(V): I need to set this up before making my point. If you want argue with the set up that's fine, but if you do then you will be missing the point. The set up isn't the point, so please be patient and wait for it.


~ What do you see when you look in a mirror? Do you see you, or a reflection (image) of you? You're seeing an image of you. If you were seeing you, then there would be two of you. One of you is looking at the mirror, the other you is looking back... at you. That can't be right, so what you are actually seeing must only be a reflection, and not the real you.

~ God made man in his image... in the image of God man was made. Man is not God, he is only a relfection of Him. Man is not a god, nor is he God, he is simply an image of God. The Bible doesn't say everything was made in Gods image (not everything is a mirror) so I have to assume man was set aside to be that reflective creation.

~ The very first mention or suggestion of man being more than an image, but that he is as God (or like gods) shows up early in the book of Genesis. Who suggested God had lied to man, and encouraged him to elevate himself? Who tempted man to elevate himself into a higher position than he was created to occupy?



so here's my point ===> . <===

Iamon lyme: I don't enjoy correcting myself, but if anyone does I want it to be me.

[ ...the answer to what comes next will be no less obvious. ]

That doesn't make sense. It can't be less "obvious" or more "obvious", or even as "obvious". I forgot "obvious" has a non-negotiable meaning and is relative to the observer... what might be obvious to you wouldn't necessarily be obvious to me.


Obviously, this is a word I should use sparingly or stop using altogether... DOH!!

(V): Hey, if you don't want to deal with this then just say so. I came prepared to answer your objections, but you seem intent on objecting to something else.


[ No.. I asked a question if you are. ]

If I am what?


[ It would take lots of faith and guts for anyone to say they believed it."

No.. lots of hate for what you 'see' when you 'look' at life. ]

I was inviting you to think about what it means to see something that could not have happened without the help of an immaterial intelligence. Does the idea of a God who defies your description of Him offend you? I don't know why it would. So allow me to offend you again by posing this question:

If I know a little something about you and then fill in the gaps with what I imagine is true, then between just you and me, which of us would be the better judge of how accurate that picture is... you or me? Who is in a better position to know who you are, and what the true details of your life are?

( By the way, if the answer to this isn't obvious, then you may as well stop now because the answer to what comes next will be no less obvious. )


So, using the same criteria, who is in a better position to explain who God is... you or God?

(V): [ We have since the 50's had the ability to wipe out 'all' life. Well..... most. Some species are hardy little buggers just like we were when the dino's got killed off. So? ]

So pretend we are living say, a mere two or three centuries ago, and are having this conversation. Do you think you might agree this was possible, and wonder why I'm even bothering to bring it up... or would you think I'm some starry eyed religonist who mindless believes everything the Bible says?

How could I believe this was even possible, like the prophesy that says everyone in the world will be able to see an event as it unfolds... IMPOSSIBLE!!

COULD you believe that, when reason and everything you know about reality says it can't happen? A massive natural disaster on a global scale, okay, maybe all life could be wiped out by that. But completely wiped out by men? No way! It's impossible!

Seriously, do you think two hundred years ago you wouldn't be tempted to scoff at an impossible scenario "invented" two thousand years ago? It would take lots of faith and guts for anyone to say they believed it. But this is today, so your response was basically to repeat what I said and then ask "So?"

One of the proofs of prophesy, IMO, isn't just that an event happens as predicted, it also contains information that can only make sense at the time it happens. The idea that the whole world can witness an event as it happens, or that man would have the power to wipe out all life on earth would sound like the ravings of a lunatic 2 thousand years ago. There would be zero evidence of anything existing at that time to even base that kind of prediction on.

Who would predict something happening if they didn't believe it can happen? And how could the ravings of a lunatic turn out to be true, if he (or anyone else) did not have the information needed to begin with? WE know it can happen, because we live in that pocket of time those prophesies pointed to, and so for us it usually means nothing more than "Of course this is true, so what?"

Artful Dodger: No more nicotine ring on your undies? Hmmmm, I wonder if that would work for me? I'm tired of having to wash my undies on a regular basis, so it appears there is one more reason for me to quit. I'm assuming no more nicotine stained fingers either... that IS nicotine, right? Okay, maybe not nicotine, but it does come from cigarettes... right?

Half way through this week it occurred to me I didn't have a plan. I expected to feel discomfort, but no plan for how I would deal with those moments of "hunger", and what to fill the extra time with. I thought this should be easier than when I was younger, when I didn't have as much experience and my days were full of things to do, but that's not the case. When I was younger I had more resolve, and more physical and mental strength. I needed those things when I was younger because of all the trouble I caused for myself. Smoking is one of the few things that hasn't naturally fallen away after I didn't want it anymore.

For me this is actually a normal way of doing things, jump into something with an idea that turns out to be wrong, then try again with a better idea, or plan, and then fail again... and again... and so forth. What eventually happens is I'll finally get it right, just so long as I don't give up and I keeping going with it.

