kvnchrist

A married couple went to the hospital to have their baby delivered. Upon their arrival, the doctor said he had invented a new machine that would transfer a portion of the mothers pain to the baby's father. He asked if they were willing to try it out. they were both very much in favor of it. The doctor set the pain transfer to 10%, for starters, explaining that even 10% was probably more pain the father had ever experienced before. However, as the labor progressed, the husband felt fine and asked the doctor to go ahead and "kick it up a notch." The doctor then adjusted the machine to 20% pain transfer. The husband still feeling fine. The doctor checked the husbands blood pressure and was amazed at how well he was doing at this point, they decided to try for 50%. the husband continued to feel quite well. Since the pain transfer was obviously helping out the wife considerably, the husband encouraged the doctor to transfer ALL the pain to him. The wife delivered a healthy baby boy with virtually no pain. She and her husband were ecstatic. When they got home, the mail man was dead on the porch.

I'm not really into debating. I'm more into personal growth, which spans the abyss of any political, religious or philosophical divides. The major opponents of these are the one's so sure of themselves and their cause that they are unwilling or incapable of being as skeptical of themselves as they are of others. It's surprising to see so many people along those lines pride themselves on having an open mind. These people, more often than not are ideological, This doesn't necessarily mean the educated, but does include the well indoctrinated of all the social groups. From these people come those who more or less would destroy any discussion rather than loose it.

Wasn't that Ringo Star that played the conductor?

My link

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v26/alocispepraluger/aloc%20e/558643_2333045861528_1087357855_n.jpg

No matter what happens on election day, I wonder if President Obama, will be looked back upon with the same reverence as they do President Clinton is now by the left President Regan by the right? What I wonder is if any of these men will be remembered in a greater or lesser degree because of who they are or were or the situation they found themselves upon reaching the presidency? If president Obama and president Clinton's timelines was reversed would President Clinton be asking President Obama to speak in his behalf and would President Regan would be the savior of the right if he were alive today and the presently the President? I don't really care if you love or hate any of these men. I was wondering if these men or any historic figure was a success or failure because of the situation they were in, who they were as people or the how they were portrayed?

I've have always been on the outside of the fishbowl looking in, when It comes to the social gatherings. I've never been part of the in crowd and I don't think I would know how to act If that changed, suddenly. , at one time wanted more than anything to be accepted by these people, especially when I was still in school. I did notice that the quote/unquote beautiful people all hung together and it seemed the more things worked out in their favor, the more popular they became. I also noticed that these people were among the worst people to be around when things were not so well. I kind of wondering what you guys feel builds character in people. Is it the ability to win with modesty or the ability to lose with dignity?

I understand the reason behind closing threads, but I don't think that this will effect those hot heads that bring threads down.. Anger is a form of insanity and you don't lock up a persons dwealing because they go off the deep end. All that it does is silence yet another thread and those who might just have the ability to turn around a thread gone bad. I would suggest, If the staff doesn't care to have violent threads in the main debate, you guys could make up a new area, which only established members could access, and place these threads in there for the rest of us to continue. Established members could be designated by their post count. Those above a sertain number, only can post there. That and those that are thrown in there for disciplinary reasons, will automatically be able to post In that area. It would also take care of trolls and their sock pupets. If a person starts up a reputation of being snotty and belligerent, you could fix his permissions so he can only post in this area. It would give these people, who might just be excellant person, who just get aggravated too quickly, to stop and smell the roses. This would also give those looking at a ban, another chance to straighten themselves out.

What particular action, activity or personality can the title, "Being Cool" be used? I remember when I was growing up that being cool was the in thing to be and those people who were considered cool were those that others tried to emulate. I never quite understood the reasoning behind everybody wearing the same thing and hanging out in the same crowd made someone important enough to idolize. I wonder just what in our makeup makes some people more popular than others. I know that this doesn't necessarily end after adolescence and some people get so wrapped up in the persona of others that they actively imitate the people they think are cool. Thus the Elvis imitators and the fashion movements that are spurred on by Hollywood stars and recording artists. Did the minions of Hitlers inner circle think they were cool? Is being cool defined by the popularity of a certain image and if so, how does that image become popular.

