iamshack

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 06:23 PM) Ive read through most of this thread and hadnt saw this brought up I might have missed it. Im just gonna say what I dont like her on a personal level. The first thing I look for in an elected leader is respect. Im not saying I respect GWB or any of the other candidates now any more or less. However, how Bills affairs were made so public and they werent isolated incidents to me a huge slap in the face to her. Then her staying with him shows me a lack of spine. I know some people look at the sanctity or marriage and thought it was good for her to stand by her man but thats just not the way I think. I simply cant respect someone that would let their spouse walk all over them like that and I dont want a leader I dont respect. Well, this is part of what really bothers me...but it isn't that I believe she stayed with him because she had no spine, but rather, that she stayed with him because she knew it was in the best interests of her eventual political career. Which I find extremely repugnant. I don't believe in their marriage- I think it's a sham and strictly a career arrangement for both of them. It's not that I believe they don't care for one another, but I think they each think of their political careers first and foremost (whether that is individually or collectively) their daughter second (I hope), and then whatever is left of their sham marriage.

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 05:59 PM) Men cry in office are called patriotic, and brave. Women cry and they are weak and emotional. I remember several media outlets clapping with optimism the tears bush would shed over spicy kung pao meal. Said "it makes him more human, like us." I think you're seeing this about as one-sided as you possibly could. It's great that you have such an appreciation for Hillary, but you're not being very open-minded in this discussion. I think the vast majority of people in this country would view a male candidate crying in office as weak and pathetic. Obviously the context would be quite important, but given the situation, I think Hillary was viewed far more favorably for crying when she did than if one of the male candidates had done the same.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 05:39 PM) And I believe that to be true for many people, but the same behavior that would pass for normal from a guy tags her as a b****. Name another candidate that comes close to a description like that. The types of adjectives that are used to describe her is very interesting. I also think there are some people that wish she had publicly humiliated William Jefferson and divorced him during the Lewinski affair. What could have passed, perhaps, as conservative, Tammy Wynett, stand by your man, became a conniving tool to become President. She is judged differently as a woman, but isn't that valid? Is not sex a big part of who we are? What our identity is? There are differences between men and women, and not just under the hood. Those last few sentences are hitting what I am going to mention- sure, she gets labeled as a b**** because she can be so focused and ruthless....but she also can get away with crying whereas a man could not have. It's absolutely a matter of what sort of behavior is traditionally expected of women, just as we have been judging men on what sort of behavior is traditionally expected of men...

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 04:57 PM) I think it is just how you look at it. He gave the first real push for centralized banking, and whole country infrastructure support that helped this country grow so fast and become, pretty wealthy. He should get a lot of credit for building the foundation of our trade lines and having the foresight of the Monroe Doctrine. And Henry Clay is one of the most fascinating politicians ever and I'm a big fan of his, who was a huge supporter of John Quincy Adams so it could not have been all that bad. I think I can rattle of ten worse presidents easily prob 20 and not even hit J.Q.A. Well, I'm not going to turn this into a thread about John Quincy Adams, but you are in the vast minority if you think his presidency accomplished much of anything.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 04:45 PM) If Hill wins the democratic nomination, we're looking at 28 straight years (36 if you count VP terms) under rule by two families. It doesn't much of a leap to think that Jeb or Neil can be prodded to run in 8 years. Heck, Chelsea will be 35 (I think) by then. Maybe she can dyke it out with Barbara Bush (W's daughter) and we can have our first lesbian presidency. I sure hope not...I find Barbara very attractive....

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 04:32 PM) I would also like to point out the dynasty of the Adams Family, no not lurch or thing. John Adams, and yes John Quincy Adams. Sometimes family members are not so bad. They do bring differing politics, and have different views on policy but sometimes it works.. I think the monarchy of Clinton comments is well, pretty dumb and baseless. John Quincy Adams had one of the worst presidencies of anyone in the history of the United States.

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 04:22 PM) Well, no, because I remember McCarthyism. I was not born then but studied it. It was unlawful then as it would be now. You know how that era ruined people, and others went missing. Just because there was a presidence doesn't mean that taking away our constitutional right is well, right. I also remember the Korean War they rounded up Asian's and put them in concentration camps, U.S citizens at that. Doesn't make that right, more so in the modern world. Actually, it has been done at nearly every point in history at which this country was at war. And it certainly is a "hairy" issue. And Bush has certainly abused the civil liberties of many US citizens and capitalized upon the fears of many of us. But that absolutely does not give anyone the right to condemn Bush as inventing the concept, because he certainly has not.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 04:20 PM) Then show me the indictments that even suggest that anyone who saw anything believes there was any wrongdoing in that case. It was a joke, Balta.

