MigL

And one could make the argument that no stonings or whippings have happened in the US exactly because we don't have Sharia law. Can you make the same statement about countries where Muslim Clerics are the law givers/judges/enforcers ?

The problem is not what reasonable people like yourself and CharonY understand Sharia law to be, but what some religious fundamentalist, who blames his daughter for 'getting' raped, understands it to be. Its all just 'threatening and fears' until some young woman gets stoned ( and I don't mean high ).

I'm suggesting Deacon, that it should be morally acceptable to do both. Or neither. If society has finally accepted that some men may be women trapped in a man's body ( or the alternate for women ) necessitating sex reassignment surgery, why should we deny a man who isn't confortable with his homosexual feelings, the genetic/neurological treatment to resolve those issues ?

Mods, please split this off if we're getting off topic. But I don't see the distinction StringJunky. In one case we are manipulating a person's physical make-up so that they better 'fit' into their perceived place in society. And in the other genetically/neurologically manipulating them to better enable their perceived fit into society.

So DrmDoc you "think our quest should be about finding ways to be happy with oneself without radical changes and for others to be more accepting and respectful of our differences" ? So you don't agree with sex reassignment surgery, and the very need for transgendered people ? Did you mean something else or are you being hypocritical ?

That article would actually be funny if it wasn't so depressingly true. You should also post it in the 'Competent Republicans' thread. Any 'Bozo' with money is welcome to run as a Republican these days.

It must really bother you, Overtone, that people, who you consider NOT 'specifically good' people, or crazy people, or whining, spoiled and irresponsible ( for the past 40 yrs ) people, or people you consider your intellectual inferiors, have as much say in the government that represents them also, as you do. Do you want a link for the definition of DEMOCRACY ?

Meh ! Change the subject from an Italian idiot/buffoon, back to an American one ?

Read a history book and learn how to spell Mussolini. He was not a 'corporate' man, but an opportunist. For the first part of his life he was actually a Communist who wrote for a Communist paper, but when opportunity presented itself, he quickly changed his 'stripes' as a way to better his position and take advantage of others ( and rise in stature/power ). I realise 'fascism' has taken on a different meaning today, but originally it referenced the 'fasces' or bundles of wheat that you saw scattered about in wheat fields after the harvest ( an old Roman symbol ). He came to power before Hitler, and it is said Hitler was impressed by Mussolini's accomplishments, until he met him and realised what an idiot/buffoon he actually was. Of course it may have been the festering syphilis rotting away his mind

Downloaded songs from the 70s and 80s. Memories of my youth ( first girlfriend/kiss/car/slow dance you name it ) come flooding back.

I would look for them in the cones of active vulcanos, John. Or at least use the microbes that I found there as precursors and genetically engineer some for use on Venus.

Your estimates for population growth are unrealistic. Why not just 'seed' Venus with anaerobic microbes which will trap the carbon of the atmosphere in biological forms. This will ultimately result in an oxygen rich atmosphere and large oil and gas resources in several million years.

Thank you Hyper. Since all my objections have now been addressed, I will attempt to read the study in question. And if I have any insights , shall certainly share them. I wouldn't want Acme to stay mad at me.

So when I post something, it is off-topic, according to Acme, the originator of the thread. But when Overtone rebuts my comments, that is apparently OK, as he agrees with Overtone's point of view. Heck, he even gets a +1 from some mindless nitwit who thinks ( wrongly ) Overtone has addressed the points I made, instead of going off on a rant about R. Reagan. That essentially proves the point I've been making all along. You aren't interested in discussion. You want to stop opposing viewpoints from being expressed and only want re-enforcing of your own. I am astounded with the tolerance and enlightenment you guys display. ( watch out, some sarcasm may drip on you ) By the way Acme, you yourself posted the comment from Phi that your OP would 'generate a lot of tangents', yet now you say those tangents are not allowed.

Dictating what can and can't be discussed; how authoritarian of you. I guess this ends my participation.

