Tahoma

Not sure about your NPR programing, but I can assure you, mine (at least in the morning) is far from "all things considered".

It's more like an intellectualized cheer leading segment for Obama.

The other constant topic is "black related issue".

My wife begs me to "shut it off" every morning (no kidding) but... since I am THE MAN of the house

I leave it on and take it "like a man".

Atta-boy Danno...take it "like a man"...

Now...could you also take losing all of those elections "like a man"?

An overwhelming majority of the voters have spoken (loudly, clearly, and decisively).

WOW!

Cannot believe it! that's amazing!

P.S. call me when she gets a scholarship for college based on grades

I will, just as soon as minorities stop getting special consideration based on race or gender.

1. This young lady appears to be not only competent with what she's doing, but also enjoying it,

and enjoying it with her father. What's wrong with that?

2. How do you know minorities get special consideration based on race or gender?

3. What's wrong with minorities getting a chance to move ahead in the world?

4. Minority means they lack financial or political power per se.

5. Is there any small chance you're a white male who feels you're special?

6. Is there any small chance you're a white male who's excuse for failure is because of the "minority advantage"?

1. Nothing's wrong with this girl enjoying her activities. I believe you have me confused with someone else, as I've never said anything against her.

2. Affirmative Action is one such case. Another is quotas based entirely on gender and race.

3. I think minorities should get all the same chances everyone else does. That means no special privileges or programs to "help" when someone can't cut it. Otherwise the only fair thing to do is give everyone -- regardless of race or gender -- the same government programs.

4. Minority means just that -- a small representation. Jews, therefore, should be a minority (they make up about 2% of the U.S. population), but they aren't. Women, on the other hand, are considered a minority with over 51% of the population being female. Does that make sense? I don't think so.

5. No one is special. That's the point.

6. Not at all. I know I'm more than capable to handle the world without a handicap.

I don't know which universe you live in, but it is certainly not the same one that I live in. I live in what could be called a "liberal" state, and I have personally witnessed prejudice and discrimination against minorities. The list of transgressions is too long to go into. Most of it revolves around hiring, promotions, and in conversations. I can guarantee you that those transgressors do not give minorities "the same chances" as everyone else. I can only imagine how it must be in other parts of the country. While you may have led a sheltered life, it gives you no right to ignore what is going on around you in this country.

We have a black President. Enough with the 'poor minorities' bollocks.

I must have missed it on the news...all prejudice and discrimination in the United States of America suddenly and completely disappeared the moment Barack Obama was elected President. I'm certainly very happy to hear that. I wonder what other news I missed.

It's not that it all disappeared,...... its that it was evidently, way overrated.

I am glad that we agree on something...racism, prejudice, and discrimination still exist in the United States of America. However, whether or not one believes it was "way overrated" depends on many factors. One of those factors is which spin doctor one listens to. Another factor is your own personal experience, and the experiences of your family and friends. Also, how do you quantify "overrated"? This implies rates over a time period. What time period are you referring to? Another factor relates to the nature of the problem...is it a "quiet" discrimination...or an overt one.

I believe that prejudice, discrimination, and racism are slowly disappearing in the US. And I am proud that my country has reached a point where it could elect a biracial citizen to the Presidency. However, from my experience, I am under no illusion that the work is done. Far from it.

Well I see racism and stupidity continue to go hand in hand.

HAL..It can't be racism, because all of that stuff disappeared from the United States of America the day Barack Obama was elected President. I guess that only leaves stupidity.

...such as the Black community who have worked to build this country for over 300 years, but have only been allowed to own

property and to vote for the last 200 years.

trouble is that by and large they stopped working when johnson gave them a free ride, and only vote if there is a black guy in the race.

my chinese wife was in the sherrif's office with me last month poicking up a concealed carry permit. she asked me who all of the pictures on the wall were of. i replied that they were wanted criminals. she asked why they were all black and mexican, if blacks and mexicans are the "minorities". i told her the truth about cultural and crime. some cultures condone it, and some don't.

"by and large they stopped working when johnson gave them a free ride, and only vote if there is a black guy in the race"?! "Some cultures condone crime"?! Did you just say that out loud?! Haven't you heard? Prejudice and discrimination no longer exist in the United States of America. I learned that out from another poster.

