No. of Recommendations: 0
Is see that the Islamic protesters around the world are adopting the tactics of the liberal and radical left in the United States and Europe to attack the things they don't like.

I'm sure that liberals will support the use of their tactics by those with other political goals and sensitivities.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Oh, come on. . . Surely you can do better than this irrelevant swing and a miss. You can't just find anything wrong in the world and try to tie it to liberals or Democrats through some sort of twisted rationalization or ill-formed analogy. It is way too forced and completely ineffective. It just makes you look desperate and ill-informed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<< Oh, come on. . . Surely you can do better than this irrelevant swing and a miss. You can't just find anything wrong in the world and try to tie it to liberals or Democrats through some sort of twisted rationalization or ill-formed analogy. It is way too forced and completely ineffective. It just makes you look desperate and ill-informed.>>


The Islamic protesters have just the kind of arrogance, overconfidence and disrespect for the rights of others that are so characteristic of the liberal left and the far left.

Mirror images of each other, they are.

I suppose denial is the best policy.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How would you like it if a film shot in an Islamic state depicted Jesus Christ as a child molester?

Donna
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
"How would you like it if a film shot in an Islamic state depicted Jesus Christ as a child molester?" Donna


I wouldn't be out in the streets rioting and killing people. When artists depict artwork of urine soaked Jesus's and other things I just figure it's their interpretation of Christianity. I don't get my panties all in a wad about it.

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<< How would you like it if a film shot in an Islamic state depicted Jesus Christ as a child molester?

Donna>>



Somehow my liberal friends seem always to be concerned about what they have a right to do....

Not the right thing to do.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
When artists depict artwork of urine soaked Jesus's and other things I just figure it's their interpretation of Christianity. I don't get my panties all in a wad about it.

I think you'll live a long life, Art. Low stress. (My father was obese, a heavy smoker, a big eater, not an exerciser, and had T2 diabetes, but lived to nearly 88. He was pretty easy going.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Somehow my liberal friends seem always to be concerned about what they have a right to do....
Not the right thing to do.


I rec'd this not because I agree, exactly, but because I think it's an interesting point worth contemplating. And it resonates with something I read yesterday:

What Makes People Vote Republican (by a moral psychologist...yes, it makes sense ;-) ... no, I don't agree with everything he says, but I think he is largely correct in his analysis):

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Unity is not the great need of the hour, it is the eternal struggle of our immigrant nation. The three Durkheimian foundations of ingroup, authority, and purity are powerful tools in that struggle. Until Democrats understand this point, they will be vulnerable to the seductive but false belief that Americans vote for Republicans primarily because they have been duped into doing so.>>


Heh, heh! Republicans are safe for another generation if those posting on this board are an example of prevailing liberal sentiment!

Interesting article. Once I was a liberal and left wing radical. In 1984 I switched to the Republican Party. The article describes at least some of the reasons why.




Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Donna: "How would you like it if a film shot in an Islamic state depicted Jesus Christ as a child molester?"

I dunno....let's see....in Italy...you ever hear of 'Castrati'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato


"A castrato (Italian, plural: castrati) is a man with a singing voice equivalent to that of a soprano, mezzo-soprano, or contralto. The voice is produced by castration of the singer before puberty, or it occurs in one who, because of an endocrinological condition, never reaches sexual maturity.

Castration before puberty (or in its early stages) prevents a boy's larynx from being transformed by the normal physiological events of puberty. As a result, the vocal range of prepubescence (shared by both sexes) is largely retained, and the voice develops into adulthood in a unique way. Prepubescent castration for this purpose diminished greatly in the late 18th century and was made illegal in Italy in 1870."


It was done so 'he' could sing 'gods little tunes'.....in the church choir....heh heh....

And I'm sure all those who have suffered the wrath of the clergy..accused of having 'demons' or 'being possessed'...... with religious crap.....never had absolute terror inflicted upon them?


And we can go into 'black collar' crimes done by priests...by the tens of thousands, it turns out......


http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/1995/may95/betrayal.html


Each month, the FFRF newsletter has at least 100 instances of new crimes against kids..... in the 'name' of religion.