Sorry Acme, I haven't nor do I intend to read this study, as I don't have the time, but I would like to see this thread continue. Is the study targetting the 'leadership' of the American Conservative movement, or regular people like me, who happen to share a few of of the ideals which are sometimes labeled 'conservative' ? I have stated many times that I have fiscally conservative values, I tend to live within my means, and wish my government would also try, although I realize that sometimes borrowing must be done. I get the impression you are Canadian also ( BC ? ), if not I apologize, but last year Canadian taxpayers ( sorry I don't have US equivalent values, but I'm sure they can be looked up and it'll shock people ) spent over 60 billion dollars just on interest, servicing our combined federal and provincial debt. This money did not go into social services, salaries, defence, education or health. It was paid directly to big banks and bond holders. In other word, this money contributes directly to the wealth inequality that you, Phi for All, iNow, Ten oz and even Overtone have eloquently made a case against in that other thread. How many hospitals could have been built ? How many schools ? How many jobs ? I wonder how much the US spent servicing its huge debt ? How many more Chinese billionaires did the US taxpayers create last year ? Would it have been enough to realise B. Obama's dream of universal health care for ALL Americans ? Sad and pitiful. Things are not always black and white, there are shades in between. Cutting government spending does not necessarily lead to an erosion of our social 'safety net'. Sometimes it can actually improve life for everyone. If on the other hand, your argument is that the American Conservative leadership wants to cut social programs and still keep making huge payments to big Banks and investors, i.e. on the backs of little people to benefit the rich, then OK, I'll agree with you, THEY are insane. But those of us who are hoping cutting government spending leads to improvement, certainly are NOT.

Sooooo... Nothing about my good looks, intelligence and modesty ?

So because of my indiscriminate use of some term, Overtone, you now lump me in with the 'group' whose views are 'mildly insane'. That was my impression from the get-go, that you are using the insinuation of insanity to stifle the views of people arguing against you. I have been described as good-looking, intelligent and modest, cetrainly never as insane ( joking ).

Oh, I'm stressed John ! Being in neither the Liberal or Conservative camp, I'm stressed out by all the things mentioned in the blog ( chill out Acme, I know this is a serious discussion, but surely we can have some fun with it too ), PLUS, I have to worry about the National and provincial debt ( in Canada of course ). I ( and every other man, woman and child ) have the equivalent of a small mortgage thanks to our Government's continued attempts to buy elections by bribing us with reckless spending and refusal to even try to balance budgets. No true Liberal would ever worry about that.

But surely that doesn't show that either the manipulators or the manipulated are insane, does it Phi ? The manipulators, and Overtone can list several for you at a moment's notice, use every means available to them to further their own agenda and get their way. Things like campaign financing by big corporations or the use of religion ( family values ) to sway people's votes. The manipulated are often just ignorant of the issues and just react to campaign slogans or on an emotional level. So yes, you have some people who use Office or politics for their own agenda and not the greater good. You want to call these people bad; I'm OK with that. You also have some people who can easily be swayed by these 'bad' people. You want to call them ignorant ( of the issues ); I'm OK with that too. But if I choose not to have the Government and society be responsible for me and my actions, rather, recognise some personal responsability, or, if I hope the government governs as I live my life, with some restraints on spending, instead of living large today, while my heirs or future generations are stuck with the bill ( both examples of Conservative values ), does that make me insane? I choose to think not. You of course, are free to think of me as you will ( an example of one of many Liberal values that I cherish, 'tolerance' and 'right to an opinion' ). So, if you notice, it most certainly is about people.

Well yeah, I'm making it about people ( and including myself ). Does that make me thin skinned?

If you recognize yourself as 'insane', you're either wrong or insane. I don't see how you could have heard differently. But seriously. I have never disputed the fact that there are wingnuts on all sides of the political spectrum, and yes a lot of them are Republicans. What I have said is that SOME Conservative principles are beneficial to society and to me ( in my opinion ). I am also of the opinion that SOME Liberal principles are beneficial to society ( and me of course ). I have weighted these principles, and other policies put forward at election time, and directed my voting accordingly. Sadly, never in an American election, even though your elections affect us almost as much as our own do. I believe a lot of other people do as I do, But maybe the US is more ideological and people tend to vote as they and their families always have, without actually examining the issues. From my perspective, that doesn't give me the right to call others with differing opinions, 'insane'. And of course I don't have Overtone's perspective; he may be really pissed-off at the state of American politics ( with a lot of good reasons ). And he may see fit to call those he blames for the current state of affairs 'insane'. That's his personal choice to do so.

