kapkomet

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2010 -> 05:04 PM) Honestly, I don't see what you guys are saying. He's too hateful even for that crowd. I think that says clearly that A) Tancredo is crazier than the tea party crowd generally (which is the OPPOSITE of saying what Kap is saying above, as noted in the article I linked, where they disliked his speech), and B) That yes, indeed, the Tea Party has a hateful, ignorant element to it, much like the religious right does - just not as bad as Tancredo. And somehow that means that I am only OK with Obamatons? Seriously? I'm not bulls***ting anyone here, I'm being railroaded into being an extremist, which I am not. Oh sure you are. Hippee.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2010 -> 05:07 PM) Well good then - you see what many don't. Intruding on people's lives no longer has a "party". Oh, I absolutely agree with that. It's part of what pisses me off about Republicans. They don't really get it, either.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2010 -> 04:59 PM) Right now, I'd say the Dems have a slight edge over the GOP in terms of protecting individual liberties. Which is sad, since that had previously been one of the cornerstones of the Republican Party. What I said, and quite on purpose, has nothing to do with "Republican" or "Democrat".

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 6, 2010 -> 11:37 AM) well, okay.. let me do the math 0/5 first semester 1/5 second semester *bulls*** j class 1/5 first semester 2/5 second semester 1/4 first 2/5 2/5 1/5 those are all the j classes. Now granted for journalism they might make us take more electives because there are only so many j classes you can take before it's redundant, and one "three hour" course, the newspaper one, has you actually workinga t the paper for 25-40 hrs. a week. So with that, I think they were too inflexible. I would have rather taken a s*** ton more humanities (for writing) and upper level sciences (for logic) than having to deal with sociology and psychology courses. I "minored" in polisci but i didn't even bother to actually put it on my degree b/c who the f*** cares. That makes sense. With that part of it I can see your frustration... because now you're just learning the same thing with a minor twist. That gets harder to justify with what we're talking about.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 10:21 PM) kap is making s*** up. again. Really? Government intervention in almost everything is protecting individual liberty? Um, sure, I'm making s*** up, again.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 10:14 PM) 2 years of geneds = 50%, then 6/15 hrs electives for 2 years...is probably about 70% if not more. Wow. That's pretty rare, I would think. Can I ask a stupid question (sure, I do it all the time!!! ) - did you know your major right away? Was that part of it? I guess I'm fishing here because it seems to me that when I think back to my program, I was geared toward business and finance stuff even my soph. year. Of course, I had to take music, philosophy, etc. And even though I hated philosophy, and the biggest hippie ever taught it, I can clearly understand why that was in the curriculum, looking back. Back then, I thought, WTF am I having to do THIS CRAP for? But it's a way to create critical thought and diversity.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 09:52 PM) I'm not saying that gen-eds are useless, I'm saying that they are overdone. I don't think that they should take up 70% of the education, and really, they do. They are also very inflexible about what you need, when I think ....basically i'm just really pissed I got capped off on econ classes and had to waste 2000. The truth comes out... ! AH HA! 70%? Really? I'd say it was more like 30% for me, and I went to a peace hippy loving school. But I do understand your point if you were oversaturated with that stuff. I wouldn't want to take philosophy100/200/300 ... I'd murder someone by that point.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 09:46 PM) Yeah I was going to say that the Founding Fathers didn't just decide once and for all what the US government was going to be like forever at that exact moment and there was never anything resembling a consensus either. s*** even Thomas Jefferson went against his principles at certain points. Sure, but THE founding principle of the Declaration and at least inherent in the Constitution and explicit in a lot of ways is private property rights and protection of the individual. The will of the people, my ass, that we're being protected as individuals today. And be sure to understand where I am and am not pointing the finger at here.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 09:46 PM) This is a memoir answer. Chicken. But seriously, can you not see what I was trying to get to there? Is it fair to say that you learned a lot of your critical reasoning in the late stages of high school and early college? I understand that "life" teaches you that as well. But purely from a "learning what you don't know" standpoint and the ability to reason through something, I would say that general curriculum helps with that. Maybe, we're saying the same thing, I don't know.

http://www.slate.com/id/2243733/ Facebook update, Slate style.