I've always wanted to know which was a more powerful intention of those who claim to care for others. I feel that there are two types of people, who sincerely care about others, but I was wanted to discuss the idea that there might be underlying reasoning for people who concern themselves in the lives of others and how these people see those they are concerned about. The two mindsets that I want to focus on are (1) Those who care about being needed and (2) Those who need to be caring. Are these both legitimately concerned people and what is the perceived value are the charitable recipients to people with either mindsets

I've never understood this term. "The Weak" It seems to be a generic image of a victim that one side or the other throws out to justify their partisan agendas. Both the left and the right use this term, but I've never seen any of them step up to a single person and identify them as the weak individual that needs their help. Possibly, because the person would, most likely hit them if they did. I don't think anybody is weak, but there are those that are in a situation of vulnerability that requires the assistance of others. What they don't need is to become dependent on that help. particularly because the assistance given needs to be replaced so that future needs can be met. This is why, I think that government programs have their purpose, but should not be used to provide a lifestyle for people.

My link Does anyone thing the fight is over, just because The Supreme court has made their rulling?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk&feature=player_embedded#!

Just wanted to slide by and wish all the fathers a happy fathers day. Hopefully you won't get another tie!

Because not everyone is as intellgent as the few guys that come to the Debates forum on the Nexus. :happy: Is it intelligence or is it that people here have a stake in being honest with themselves and the politicians have a stake in being dishonest with others. Also are those who these politicians cater to that delusional or are they just self centered enough to like what they hear?

All these responses have merit. My one question is that with so much agreement that such things are B.S. why the hell can the politicians and political activists get away with using it to divide us and why are we letting them, in the first place.

Are people who hate people who hate others self absorbed, self righteous or self aggrandizing? Are stereotypes a means or a justification and how can these false images be refuted without the refuter defaulting to their own mental images of the types of people who use stereotypes? In this day and age we are sometimes inundated with the term "Rights" but the precursor is always a subgroup of a group instead of the rights of any individual within that entire group to be treated equally with anyone else in that group. Is it not in the best interest of the entire group, as a whole to protect and defend anyone or any subgroup within the entirety of group lest the subgroup they're in be the next to be placed on the chopping block? Is the simple fact that there are subgroups of groups within society make that society vulnerable to be fractured and why would we give ear to those who claim to want save society by separating it from itself? Do those who wish to lead society into a promised land actually have a promised land to take us or is it this just and image they delude us into believing because they know we would not believe in them? When is a sanctuary an prison and a higher order of thinking or acting a more palatable means of promoting arrogance? When does all this and much much more begin to create something that is a benefit to everyone?

So a tyrant who keeps people under the shadow of fear is a leader. I think not. Nothing stands to reason when dealing with human beings.

I've heard a lot about this and that character being a hero or heroine. Is breathing the Alpha and Omega of any heroic person? Did they begin this way? Where they born the person who they are or are they made into this unique individual? Are these people driven by a desire for glory or did they find themselves in a situation, where they became fed up with the B.S. and took charge of the situation. Were they placed into a position of authority or did they find themselves in a situation that required an authority figure. What lies in the deepest place of the heart of a true leader? Is it those he leads? Is it those he let behind? Is it the loss of someone who died in the hands of those he/she now fights? What demons does a leader keep inside them. Taring at his/her soul and driving him/her on to what fate has in store to him/her? What will make a reader adopt his/her struggle and make them want to follow his/her exploits to the bitter end. What makes this individual believable and how will his/her passing bring tears to the eyes of those who follow? Is a leader a hero or a hero a leader, even if there is no one to lead? Can there be leadership without the ability to sacrifice for the goal they've set?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=spXqcPRa2bw