I think I know what you mean by "will" power... my will can actually get in the way of what I want to see happening. It seems counter-intuitive, but sometimes giving up and surrendering is the only logical (practical) path to winning. It's like trying to tune in on one of those Magic Eye pictures... I can't make myself see it, I have to let myself see it. Does this make sense?

The Col: It's been known for a long time what happens in the brain when nicotine is present. I studied this in the late 70's because I thought learning why nicotine is addicting might help me overcome the addiction... then I learned that knowing and doing are two entirely different things.

Nicotine is addicting because the chemical is similar to one of the natural links in the wiring of your brain. Nicotine "successfully competes" for that link, which means the chemical intended for occuping that particular link in the wiring chain is shut out... it can't get in because nicotine got there first.

Then, a few days after you start introducing nicotine into your brain, manufacture of the natural chemical produced by your body (made for occupying that link in the chain) begins to shut down, because making it doesn't make sense if it's not being used for anything. In a way this is a testimony to your body's efficiency in dealing with a poison, because instead of trying to fight it your body gives in and accepts the new link.

But nicotine washes out very quickly, which means you need to keep replenishing it often to keep that link in place. So the signals meant to follow the circuitry are constanty being weakened and interrupted, until you take in more nicotine to fully replenish the link. Food and other things can trigger a desire to smoke, but you already have an internal trigger. Your mind starts saying to you, "Hey there, the link is dissolving... DO SOMETHING!!"

About 3 days after you stop smoking (three days of hell) your body finally figures out it ain't getting any more freebies to fill in that link, and it needs to start producing its own link again. Three whole days, yeah, it takes that long for my stupid lazy liberal no account brain to figure that out!!! Why can't there be better communication between my conscious mind and the goofballs who keep falling asleep at the switch inside my brain!! WAKE UP YOU IDIOTS, AND DO YOUR JOBS!!!!! Do I need to whack myself over the head with a frying pan to get your attention?!! Oh, sure, you'd like that, wouldn't you?!!! Boy, am I pissed!!! it's been a few hours since my last smoke... I deserve a break.

(V): You're cracking me up dude... you could've just stopped after saying "No", because the rest of your message is essentially just one long "No".

You said [ Do you believe in a literal end of the world. Holy war.. all non believers will die... If you do, you've failed. ]

Where do you get this stuff?

If I asked you, "Do you really believe leprechauns don't play basketball because they are too small?" as though I'm implying it IS something you believe, would you defend your belief in leprechauns playing basketball?

No, of course you wouldn't. Because you are not stupid. You would recognise the question is flawed, and that it is only an attempt to distract you from a discussion about what you really believe. But here's my point, if you are not stupid enough to fall for such an obvious ruse, then why... I'll let you finish that thought. You're no dummy, you can figure it out.

Seriously V, that kind of end of the world argument is a cartoonish idea, invented by athiests to discredit the Bible and make Christians look foolish. I'm having trouble believing you came to that conclusion after an independent reading of the Bible. And by "independent" I mean without the help of commentaries. It's easier for me to believe you got this idea from an invented "interpretation" for reasons which should be obvious... to discredit something they (the anti-religionists) adamantly oppose... because it contracts their own world view.

But then I have to wonder how valid that world view could be, if they have to lie about a world view that opposes theirs? This is an example of why, even if I never came to believe in God, that I could no longer run with the athiests. They talk a lot about truth and logic and science, and then prove those things are only secondary to what (without question) they actually believe. Truth is usually the best tool for proving or disproving something, unless reality itself is false... then nothing you say or do would actually matter.

Where in the Bible do you see it saying the world (our physical earth) will no longer continue to exist? It will undergo a big change, so of course an old way of doing things will end, but the earth itself will still be here. And it doesn't say God will destroy the earth, it says that if He doesn't intercede we will manage to destroy ourselves, along with every other living thing. So, how does that line up with what you've been saying Christians believe? Did I misunderstand the point you intended to make?

By the way, it is possible... we literally have, or soon will have, the capacity to end all life on earth. If not all, then certainly most of it. It was a crazy idea for hundreds of years, and probably something for athiests to laugh about, because how could it be possible for mere mean to destroy all life on earth?

But things have changed, haven't they. So I wonder, how many athiests today still think this is an utterly ridiculous impossibility? Any?

The Col: I started smoking a little over 40 years ago. I stopped trying to quit smoking a little over 30 years ago... I'm trying to keep from laughing about this, but it's hard to stop doing that too. If you haven't done something for over 30 years, it takes a while to get back into it... like the art of quiting smoking.

I started off as a heavy smoker, went from one to two to three and then four packs a day. Four packs a day for almost a year nearly killed me. I would wake up 2 or 3 times a night because the addiction was so strong I couldn't sleep through the whole night without waking up to smoke... it was that bad.

So anyway, the smoking tapered off more or less naturally (because it had to, or I wouldn't be here today talking about it) to about two packs a day. All of this happened within a year of starting to smoke. After about 10 to 15 years of two packs a day I switched over to hand rolled cigarettes, and that's where I am today... I'm an expert at rolling cigs, even people who do the same are impressed with how I can roll a nearly perfectly shaped cig in only a few seconds.

