Healthy Eating | eHow.com
I don't think anyone really thinks we're not spending too much money. But the real disagreement is over what we're spending it on. For example, I want us to stop spending so much money killing brown people. You probably want us to stop spending money on public services and assistance for the poor. Which in turn leads to more dead brown people. Really it all comes down to how many brown people you want in the world.
Tell me how does these programs help people when you have generations on these programs? When their situation hasn't much improved since their passing. How does any of these programs not just make things worse? The race argument you might think is helpful to you, but if you actually realized what these programs did to minorites, you wouldn't make it.
The generational problem you mention stems from redlining low income areas which kept minorities from buying homes, starting businesses or even getting a job so they couldn't accumulate enough wealth to pass on to their children. It's bad enough that our economic system isn't fair to minorities, but now you are suggesting we let the children born into such a system suffer so they won't even have their health?
Because the problem has been 150 years in the making and contrary to your claim that the act of redlining has been in decline and illegal for fifty years, it is still alive and well....The act is illegal and has been for almost fifty years. The cases for it have been in the decline now for decades and rarely happen these days. So why is it that the problem has not gotten any better?
"...The trend toward fewer, bigger stores located outside cities has continued to the present. Some critics have referred to this disinclination of large chains to locate in cities as `supermarket redlining''. Changes in food availability are a key element in the changing social conditions of the urban poor and, as good nutrition is critical for good health, a contributing factor in the decline of urban health...."
SpringerLink - GeoJournal, Volume 53, Number 2
Charging the poor more money for mortgages, insurance, services and even food than the more affluent, is why the poor stay poor.Bank Accused of Pushing Mortgage Deals on Blacks
"....“Wells Fargo mortgage had an emerging-markets unit that specifically targeted black churches, because it figured church leaders had a lot of influence and could convince congregants to take out subprime loans.”....
These loans, Baltimore officials have claimed in a federal lawsuit against Wells Fargo, tipped hundreds of homeowners into foreclosure and cost the city tens of millions of dollars in taxes and city services."....read
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/07baltimore.html
The Recession’s Racial Divide
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/opinion/13ehrenreich.html
Because the problem has been 150 years in the making and contrary to your claim that the act of redlining has been in decline and illegal for fifty years, it is still alive and well....
If a child has poor health, they are less likely to finish school, get a good job or even work when they get older.
And of course there's reverse redlining where banks target blacks to charge them more than they would charge a similarly situated white consumer....
Charging the poor more money for mortgages, insurance, services and even food than the more affluent, is why the poor stay poor.
That connection is gibberish. The store is over here so people starve? People don't build stores near bad neighborhoods not because racism, but because the neighborhood is bad. Most of the people you are talking about live in these neighborhoods as you are aware.
They were forced to give loans to people that can't afford them. When it came to minorities they were sued for not giving loans to them that they couldn't possiblity afford several times. This lead to them doing just that, but because the loan was trash and they knew it, they decided to give them higher interest rates. This is what everyone got of all races that couldn't afford what they were getting. High interest loans, but like I said, they had no choice.
As for your other claims here, sorry, but why don't you have links for them when you have a link for the above?
NO, BANKS WERE NOT FORCED TO LOAN MONEY TO PEOPLE WHO COULD NOT AFFORD IT. that's patently false.
No it's not. Unless you have some other explanation, as to why after decades of banking practices all these bankers started making bad loans, one day; loans that they knew wouldn't go to term. It wasn't until after CRA had passed.
And, no, "because they're all greedy", isn't an explanation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?