So if someone made a film......about how Jesus taught you to 'hate your mother and father'

" Luke, in his account of the life of Jesus, has the Messiah on record saying, “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple” "


Luke 14:26


t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"How would you like it if a film shot in an Islamic state depicted Jesus Christ as a child molester?

Donna "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Christianity teaches turning the other cheek and forgiveness of
sins.
We depend upon forgiveness.

Howie52
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We depend upon forgiveness.

Doesn't forgiveness depend upon apology?

Mitt called his book, "No Apology." Perhaps not a real CHristian.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I think you'll live a long life, Art. Low stress. (My father was obese, a heavy smoker, a big eater, not an exerciser, and had T2 diabetes, but lived to nearly 88. He was pretty easy going.)" - alstromeria


Oh God! Don't tell me that! I was counting on leaving this Earth in my early to mid 70's. At least that is my plan. I'm hoping to only have to make my retirement account last till like 76 or so. That's only 16 years away. I just don't see any reason to live much longer than that. By then I will have accomplished my bucket list.

I had lobster with melted butter when Linda came to visit on Thursday and today for lunch we made BLTs.

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Doesn't forgiveness depend upon apology?"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

No.
Forgiveness is a matter of faith - of belief.

Howie52

Governor Romney is not running for a religious position.
Neither is President Obama.
In the case of the Presidency, you have to ask yourself if President
Obama would either do anything different if he were reelected or if
you are happy with the results from his administration. He basically
stated that he would not do anything different during his DNC speech.
From that point onward, I know how my vote will go.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
. . . And it resonates with something I read yesterday:

What Makes People Vote Republican (by a moral psychologist...yes, it makes sense ;-) ... no, I don't agree with everything he says, but I think he is largely correct in his analysis):

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html


I'm sorry, alstro, but my response to this article is, "what a steaming pile of horse puckey". Honestly, this is nothing more than a massive illogical rationalization for right wing ignorance and intolerance.

If people want to reach a conclusion, they can usually find a way to do so. The Democrats have historically failed to grasp this rule, choosing uninspiring and aloof candidates who thought that policy arguments were forms of persuasion.

I don't know on what basis this guy decided that liberals fail to grasp this. I read the rationalizations in the news and on these boards every day. I see people who have their mind made up and then rationalize the reason all the time. But why would I embrace this practice as a good way for society to improve our lives or make progress for future generations? Just because I think this method of determining political policy is inferior to a method that involves collecting data and applying rules of science and logic does not mean I fail to see how others act. Quit the contrary. I see that others act this way and actively identify this method as undesirable.

I would say that the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.

This is just biased, stupid BS. It shows complete ignorance on the part of this author. According to this guy, subjugating women, Blacks, and Latinos and criminalizing homosexual behavior "binds groups together and supports essential institutions and living in a sanctified and noble way". Could he be more biased and wrong? His claim makes sense only if you decide that the only groups and institutions that deserve to be bound and supported are those of angry, white, straight Christians. All you have to do to turn this argument against the author is become inclusive about the "groups" and "institutions" that you feel are deserving. Conservatives don't value binding and supportive behavior more than liberals. They are quite the opposite. They draw boundaries between their own narrow acceptable behavior groups and everyone else who is different. In fact, this is kind of a defining feature of social conservatism.

When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?

And why would I want to learn to see a narrow-minded, racist, dumb moral order as acceptable? I don't fail to see that life is easier for narrow-minded people if they get to surround themselves only with people who are just like them and subjugate everyone who isn't just like them to an inferior status. I get it. . . and I reject it. History proves this kind of exclusive culture and decisive policy doesn't advance society.

Then the author talks about moving in to a house where caste structure, subjugated women and servants is the norm. . . where his simple act of thanking another human being (the servant) for serving him was shunned. And once I liked them (remember that first principle of moral psychology) it was easy to take their perspective and to consider with an open mind the virtues they thought they were enacting.

This sounds like a complete moral failure on his part to me. In other words, he had no moral principles. He just decided what was right and wrong based on whether he liked the person who was engaged in the action. I have dined in palaces and I have dined at trash middens all over the world. I thank those who serve me or share my company. I won't form my opinion of others based solely on whether they thank others too, but I won't change my own moral codes simply because I like someone.

They want more prayer and spanking in schools, and less sex education and access to abortion? I didn't think those steps would reduce AIDS and teen pregnancy, but I could see why the religious right wanted to "thicken up" the moral climate of schools and discourage the view that children should be as free as possible to act on their desires.

