heyrabbit

howard roark

The U.S. is a constitutional democracy, which means you have the right to vote for people like Obama. The problem with the U.S. is not primarily political, but philosophical. The U.S. needs reason

There is no logical sequence of causality that links de-regulation to recessions. De-regulation isn't teh cause of the economic crisis, and it's not a knock against free market economics, because the economic problems are caused by regulation, not de-regulation.The CRA literally forced banks to lend subprime mortages. Aside from that, the gov't created easy opportunity for lenders to sell subprime mortages by financially backing Freddie and Fannie. Then you have the 700 billion dollar bail-out to prop-up the housing market. In fact, it's a perfect against gov't interference in the economy. What makes socialism evil doesn't disappear when you practice it less. Socialism is literally the negation of Capitalism. it's a system based on altruism, on the violation of every individual's rights. it necessarily causes totalitarian dictatorships, by its very nature. Capitalism, on the other hand, is the only moral and only practical system in history. it's the correct system. I'm talking about Laissez-faire Capitalism.

When I say it's a failed system, I'm referring to any country that practices it, to whatever extent, which happens to be every country in the world, including mixed economies such as Canada and Sweden. The old Soviet Union is just one of the best examples of Socialism, along with Nazi Germany and Cuba. What's terrible about dying waiting for an operation in Sweden, or not being able to afford a car, or paying 25% in taxes on your food? They have the exact same problems that are typical of socialist influence. Laissez-faire capitalism is the antithesis of Socialism. Or, Socialism is the negation of Capitalism. LF Capitalism is the only moral system in human history. Morglor: Study economics. Briefly explain to me how you think a lack of "government regulation" has caused the crisis. Also, tell me what you think inflation is.

;) One thing that I think hasn't been mentioned is the proposed subisidy cut to the parties, which was one of the supposed reasons for the forming of the coalition, along with Harper's failure to present a plan to "fix" the economy. What you won't hear anywhere is what is required to "fix" an economy, or what constitutes "breaking" it. The truth is that there's really no such thing as a broken economy. An economy that's in poor shape is so because it was inhibited or interfered with, an act possibly only to the government. Recessions are the result of inflation. Inflation is caused by the government, when it inflates the money supply. The government's control over economics, therefore, is exactly what causes recessions. The removal of subsidies, such as the one poposed by Harper, is exactly what is needed to improve the economy. Not surprisingly, this infuriated you-know-who, the slightly more Socialist party leaders. (Big surprise, government subsidy is a Socialist principle.) Socialism is a failed economic system. Everyone should be terrified of Layton and Dion. Layton specifically had no chance in hell of ever becoming PM. The man has admitted to wanting to suspend oil production in favor of the environment (!). His ideas are too Socialist even by the standards of the large majority of the population, which is politically "moderate". I don't think co-operation necessarily results in good ideas, and I think that's a stupid reason to support the coalition. We don't need co-operation, we need someone to think. And the first question they need to ask is, "What's an economy and how does it operate?". Nobody in parliament has asked that question or found the answer to it. I'm annoyed. So all your ideas to improve the economy involve interfering with it, preventing it from being an economy. Don't come crying to me if the country becomes fucked up by two stupid Socialists you approved of.

got friendly with Matt Good, at some point, apparently!

That's a good idea. Though at a certain age, your kids would probably resent you if you snooped on their private life, especially if they didn't know you're monitoring what they're doing. I'm talking about 13 and 14 y/o's, who are still kids but starting to gain independence. Do you spy on them then?

So basically I need to reformat the c: drive and when I click to delete the partition, it says I'm not allowed. I have the XP service pack 2 update. I called Microsoft, who transfered me to some guy in india. After much struggle in trying to understand what he was saying, he got me to change the boot order, and then said there was nothing else he could do. what? I don't want to haul ass my PC to a store when there's something easy I can do to fix it. Any ideas?

Nobody has complemented and collaborated with Matt as perfectly as Genn did. Matt didn't "write everything", just the vast majority of it. Sadly, the only way they'll get back together is if Matt and Genn both hit their heads and suffer amnesia.