We have a black President. Enough with the 'poor minorities' bollocks.

I must have missed it on the news...all prejudice and discrimination in the United States of America suddenly and completely disappeared the moment Barack Obama was elected President. I'm certainly very happy to hear that. I wonder what other news I missed.

Ho-hum...another edited video..............

My friend, the words of the Democrats are clear enough evidence ... what more could I add?

"We All" took this country to war. (with very few exceptions).

Of course Bush as the President is where the Blame or credit mainly rests.

As for your assumption about my reading or listening habits...

I wake up to NPR every morning. (not an easy task, I promise you)

I rarely get to listen to Rush

I never get to listen to fox.

My book list seldom relates to contemporary politics.

Right now I am reading; THE WHISPERS: Private life in Stalins Russia.

Debate my points.

Your assumptions of me are probably not much better than mine would be of you.

Danno...

Debate your points? What points? What evidence? All you have done is post an unintelligible YouTube video. You didn't even bother to address any of my points. I welcome a discussion about the invasion of Iraq, but you will have to help me out here.

And I see that you are on a first-name basis with Mr. Limbaugh. No surprise there.

On a side note...the book you are reading sounds interesting. My roots on my father's side are Germans from Russia. Most of them migrated to North Dakota before Stalin...but many of them remained and were subjected to starvation, oppression, collectivism, gulags, and death. The entire saga of the Germans from Russia makes for fascinating reading. Enjoy your book...and Happy New Year...the debate continues...

Yeah... I probably wouldn't put any money on that given that historians tend to take into consideration the entire package... like the fallacy of the WMD argument as a good analytical starting point overshadowing the entire war.

I tend to think most historians are full of #######. What's written in history textbooks is usually BS or extremely one-sided. Want an example? I had a history textbook that spent nearly 20 pages on Women's Suffrage but only one paragraph on WWI. Far be it from me to judge some historian's take on what occurred in the past, but somehow I think WWI was a little more important in the grand scheme of things (if for no other reason, it indirectly led to WWII).

You don't get credit for fixing your own f**kup. That's not Bush-bashing, that's just Leadership 101. When you f**k up, you have failed at your job. When you fix your f**kup, you are doing the job you should have done in the first place.

I'd say it depends on the mistake, but on a national or international level, I might agree. I'm just wondering if the same consideration will be given to Obama when he does screw up. And he will too. No president can go one or two terms without screwing something up.

Was that history book about American Civics/History by any chance? My though... that's quite a grand opinion you have of many historians.

I happen to know from personal experience that all history books are bad because I have read every single one of them. I am working my way through all of the American Civics books right now. So far, the first 10,000 or so have all been bad. I'll keep you posted.

Welll... I am HAL 9000... I can email you the entire compendium of texts if you wish directly from my offsite server.

The expiated versions no less.

Thanks HAL...but that won't be necessary because I've given up on reading about history. Every bit of it is #######. As a matter of fact, I'm sure that I will learn more by not reading anything at all. And don't bother to check with mawilson. I already know that he feels the same way that I do...if one book is #######, then they're all #######. .But, thanks anyway for the offer.

You can always take YouTube clips as that which can tell you what you want to hear.

That's right...an ideologue in search of "facts". Thanks for the chuckle.

Yeah... I probably wouldn't put any money on that given that historians tend to take into consideration the entire package... like the fallacy of the WMD argument as a good analytical starting point overshadowing the entire war.

I tend to think most historians are full of #######. What's written in history textbooks is usually BS or extremely one-sided. Want an example? I had a history textbook that spent nearly 20 pages on Women's Suffrage but only one paragraph on WWI. Far be it from me to judge some historian's take on what occurred in the past, but somehow I think WWI was a little more important in the grand scheme of things (if for no other reason, it indirectly led to WWII).

You don't get credit for fixing your own f**kup. That's not Bush-bashing, that's just Leadership 101. When you f**k up, you have failed at your job. When you fix your f**kup, you are doing the job you should have done in the first place.

I'd say it depends on the mistake, but on a national or international level, I might agree. I'm just wondering if the same consideration will be given to Obama when he does screw up. And he will too. No president can go one or two terms without screwing something up.