(V): Don't take this as a critcism, because it's not... I've fallen into the same trap, and even after I learned to recognise the trap I still find myself falling into it.

I believe you are equating the core tenets of Judaism and Christianity with institutional (organized) religion, which itself has deviated from those same simple (childlike, if you will) tenets.

So now you've found an alternative (or alternatives) to a mismanaged and corrupt system of belief that became corrupt due to abandoning those same tenets. Switching over for another system that doesn't even pretend to adhere to those tenets is a waste of time and effort... it accomplishes less than nothing, because abandoning a system that only pretends to adhere to its tenets for one that wholesale rejects them is like jumping off a cliff to avoid falling into a hole. None of us can afford to waste our time indefinitely, because someday the testing and searching will stop and all of this will come to a conclusion.

rod03801: Okay, good, so the first thing I might try will be the patches, because I shouldn't have a problem finding them in local stores. But if it's only half the cost of tobacco, then it sounds like the price will be about the same as using an electronic cigarette. I was a two pack a day smoker, but I think today it's the equivalent of one pack per day. I roll my own, so it's hard to compared that to packs of smokes. I don't inhale added chemicals, but I think the tobacco itself is a bit stronger than most packaged cigarettes... I'm thinking out loud now, so I should probably stop talking about this...

The Col: I know the answer to this, because I've heard some stories about people using them in restaurants and other smoke free zones. You can and will be hassled, and for no other reason than because it looks like you are smoking a cigarette. There's not enough nictone in the expelled water vapor for anyone to be concerned about. If they didn't know there were a few parts per million of nictone in the air that weren't there before, they wouldn't know it was there... they wouldn't be able to smell or feel it.

Even if you put a candy cigarette in your mouth and pretend to smoke it, I think there's a good chance you would be hassled for doing that as well. I know this sounds bizarre, but over the years I've been amazed at how some people will react to perceived threats or violations of law even after they've discovered no threat or violation exists. Perception has the power to trump reality... it has always had that power, but only with people who don't bother to think about what it is they are seeing and believing. And I think perception drives politics more today than it ever used to... so between my own experiences with mindless reactionaries and what I'm seeing with national politics, I'm pretty sure I'm not just imagining all of this.

rod03801: Nicotine patches or an electronic cigarette that delivers only nictotine (no tars and no carcinogens) in water vapor is something I might try. I've heard either of those can work if I stick with them. Do I need to see a doctor to get the patches, or are they sold over the counter?

I like the idea of an electronic cigarette. It's supposed to be half as expensive as buying regular cigarettes, but I stopped buying cartons of smokes years ago when they only cost a fraction of what they do now, so to me it would be much more expensive than continuing to smoke. The cost of a product like patches or a fake cigarette is something I have to consider, especially if I'm not sure it will without question lead to becoming smoke free.

I've tried quiting before, in fact so many times that I gave up quiting because it was becoming a ridiculous exercise in good intentions... they were 'feel good' efforts with no results. LOL That sounds familiar, kind of like how politics is practiced today in contrast to 30 or 40 years ago.

I know this is the politics board, but most of time I can't stand politics, and if I play politics with myself when trying to give up smoking I'll lose everytime. The real battle will be mental. I have to want something enough to put up with any discomfort that may discourage me... so a lot my focus will have to be less on the mechanics of stopping and more on what my mind is doing. I know that if I continue to "hold out" between smokes, and immediately stop puffiing on each one when the discomfort abaits, I'll become less addicted as time goes by. This can work, but it means practicing self discipline and not giving up on it for a long time... it could several months or even years to get to the same point you were able to get to when you got to the smallest patch.

put the lyme in the coconut: To be (a virus) or not to be (a virus)...

Ahha! I know what it is! My computer has the same problem I do... it thinks too much!

Artful Dodger: Do you mean the cure for smoking?

I've thought about that... the withdrawl symptoms are nothing, it's the emotions I feel as I'm going through withdrawl that keep me coming back for relief. The best I've been able to do after 3 days is to smoke less, by putting off the relief for as long as I can tollerate it. I didn't think this would be easy, that's why I've given myself a full 4 months to keep working at it.

I didn't have to work at quiting alcohol. In fact, I had no intention of stopping, but the desire for it diminished over time until I didn't want it any more. I wasn't even aware that I had stopped until a few months had passed. I was hoping maybe the same thing could happen with the smoking. I think I could be making too big a deal out this, that may be the reason for most of the anxiety.


I clicked on the second link and got a message about finding and isolating a virus. I was told (my computer talks to me) that I needed to reboot to have the virus deleted. I came back after rebooting and clicked on the same link, but got the same message... so I knew it wasn't just a fluke, it had to be the link. It could be my computer is being over protective and too sensitive to anything it thinks may be a virus, but I thought I should pass this along just in case it really is a problem and could end up being a problem for someone else.