At its heart, yes. You can definitely make that argument because it's viewed as a speech issue... and for the record, I don't fully support that decision, but I get it. Do you, or do you have to look at it from liberal goggles? Let's move back to the other thread. It's more civil.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 08:15 PM) Before you do you should probably re-read the constitution and then realize you are wrong. Yea, because it's living and breathing (uh uhhhh uhhhhhh uhhhhhhhhh) and then the libs blow up. Read the Federalist papers and understand the debates and intents of what was done and why. This government today is like the King of England on steroids with what they are wanting to do.

Stolen merciliessly from a friend of mine... Anyone see an issue with this press release from University of Phoenix: "We are proud of the men in women serving in the armed services and are committed to providing an education that meets this often unpredictable lifestyle..." Hmmm... gays in the military must be bad. Just kidding... but what a typo.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 07:43 PM) I was just trying to make a point that it "being allowed" doesn't mean it's correct or even worth a goddamn. It doesn't mention filibustering anywhere in the Senate but it says somewhere in the Constitution (I don't know where, I haven't read the full text in a while and it may have been a Supreme Court decision a couple hundred years ago actually) that the houses of Congress make their own rules. I think one of the things we can all agree on without any difficulty is that just because the Senate or House is allowed to do something doesn't mean they know what the f*** they're doing. If it doesn't work (and clearly the current procedures aren't working, it's embarrassing to watch as an American see my government make a joke of itself) then s***can it and find a better way. I know you were. Honestly, though, you want to talk about bastardizing the intent... I'll argue all day long that liberals are trying to blow the firewalls of the constitution and this is a stand against that.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 07:30 PM) I didn't even imply it wasn't unconstitutional, you're just making s*** up I did?

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 06:37 PM) A journalist is probably covering the thousands of scientists over decades who have published their work in peer reviewed journals over the subject, whether or not the journalist had bio1000 at some point in his life, he probably learned how to think critically in college. You don't need knowledge in every area to understand flaws. I know how to read reports. I know how to read statistics. It doesn't matter the topic. Ok, I buy that... but where or how did you learn it?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 07:07 PM) So... since I find Tom Tacredo to be a hate-mongering asshole (which I do), that means I only think Obama fanatics are not haters? Is there no middle ground between Tom Tancredo and Barack Obama? WTF? I see his point. He's trying to say that you labeled the "Tea Party" folks right with Tancredo, and that's a pretty far stretch.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 06:50 PM) For s***s and giggles, search for the word "filibuster" in the Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html It is constitutional, whether you or I like it or not. Next.

There is one thing that is true, though, Balta, admit it or not... the markets react a LOT stronger (and more negatively) to this President's words then ever before. That's because he's anti-capitalist, just like you. And that doesn't roll on Wall Street. But that's a good thing, according to you. Besides, you yourself have said over and over that Wall Street is only the entire recipient of the Treasury funds. And, the bonues paid out are a pimple on an elephant's ass in the scheme of things. Anyway, let's move along now. We need some more capitalism bashing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 04:53 PM) That misses the point of the idea that getting a college degree means you'll earn more. That's a true statement. I don't get why that's so difficult to comprehend or that it keeps getting shot down as something that's not. There are VERY few exceptions to this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 04:46 PM) Yes, it's the giant strawman you keep building in every argument. NOW (WW) THERE (ERE) ARE (RE) THO (OSE) WHO (HOOO) MAY (AYY) DISAGREE (REEE) WITH (THHH) ME (EEEE) ... Yea, those same damn strawmen that get built up on the other side.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 05:01 PM) Only if you are missing Kap's point. Yea... but that tends to get dismissed outright because those viewpoints do not goose-step in the lock stepping Barackus the Great's administration talking points.

I don't. The earth, she's a flat, I tell you.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 03:32 PM) I love that the MINUTE Kap wrote this, the market came roaring back from its lows and finishing up slightly for the day. Yup. I'm glad to know that I have the same powers that Barackus the Great has. Oh the irony.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 03:47 PM) Obama conceding that the latest health care bill may not make it alive. Seems to me that, at this point, his best course of action is to say he's tabling the discussion until after the economy is a bit better, and focus on other things. That's what he just did, without saying the words. You know, "FAILURE" and all.