Is about the stalemate within the two party system. The collapse is not about the country collapsing but my concern with the rytoric that is coming out of Washington, combined with the financial situation, so many in the country are suffering that what I call Social justice vigilantes and militia groups might start up something that will have to be put down as violently as they are. What will suffer from this is the same thing that the country has suffered from, but on a accelerated path than it was after 9/11. I was talking about our freedoms and rights are vanishing, under a cover of a security blanket that is dubious at best. Then we are looking at a debt crisis of major proportions and that seems not only to be effecting the US, but the rest of the world, as well, which pretty much sums up this. My concern is with those who have placed their hopes and dreams on the financial situation of their perspective countries and are now seeing their dreams of a comfortable retirement go up in smoke as our leaders try to correct that abuses that have lead us to this crisis, in the first place. I'm more worried about the little man, losing everything, because they seem to be the ones that everybody uses, promises everything to and then are the first things discarded, when the crap hits the fan. I look at Greece and Italy and I don't see the governments there, but a window, or a retiree, or a mother, with children that is seeing their support structure crumble beneath them, while the banks and businessmen get bailouts and get million dollar bailouts. The hatefest is between the far left and the far right and the sacrifices are to do with these people who say, "Go ahead and fix what needs to be fixed, but don't you dare touch what I have." You can't make sacrifices by targeting certain people, when the whole country is hurting. We are all in this together. Someone once said, "This is a huge S*%T SANDWICH and we all are goiing to have to take a bite out of it!" We're all in this together and the sacred cows of the left and right need to be deposed, so we can find a true middle ground and start moving this country back into a prosperous nation. I think, from what I've seen on the news, that this strategy would work well, elsewhere, as well. Trouble is, neither side is really willing to compromise. Prime example: The 'committee' that was supposed to come up with some serious budget cuts, or, automatic cuts would be implemented instead. Guess what, they couldn't come up with the middle ground...... Now, they are passing legislation to get around the "or else" clauses that were put into the budget balancing bill in the first place. Nice huh? Yeah, that, I think was a sham to begin with. Just something to diffuse the heat they were getting. What they aught to have done was link their pay to their progress and that would end a lot of their grandstanding.

I think people are getting the wrong impression about what this topic is about. The first part of this Is about the stalemate within the two party system. The collapse is not about the country collapsing but my concern with the rytoric that is coming out of Washington, combined with the financial situation, so many in the country are suffering that what I call Social justice vigilantes and militia groups might start up something that will have to be put down as violently as they are. What will suffer from this is the same thing that the country has suffered from, but on a accelerated path than it was after 9/11. I was talking about our freedoms and rights are vanishing, under a cover of a security blanket that is dubious at best. Then we are looking at a debt crisis of major proportions and that seems not only to be effecting the US, but the rest of the world, as well, which pretty much sums up this. My concern is with those who have placed their hopes and dreams on the financial situation of their perspective countries and are now seeing their dreams of a comfortable retirement go up in smoke as our leaders try to correct that abuses that have lead us to this crisis, in the first place. I'm more worried about the little man, losing everything, because they seem to be the ones that everybody uses, promises everything to and then are the first things discarded, when the crap hits the fan. I look at Greece and Italy and I don't see the governments there, but a window, or a retiree, or a mother, with children that is seeing their support structure crumble beneath them, while the banks and businessmen get bailouts and get million dollar bailouts. The hatefest is between the far left and the far right and the sacrifices are to do with these people who say, "Go ahead and fix what needs to be fixed, but don't you dare touch what I have." You can't make sacrifices by targeting certain people, when the whole country is hurting. We are all in this together. Someone once said, "This is a huge S*%T SANDWICH and we all are goiing to have to take a bite out of it!" We're all in this together and the sacred cows of the left and right need to be deposed, so we can find a true middle ground and start moving this country back into a prosperous nation. I think, from what I've seen on the news, that this strategy would work well, elsewhere, as well.

As we all did. Kvnchristt is several years old. I'm not knocking the man,

The way a person presents themselves is how they are taken. With a name such as that, I really don't think he cares. Is that attitude in any way productive?

I don't try to add anything. I recognize the personality and accept him as I do. You never know what eats away at someone and if you try to understand them, you may just find a good person under that rough exterior. As I've said. I wish him well.