I doubt it though, because I assume you were able to see the link without experiencing a problem... so do you know why my virus protection might identify something as a virus if it isn't actually a virus?

(V): I'm not sure what your point is. When you say [ But no... it's an explanation of the duality of human being. Even Jesus said he was the Son of man... while Christ said he was the son of God.. ] is that supposed to mean all of us are sons of men and sons of God in the same way Jesus is? Having two titles to illustrate two different aspects of the same person is commonplace, but finding both God and man in one vessel (a man) would be unique. According to the Bible it only happened once, and it happened for a specific purpose known only at the time by God. If Satan had known what God's purpose was he might have felt the need to constrain himself, but probably not because for Satan it was a lose/lose scenario... inspire people to reject Gods son results in victory for God, and not inspiring people to reject His son results in another kind of victory for God. So Satan losing is a given, but we are in the position of having to make a choice whether we want to or not. And claiming we didn't know or believe in this choice to be made is no excuse. Ignorance or disbelief (or both) is not something Judge Judy would approve of and see as grounds for dismissal, so there's no reason to believe God would. That's how I see it.

Maybe I'm being too much of a purist, but I was only commenting on branches that deviate so far from a root premise that it can no longer be called a 'true' branch. If I saw an apple growing from a cherry tree, I would have to assume the branch holding the apple did not originate from that tree. I might assume that branch was grafted onto the tree, but it's a safe guess that the apple branch didn't naturally grow out of the cherry tree.


But I think we are deviating from ADs original question. At least we agree on one point, that consciousness is a given. Physicalists say that consciousness is a natural result of matter becoming living tissue, and then later on it developed consciousness. But there is evidence (no kidding, actual scientific evidence along with philosophical proofs) that point to the mind and brain being two distinct entities. The mind inhabits the brain, but the mind is not the brain. I skipped to that chapter of the book I mentioned before, where it talks about the evidence of consciousness. The physicalist argument for consciousness is almost identical to the "something from nothing" argument offered to explain the Big Bang. They claim that consciousness naturally arises from physical matter, even thoug physical matter doesn't contain anything that can generate that attribute.

Oddly enough, free will is only mentioned once or twice in that chapter, as though free will is automatically conditional to being a conscious entity. Like I said before, although the book I'm reading doesn't automatically reject theism, it is mostly focused on science, logic, and practical philosophy. Most books don't hold my interest all the way through, but this one does.

Artful Dodger: [ I've not heard of Yetzer Hatoz before so I'll have to "Bing" it ]

I binged it, er, I mean winged it with google. The branch of Judaism V is referring to is very involved and complicated, but if I can believe the source (Wikipedia... okay I admit it, I'm often lazy with sources, but I didn't want to spend a lot of time with this) what I gleaned from it was the idea that perfection is earned, and sin is something we are somehow able to deal with on our own, with Gods help of course... it you take God out of the equation it could no longer be considered a branch or outgrowth of Judaism. Anyway, the idea of being completely dependent on God for our salvation morphs into it being less of Gods doing and more for us to do for attaining salvation.

My impression of this 'branch' of Judaism is the same with how some sects of Christianity have branched out in a way that appear to contradict the core tenets of Christian belief. It's like starting at the base of a cherry tree and moving up until you come to a branch, and then begin following the branch out towards the tips of it. If you find pine needles growing out from the tips of those branches you may not notice anything out of the ordinary if you forgot what kind of tree you originally started to examine.

By the way, I'm not claiming to do anything more than a cursory overview based on a few minutes of looking at what I personally believe is a biased and questionable source. The source is used often by people who want to argue with me, so I can't go wrong using it in my own arguments... less grounds for accusing me of bias.

Artful Dodger: I'm reading The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel. It's one of the best sources I've seen for a scientific, philosophical and mathematical approach to questions I personally find interesting. I don't think it gets into free will, but I haven't gotten to the part about consciousness yet... I just looked, it's the second to the last chapter.

The book is not about theism. Theism isn't automatically rejected or ruled out, but I doubt there is anything in there about free will. It's technical enough to be interesting but not so technical to be mind numbingly boring or hard to understand. Anyway, reading this book has me all primed and ready to think about questions like free will... how's that for a happy coincidence?

You're right, the question of free will is probably taken more seriously by thiests than by atheists. A purely materalistic approach to the mind is that it is nothing more than an advanced thinking machine, and so the concept of a "mind" would be an illusion. And if the conscious mind is only an illusion, then any thoughts about free will would also necessarily be an illusion. However, the people who say this are the same people who think you can get something from nothing, or that time is only an illusion. I read an article in Scientific American a few years ago that said time was an illusion. I have no idea what that meant, and after reading it I still didn't know what it meant. Just because time is an abstract (is not a physical thing) it doesn't mean that time does not exist... I'm not even sure if that was supposed to be the point of the article.


I'm trying to quit smoking, so if I seem unusually gabby that's why... and sitting here typing away makes me want to have a cigarette. I type because I want to smoke, and I want to smoke because I type...
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH crap, I'll roll one anyway, just in case I can't hold out... any... longer...

