Blade

No one is working 3 jobs to pay bills unless they're paying for things they still don't have or have ridiculously unusual circumstances. I supported my wife and raised two children on 7 to 9 dollars an hour while going to college part-time for 7 years - she didn't work, she was a housewife. Just two minimum wage jobs would have been more per hour than that wage. I went from 7 to 9 over the course of 2 years, then quit because I refused to accept be passed over for promotion. Then, I worked in a door shop - another crappy ass job - for several more years before finally getting hired on by the phone company.

 

It didn't take me 3 jobs. It took me one job and disciplined living - common sense, living within our means. We had to keep driving our clunker while everyone else was buying new cars at 15% interest on 10 year notes. We stuck it out with our crappy 19" TV while everyone else was financing big screen TV's with a second mortgage.

 

I don't know where you're hearing this crap, but you are a classic example of conditioning. Where's the critical thinking you were talking about last post? Don't fall for the class envy mind trip - it's easy to externalize your problems onto other people, but it's not correct. It's a lie. The rich people don't make you poor. You make you poor.

let's see how a bout bush as a source fore the 3 jobs.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=84123

and fore critical thinking?

what about working hours

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/workhours.html

and health

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7184214/site/newsweek/

people should not put up with it. that's logic.

I can not grasp the ruthless enslavement the american people are undergoing by big company's. personally as an democrat socialist old school style (means dividing wealth equally and government taking care fore it's people who are not born in to wealth.) i would not put up with it at all.

The middle class is disappearing because we print more money, which dilutes the value of the dollar - and that's government that does that. Also, we send jobs overseas and don't manufacture things as much anymore. There's lots more, but no, it's not the "evil rich" out to get you and your family.

then the wages should change accordingly. inflation/deflation. people are not supposed to work 3 jobs to pay fore primary life needs. what happend to socialism? are the rich people telling the poor to fear socialism or something?

don't write Carlin off too fast. he is right about who owns the amerika media.

Rupert Murdoch.

and do company owners want critical thinkers? not in america they don't.

and the dissapearing of the middle class is also evidence that big bussnes is winning over education. normal people go on strike before they work 3 jobs and still can't pay the bills.

look at frence.

in responce to the miss teen carolina comedy thread. Now seriously. what would the real answer be?

this movie is about a monopoly and a strong union that's the blame

20/20 Stupid in America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA

in this stand up comedy big company's are the blam that want's to keep their workers stupid so they don't know any better.

George Carlin: education and the owners of America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccYoVnBc_fk

or are they both right.

nobody knows or has an opinion? i find that hard to belive. don't be scared.

Blade, why don't you speak your mind thoroughly and then hang around and defend your position? Much more interesting that way. I think you'll find that nobody here is really interested in hit-and-run posts.

 

Besides, one-liners are for ideologues. Or as George Lucas put it, "Only the Sith speak in absolutes." (Isn't it amusingly ironic that a Jedi said that? You know, speaking in absolutes....)

well fore one thing. the forums here are not active enough to hang around and f5 all the time.

and how am i supposed to put that long documentary in words.

War is fore the war profiteers

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-6621486727392146155&q=war+profiteers&total=431&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Medical insurance will not dissapear. People in my country can get treatment without medical insurrance but they will be fined because they don't have insurrance. here it's illigal to not be insurred.

And here in the Netherlands it's illigal fore hospital to refuse treatment. i'm not sure what will happen if they refuse to threat an not insured person but i am sure there will be hell to pay.

Hospitals get government money if they threat not insurred people.

Miss South Carolina gets a second chance. Not so good for her

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiJBKmOWphs

Your missing the point, what reason would I have for attacking something that causes no harm ? And who gives a sh*t why something beneficial to nature, stems from an irrational belief ? How would society function, if you took away irrational belief...A. I can only speculate B. it doesn't retract from the human condition e.g greed, control et.c

 

Also, reducing problems down to an irrational belief in something, means your attacking any human endeavour that was built on 'belief'. That doesn't make sense, because there's been a huge amount of progress built on so-called belief...'but that progress is stupid, because it stems from an irrational belief in something ?!?' How does that statement make sense ?