Was that history book about American Civics/History by any chance? My though... that's quite a grand opinion you have of many historians.

I happen to know from personal experience that all history books are bad because I have read every single one of them. I am working my way through all of the American Civics books right now. So far, the first 10,000 or so have all been bad. I'll keep you posted.

Welll... I am HAL 9000... I can email you the entire compendium of texts if you wish directly from my offsite server.

The expiated versions no less.

Thanks HAL...but that won't be necessary because I've given up on reading about history. Every bit of it is #######. As a matter of fact, I'm sure that I will learn more by not reading anything at all. And don't bother to check with mawilson. I already know that he feels the same way that I do...if one book is #######, then they're all #######. .But, thanks anyway for the offer.

Let me guess;

You teach at a collage somewhere???

Sorry. Wrong.

Every time, I want to beat Bush up for the things I disliked about his 8 years in office...

I consider the alternatives we were presented with.

Yeah I know. No war in Iraq, better domestic economics...

MAybe you were asleep at the time but both of these guys either votes or spoke in lock-step with Bush about the need to deal with WMD's.

This is what is so sad about the Left-wing, in America. They actually believe the history revisionist.

The economy is a little more complicated to encapsulate blame in a two minute video but here.....

Lets listen to the very Mouth you guys are defending.... listen to HIS words as he Blames Bush for doing NOthing about Sadam.

Spin it all you like boys but your words ring hollow to any fair minded person.

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>">

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

Interesting definition of the revisionist concept. Usually, that applies to historical analysis of the past using values from the present but with an understanding of circumstance before condemnation of said events. Which means that revisionism has little to do with any branch of political ideology unless its applied much in the same bias you treat what little actual and contextual information you've allowed to reach your prefrontal cortex.

And Happy New Year. Hopefully 2009 will come with improved critical thinking skills for you.

HAL...great analysis of his "argument", "facts" and "fair-mindedness". I suggested to him that he expand his reading list too. Maybe he would like you to email him some good books from your HAL 9000 archives. Just think...his choice of books would be limitless!

Every time, I want to beat Bush up for the things I disliked about his 8 years in office...

I consider the alternatives we were presented with.

Yeah I know. No war in Iraq, better domestic economics...

MAybe you were asleep at the time but both of these guys either votes or spoke in lock-step with Bush about the need to deal with WMD's.

This is what is so sad about the Left-wing, in America. They actually believe the history revisionist.

The economy is a little more complicated to encapsulate blame in a two minute video but here.....

Lets listen to the very Mouth you guys are defending.... listen to HIS words as he Blames Bush for doing NOthing about Sadam.

Spin it all you like boys but your words ring hollow to any fair minded person.

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>">

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

Danno...wake up...I promise that I will make this very simple for you...

> You are entitled to your own opinion...but not to your own facts.

> History is about "what happened". Revisionist history is the attempt to change the facts.

> Highly edited / out-of-context / chronologically-challenged videos are an insult to any critical thinker.

> Before, during, and after the invasion of Iraq, the weapons inspectors never found any type of WMD in Iraq.

> The Bush administration knew that the weapons inspectors did not find even a trace of WMD.

> The Bush administration abandoned diplomacy by continuing to set the inspections bar higher and higher.

> The Bush administration cooked the intelligence about Iraq in order to go to war.

> Democrats, Republicans, the American people, and the world were fed the same lies.

> People on both sides of the aisle were duped by the lies.

> The Bush Administration continued to publicly assert "proof" long after it had been thoroughly discredited.

> There was no yellow cake uranium.

> There were no reactor tubes.

> There was no terrorist connection.

> There were no nuclear, biological, nor chemical weapons.

> There was no sign of any capability to manufacture nuclear, biological, nor chemical weapons.

> Currently, President Bush has changed his story on whether he would have attacked Iraq if he had "known" then that they did not have WMD's.

Danno...I truly believe that you believe in what you are saying. However, you simply must expand your reading list. If your only source of information is right-wing revisionist propaganda, that is all you will ever know. Don't you think it is possible that there could be any more to a story than what you see on Fox News...or hear from Rush Limbaugh? I pay attention to these sources too, but I also pay attention to voices from across the political spectrum. It helps to put issues into perspective and to give them some context. It is intellectually dishonest to latch onto an ideology, and then go out and look for "facts" which appear to support that ideology. Fair-minded people listen to all sides of the story.

