kvnchrist

What is it about getting into a car that changes so many people into uncaring, unconcerned self-absorbed sociopaths? It's like they are practicing to get on the internet, when they get home. Have any of you guys seen these people weaving all over the road as they try to make a call on their phone or text a message that could easily wait. Many can't wait to get out on the open road as if the distance apart from other vehicles will make up for the higher speeds that are driven out there. It used to be the drunks that were they danger, but I guess with the advent of cell phones the problem has blossomed from the percentage of alcoholics that used to drive to the number of people who think they can multitask while removing their eyes from the road at 65 hph. Is this just in America or is it world wide?

Sorry. Bad Idea all around. It's be like a new species of Tea Party and society would be the equivalent of the modern Republican party. They would be added to help and end up devouring what they were supposed to aid. I say NO!

http://www.funelf.net/photos/dino-problems.jpg I love that picture. Can I use it. Tht explains why T-rex's had anger issues LOL!

If you had the chance would you rather visit the future at any time you wished to or the past? You could move around as much as you wished and be effected by nothing within thst world and would not be able to effect anything. You could also understand any language and read anything printed there, but you could not bring any wealth back but you could bring information back.

Please don't anticipate the level of pathetic stupidity in the upcoming political season. I'm sure there will be a mind numbing level of immaturity that will beacon in the next figurehead to the presidency so their party can manipulate the wealth others produce in order to placate their benefactors.

I'm not talking about the topic. I'm more targeting his foreign policy and his stance towards the Middle East.

I don't know about everyone else but from what I've seen there are a lot of people out there that make judgement calls on people they don't even know as to their guilt and innocence of something they were alleged to have done. We've created whole industries that parade multiples of people with serious social issues like Morey Povish, Jerry Springer and the like. These people display the worst possible conduct human beings can make and the public eats it up. Not only that they have reality police shows that time and time again display the worst actions of people and again the public eats it up. Why? Are we so pathetic that we must observe the of others in what possibly could be the worst times in their lives. Are we so pathetic that we need to see such behavior to feel better about ourselves and our situation or do we galk at this so we can ignore situations in our own lives? Are we actually adding to the sensationalist desires of those who want their 15 minutes of fame and creating an environment that sponcers and supports this activity. Are we giving people a stage to act out in any way they want to and in the process place fellow human beings in jeopardy of life and limb, just to be entertained? Is it also fostering the stereotypical attitudes that turn into prejudice that will stigmatize whole groups of people because we saw one person act stupidly in front of a camera. Then ask yourself this question. Do you think those observing the Roman gladiators of ancient times fell the same way that we do when we see two fat women fighting over a skinny guy that isn't worth the cost of a bullet to end his reign of ignorance? Do we cast judgement on those who dress and act differently according to the way they look, dress or how handsome or beautiful they are? Do we judge a men sleeping with an underage girl more harshly than we do a woman sleeping with an underage boy? Do we accept a Lesbian couple more readily that a gay couple? Do we become unnerved when surrounded by those that you deem of lower social status or a different color or heritage? What is with us as human beings that we have to assign the possibility of certain actions to those who met certain parameters? Is it the idea that others are different or is it the idea that we must separate ourselves from them to give ourselves the air of individual importance?

I stand corrected, read your posts wrong initially. Will have to remember not to make posts on mornings before work since I keep reading things backwards. I facepalm at myself and owe you an apology. Regarding the President going over Congress, yeah, he actually can in situations where you have an emergency and Congress is in a state where they are unable (or unwilling) to act. Given that Congress currently can't even agree what day of the week it is, we may be getting to a point where such action is necessary just to keep the country from falling into ruin. I do however think people are reading too strongly at his wording though. Pen and phone doesn't mean that he will exercise any deliberate power, but rather that he will ensure that the needs of the people are listened to and addressed. Generally, dictators don't try to get feedback from their population about those areas that they need to improve upon. As the President is also the public face of the government this isn't any real departure from past presidents. Yes but my point was that his emergency actions don't have the longevity, I guess I'll put it of law. They only extend to when the crisis that made them necessary has passed or he gets the congress or a new congress to cement them into a law of the land. I believe that America is changing under President Obama in a way the scares the heck out of the Republicans and this is why he is coming under so much opposition. He isn't acting in the tradition of previous presidents and is reaching in area that weren't traditionally acceptable and they think he is out of control and dangerous. Well, Duh! He's a Democrat for one and he is heading in a new direction faster that any other progressive president has ever accomplished and the country is in whiplash mode as we speak. They are not sure about anything and that's why he succeeded in getting a second term. They gave him a second chance, because the Republicans didn't have anything but a stale old stick-man with the likability of leprosy, with no message behind him. Of course he's out of control, He's out of their control. Of course he's dangerous. He's dangerous because he's changing the playbook that they are so sure has been working for decades. The only thing is that they've never tried something new, which I think pretty well sums up the Republican party. New things are scary, so let's not try them. The boogie-man might get us. EEEEUUUUUWWWWWW! :blink: I am sorry we had this little blow out. I actually look forward in your responses and that isn't a suck up. That's the honest truth. The Dark One was wise in his decisions of mods. Take care and have a great day.