On the positive side, you're able to get pretty much anywhere in Toronto in under an hour more or less. That's a really big plus to anyone starting out in a new city, especially if you don't have a car, and especially considering the rising cost of gas. If you find work relatively close to where you live, you can buy a bike and get around no problem. Lots of people do that. The biggest downside to Toronto has to be that it's the most multicultural(racist) and one of the most liberal cities in the world. The city is separated into dozens of sub-groups, divided by culture and race. There's Greek town, little Italy and like 5 china towns. You name it, it's here. There have been times when I needed directions and I couldn't even find anyone who spoke English. Especially if you move to the suburbs, there's a good chance you could end up in an area where there are you'd be a minority as a white person, where nobody speaks English and where nobody has any real intention of learning the language. More on the plus side, there's tons of shops and theaters and pretty much anything you want to do, you can find it somewhere here. If you want to be a beatnik or a hippie, this is as good a place as any. There are are tons of organic food stores and hte like downtown. I don't know how hard it is to find a job in graphic design, but I imagine that that's the type of career that is never really in super high demand, so this might be as good a place as any. My brother's friend just got hired by the first place he applied to, for graphic design. My cousin's gf does graphic design here and loves it. *There are lots of homeless and or mentally ill people who harass you for money in the downtown core. *Our Mayor is an idiot. So is our premier. Can't think of anything else.

The thing is that with the rise in technology and drop in philosophy, the culture requires that parents be far more responsible than ever before. From the time your parents (or grandparents) grew up to now, this is a totally different world. And that is unprecedented in human history. The answer is an easy one. Parents are responsible. it's harder to be responsible, but they're still responsible. To the idea that the internet causes children to be preyed upon, you can add to those other fallacies, like when people blame food for fat people, or guns for murder, or stupidity for Obama. etc

Those definitions in response to marx. In actuality, I think "threadshitting" is used to mean posts that people don't like, whether that means someone says something you don't like, or whether it's a post that demands too much of the reader. So that's childish. If most people don't like my posts, that doesn't mean they're shit. One person's threadshitting is another person's stimulating conversation. I view dropping short, narrow, perfunctory remarks as being more suitable to be called "shit". So what, that's my subjective taste. I put quite a lot of effort into a lot of my posts. They're often long and have a lot of substance, like a long neat turd, easily scrolled past, as opposed to a multitude of small turds. I think it's boring if threads are narrow and stagnant. This particular conversation digressed because you responded to different parts of my argument. So what, that's normal. The whole point of having a "forum" is to exchange a wide range of ideas and opinions from lots of different people on a wide range of topics. Sometimes I feel like responding to things without having to always originate a thread, so sue me. I've never interrupted a conversation to say, "I'd like to announce that I am now broaching the subject of ____". Threads are meant to start things going, they're not file folders. If people didn't digress and expand into different areas related to the original topic, then there'd be nothing to say. I don't view anything other than a two line estimate of the title topic as being off topic. I'm not concerned about people's insults. That's "threadshitting to me", boring and pointless. Hardly anyone insults me, and if they do, they never do a good job. it only makes them look stupid. I don't think you should be concerned either. Like I said before, I do not view argument as at all inherently hostile. (Lots of people do, which is why they end up giving insults when they lose. ) I'm disappointed if you view debating as burdensome. But if that's the case, I guess yo'ud better stop. By the way, Happy Birthday!