I don't see how your post or link disproves my assertion. The corporation mentioned in your link, along with many others were set up by the government to provide jobs. Some of these corporations even provided money to other corporations, such as the state, or even at the local level, such as municipalities, to provide jobs for people. That is the difference, NO handouts were provided to people, jobs were. That's what fueled the recovery ! I made NO mention of tax cuts to anyone, rich or poor, in any of my posts, nor of the government giving money to rich people for the purpose of hiring. I said money was given to corporations like the one set up by the government mentioned in your link, or associations, like farmers and labour unions ( although most of these corporations/associations were run by comparatively rich people ) Maybe my understanding of economics is limited, but I do know some history. All money was provided from the top-down, and what actually filtered down to the people was JOBS. Organizations/corporations got money; people got jobs ! So since you seem to have a better grasp of economics, maybe you can explain to me how that's different from my ( limited ) understanding of 'trickle down'. As for the second half of your post ( not actually addressed to me ), where you mention how all the crap spouted by Republican 'talking heads' came back to bite them in the ass after GWB took office, I agree with you. But how is that different from Democrat promises of change, like shutting down Guantanamo, getting out of Iraq, restoring the economy to Clinton era levels, resolving immigration issues etc. How did that work out ? The realities of office are always different from the fantasy of campaign promises ! By yours ( and John's ) definition, are we, then, ALL insane for believing the things which get said during elections ( or by paid-for shills and 'talking heads' ) ?

You guys ????? First off, don't attribute arguments to me that I haven't made. Secondly, I am a Canadian and probably far more liberal than you'll ever be. I just have an aversion to calling others names or insulting their integrity/credibility. You on the other hand have no such aversion as you've demonstrated in every one of your posts. I believe everyone has a right to an opinion, and calling them names or 'labelling' then is an ignorant attempt at dismissing their opinion. And yes, President Obama could have re-negotiated or imposed further rules on the bail-out, unlike the war financing. You still seem to think that the government sent out cheques to people post the great depression, and 'hired' them individually to do work ( it was after all the people's own money they were re-distributing ). They did not ! They either set-up corporations or hired corporations to assign make work projects to. These corporations, in turn hired the people such that unemployment fell drastically, and as more and more people found work, increased confidence led to more spending. That's what turned around the economy! And don't spout any bullsh*t about Hitler or Mussolini. What do they have to do with anything ? Or do you think that by associating me with them you can de-value my argument ? Like you do with the namecalling ?

Maybe you should look at a simple definition of 'trickle down' economics ( later re-christened ' supply side economics' for spin ), overtone. " Giving tax breaks to the wealthy and big business, as they supply the jobs which will improve the economy for all " Now you're right, tax breaks were not provided to the rich, but massive amounts of money were provided to big business, who then provided the jobs that turned around the great depression. The term 'trickle down economics' may not have been in use at the time , but that is essentially what it was ! And sure, the Troubled Asset Relief ( or is it Release ) program was initiated by GWB in 2008, and the first half of the bail out went out in Oct-Nov of that year. The second half did not get released until the spring of 2009, when BO was in office, meaning he also approved of the method of dealing with the situation ( again, not passing judgement, just statement of facts ). And if you go back to my post #241, you'll see that I had stated that it is not only conservatives, but also supposed liberals ( President BO ), that throw money at big business if the situation deems it necessary. Oh, and making a thinly veiled implication that my memory is failing me, I'm trying to re-write history or live in a fictional world, is simply an attack on me, not my argument. The only purpose of which is to discredit my ideas and opinions similarly to what the title of this thread attempts to do. I thought you were above that overtone. I must have been crazy !