rn79870 wrote: Without "libbies" there would be no Hoover dam

Hoover was initially the Federal Representative on the dam project as he was the appointed Secretary of Commerce. Thus, he was there based on the Presidents direction. Which President? Warren Harding (Republican)

But it was built as part of a "works program" which, according to the majority of people herein, is a nasty liberal idea.

Ah, Dr. Michael Savage (Ph.D. in nutritional ethnomedicine.) I guess he isn't part of the "Unholy Axis of Evil" (Rush, Sean and Bill) but maybe we can add him.

Let's keep thinking conservative...

I'm just pulling your chain. Reinstitute something similar to the "works program" where those who refuse to work and collect welfare must provide community service in order to receive their check. I would support that 100% because there would be people dropping welfare like rats off a sinking ship.

Nice cartoon. In a true Conservative world the tax check would be small and after you leave the gas pump (which also has taxes) you could hit Berger King.

audtatious wrote:Reinstitute something similar to the "works program" where those who refuse to work and collect welfare must provide community service in order to receive their check. I would support that 100% because there would be people dropping welfare like rats off a sinking ship.

We'd get a hell of a lot more work accomplished, that's for sure.

As long as we can keep the unions out of it, it'd be solid. If I see one more damn group of highway workers pulling down $26/hour, leaning on shovels, ogling the women walking to lunch, I'm gonna wing one with my side mirror.

As far as I'm concerned, they're worse than welfare recipients. At least welfare has some negative social stigma - these guys go home and tell their spouse they've "had a hard day".

rn79870 wrote: I guess he isn't part of the "Unholy Axis of Evil" (Rush, Sean and Bill) but maybe we can add him.

Rush, Hannity, Bennett, Beck, Miller and even Mark Levin have nothing on Dr. Michael Savage when it comes to being unholy... Ha! My only problem is that I can't listen to him because my daughter is 2 years old.... Some of the subject matter is way too adult for her little ears.

JimmyMethod wrote:I never said profits should be ignored. I said it shouldn't be the only driving force.

The welfare of the people a company employees is as important as the companies profits.America is a collection of PEOPLE, not a collection of COMPANIES. People are what's important.

Generally speaking though, whenever you hear of mass lay-offs and the like, its typically because the bottom line has become an issue. The welfare of the people working for a company is tied in quite directly to the welfare of the comany. You can't simply look at the jobs being lost. You should consider also the jobs being saved...

JimmyMethod wrote:I don't get this statement. Is it in reference to the fact that most/everyone here disagrees with me? The disagreement isn't about a statement of fact. It's about priorities. You're priorities are allowing some people to make lots of money while leaving others poor. My priorities are raising the median standard of living.

Your intent here is a honorable one. However, the "poor" you speak of has every right and freedom to pursue a larger income. If they need help, there is plenty of help out there for them. Most of the time its a matter of will, determination and discipline. Consider how many people out there live in small houses located in less than ideal neighborhood, yet they drive around in they Escalades on 24 inch wheels while bussing a troop of children with no child safety seats. I see it all too often here. Personally, it is they who have a lack of priorities...

JimmyMethod wrote:When I lived with my parents, I would have gladly lived in a much smaller house if it meant someone else didn't have to live in a bullethole ventilated shack.

Thats generous of you. But that would be YOUR choice and a freedom that the Constitution grants you. But the Constitution should not take away one's choice to do just the opposite.

JimmyMethod wrote:o_O...You'd rather have a president that... what? Created problems? It's kind of the president's job to solve the populous's problems.

But the problems you speak of are correlated with the choices people make. Consider for a moment that you can provide more income to a person living in the ghetto, and chances are, they will spend it on unnecessary stuff rather than using it for the necessities or even leveraging it to make a better future for themselves. I share the goals of helping the poor, but they must be in manners that require them to work for it. No free lunches here.

It's NOT the President's job to solve the problems of the populace. That kind of breastfeeder mentality is what got us IN this jam.

As Chano said, hold people accountable for their bad decisions (genuinely accountable). Take away the safety net and let a generation or two bounce off the pavement and see how long it takes for rugged self-reliance to make a comeback.

The libbies spew such drivel like "It takes a village to raise a child."

OK, village, get crackin'. Because the Federal Government ain't your mama.

Again, and I grow weary of saying it, but you can't have it both ways. Even if you DO have 2 left hands.

.

We can give up and pull out. Then we can simply pull troops out from all over the globe as well.

That would work out great.

.

Then those people can move somewhere where they don't have to pay for it.

At this point, people will b1tch about the cost but the next time there is an attack on our soil they will b1tch that the Gov didn't do enough.

Go figure.

Exhibit A: Hurricane Katrina.

Alright, then let's pay for it! People will moan, and then, hopefully, vote!

A deferred payment plan and quadrennial rebate checks is not fiscally conservative, and definitely not a proportional wartime sacrifice.

Agressive property taxes? Are you kidding?

Guess I'm buying my first house in Mexico!

But seriously though, all that would do is put more money in the one place it doesn't belong (our terribly stupid and inept state governments) and take it from people looking to invest in land in the US. Especially considering the mortgage crisis at the moment, this would effectively kill any chance the average person had at buying a house.

AZhitman wrote:3) I'm not misattributing anything. Interesting how the Libbies are gung-ho for evolutionary Darwinism, yet horrified at social and economic Darwinism. Can't have it both ways, lefty.

Gung-ho for a law of nature?

I've yet to meant any "gung-ho" evolutionists, and I hang out with people so far left, they make your "libbies" look like Karl Rove.

audtatious wrote:Then those people can move somewhere where they don't have to pay for it.