The author is hard-pressed to rationalize this point so he reverts to a made-up phrase to cloud the reasoning. The conservatives want to "thicken up" the moral climate. I don't really know how thick the moral climate is nor how thick it should be. Apparently it should be thick enough to "discourage the view that children should be as free as possible to act on their own desires". Honestly, I don't know anyone, liberal, conservative or libertarian, who believes this.

Here's my alternative definition: morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.

First, his alternative definition is arbitrary and unjustified. I can't find any definition of morality in legitimate dictionaries that is even mentions suppression or regulation of selfishness. Second, this definition does not support his point. How selfish do you have to be to exclude women as equal in society? to believe it is acceptable to take actions to suppress Black, Latino and poor voters? That sounds incredibly selfish to me.

Enough. This article is too long and tedious to merit further effort.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<< I'm sorry, alstro, but my response to this article is, "what a steaming pile of horse puckey". Honestly, this is nothing more than a massive illogical rationalization for right wing ignorance and intolerance.
>>


I'm not at all surprised that Salary Guru rejects the premise of the article. As long as my liberal friends maintain their contempt for working class values, Republican political hegemony remains a real possibility.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
I'm not at all surprised that Salary Guru rejects the premise of the article.

Yeah. I generally do reject irrational nonsense.

As long as my liberal friends maintain their contempt for working class values, Republican political hegemony remains a real possibility.

I am not under the illusion that there are too few irrational people in the country to make the Party of Stupid viable. I do believe that time is working against them. I also believe that it is unfortunate that the US does not have a legitimate conservative party any longer. In the absence of rational, fact-driven opposition, the Democratic party has abandoned the working class almost as badly the Republican party. Increasingly we voters have a choice between the Koch/Murdoch Party and the Goldmann Sachs Party. Neither is taking care of national interests.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I know how my vote would go.

Me, too.

Let's see - tangible results:

1.Bailed out Wall St. and saved the financial sector.
2. Bailed out the auto industry and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, including their suppliers and related businesses, and the retailers who depend on them.
3. Ended the war in Iraq.
4. Tracked down and killed Bin Laden.
5. And if the economy is all his fault, well, the S&P 500 just hit a 5-yr. high.

And as for making a change,...
The Republicans gave him the mess he inhereited.
The Republicans have obstructed his efforts to do more.

So...vote for the Republicans now?
Nope. Not going to do it. Not prudent. (As Geo. Bush I would say.)

Bill


cross-posted from PA:
http://boards.fool.com/some-real-tangible-results-in-the-las...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<2. Bailed out the auto industry and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, including their suppliers and related businesses, and the retailers who depend on them.>>



Had General Motors and Chrysler gone Bk, they would simply have been reorganized and continued in business at vastly lower cost to the government.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Had General Motors and Chrysler gone Bk, they would simply have been reorganized and continued in business at vastly lower cost to the government.

Have you been in some kind of transporter accident where you wound up in an entirely different space-time continuum?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Had General Motors and Chrysler gone Bk, they would simply have been reorganized and continued in business at vastly lower cost to the government.

Have you been in some kind of transporter accident where you wound up in an entirely different space-time continuum?>>



MORE denial of reality by the liberal left!


BK courts regularly sever functional companies from overhanging debt and send them on their way. It's one of the major purposes of bankruptcy law.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
Had General Motors and Chrysler gone Bk, they would simply have been reorganized and continued in business at vastly lower cost to the government.

Another fantasy of the right. In order to stay in business during bankruptcy, a business must still have cash to pay suppliers, ongoing expenses, workers, and so on. Usually once a firm declares bankruptcy it can line up new sources of cash, collateralized by equipment, future cash flows, inventory and so on, because old debtor claims on such have been negated.

Unfortunately during the crash of 2007/2008, there was NO FINANCING AVAILABLE from any source at any price. Conservatives can't seem to understand that not everything is the same, always. The recent crash was a worldwide liquidity lockup, where no one was willing to finance ANYTHING for fear of the entire world economy collapsing.