Artful Dodger: "Does man have free will or do you believe it's an illusion."


Wow, I didn't realise how loaded that question could be until you framed it in that way.

I think there could be more than one answer, depending on how broadly you want to define what "free will" means.

Here's one way to look at it... If you wanted to divide the entire universe into only two parts, things that have free will and things that don't, I think an obvious division would be living things vs inanimate matter. Inanimate matter cannot make free will choices, it can only act on and react to its environment in accordance with the physical laws of nature. On the other hand living things can act in ways inanimate matter cannot. For example, a salmon can defy a law of nature when it swims upstream to spawn. No piece of inanimate matter which is able to be pushed by a stream (like a small piece of wood) will naturally move in the opposite direction the water is flowing. So, you COULD say that some internal purpose of the salmon is exercising free will by the act of opposing a natural flow of nature. By this (admittedly broad) definition you could say that all living things are able to exercise free will (to varying degrees) and inanimate matter is not. Men are living things, and so therefore men are able to exercise free will.

Then there's free will as pertaining to beliefs, such as what we choose to believe about the nature of reality, and how much of that is based on personal desire as opposed to natural evidence. Whether consciously or not I think we choose what that ratio will be... it's a free will choice whether we are aware of it or not.

Whenever people talk about free will, the idea of predestination usually shows up in contrast to it. I don't believe there is any real conflict between free will and predestination... predestination is pretty much a given when talking about inanimate matter, but not so obviously a given when talking about living things. But that's only because living things exponentially ramp up the complexity of physical objects... it's one thing to have a pile of tinker toys strewn about on the floor, but quite another to have them assembled into machines with co-dependant and interdependant functioning parts and that are able to achieve a self directed purpose.

rod03801: Oh, please... everyone who is anyone (or anyone who is everyone) knows that government is not affected or ruled by the same economic principles the rest of us have to deal with. Governement is a magical entity that can spend more than it takes in because, uh, because they are the ones in charge... yeah, that's why. And it's only by sucking up to the ones in charge that any of us can hope for change in our fortunes... like the alternative energy companies, who knew their government funded ventures would eventually fold before too long. Why else would some of them receive parts for manufacture that would go directly into the dumpsters? Did they expect the random forces of magical evolution could take parts intended for human assembly and they would self assemble (by themselves) in those dumpters? And on top of that it should be noted... Uh oh, wait a sec... I'm starting to sound like a conservative again. No wonder I could never make it as a liberal, because as V has already noted (if he can remember back that far) I tend to think too much. Too much thinking leads to too many thoughts, and too many thoughts lead to too many other thoughts... and so on and so forth. After a while too many thoughts can crowd out memories of wild college parties and... Actually, I'd rather forget about all that.


Anywho, never expect a liberal to explain how deficit spending (or anything for that matter) is able to work. You'll almost always get an explanation that has nothing to do with it. For instance, paying off a war or two is a ridiculous argument, because those wars didn't put us into hock for the extra trillions of dollars we will soon be accountable for... since when has any war the US has fought cost more than the currently upcoming taxation that will be levied to pay for excessive spending on non essentials? And they are able to do this (as if by magic) by simply redefining what the word "essential" means.


I haven't spouted off for a few weeks, so I wanted to do something to help usher in the new year. heh heh heh heh heh heh...

By the way, if the world can end just because a Mayan 'calander' reaches the end of its cycle (the end of a very long cycle), then why doesn't the world come to an end every year when our calanders run out?

I try to avoid calling anyone ignorant, and for good reason. It's because whenever I see that word tossed out it's usually done by people who don't know what they are talking about. So even if I know for a fact I'm not being a hypocrite, I usually try to avoid looking like one. But in some cases I believe the moniker fits, and might explain why anyone would try experimenting with socialism.

There are people who do not know and are unable to guess what the result can be, because they lack knowledge and/or experience. That fits the definition of ignorance, but it's only one explanation for the appeal of socialism and probably the not the main one. The main reason I believe socialism is still a popular idea is our old friend 'greed'. Greed is nastly little critter that ends up biting itself on it's own ass when no else is around, so it's not just a question of morality for the sake of morality... it's an immoral attitude because frankly it just doesn't work out in the long run. It looks appealing, and it appeals to our sense of greed, but beyond that it's useless.

Another possibility is if people are aware of the consequences and still want to give it a go, then they are clearly expecting a different result. One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result... like me posting this message, but expecting to see a different kind of response...
*sigh*

(V): "It has been often the case that businesses are given 'costs' by governments. So no... it doesn't really cost them. It costs the tax payers of that area."


Are suggesting local tax payers end up covering most or all of the cost of a business moving into their area? That does seem to be what you are suggesting. If an area can benefit from a business relocating to their area, then they might be offered incentives to do so. But when you say "often the case", are you expecting me to interpreted that as meaning "most of the time" or "always"?

