Messages

On the other side, if he didn't fight it... the GOP would have lots of fodder for the next salvo of commercials. *Local Candidate Like Obama... and Obama likes teh Gays in the Military!!*

And that would harm his chances with his base or the center...HOW, exactly?  The people that would respond to that add are going to vote for Palin, anyway.

Apparently the GOP has replaced Obama's advisors with robots who tell him 95% of Americans are now Teabaggers.

You know what?

Two years ago, I voted Democrat because I swallowed Obama's bullshit. I fell for it hook, line, and sinker. I don't blame myself for being stupid (I mean, the facts added up well enough: Obama started dirt poor and had to work his ass off to get where he was, and there's really no logical reason to sell out at that point), but I do blame myself for being optimistic.

Obama and the Democrats have controlled Washington for 2 years now as a unit. They could have enacted serious reform: they could have scrapped Medicare and Medicaid and created a single-payer system and fucked the corrupt insurance companies right out of existenc, but they didn't. They could have brought the hammer of Thor down on Wall Street and obliterated corporate shenanigans, but they didn't. Obama single-handedly could order the DOJ to stop enforcing stupid Marijuana laws, even if the weren't repealed: he hasn't. He is the commander in chief; he could have ordered the DOD the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and closed Gitmo on day one. He didn't. He could have done a million things he was elected to do, but in every single case, he has sold the soul of reform for a few token votes from Republicans who hate him anyway. He isn't a stupid man, there's no way he doesn't realize this, therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that he did it on purpose.

Obama and the rest of the Democrats took the wave of Progressivism sweeping the country that began in 2006 and culminated in 2008 with his election, and they have effectively reversed it, and then some. Now, the country is more batshit crazy for failed economic and social policies than ever. And it isn't because progressive policies don't work (the meager progress the Democrats have made is making meager progress in the economy, for example) but because the Democrats have shit all over you with your own "Hope" for "Change".

Why would I vote for another Democrat? No, thanks. I can't defend them at the polls because they've given me nothing to defend except more of the same old bullshit that has been in Washington for 40 years. The only thing I have to thank Obama for is that I have been completely freed from the delusion that the broken American political system is capable of fixing itself.

WHERE?!!

          are the political cartoons?!

ATTENTION, LADIES...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6214655.stm

you make me smile
you make me laugh
you make me love my life

that is why i must
break up with you now.

appropriate news headlines (copyright; licenses available for interested Media outlets):

JUDGE LEGALIZES U.S. NAVY

GAYS LINE UP BEHIND NEW OPENINGS IN MILITARY

ARMY DROPS BAN, PANTS

US MILITARY: FROM DRAB TO FAB

MILITARY ABANDONS GAYDAR PROJECT

That belongs...on the front page.  Seriously.  Someone do that.

I am unoriginal when it comes to cooking so from now on I'm outsourcing all my meal plans to emealz.

Again I'd like to stress that content should be a major consideration, and so should parental involvement. I expect most of these "adverse effects" take place in kids who are just plopped down in front of a screen and ignored or left entirely to their own devices - and the same adverse effects probably occur among kids who are left without adequate guidance and supervision in any activity (or lack thereof). The key in my own experience is developing a relationship with your child where you are the mentor and he/she is the pupil, fostering creativity and curiosity, and using whatever media (tv/web/games/books/etc) to whatever extent as a tool in a larger activity, not as the direct object of the activity.

It may not be the case, but it seems like the wording of this study indicates the people conducting the study leave "computer use" and "television viewing" at that, as if three hours watching brainless funnies on YouTube is the equivalent of three hours watching something educational and thought-provoking, as if there is some magical radiation emanating from these devices that results in stupidity and developmental problems universally across all content and uses, which I don't accept.

Actually I didn't mean to quote you, just add to the convo. I'm heavily drugged at the moment.... lol. sorry

Any kid who isn't watching at least 2 hours of TV a day also probably has parents enforcing that as a rule.  IE, the parents are working hard at raising the kid.  So what *else* are those anti-TV parents doing that might help?