Rather than work through a traditional bankruptcy with debtor in possession financing, GM and Chrysler would have had no option but to proceed directly to liquidation. That, of course, would have rippled far beyond the several hundred thousand direct employees of the firms, and would have taken down suppliers in glass, rubber, steel, and electronics, as well as dealerships around the country who would have had no automobiles to sell.

Someday, eventually, that slack would have been picked up by Toyota or whoever, but in the meantime it would have had the same kinds of effects as the crash if 1929, which took down major swaths of the American economy, and which did not fully recover for 15 years, and then only with the largest Keynesian stimulus in the history of mankind: World War II. And there is no assurance that the suppliers which went under would be replaced by American suppliers; more likely much of that value chain would have been replaced offshore, further contributing to the decline of the American manufacturing sector.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Someday, eventually, that slack would have been picked up by Toyota or whoever, but in the meantime it would have had the same kinds of effects as the crash if 1929, which took down major swaths of the American economy, and which did not fully recover for 15 years, and then only with the largest Keynesian stimulus in the history of mankind: World War II. And there is no assurance that the suppliers which went under would be replaced by American suppliers; more likely much of that value chain would have been replaced offshore, further contributing to the decline of the American manufacturing sector." - Goofyhoofy
----------------


You know, I'm going to admit something here that few people on any internet board are willing to admit. I don't know enough about the subject to comment on it one way or the other. And that's the truth. The only time I even think about this kind of stuff is when I'm reading posts on these message boards.

When I read a lot of these kind of posts it all sounds good to me. It has so little to do with my day to day life that I can't relate to it. I need to take my wife's car in to get it serviced and I need to get a couple of keys made. I'm also planning on making some homemade spaghetti sauce around lunch time. That is what mostly occupies my mind, what errands I have to run that day and what I'm fixing to cook.

Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
MORE denial of reality by the liberal left!


BK courts regularly sever functional companies from overhanging debt and send them on their way. It's one of the major purposes of bankruptcy law.


Dude, Chrysler and GM did go bankrupt.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<< Unfortunately during the crash of 2007/2008, there was NO FINANCING AVAILABLE from any source at any price. Conservatives can't seem to understand that not everything is the same, always. The recent crash was a worldwide liquidity lockup, where no one was willing to finance ANYTHING for fear of the entire world economy collapsing. >>


Another fantasy of the left.

Offer a cheap deal and institutions with cash or credit would be in their buying up cheap assets.

And in a distress sale, even the UAW was willing to bargain away retirement and other obligations. It was an opportunity lost to get a lot of things reformed and put on a sound basis.

Which is exactly why the bail out occurred. The UAW, instead of bailing out General Motors, had it's own pension schemes and medical schemes bailed out by Obama.


Frankly I would have let the whole mess collapse, and then use judicious Federal spending and credit to get things going again after the collapse.

Instead, Obama and the Democrats wonder why the same bad actors are still in place. Duh@!!! It's because you guys BAILED THEM OUT and KEPT THEM IN PLACE! Bush was no better, unfortunately.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Dude, Chrysler and GM did go bankrupt.>>


Yes, and they got huge Federal bailouts as well.


Obama should have left it up to the BK courts where it belonged.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Have you been in some kind of transporter accident where you wound up in an entirely different space-time continuum?

That would explain a lot.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Had General Motors and Chrysler gone Bk, they would simply have been reorganized and continued in business at vastly lower cost to the government.

Have you been in some kind of transporter accident where you wound up in an entirely different space-time continuum?>>


As if Bankruptcy Courts didn't do that kind of thing EVERY DAY!




Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
As if Bankruptcy Courts didn't do that kind of thing EVERY DAY!

Wow, you continue to demonstrate your rabid ignorance. There is Chapter 11 - which is "reorganization." There is also Chapter 7, which is "liquidation." If it's so easy to keep going, why do you suppose any business ever goes through Chapter 7 liquidation?

Another fantasy of the left.
Offer a cheap deal and institutions with cash or credit would be in their buying up cheap assets.


Bankruptcy proceedings take months, occasionally years, unless you - and all your creditors - agree overnight to liquidation. Otherwise you may have inventory walk out the door, certain favored vendors paid off while others get nothing, and so on. In order to proceed rationally, outside auditors, courts, and industry experts get involved to decide who gets what and how the business is to proceed, and whether that is a viable plan or not.