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 04:18 PM) I was challenging why Whitewater was a negative, considering they found no connection of wrong doing. It is the media and the GOP that keep that fraud gate floating the conscious of America. It is like being accused of a crime but then found not guilty, yet the public still perceives you as a criminal. Yeah, and then sometimes you are OJ Simpson.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 04:15 PM) "some majority"? Sure. It was some majority of the framers. So I guess that qualifies. But laws protecting the rights of individuals or groups of individuals, by their nature, do not always get written or changed because of a majority supporting it. Sometimes, government actors (President, Congress, SCOTUS) step in to do the right thing when it needs to be done against the majority. I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood what the poster was stating, and then got even more confused about what your response was countering....my bad

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 04:10 PM) Bush...or his destruction of the bill of rights in terms of search and seizure and rights of habeas corpus. And that was the first time this has ever been done by a President of this country while it was at war...

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 04:08 PM) Your premise about laws only based on the majority is incorrect. Look at the Constitution. In fact, most protections of individuals as noted in the Constitution and the law, if that is their purpose, are specifically designed to protect the minority. This is for the simple fact that the majority doesn't require protecting in those scenarios. You're half-right and half-wrong. While many laws are designed to protect the minority, the idea to protect them must still always be agreed upon by some majority...

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 04:05 PM) I was also against it, but how is 20% a mandate against war when Vietnam had more detractors. Because there was no Vietnam before Vietnam... The same cannot be said in this case.

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 03:52 PM) Btw on a separate note, I just want to say how much BS the Iraq war resolution was. The Bill which Hillary voted for is archived on the Congress website. You can read it for yourself. It does not give the power to go to war, it gives the ability to choose war if and only if A. Weapons Inspectors are not allowed back in B. Nuclear programs must fall under UN guidelines and control C. Security cameras must be re installed in Nuclear buildings D. Involvement with Kurdish rebels must cease. E. Must have the confidence and vote of the UN Bush did not follow these guidelines anyway, he declared war when he made up a story that the Iraqi government was close to getting yellow cake uranium. Circumventing all the rules and using his executive power to call war. That is the story. Every viable candidate for President voted for the Bill. Every top official supported the Bill. The American population favored war on Iraq by 75% of the population at the time. Just because Obama stood up in heavily democratic Chicago during a speech and said I dont support this decision does not mean he would not have voted for the same Bill if he was in Congress. Why does this make him anti war? He has openly voted for Ya for ever Bill extending and funding the war. If he was so anti war, why not filibuster against it like Jack Murtha? It is a big Lie. If you Google Iraq and Obama you will find articles praising the vote, and against the vote, quotes for the war and against the war. He is the definition of cherry picking positions. I think it's ridiculous that whether a candidate voted for the war or not is even a sticking point. Let's face it, Americans were in favor of war, due to 9/11, misinformation, whatever fears we all had that the Bush Administration played upon, etc. I think it's fairly difficult to go back and criticize the decision that was made at the time, or at least it is fairly difficult to go back and not have some understanding of what someone who supported going to war was thinking at the time. But why does it matter now? What's done has been done. Why not look to someone who best wants to learn from our mistakes and make the best of the situation from here on out? Everyone makes mistakes, and we all will continue to make mistakes. What matters is how and why we learn from our mistakes, and move forward. Who is the best candidate to move us forward?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 03:50 PM) John McCain. Right, I'm sure he wants his son to be there as long as possible, or until he dies.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 03:22 PM) You are assuming the US isnt the one cutting the cables.... That wouldn't stop him!

This is an interesting issue. More and more, employees' tenures with each of their employers is becoming shorter and shorter. The average person holds many more different positions now than he/she did 10 years ago, 20 years ago, etc. And that's not because they decide to move on to better opportunities, but because so many more companies are cutting jobs, going bankrupt, shifting positions overseas, etc,etc. The job market has become increasingly unstable for the average person. Employer loyalty is absolutely not where it once was. Older workers are now phased out for younger, cheaper workers. Employers now ask employees to move to other locations much more so than before. Thus, it has become increasingly necessary for employees to keep their eyes open for other opportunities. Shouldn't they be allowed to do so to protect themselves? Should employers be able to punish employees who look for better opportunities, despite the fact that employer loyalty basically is a dying concept?

Stretch!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 4, 2008 -> 09:34 AM) But how/why do the actual dollars themselves move to overseas banks? Do we really have plane loads of geenbacks travelling? I have two words for some of it, that's for sure... Drug Money

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 05:35 PM) Just because something is faith based, doesn't mean it has no scientific backing and therefore impossible to support. The Bible was really written by people, Jesus really walked the earth, there really is a fundemental difference between the tenents of Christianity and all other religions. These are all real things. Regardless of your "Faith" they're easy to understand. I'm not saying anything is impossible to support. I'm saying that when it comes down to it, what you ultimately believe is entirely based upon faith. And I am not deriding that in any way. And I can understand your desire to believe something, even if it just based upon your faith. The difference is, you can't tell me I misunderstand as if we are talking about a scientific equation or why the sky appears blue to us. You choose to believe what you believe because in your mind and heart it makes sense to you. You don't think it seems extremely pompous to tell me I'm "wrong" because I don't choose to believe that too?