I'm sure you can come up with examples of local governing bodies providing tailored made perks and special tax incentives, but that is to be expected. What I said was businesses were being "courted"... not offered a completely free ride with all expenses paid.

No one when courting a business will offer to pay every and all expense incured in moving that business into their area, that would be nuts... the fact is they don't need to pay for anything. Incentives are usually in the form of tax breaks and elimination of needless regulations. And come on, seriously, you really don't know what I mean by over regulation?


There are rules that cannot be ignored because they are a part of state or federal law, but everyone knows local governments can pass measures and enact rules that only affect their area. In the case of the area I live in, it has been the extra rules regulations fees and taxes that have been driving businesses away... but the lions share of what businesses are required to do and pay for are completely unnecessary, and only exist to keep money coming into (local) governement coffers, and to insure people can continue to be employed in their government (tax funded) jobs.

It's necessary for local governments to have that ability, to enact rules and charge fees if needed, because the US is not a one size fits all economy. But surprise surprise, even a small local governing entity can become greedy, and always looking for new ways to bring in more money to spend... whether it's needed or not. So anyway, yeah... you are correct, greed does a play a big part in all of this. If you are hungry and can't wait for the goose to lay a golden egg, then cook the goose and eat it... and then you can wait until tomorrow to worry over where your next meal will come from.

(V): "Some.. but that depends on what you call lunacy."

Oh good grief, it was a trick question. "How many people can you find on a list of 6,000 people?"


As far as the numbers go, between France and the UK, I might have goofed and transposed what I read about France with what I was reading about the UK. It happens... I'm gettin' old and somewhat confused, but not so confused that anyone can convince me passing tax laws that work as disincentives won't cause migrations from one country (or state) to another.

Without even looking I can guess that Europe has similar migration patterns as in the US, with businesses moving their headquarters from one state to another. If a business has no economic reason to move they won't do it. It costs big bucks to do that, so it would take a significant disincentive for causing any big (or even medium size) company to pull up roots and settle in somewhere else.

It's been happening in California, and it's happening here in Oregon. Companys that started here and have been here for many years either went out of business or relocated to other (work friendly) states.

A few years ago a couple of tax measures were passed locally, on top of an already untenable tax burdon, and word on the street here was those two relatively small tax measures would be the proverbial straw that breaks the camels back. Almost immediately after those measures had passed commerce departments in other states began calling and courting some of those businesses. Apparently they knew something our mayor and other city officials didn't know or understand (not to mention the general population, because they voted those messures in). So after the dust starts to settle and businesses started moving out of state, or simply giving up and closing their doors, the mayor called a special meeting of business leaders and asked them what the city of Portland could do to help them... ???

He thought they were bluffing when those same business leaders had told him (before the vote) that they could not stay in business if hit with extra taxes. Apparently they weren't bluffing... they were telling him the way it is.

I am literally mystified by this... why can't politicians get this one simple idea into their heads... the money they want for themselves will not be there if the economy is tied up in needless regulations and bled by too big a tax burdon.

(V): "I mean... would you agree with the daily Mails view Sarah Palin and all those who believe the same way she does are lunatics?"

No, but I could agree that some people that other people have characterized as being lunitics might have forgotten to take their medication(s) or non-traditional medicinal herbs. Or maybe an acupunture needle was accidentally pushed all the way in? Who knows?

By the way... seeing as how you've brought up the issue of lunancy, how many people in a list of the top 6,000 earners in the UK do you believe can be found on that list?

(V): I'll make this simple. When I talk about a "millionaires tax" I'm referring to your top earners ... ((( EARNERS )))

The key word here is 'earners'.

Not havers or holders... ' earners '

Not all of your top money owners are top money earners. Money you own that has already been taxed is not again taxed year after year... unless you've put it all into real estate, then you do need to pay a regular property tax for as long as you own your home(s) or other properties.


But just for the fun of it, imagine you had 8 million dollars just sitting in the bank year after year, and it's earning you a secure 2% interest which you've decided is enough for you to live on. I don't know about you, but I would be VERY happy with that kind of arraignement. Anyway, technically speaking you COULD be called a millionaire, and thus be included in that 200,000 to 400,000 list of millionaires living in the UK. However, you would NOT fall into the same catagory and listed as someone earning 2 or 3 million dollars or more per year. It's those EARNED dollars (for each year) that would be subject to taxation, and NOT the 8 million dollar (dollars, pounds, whatever) nest egg sitting securely in your bank... only the interest on that 8 million would be subject to taxation. Assuming of course you've already payed taxes on a larger sum of money, thus leaving you with 8 million for you to set down into a bank and never spend.

It's only a 'what if' scenario (darn it!) but you could call me a millonaire if I had 8 mil sitting in the bank year after year... even so, I could not afford to live the sterotypical life of a one or two percenter "millionaire" without eventually depleting most or all of that money.

(V): I think you may be taking the term "millionaires tax" a bit too literally. I seriously doubt the figures you are showing represent only the millionaires who generate enough income to be affected by the tax.