Yeah... I probably wouldn't put any money on that given that historians tend to take into consideration the entire package... like the fallacy of the WMD argument as a good analytical starting point overshadowing the entire war.

I tend to think most historians are full of #######. What's written in history textbooks is usually BS or extremely one-sided. Want an example? I had a history textbook that spent nearly 20 pages on Women's Suffrage but only one paragraph on WWI. Far be it from me to judge some historian's take on what occurred in the past, but somehow I think WWI was a little more important in the grand scheme of things (if for no other reason, it indirectly led to WWII).

You don't get credit for fixing your own f**kup. That's not Bush-bashing, that's just Leadership 101. When you f**k up, you have failed at your job. When you fix your f**kup, you are doing the job you should have done in the first place.

I'd say it depends on the mistake, but on a national or international level, I might agree. I'm just wondering if the same consideration will be given to Obama when he does screw up. And he will too. No president can go one or two terms without screwing something up.

Was that history book about American Civics/History by any chance? My though... that's quite a grand opinion you have of many historians.

I happen to know from personal experience that all history books are bad because I have read every single one of them. I am working my way through all of the American Civics books right now. So far, the first 10,000 or so have all been bad. I'll keep you posted.

Welll... I am HAL 9000... I can email you the entire compendium of texts if you wish directly from my offsite server.

The expiated versions no less.

Thanks HAL...but that won't be necessary because I've given up on reading about history. Every bit of it is #######. As a matter of fact, I'm sure that I will learn more by not reading anything at all. And don't bother to check with mawilson. I already know that he feels the same way that I do...if one book is #######, then they're all #######. .But, thanks anyway for the offer.

Well as tangents go I think it is more interesting than the op topic.

Its easier to argue philosophy as it doesn't call for he-said-she-said interpretations of history.

I also believe that discussing one's philosophical underpinnings is useful in helping us find a way to talk about serious issues like the Israeli / Palestinian conflict.

If it was between me and a doctor I'd say kill me because the doctor is more valuable to society and could save more lives than I could.

But you *are* going to be a doctor and you're young - therefore you will probably save

more lives in the future than a doctor who's already old.

What makes your life valuable are your future actions, not your past actions. What's done

is done, your death will not undo the good or bad things you've done. Past performance

is a good measure of future potential - nothing more.

You were arguing just the opposite in a previous post.

Or they could declare two separate nations- Israel and Palestine. No strings attached; no illegal settlements in Palestinian lands.

Yeah, tried that already, wasn't enough for them.

No... a REAL independent nation.

The deal was on the table. Arafat said no.

By the way...maybe you could enlighten us about the "deal" that was "on the table" that you are asserting would have led to a REAL independent nation for Palestine. I remember no such thing. The deal offered by the Israelis would have had no effect on the Palestinian condition as Arafat saw it.

6 months later you read in the paper that this mother that was worth more than the serial killer drowns the three kids and takes off never to be seen again. You will never know if she remarried, had more kids, drowned them too ,etc.

Well, without a crystal ball or ability to see into the future, we can only make decisions

based on the facts that are presented to us. Statistically speaking, your scenario is

extremely unlikely to happen in real life.

Estimating someone's life's worth is difficult because potential future achievements are

not always (although often) related to past performance. One thing is certain - as you

get older, your potential for future achievements approaches zero and becomes less of

a variable. By this measure, a 90-year-old man's life isn't worth a hell of a lot.

(Any insurance company will tell you the same if you try to buy a life insurance policy

for a 90 year old man.)

It must be very time-consuming for you to judge the "worth" of a single human being, since there are an exponential number of factors to consider. Imagine if you had a quota of only two human beings per day. You would be at it 24 hours per day simply to compare the "worth" of those two. How would you find the time? Maybe you could give me some pointers on efficient powernaps.

Ja mein kommandant!

Zeig heil!

Hey...I didn't realize that you speak German! I will check with mawilson and find out how much that is "worth". Your turn is coming,you know. But, I promise that we will try to rate you fairly.