... or they can be Americans and speak their mind.

and stop being all emotional when people disagree

Take a rich person and a poor person. Remove all the money from the rich person and give it to the poor person. Fast forward 10 years. Who thinks the poor person would be poor again while the former rich person would be well on his way to being rich again?

It's 90%+ about personal choices in life and having the drive.

Look how many poor people who have won the lottery are even further in debt 5 or so years after they won millions?

ishkabibble wrote:
Gung-ho for a law of nature?

I've yet to meant any "gung-ho" evolutionists, and I hang out with people so far left, they make your "libbies" look like Karl Rove.

Sure they are. They're the whackos getting all butt-hurt when anyone mentions Creationism, and spending $10 for a "Darwin" fish for their Prius so everyone knows they crawled out of the sludge.

AZhitman wrote:Sure they are. They're the whackos getting all butt-hurt when anyone mentions Creationism, and spending $10 for a "Darwin" fish for their Prius so everyone knows they crawled out of the sludge.

No, they generally find Creationism laughable, so they are poking a little fun at those who choose to remain ignorant of the world around them.

JimmyMethod wrote:That's why you can't get a seat in Dominick's (the bar across from the business school) from about 4pm to close any week day.

How did I miss this giant debate?

Dominick's is the ****. I've always gotten a seat with a crew of at the very least 4, max 12.

China won't crush us economically because of their market structure. They can crush us, however, simply with their immense levels of available human capital. The reason there's a lot of money being invested in China and its growing so fast twofold. One is because it is using outdated methods and technologies to do so. Secondly, there's a lot of money going into China because there are economies of scale to take advantage of.

Also, getting rid of 1/8 of a workforce in the place of physical capital won't lead to economic disaster...its happened in industries already here in the US, such as the railroading industry. And if you're in the bschool, you of all people should know that business is investment and in order for business to occur, a return greater is required than what another investment with the same amount risk can provide. To provide for the welfare of employees is important, however, to do so at the expense of the business deteriorates the investment involved, forcing people to shift capital elsewhere. You may have the right intentions, but...

Corporate - C - O - R - P - O - R - A - T - E - Corporate
Modified by smockers83 at 12:36 PM 5/20/2008

ishkabibble wrote:
No, they generally find Creationism laughable, so they are poking a little fun at those who choose to remain ignorant of the world around them.

Ignorant is when you observe creatures who possess ONLY the evolutionary components to survive, reproduce and thrive, and ignore the fact that humans possess thousands of additional high-level traits that serve no useful purpose in an evolutionary continuum.

The ability to compose music is just one of the multitude of seemingly unnecessary abilities we possess - Explain its role in evolution and I'll slap a Darwin (who didn't believe his own theory) fish on my car.

You can believe you crawled out of the muck - I didn't.

And I don't think you did either, you're way too bright for that.

AZhitman wrote:Ignorant is when you observe creatures who possess ONLY the evolutionary components to survive, reproduce and thrive, and ignore the fact that humans possess thousands of additional high-level traits that serve no useful purpose in an evolutionary continuum.

The ability to compose music is just one of the multitude of seemingly unnecessary abilities we possess - Explain its role in evolution and I'll slap a Darwin (who didn't believe his own theory) fish on my car.

Natural selection only comes into effect when traits are "selected out" of the environment, not "selected in". It's a process of elimination. I would argue that the ability to compose music is a cultural rather than specific evolutionary trait, just like the ability to do Calculus. There is no natural situation which would only kill people who couldn't compose music.

Additionally, humans haven't been in much of an environment where anything is selected out since we started large scale farming about 10,000 years ago. So looking at which extraneous "high level traits" we currently have doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not natural selection occurs.

Darwin was agnostic; claims that he reverted to Christianity late in life have been debunked.

Looking forward to the fish pics.

So you are saying that any progress we, as a species, have made all happens to be "culteral" related? Why have no other species made any advances at all? You would think if everything was evolutionary then the monkeys over the last 10k years should at least be able to make a tent or cook over a fire....

Monkeys need to make a tent or cook over a fire to survive?

Evolution is "advancement"?

I'm questioning what you said. Answer mine first.

I think you're confusing microevolution with macroevolution. Microevolution is the adaptations and changes within a species, it is the alteration of a specific trait(s) due to natural response, while macroevolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species.

Music, calculus, even gymnastics would be examples of microevolution if they are in fact evolution related.

audtatious wrote:I'm questioning what you said. Answer mine first.

My questions were pointing out your apparent misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is not about advancement, it is about ability to survive in the given environment. Evolution isn't about monkeys one day waking up and building a nice house in the suburbs... it's about traits that keep them from dying.

That said, bacteria have become antibiotic resistant. Is that a good enough example of "recent evolution" for you?

ishkabibble wrote:My questions were pointing out your apparent misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution is not about advancement, it is about ability to survive in the given environment. Evolution isn't about monkeys one day waking up and building a nice house in the suburbs... it's about traits that keep them from dying.

That said, bacteria have become antibiotic resistant. Is that a good enough example of "recent evolution" for you?

I'm responding to your response to Greg. Upon rereading I may have misunderstood what you said, thus why I asked for you to regurgitate your thoughts.

Evolution is a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage or the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms. Based on your bacteria example I would agree that is an evolutionary/reactionary process. What Greg is saying is what the human species has grown to is far more than simple evolutionary development. My comment was specifically concerning humans closest relative (in the aspect of what Greg has stated) in that why are humans the only ones to advance while primates have not made any additional evolutionary leaps and bounds.

Increased knowledge transfer combined with the ability for fairly abstract thought will result in some amazing things, but it's not evolution per se.