I suspect anyone could be included in those stats by simply being worth one million dollars, if they were to sell off all of their land and equipment and anything else they own... so technically speaking, those stats could include farmers who earn less in yearly income than an accountant earning, say, a paltry 200,000 a year.

I was not talking about everyone and anyone who might be worth one million dollars... I was obviously talking about those who generate income high enough to be affected by the so called "millionaires tax"... obviously I was wrong about that being obvious.

I'm also not talking about the fabulously wealthy who are simply living on their wealth and are not actively ingaged in business(s) that generate enough (yearly) income to be affected by the new tax. That too I thought was obvious, but once again you have proven me wrong.

So anyway, congratulations on once again proving me wrong through the inimitable power of narrow minded nick pickery.

(V): "You do agree greed is wrong?"

Yes, I agree greed is wrong, but I'm probably saying it's wrong for a different reason than you are. The reason I think greed is wrong is because in the long run it ends up losing what it hopes to gain, plus some.

Last year your country passed what has been described as a "millionaires tax". It's essentially the same kind of tax that Obama is pushing for in my country. But in only one year your new tax has backfired, and now your government will be taking in less money from your millionaire class than it did a year ago. On top of that there will be less money invested in your economy and fewer jobs will be created... whenever the wealthy are actively ingaged in business the result is always new jobs and more people who will be paying taxes.

Governmental greed has resulted in taking in less of a percentage from millionaires than they were getting a year ago. Greed hasn't gotten your governement more in revenue, it has created an environment where it will be getting less than it did before raising taxes on your wealthiest citizens.

Draconian measures can only work if you go all the way with it... make it illegal for millionaires and billionaires to retire or move away. Under the threat of fines and imprisonment your government should make it illegal for your millionaires to do anything differently. Hold a gun to the head of the goose that lays your golden eggs, that's what any despot who has absolute power would do. Half way measures simply do not work, and I gaurentee those millionaires won't cough up the extra dough if you don't make them do it by force and by threats.

Governmental greed (along with an amazingly stupid short sightedness) has caused your millionaire class to go from 16,000 millionaires down to 6 thousand in only one year. I'm talking about millionaires who have either left your country or have retired, and you can't tax someone who either no longer lives there or who is no longer generating new (taxable) income. The same thing happened in France (70% tax rate on millionaires) and many of their millionaires moved to a neighboring country... I learned this morning that many of them have taken up residence only 800 yards from the French border. That is truly hilarious... they wanted to move away, but not too far away. They still like France, and want to be near to it, but not actually be beholden to it in any significant way. It's like they are saying 'I love you my darling, but don't get too close'... LOL

(V): I'm assuming you mean it is immoral for big businesses to take advantage of legal deductions, or other legal means by which someone may pay less or even nothing in taxes... okay, you didn't say legal deductions, but that is what some people today are calling loopholes. They are not the same things.

I think we both know that when you say the word "immoral", it's the same as acknowledging the 'legality' of legitimate deductions. Legal deductions are... (drum roll please)... tum ta da da tum ta daaa... LEGAL, and are purposefully placed in tax codes to be used... legally. As in, not against the law. Was Starbucks breaking any of your tax laws? I don't think so, which is why I believe you are saying taking advantage of your tax code is 'immoral'... because you can't say it's 'illegal'.

I think it's funny how you can support the legality of something you approve of, and ignore any question of morality, unless it suits you to do the exact opposite.

Anyway. loopholes are unintended "holes" found in the language of tax laws that allow some folks to be able to avoid paying taxes on money intended to be taxed. That's the difference. If you are calling legal deductions or any other legal means a company uses to avoid paying taxes "loopholes", then you are clearly mistaken. By the way, if you are so indignant over big business avoiding taxation, maybe you should think about boycotting Google. Are you aware of how much money they are currently sheltering in offshore island accounts? I could tell you, but why not do a google search and see for yourself?

... or maybe try using some other search engine, just to be sure you are able find that information.

*<(:op

Iamon lyme: Sorry, but I 'feel' the need to clean part of that up...

"Goverments free to do as they will are not traditionally known for the same kind of prudent money management forced on businesses by competition and willing customers."

(V): How does morality play a part in demanding businesses pay more in taxes? Especially when the so called "need" for money is originally created by a governing elite intent on practicing poor money management.


If there has been any immorality here it's in how the governing elite have foolishly spent the money coming from people they are supposed to be doing right by. If you don't live under a totalitarian dictatorship then why can't you hold your goverment accountable for how it maganges your (the taxpayers) money?

Goverments free to do as they will are not traditionally known for prudent money management forced on businesses by competion and willing customers. If Obama and the Democrats here are successful in getting the wealthiest to pay more than they already are, the increase in revenue will be enough to fund the US government for a whopping 8.5 days. Can you seriously argue that eight and half days out of every year is enough to offset cutbacks, loss of jobs and even loss of taxable revenue from a company that might choose to leave for a friendlier working environment? There is no law, moral or otherwise, that can prevent a business to relocate to another country if the tax burdon becomes rediculously high.