In short: The diffrence between truth and lies.

gotta love video google.

This interview was filmed for the TV documentary "Root of All Evil?" but was left out of the final version. Time restrictions dictated that ... alle » not all interviews filmed could be used. This was especially regrettable in the case of the McGrath interview, which is therefore offered here now, unedited.

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=6474278760369344626&q=dawkins+duration%3Along&total=146&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

my 2 cents on time travel:

Time in the first place is onley a measurement. Time is not real. So how can time travel ever be real?

That Documentary Obsession: radical Islams war against the west

is a better warning about radical religions then the whole CNN series.

That "Documentary" Obsession: radical Islams war against the west

Is that just really biased? How much of that is true?

R. Dawkings could / should have used more material from Derren Brown fore illustration.

like:

Derren Brown "voodoo"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW2yKlNFFuU

Derren Brown "instant conversion" part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sq-YUdq1OI

Derren Brown "instant conversion" part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DylNVUN_3I

Derren Brown - Cold Reading

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btP_vy5cQq4

Who's gonna watch CNN's Gods warriors?

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/gods.warriors/

seems interresting.

Polution should be seen as displacement.

fore instance: Quicksilver can be a pollutand when it's arround humans and animals. But when it's found in its natural surroundings then that's fine.

Every thing we use todat was already present on this planet in one form or another.

When we get oil to the survace and burn it as fuel this could have consequences.

The world oceans can't absorb all that co2 that fast and/or nature can't absob all of that co2.

People who doubt if global warming is man made or not. I don't know either.

Would it not make sense if air poluting would be minimized anyway fore the sake of people and nature.

would that make sense?

Thank you fore the answers. Now i know fore sure HIV causes AIDS.

but still HIV causes AIDS. just because other things can cause it doesn't mean that HIV suddenly can't.

 

an analogy would be, i push something over using my left hand. that doesn't instantly mean that there is no physical way for my right hand to push something over.

Hmmm.....

Then it can also mean that Duesberg's (unproven but reasonable) hypothesis and the current HIV-AIDS hypothesis can both be true

Note that the video you linked provides zero alternate information that counters the mountain of evidence currently available to us which is indicative of the fact that HIV causes AIDS.

Duesberg's (unproven but reasonable) hypothesis is that long term drug use will undermine the immune system. He covers other risk groups: many gay men tend to be drug users (esp. nitrite inhalants, or "poppers", as aphrodisiacs) ( Documentation here), babies dying from AIDS got drugs via their pregnant drug-using mothers, blood transfusion recipients are often already sick and die from the pre-existing illness (50% die within one year regardless of HIV status), hemophiliacs taking (toxic) Factor VIII get their clotting ability but lose their immune system.

He also defines a new risk group: people who take AZT, ddI, or ddC (all highly toxic products of cancer chemotherapy research) to stop HIV, end up with AIDS anyway. (SF HEAL adds D4T and 3TC to the list of toxic anti-retrovirals.)

In an interview for SPIN magazine , Duesberg complains that the same government which finances HIV-AIDS research will not finance drug-AIDS research. (Kary Mullis's hypothesis is that AIDS is caused not by HIV but by other retroviruses. Mullis, Charles Thomas Jr., and Phillip Johnson ask "What Causes AIDS?", but their answer is, basically, "something other than HIV".) A pathologist and toxicologist, Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati argues that AIDS is caused by various toxins.

Isn't it weird that there is on conclussive evidence?

but there is no proof that HIV inpairs the immume system. in that documentary atleast.

I got a question. Ever since i watched this documentary i wonder if it's true.

Dous anyone have proof that HIV causes aids?

documentary:

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=5064591712431946916&q=hiv+aids+fraud&total=48&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Disclaimer:

This dous not mean that if u have HIV-AIDS that u should not take medicines.

Do Whatever the doctors tell u.