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 05:09 PM) so what would you say the definition of two people not comprehending each other's ideas? ....mis...understanding? The crux of every world religion or spiritual thought, including secular humanism, is that we, the participants, must do something, work hard or act "good", to acheive something (nirvana, enlightenment, a high five). Every last one, except Chrisitianity. so to say that people misunderstand things doesn't mean I think less of you, like it's some game that puts one person over another. It just means that throughout our days on earth we learn and understand (hopefully) more and more, but there is so much misinformation and false teaching that sometimes it's hard to see the real truth. Everyone is on a journey, and my only desire for you or any person is to never stop seeking what is at the center of why you believe so fiercly one way or another. like I said, peace on you. Good luck. I see it this way...all religions are "faith-based," or at least under the common meaning of religion. So if you say you believe what you do because you have "faith" that you are correct, that's great. I can go with that. But you're telling me that I "misunderstand" something that is based on faith, that means you don't understand it either. It means you truly believe what you believe is correct, but you can't explain to any reasonable certainty why that is correct. So it's not a misunderstanding, but rather your choice to believe- via, your faith. And to me, that's what all religions are- peoples' faiths. And who am I to disagree with that or tell them they are wrong? No one. But don't tell me I misunderstand. There's a difference.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 04:55 PM) it implies that you don't understand it. I barely understand it and I have heck of time trying to live it out everyday. it certainly doesn't mean that I think less of you. you...you..you just don't get me! peace on you, brother. See, rather than saying I "misunderstand" what you believe in, why can't you (or other people who are religious people) say that maybe there are different ways of looking at things? Or that maybe different people can believe in different belief systems but still reach the same mental point or values? Or maybe just "to each his own"? Why does it have to be a "misunderstanding" thing? That's what really gets me...

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 04:55 PM) I'll interject this thought into this converstaion. There has been numerous occasions in my life, and several here on Soxtalk, that I have been the recipient of comments made to make me feel 'inferior' because I happen to believe in something that can't be scientifically proven to exist. Yeah, that's the other side of the coin....and I think it's more a reaction to the strong feelings coming from those who are religious to those who may not be...but that's certainly a good point, nonetheless...

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 04:43 PM) Did I say that you were beneath me because you didn't believe what I believed? I think you're inferring something I didn't write. I believe that there are many misguided believers and that means there are many misguided unbelievers that come into contact with those people. Nothing has been said about levels of status or value in what you believe versus what you don't believe. You're right- and you won't come out and say that I am beneath you or that you have more value because of what each of us believe. But you'll tell me that I must have misunderstood what it is that you believe, otherwise, I would believe it too. Correct? What does that imply? Secondly, since I am incapable of understanding, I will now also be incapable of doing other things subconsciously in your mind (when I say you, I mean someone resembling your beliefs, not you personally, obviously). And that relegates me to a position of inferiority in your mind and among your peers.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 5, 2008 -> 04:23 PM) Let me stop you right there. This is the problem. You will never hear me or anyone that I go to church with (unless they're as uninformed about the truth as many people are) that if you don't participate in my religion you will go to Hell. Do I believe in a place called "Hell"? Yes. This is a place designated for Satan and other fallen Angels. It was never originally intended for us... And we could have a 100 page thread about all of that. The biggest problem for me is when people claim to "know" what the afterlife is like, etc. Hell, as far as I understand and have read, is not about flames and punishment as much as it is about the absence of God and Christ. Much worse in my opinion. anywho...I'm tracking with you and sincerely hope we can keep this convo cool. please don't try to condescend me with my online name. again, as it turns out, I was not concise in my previous post. I would place you in the Sunday school class experience of religion. Most people including myself at a point in my life, only see religion from the very lifeless perspective that Modern Western Christianity holds for people sometimes. What is religion if we have so much? What need do we have if we can instantly gratify ourselves visually, physically, etc? Especially when you put that up against a backdrop that most people think Chrisitanity is all about "rules". If that's the "truth" then of course I get why people walk away. But it's not. and I'll stop preaching, unless prompted. I do believe that people go years without seeing the truth and understanding it. This is another 100 page thread, but to sum it up. If you don't believe, you probably haven't seen the real thing, i.e., people have let down your view of the truth. why stop at religious institutions? Stalin was as bad ass as they come...and 40 million people lost their lives to the anti-religion of Communism...at least. People are the problem. We're all rotten down the core when we sum it all up. Again, it's all about choice, and if you weren't given a chance to make a choice, then it's not Christianity. So I totally agree. I just think you're generalizing ALL true believers into the category of ALL Christians into the category of ALL religious people. agreed. No, you may not say to me "you're going to Hell" or whatever place you want to term as the antithesis of "Heaven." But people from all sorts of religious groups absolutely have a tendency to look down upon those who do not share in their beliefs. And you need to look no further than in your post for evidence of such. You're basically telling me that there is no way to reject the beliefs of Christianity- that if I truly understood it, I would never have walked away from it. Do you see that? That is where all this stems from. The belief that one cannot believe in anything other than what it is you have discovered "the truth" in. Additionally, you just "placed" me into some area of religion...one that uses attending a few Sunday school classes as a metaphor for my understanding or involvement in it. No offense dude, but who the heck are you to "place" me into anything in regards to religion? This is exactly the sort of subconscious elitism or superiority that occurs so often...