;) Religion causes adults to marry children. Sex is a part of marriage, therefore it stands to reason that religion causes pedophilia. I don't know enough about pedophilia to say to what extent the problem is genetic. The problem is obviously biological and psychological and you can draw analogies to gay sex. Maybe some are born with that desire. Maybe under conditions of extreme stress people develop that desire, or maybe they just satisfy the desire with the opportunity that's readily available to them, like prison sex (How much of prison sex is motivated by a desire for men as opposed to a desire for sex in general?). It could be that the ability maniulate children without getting caught is way more of a factor than a desire to sleep with children specifically. Though many of them prefer prefer boys over girls, which only adds to their deviancy. At any rate, it appears to me that they are not just creative and dedicated pedophiles, who entered the profession for that purpose, as opposed to the less venturous pedophiles who stick to grabbing kids in McDonald's washrooms. I don't think you are really arguing that sexual abuse by priests is some sort of myth. That's a premise that the whole argument rests on. The question isn't whether or not it is happening but, rather, why it is happening. The 0.2% was actually the amount of proven abusers. The 4% was thrown out as an estimate of abusers. Whicever number is closer to the truth, it's clear that abuse by priests is not some sort of myth or abberation. The common denominator is their priesthood. That is why the debate exists in the first place, for the very reason that it is a niche career. There is no fallacy because my argument isn't that religion creates a propensity for pedophilia (That argument is incomplete, for the same reasons that it's not enough to say that religion causes murder). The likelihood of a person who's religious to be a pedophile is astronomically low, of course. But the likelihood of being a priest who's a pedophile is quite high. Concurrently and coincidentally, the likelihood of a Catholic priest to be religious is also fairly high. I don't know what specific scripture supports this, although I know that it is an expression of Christian doctrine and is in entirely justifiable for just about every major religion. (It is no more or less justifiable than mostly anything else you can justify doing with the Bible). If God is the most virtuous being in the universe, the model being for millions people, than what's wrong with him setting the example of magically inseminating (raping) the virgin Mary, who was known to be about 14 at the time. He was curteous enough to ask first, I'll give him that. D'lite, I don't expect anyone on an MG forum to value me :angry: I'd be worried if they did. But it's obvious that neither of us post here just because we're bored. Threadshitting: Beating someone so bad in an argument that they can't respond and instead accuse you of threadshitting. Threadconstipation: Difficulty getting it out causing frustration, often resulting in an explosion of verbal diarrhea and insults.

Yeah, I know that Corey Haim(SP?) had a bad relationship with the producers because of the whole drug thing over the years. On IMDB it says he's in the movie, but I don't see him in the preview.

D'lite, I don't view argument as inherently hostile nor do I view an attack on my ideas as an attack against me. If someone wants to argues with me, I am not "offended". Sounds like you do get offended. So if it annoys you, then it's probably not a healthy thing for you to do. But, at the same time, it's also not healthy not to be unable to argue. You're alright because you won't shut-up, even though you say you want to. ;) I'm anything but a diplomat. So what? That doesn't mean I'm not civil, and I almost never resort to personal attacks, even though others usually do with me. I really do not care if the whole world doesn't want to debate with me. If I want people to tolerate me, that doesn't mean I'm going to change my ideas. Those who are intimidated by debate shouldn't be arguing anyway, so perhapbs my way of speaking weeds those people out. Most people don't talk to me on here, but some do, and I like debating with those who understand the importance of a benevolent exchange of ideas. I am well aware that I could broaden my audience if I talked in a certain way, but I also know that more people read what I say than those who respond. Absolutes are not only necessary in argument, but in anything you say or think. If there's no use for absolutes, then there's no point in saying or thinking anything... What does that say when people will only argue with me if there's nothing to argue about, when I pretend that absolutes don't exist, that nothing is right or wrong or good and bad? Everyone will listen only to me when I don't say anything . Well, I do not care to appeal to the cult of moral grayness. I'd rather say something and have a few listen.