I think it's too much of a blanket statement to simply say "sitting in front of a screen." While "educational programming" is hardly a substitute for real experience, there should be some consideration in this study for the content of the programming being viewed for 2 or more hours a day.

My own kid is 4 right now; he's incredibly curious about the world, and I use media (TV, interwebs, etc) to stoke his curiosity and pose questions to him that make him think about things. As a result he has catapulted past his peers, not only in terms of simple factual 'book knowledge,' but real intuitive understanding of nature and awareness of and empathy for other people.

He already knows why the sky is blue, why grass is green, why the sun goes down and comes up, where the Moon came from, who the first President was (and the current one as well, much to the chagrin of my bigoted father-in-law), and lots of other stuff. And it isn't just reciting memorized words, but he can actually discuss this stuff. And I don't believe it would be possible to this extent without a lot of "infotainment" and "educational programming" on TV and the Internet.

The same goes for issues such as gay rights today. We'd be much better off targeting the culture and eliminating the need for legislation by changing the character of the country at its root, than by decreeing from a judicial pulpit or progressive legislature that it is now unacceptable to discriminate against gays. It is unacceptable, but you're not going to convince anybody of that by simply writing laws that spontaneously declare them to be villains. You'll actually reinforce bigotry that way, since it's a direct assault on a general assumption. It takes longer to do it the right way, but the results are more stable and more durable than simply passing a law and pretending that alone resolves the problem.

Horseshit.  Legislation is what ended Jim Crow, not asking the racists nicely.

Legislation ended Jim Crow (after it created a market for it in the first place), but it didn't change anybody's attitude. Only after years of being stuck with a system they resented did people end up accepting it. But even now, many people see that not as "progress" but as "aggression." And even if it isn't said so outright, it is also a big part of what drives Social Conservative stubbornness today - there is a sentiment that they "won't let that happen again." If the culture had been changed at a grassroots level before the legislation was passed, then there wouldn't be such an intense distrust of everything the Government does among social conservatives today.

Slavery was a States' Rights issue in 1860. The fact that it was a terrible institution doesn't change that. The States viewed it as a States' Rights issue, and that is the grounds they used legally in declaring their secession from the Union. South Carolina's declaration was obviously centered on slavery, but it was on slavery as a States' Rights issue, not on the morality or propriety of slavery itself.

Personally, I think the Federal Government was overstepping its bounds in moving toward the abolition of slavery, just like it now is comically out of proportion to its Constitutional role in this country. It may be that that is the only way America can really function as a cohesive society, but it doesn't change the basic fact that the Federal Government is way out of line with respect to the Constitution in a strictly legal sense.

This is the same argument that Conservatives have against Liberals, and that I actually agree with to some extent: social change is inefficient and causes all kinds of political and social turmoil when it is instituted by edict from the top down, rather than cultivated from the bottom up. Slavery was one of the first big example of that - forcing the abolition of slavery ended up creating the KKK, segregation, Jim Crow, and hostility and resentment of the Federal Government for generations among people who perceived themselves as the victims of "Northern Aggression."

The same goes for issues such as gay rights today. We'd be much better off targeting the culture and eliminating the need for legislation by changing the character of the country at its root, than by decreeing from a judicial pulpit or progressive legislature that it is now unacceptable to discriminate against gays. It is unacceptable, but you're not going to convince anybody of that by simply writing laws that spontaneously declare them to be villains. You'll actually reinforce bigotry that way, since it's a direct assault on a general assumption. It takes longer to do it the right way, but the results are more stable and more durable than simply passing a law and pretending that alone resolves the problem.

So basically I'm on the side of the CSA in Civil War discussions - not because I agree with what they were fighting for but because I disagree with what the Union was trying to do (eliminate the States' right to self-determination).

"chicken tender salad with crusty rolls"
i do not know what this entails. probably lettuce.

I LOVED YOU
but you were a strawberry gobstopper
stuck in the urethra of my heart

PS. there is no hope.