Just which house would you go in if you appeared at Hogwarts School? Here are the houses (this automatically advances when you choose an answer) http://www.thealmightyguru.com/Reviews/HarryPotter/Docs/Quiz-House.html Here's Mine http://www.thealmightyguru.com/Reviews/HarryPotter/Docs/Quizzes/HP-Hufflepuff.jpg Your in-depth results are: Hufflepuff - 16 Ravenclaw - 14 Gryffindor - 9 Slytherin - 6

First of all I will bypass the immature comment about my post. ones hope that the president can do what he wants to promote the policies one supports are immaterial to reality. Due to the fact that taking an exam based on a good understanding of the constitution and the way that the US government is structured is required in order for anyone to pass 7th grade, and 7th graders should be learning this exact thing at this time of the year, my statement holds true. I would have not mentioned it if you're explanation who is responsible for what wasn't so far off base. The President can't do what he WANTS. The President can however take executive action to deal with the immediate concerns of the country as long as it does not conflict with existing law. Why else do you think it's called the Executive branch? Only Congress can draft new laws or alter the constitution, to which both the Executive and Judicial branch must also agree to those changes. Meaning that the President can order troops to foreign countries, but cannot officially declare war, and subsequently has to either get approval from congress or withdraw those deployed forces after a certain period of time. The President cannot make you give up your 4th amendment rights, or change what the 1st amendment relates to unless congress also agrees to these changes. Even if they wanted to do these things, they still have to pass the bill through congress to have the specific terms written up, and then the Supreme court needs to rule on the constitutionality of those terms. And what part of this do you think I don't already know. and what part of my previous post is incorrect? The congress doesn't have to work with the president and he can't go over their heads to create laws. Executive orders are emergency powers given to the president. They do not have the force of legislation and all are subject to judicial review.

There have been numerous postings of this same debate on just about every web site I post at. From the attitudes that I have picked up I think the uproar has more to do with the idea that President Obama tried to use the powers of the office as a political commercial, for lack of a better term. To me he was merely trying to distract the public by seeming to threaten the congress with this stunt and get his base's attention away from the ACA issues and back on what he wanted them to think on. The bottom line is the public will rest on the issue that will effect them the most and the most often. That is not him swinging a pen at the Republicans, It is getting the Healthcare exchange website opened up and running smoothly. P.S. a dictator would send the military into congress and clean house. They are historically ill tempered when it comes to getting their way.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Order Reference : http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp

The three branches of government exist as a means of checks and balances so that no singular branch has too much power. Congress is there to determine long term legislation, the President to determine areas of immediate importance, and the Supreme Court to ensure that these things are being done in accordance with the law. May want to find some 7th grader to refresh your memory about how the US government is setup. First of all I will bypass the immature comment about my post. ones hope that the president can do what he wants to promote the policies one supports are immaterial to reality. The branch of government that the President controls is called the Executive branch which is in fact in charge of executing the laws that congress makes. He can ask for laws to be made, but he can't create any. If he tries he ends up getting his hands slapped by the courts.

They concentrate on this because they think it is their chance to manipulate the news in the favor of their candidates. They don't report news any more they use it to get ratings from their targeted audience. They subduie what they can't ignore of what they find distasteful and emphasis what they feel is most damaging to those they oppose.

There is a reason for congress and it's not to work with or against the president. It is to protect and nurture the laws that run the country. If they can't work together it is not up to the president to decide to go over them and when he does he risks being sued and if overturned he looks as inept as possible. The best presidents have been the best communicators and this president has not been that. He works well with a teleprompter, but every time I've heard him go off message he has stumbled and fallen. You can just look at the first Obama/Romney debate to see that. If Bill Clinton were in office today and had come in after such a financial debacle as President Obama did, we would have had national health care and several other progressive policies that would have helped America move foreword. Some say he is a liberal, but I don't think he is.

I will agree that "one" individual poll is not very conclusive when you can skew the questions in a way to favor one point of view. But if you look at a collection of polls done nationally by many different organizations you can get a clearer picture of what is going on. Polls are not as irrelevant as you may think... Polls are opinions. How quickly do they change. This will have legs until something newer and more shiny comes along. Americans have a very short attention span. They get thet from their T.V. sets.

Mike Huckabee after all has been talking to every woman he knows with an IQ above broccoli... :laugh: Seems like a pretty low bar he holds on a woman's intelligence, assuming he knows people with IQs that start at a broccoli level. Edit: Shocking News flash!?!... After these demeaning comments from mike Huckabee at the RNC winter meeting seems the GOP has decided to get a "female" spokes person Cathy McMorris Rogers to give the republican response to Obama's state of the union address this year... As if getting a woman nobody knows as their poster child to represent the same policies will change attracting female voters..... maybe they are hoping to lock down the female Broccoli IQ block. :laugh: Huckabee is like I once was. I grew up in a faith based family. I know the hardship of purging that from you. I have only sympathy for those people and see no reason to degrade them. People aren't stupid because they have a belief system, they walk through life with a filter over their eyes. Asking someone outside to understand those on the inside is like asking a person who is not color blind why people who are color blind do the things they do.