Sorry about the late reply. I'm not always busy, but I have been, and I also had a concussion that scrambled my eggs and put me out of commission for a little while. My argument is obviously not that all religious people are pedophiles but, rather, that there are aspects of certain religions that predispose people to pedophilia. I've heard different numbers on the amount of Priests who are abusers. Some say 4% of priests are accused of abusing. Others say 0.2% of priests in America are proven abusers. Whatever the number actually are, it's reasonable to say that a lot of priests have been pedophiles. Just why that is, I can only speculate. It seems like a reasonable inference to make, that living a life of celibacy, combined with a position of close proximity and trust with children, is something that at the very least creates a strong opportunity for that crime. We know many take advantage of that opportunity. So is their motive completely unrelated from their beliefs? I doubt it, but I can't prove it. For some denominations of Christianity and most of the main religions, pedopihlia is an integral a part of life, because there is no strict age limit on marriage. Both Islam and the Church of LDS uses puberty as some vague guideline for the acceptable marriage age. And because these customs are part of these religions, people live accordingly. These girls and boys are indoctrinated from childhood to believe that a celestial marriage is required of them. And for anyone isn't successfully brainwashed, are threatened with dead if they leave. Pedophilia is something that is just not prevalent in every occupation. There is no epidemic of pedophile architects, or radio broadcasters who systematically rape children all over the country. You don't hear thousands of sexual assault accusations made against lawyers, or mail men, or bus drivers, or accountants. Why would that be? There is just nothing in the world-view of a molecular biologists that makes them more susceptible to molesting children.

Links please! for the KMFDM covers

I love that one too AOB. here'a n amateur 3 Libras by one of my fav youtube musiciansa and his friend.

I came across this article this morning http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/16/polyga...apes/index.html

Way to spoil my hopes and dreams... It's probably lacking Kiefer Sutherland as a key vampire ingredient

Looks like a fun movie ;) Trailer

Well, you've got the Catholic church which is a perfect recipe for pedophiles. There's an epidemic of priests who sexually repress themselves until they turn into child molesters. You've also got entire Mormon polygamous communities that systematically rape children, damaging them psychologically for life, forcing girls as young as 15 or 13 to share husbands with other girls, and much of the time it's incestuous, with sister's sharing husbands who are their grandfathers or uncles. etc As for Islam, I'm not sure how much of that goes on. But, the prophet Mohammed, on whom billions of people base their lives, was a child molester who raped 9 year old girls.

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I don't see political ideology as involving abstractions too broad for anyone here to comprehend. There's really no way to discuss the race without talking about those characteristics that are essential to the candidates and their policies; oherwise, there is no debate taking place, instead just a succession of opinions that end before they've been begun, ideas that never get quantified. That's how lots of the other threads in this forum operate. i.e. To the question:"What's your favorite food", people might respond with "PIZZZXCA", "SPAGHETTI", "CHICKEN". That's fine in the open discussion forum. Comments and opinions here that are narrow in scope are more of a burden for me to read than anything else, because I don't really care how anyone feels about the race. I want to know what people think about the race. "Thinking" implies a cognitive process of observing and weighing evidence. So when someone say "I think...", what's implied is that they thought something. And maybe I'm over-ambitious, but I actually want to know what everyone thinks, if they think anything. When I want specifics on a campaign, I can just read a newspaper or websites like anyone else. If everyone's going to get annoyed with me for making anything other than little perfunctory remarks,which,incidentally, is what has happened in some other threads, then maybe I'll just stop posting here. I don't want to "shit" up threads. Later on I'll pick some specifics about the campaign and talk about it, if I'm allowed. P.S. Why am I wrong?

That's never happened to me, maybe back in the day when pictures would load realllly slow, when the internet was a new thing

Anyone who says there's no point in concerning themselves with the philosophy of any candidate likely to win the presidency, is essentially deciding to not concern themselves with the voting process altogether, because all the candidates are similar in their philosophies. All the candidates are socialists to some degree, religious to some degree or another. They are all economic and religious "moderates". So, then, what's the point in talking about it? Well, there are lots of points. How about, they are going to be elected and what they do will affect everyone's lives. That's one point. Remember also that there is no dichotomy between philosophy and policy. Philosophy isn't some side issue that has no real bearing on the actions of those candidates, it is the foundation, the fundamentally accepted premises which determine every preference and every action taken. What's implied in all of this is the phenomenon of majority rule, voting by consensus. It doesn't matter what policies a candidate adopts, so long as most people agree with it, because the criterion of what is good is not what is not what is rational and right, but what is chosen by most others. Since there is no yard stick by which to measure what's good and bad, what's good is simply whatever the herd decides is good or bad.