If you are going to "keep going" after the bankruptcy (Chapter 11, rather than 7) you need cash to pay the bills in the intervening time. Workers do not come to work without a paycheck, vendors will not advance inventory without payment, landlords must be paid, the electric company wants its check. Indeed, all of these creditors become more aggressive about payment, not less.

As for your fantasy that "it's a fantasy of the left", I'm sorry, but I was there. You were in your basement playing with gas pipes or something.

My wife was SVP of a business employing 1500 people, in business for 15 years, doing over $300 million a year in sales. Never had any debt, except once, for a short term loan to build a new facility since they had terribly outgrown their original one. Unfortunately that loan was taken out in early 2007, and the market collapsed and people stopped buying in late 2007 and 2008.

The company was on the verge of bankruptcy, and THERE WAS NO BRIDGE MONEY TO BE HAD AT ANY PRICE. A new CEO, one with 30 years of bankruptcy experience was brought in, and he spent the next three months flying all over the world looking for enough to keep the business operating. Nobody wanted to play. Everybody was so afraid everything was collapsing that they all sat on their money.

With days to spare before liquidation, he found some Japanese investors who took major equity portions in return for a few months' operating expenses. The company managed to get its head above water, laid off 40% of the workforce, stiffed vendors who were owed, fell behind on tax payments, and did some other bad stuff - but survived.

Nobody, nowhere, wanted to lend them the paltry sum they needed, and somehow you think there was some giant pot of money somewhere that would keep a business as vast as General Motors and Chrysler going for months while things got sorted out.

It's a shame when such desperate ignorance is rewarded by even wasting the electrons for you to write it. You do not know what you are talking about. You are spouting Right Wing fantasies, cobbled together from bits and shards of things somebody else said somewhere, and you simply don't have the slightest idea what you are saying.

Period.

General Motors would have been in liquidation, hundreds of thousands would have been unemployed instantly, with a million or more unemployed shortly thereafter if anyone had listened to your sage advice. Thank goodness nobody paid attention to you.
 
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<If you are going to "keep going" after the bankruptcy (Chapter 11, rather than 7) you need cash to pay the bills in the intervening time. Workers do not come to work without a paycheck, vendors will not advance inventory without payment, landlords must be paid, the electric company wants its check.>>


Actually, you would be surprised what all those creditors will sometimes do do in order to keep a cusrtomer in business.

Just for openers, I'll bet that hundreds of thousand of UAW workers would have taken a variety of sharp cuts in order to keep their jobs.


But go ahead Goofyhoofy, keep imagining that your way is the only way. It's what you usually do and what you are good at doing.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Just for openers, I'll bet that hundreds of thousand of UAW workers would have taken a variety of sharp cuts in order to keep their jobs.

Dude: If they took a "sharp cut" of 90%, there still wasn't money to pay them the remaining 10% at the end of the week. Now let's repeat this with tire suppliers, windshield suppliers, metal producers, fastener companies, upholstery manufacturers, financial services companies, computer OEM's, trucking companies, distributors, parts suppliers and everybody else, and let's get it all done in a week or two.

Very realistic.

But go ahead Goofyhoofy, keep imagining that your way is the only way.

Said the kettle to the pot. You clearly know nothing about bankruptcy, nor are you willing to learn, obviously. Why am I not surprised?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Just for openers, I'll bet that hundreds of thousand of UAW workers would have taken a variety of sharp cuts in order to keep their jobs.

Uh, they did take a variety of sharp cuts.

But I'm still waiting to hear your explanation why and how GM and Chrysler should have filed bankruptcy and had a judge administer the proceedings, instead of what they did do, which was filing Chapter 11 and having a judge administer the proceedings.

I realize you have a strong preference for the former, but maybe you could clarify your objections to the latter.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<But I'm still waiting to hear your explanation why and how GM and Chrysler should have filed bankruptcy and had a judge administer the proceedings, instead of what they did do, which was filing Chapter 11 and having a judge administer the proceedings.

I realize you have a strong preference for the former, but maybe you could clarify your objections to the latter.>>


Not many bankruptcy action have the President of the United States raining billions of dollars of bailouts on the filing company, hoping to get political credit for doing so in the next election, which is exactly what has happened.

Meanwhile the taxpayers have been hosed.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top