You hit it right on the head there. The problem for the Repubs is they are surgically attached to the religious right and they will never go for anything other than full blown fall back to the dark ages. Then they have the Tea Party, which meand that two large elements in their camp are now more of and anchor than a sail to them. They don't hasve much wiggle room in their present configuration.

In a nutshell he is saying that women don't need the Democratic party. He is trying to put a wedge in between women's issues and the Dems. Heck they got to do something they haven't had any new ideas since the wheel was invented. Most of them are old enough to have seen it first hand lol

If a Republican opposes the ACA you apply labels to them such as "far-right", "extreme", "outside the mainstream", and "too far from center". Now you are presented with a Republican governor who supports the ACA and you condemn them as nonviable for presidential candidacy. This is an illogical contradiction. I never "condemned" anyone for supporting medicaid expansion under the ACA. I actually think what she is doing is great. Was just simply stating that expanding the medicaid program under the ACA law alone most likely "should" disqualify her as a potential candidate from the base of the party since for the past 4 years all that republicans in national office have tried to do is repeal the law. Also you seem to be trying to put words in my mouth when you claim I apply labels such as "far-right", "extreme", "outside the mainstream", and "too far from the center" since I don't recall ever using any of these phases in this entire thread so far till this post... You might not think so, but Chris Christie's approval rating have drastically dropped since the begining of this year... You can call it a "left-wing" spin if you want. Doesn't change the facts, he has had a huge drop in national approval in less than a month. Last month he was one point ahead of Clinton in national approval in some polls. Facts based upon polls are determined by who took them, the questions asked, the way they are asked and the person who correlates them. How far down was President Clinton when the Republicans took over congress and what was his approval rating when he left office? Polls are as irrelevant as the mood we woke up in today. The day still goes on and at the end of the day, are we of different temperament?

I think we have been conditioned over the years to do just that, but there has always been a bribe at the of that.

Colourwheel, I love how you set up your topics with such a distinct left-wing spin on things. There is no flood of anything coming from any 4 day stoppage on any bridge. The left hopes and prays they can make it into one and the rest is things that should have been addressed when they were supposed to have occurred. Why wasn't this done? Because they weren't important. Why suddenly are they now. Because they aren't. They are apart of a political snipe hunt which the dems hope they can raise enough dust to give the illusion of something happening. The Republicans would do the same if it were a Democrat in Chrisy's shoes and the entire thing is a tempest in a teapot for those 50 miles outside of New Jersey and beyond. This is a dance that has been going on for decades and as boring as hck to those who happen to have a life.I wish you well on trying to discuss something were no one will ever know the full story on. Have a nice day!

I do remember someone said there were two types of fear. Running fear and fighting fear, but I pretty much think that that's more the individuals manor of handling fear instead of fear itself. The one thing that gets me is that, when we were young our fears were supposed to be assuaged by our parents, but it seems with their own systems of beliefs they have ham stringed themselves, so that they are totally unable to be objective. This is legacy of the indoctrination into arbitrary belief systems. I've always assumed that that education would be the key to tearing through the Vail of uncertainty, but there are a lot of highly intelligent people who still hold rigid belief systems and even in the face of hard facts they still default to these superstitions. Heck, how many people do you know that still toss a pinch of salt over their shoulder to ward off some evil, boogyman. Travel was my next though as I believed that encountering different society would strengthen the understanding of a broader base of reality, but even then, there are some that can not get beyond the difference in the world and still hold of the same basic beliefs and fears they had when they were a child. As I look across the world all that I've seen in my 50+ some odd years is that the only thing that wipes away the majority of fear is a greater fear. Just look at what 9/11 brought to this country. on 9/10 we were still embracing the same old ideals that had been the cornerstone of our society. We were all different, by virtue of our color, our sex, our political affiliates and with one fell swoop of one 24 hour period, we were again one nation under one flag, as we were when Pearl Harbor was attacked. What I would like to know is was the reaction to those attacks actually fear or was it more shock with fear quickly following up on it's coat tails.

I've talked about almost everything from love, hate and everything that is in between, but what about fear, what I think is the engine that drives so many people to do so many inhuman acts upon each other. What exactly is fear? Is it worry? is it anxiety? Is it despair or are those the reactions that come from fear itself? How can we adequately deal with fear and if we can tame that, can we eliminate much of the worlds social ills?

I was looking at the thread about Nelson Mandela, from another site and I notice a quite a few references to terrorism. I wanted to get down to the ground level on this and hear what others think about it. I personally think that people use what they have to to stress their issues. Some are religious and some are political. I don’t really think that we will ever know the entire tale of people like Mr. Mandela, who lived in a world where we can only imagine what it was like. Who is actually innocent when hatred and bigotry are ingrained in the society you live in. Could apartheid have existed without the acceptance of the society that it was a part of? Even those who convinced themselves that the perpetuation of such discriminatory laws were guaranteed only because they had been around for such a long time? Complacency in the face of tyranny is a death of spirit. No matter how long the body lives, it can never fully be prosperous if shackled to the opinions of others.