I know it's been mentioned before, but a little sociopathic, perhaps?

And, do we really want to put ourselves on the other end of someone unapologetically and implacably demonstrating their will? Do we really want the precedent? Because, guess what, we will be on the short end sooner or later. History has shown as as much. Even if we are 'greater' then Rome, which is arguable in of itself I believe.

Of course, maybe CK doesn't really think much about the future, possible failure, and and probable consequences.

....but then, maybe, that's a good thing. I don't need to be chilled in addition to the AC. I'll have to wait for the transcript.

I'll have to introduce you to my ex-wife. Plenty of dysfunction in her family.

Heard on the radio this morning that the Detroit Times? endorsed McCain. I'm hazarding a guess that you don't live in Detroit, Mona. And, if you do, well, I don't have anything to say.... I'll just shake my head in befuddlement for a bit.

I'm in the opinion that evidence is evidence. While anecdotal evidence might not reflect the broader truth, they are still a possible influence on one's perceptions. In addition, sometimes the juxtaposition between the two (anecdotal and polls) can illustrate possible 'reasons' for the polls.

Of course, I just have anecdotal evidence about that last opinion. As well as this one -> And, sometimes the polls can give some of us stuck in the middle of ignorant, narrow-minded, overly-religious community a belief that there is still hope for the world.

Here's a possible solution:

1) Cut our military budget to 10% of what it is today.

2) With the money 'saved,' create a global organization that builds civilian, nuclear power plants for other countries. Use the organization to control the knowledge of refinement.

3) Actually live up to our treaties so that other countries can trust us.

Of course, I'm making this plan on the spur of the moment and it is hardly Bipartisan, but, hell, I still think it has more merit then declaring war on a country incapable of attacking us.

As for Israel being a threat because it has nuclear weapons. Yep. We are a threat to ourselves as well for the same reason. Perhaps getting rid of them all would be of a benefit as well?

I agree that the tactics aren't functioning as well as before. That doesn't mean that they are ineffective across the board.

So, what I'm wondering, does it also mean that the people for whom it does work get more rabid about it all? Do they get more entrenched in their belief system because they are 'under' attack? That they need to defend themselves more and more? If so, does that equate to a more hostile and obstructionist segment of our populace and, by extension, government?

I'm all for deconstructing what is happening to know the 'how,' but I'm also/more? interested in knowing what the effects/repercussions will be. And, how will 'we' counteract (or even determine) the negative effects?

Prop 8 was mentioned the other day in comments. I have a funny but sad story to tell. My parents are voting yes on the prop and in the (heated?) discussion afterward they blamed the downfall of the Roman Empire on homosexuality. I'm still shaking my head over that one. And, as much as I love them, I still laughed divisively when they said that.

Could you let me know your intention in posting what you did? Did you agree with the comment you quoted?

Do you believe you have the right to shoot someone who breaks into your house?

It might come down to how we define foster. I am probably have a more archaic interpretation where:

foster = nourish

McCain/Palin do not actively tell those at the rally that they need to hate Obama/Biden.

However, they do give fuel that people can use to rationalize or support their own feelings of hatred/aggression. In addition, I do not believe they have once, during their speeches, told the crowd not to say such things as 'kill him.' How active have they been in attempting to calm down the violent statements coming from the crowd? Not very, if at all, from what I've read. It is these factors that led me to say 'foster.'

Full of hate takes it a little far. Do some of the posters show violent aggression against Republicans? Yes. No doubt. Would the number be as great if McCain/Palin had not started promoting fallacies and stoking hatred in their own rallies? My opinion is that the number would be less, and even much less. The point of the article and a lot of the comments is this:

1) The actions of McCain/Palin are unconscionable in that they are fostering hatred

2) The introduction of unfettered hatred does nothing but promote violence

3) Institutionalizing hatred and the potential for violence scares those of us that have some understanding of history; we have models of what happens in such circumstances and none of them are worthwhile

For those that react with anger and hatred to anger and hatred... It's not something I condone or want.

I mean, hating a bigot is a pretty stupid and self-defeating thing to do.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I'm sure there could be cost savings to companies if it goes into effect with the right provisions. Help to companies means improved economy? I think it can go forward, but needs to marketed differently.

Could you include a side-by-side comparison with McCain and Paul next post? I mean, all you've done is show yourself as someone who has an agenda against something as opposed to someone truly outraged at our government. It's a systematic failure in which individuals are to blame. Blame them all. Demand a change to the system. Complaining about one person's history when not complaining about all of the people complacent is sophomoric.

Yes.

Results 1 - 5 of 5 for "Dick Morris is smart".