Now I am stuck deciding the worth of two different mothers...and they both have three kids! I can see that this is not going to be easy.

Now THAT, Steven, is a moral dilemma!

Hey mawilson...don't leave me hanging. I need your help on this one because you know so much more about "worth" than I do. How do I decide which one of these mothers is "worth" more? Remember, one of them will live and one of them will die based upon what we personally feel they are "worth".

If you insist. I'll need more info on the mothers and their kids then... IQs, academic

achievements, social skills, learning capabilities, health, other family members, etc.

Don't forget relative worth. For example, you're worth more to your family than I am and vice versa.

Oh yeah...I totally forgot about that. Mawilson...where are you when I need you!!!

The life of a serial killer is NOT worth the same as the life of a mother of three kids.

Any kind of logic that claims otherwise is just insane!

Ok so say you are faced with the decision to kill either the serial killer or the mother of three kids. You kill the serial killer because, in your opinion, any kind of logic that claims otherwise is just insane!

6 months later you read in the paper that this mother that was worth more than the serial killer drowns the three kids and takes off never to be seen again. You will never know if she remarried, had more kids, drowned them too ,etc.

The unknown of life kind of takes the logic equation out of it.

Or...what if, unknown to mawilson, the mother previously had killed her children. What then? How about it, mawilson? Are you beginning to see the road that your logic is taking you down?

Now I am stuck deciding the worth of two different mothers...and they both have three kids! I can see that this is not going to be easy.

Now THAT, Steven, is a moral dilemma!

Hey mawilson...don't leave me hanging. I need your help on this one because you know so much more about "worth" than I do. How do I decide which one of these mothers is "worth" more? Remember, one of them will live and one of them will die based upon what we personally feel they are "worth".

We don't live in nazi Germany, we don't have to decide who gets to survive because only 4 people can be accommodated in a trap door cellar. So really these scenarios are meaningless - certainly from the perspective of someone who looks down from a Manhattan penthouse and a six or seven figure salary. So its not as cut and dried as is being made out, and its a pretty silly scenario all told.

Right. We don't decide who gets to live or die based on what they are worth, but that

doesn't mean they are worth the same.

The life of a serial killer is NOT worth the same as the life of a mother of three kids.

Any kind of logic that claims otherwise is just insane!

Maybe you and I could take turns deciding what "worth" means...and also take turns assigning "worth" to everyone. Wouldn't you agree that's the only fair way to do it? However, I have a problem with you going first. You took the easy one...the serial killer and the mother of three kids. Now I am stuck deciding the worth of two different mothers...and they both have three kids! I can see that this is not going to be easy.

You can't equate everything in nature to some kind of value scale. What's worth more - the Grand Canyon or the great pyramids of Egypt? Nonsensical.

Not the same category, Steven - the pyramids are man-made structures, while the

Grand Canyon is one of Mother Nature's masterpieces.

You can put a value on people's lives. If you had to kill one of two people -

1) a famous artist/composer/scientist or

2) a lazy, drug-addicted bum who hasn't done anything in his life,

who would you kill?

I'll make it easier for you - if you don't kill one of them, I will kill 1,000 people,

starting with your family.

If I have to explain the absurdity of this gibberish to you...you wouldn't understand it.

Yes they are. All human life has equal value. Unless someone named You god while I wasn't reading.

Get upset all you like, that I can respect.

That's just nonsense.

A professor's life is worth more than a child molester's.

What if the professor is a child molester?

Still worth more than a dumbass molester.

According to who?

Me. Common sense. Education is worth something.

Are you saying that you didn't learn anything worthwhile after you finished school?

I know reading is hard for you, but read carefully and you will understand what I'm saying!

I'm just killing time here while you publish your guidebook on everyone's relative worth to one another.

Yes they are. All human life has equal value. Unless someone named You god while I wasn't reading.

Get upset all you like, that I can respect.

That's just nonsense.

A professor's life is worth more than a child molester's.

What if the professor is a child molester?

Still worth more than a dumbass molester.

According to who?

Me. Common sense. Education is worth something.

Are you saying that you didn't learn anything worthwhile after you finished school?