If your business is located in North Korea, then there probably are "incentives" for you to remain where you are.

(V): How do employees at UK Starbucks feel about this? I'm assuming most of them are UK citizens, and employment at Starbucks either supplements or is their main income. I wonder if any of those protesters have considered what the law of unintended consequences may reveal if they get what they want... or are consequences that do not affect them too far removed from own their lives to be worth worrying over? If they've never worked there (or know anyone who does) or purchase anything there, or ever intend to, then they obviously have nothing to lose. It makes sense... if your actions do not impact your own life, then why should you care if it impacts anyone else? Liberalism is all about saying you care about your fellow human being... it doesn't actually mean you do, or need to, or must.

Artful Dodger: [ Israel assassinates the bad guys and they get ticked because then they have to train a new top terrorist leader. ]

Have you noticed there are fewer suicide bombings? New recruits are harder to find... and all of the really good ones are dead.

I don't mean to sound sympathic of the terrorists, because I'm not. But there are times I think I've tuned into a day time drama "reality show" when I hear someone feeling their pain in one of those "man in the street interviews". I often hear people saying Israelites should NOT be aggressively defending themselves. Yeah, right... you betcha. If those same bombs were dropping in their neighborhoods, you and I both know those same people would be singing a different story. They've never had to deal with something like that, so they can't even imagine what it's like.

I'm not sure if I've been listening to slanted news reports, or if 50 years of dumbing down the general population really has paid off for the liberal establishment.

Nevertheless, considering the fact that Israel is (and has been) under constant assualt, it would be absurd it they didn't defend themselves.

(V): [ btw.. ain't all you done Lamon is switched from dissing Christians to dissing anyone who isn't one? ]

Seriously, do you really believe I arbitrarily decided to "switch sides", and for no other reason than to diss a different group of people? Suggesting I could be that shallow is just another example of your desire to hurl insults and demean the people you hate. There really seems to be no limit to the extent you will go to diss anyone who disagrees with you.

Your views on Christians have been tolerated whether the topic calls for it or not, but apparently you have a problem with my addressing your complaints. If I choose to diss the dissers, then so what? If your antagonism towards Christianity is allowed here, then show me in the rules where I may not respond to it? For someone who is not shy about calling others hypocrites you have done a fair job of exemplifying that "quality".

(V): [ ... it's a matter of the image thing and maintaining the central law of Jesus.. what he said. .. ... Love all that is God. The OT says God is in everything.. how do you get comfortable with that? ]

Don't you mean to say YOU are not comfortable with that? btw, that too was a question... whether a question is rhetorical or not, asking is not the same as putting words into someones mouth.

You appear to be asking "how do I get comfortable" with what you believe the Bible says and who you think God is. Shouldn't the question be why am I comfortable with what I see in the Bible and who I believe God is? Or are you the consummate authority on all spiritual matters for yourself and everyone else?

(V): (V): "Do you believe backing down to bullies and apologizing to them for hurting their little feelings will stop them?" [ Did I say back down.. putting words in my mouth again. ]


Did I say that's what you said? No, I don't think so... do you see anywhere where I might have said you said that?

Sending out a straw man to fight an imaginary straw man is inventive, but not very smart. It was a question, and from my point of view a rhetorical one. Other than a few new age thinkers or perhaps someone who has never had to deal with bullying, I think the answer is obvious. Ever hear of a fellow by the name of Neville Chamberlain?

[ Maybe you should study how the NI war ended. As one who lived through that era before you Americans got to experience terrorism at home .. ... !!! .. .. ok, that is wrong... better to say.. before you got to experience terrorism from an organisation based outside the US. As you did have many internal groups willing to resort to violence. ]

So what is your point? Are you saying it's okay to deal with violent organizations if they are internal, but not okay to deal with them if they are not internal? If both will attack you where you live then why make a distinction?

(V): [ You think too much. ]

It's partly attributable to a mild case of aspergers, a condition I was born with. It can a be a weakness or a strength, depending on how much self discipline I'm willing to exercise.

[ Maybe if I posted videos of me burning bibles and the US flag on a bonfire you will... or make a video of some guy dressed up as Jesus committing various lewd acts. ]

Burning the flag doesn't bother me, because a flag is an inanimate object. I'm only a nationalist in the sense that I live here, and don't want to see the US become just another rat hole for despots to play around with.

In regard to videos or "artwork" or vile comments designed to insult and denigrate my religion, where have you been? I've seen examples of that for most of my life. In fact, I used to be one those people who would laugh at and demean christians, until I became one.

Ironic, huh? I ended up becoming the object of my own scorn. Why do you suppose anyone would do that? Or am I asking you to "think too much"?

(V): [ ... You do accept that this is true regardless of other events? ]

I might (or might not) if I could understand half of what you say. Unless or until you are able to make yourself clear I'll be responding only to what I think you might be saying.

~ Islamic clerics in UK have been charged (in custody?) with inciting violence. Okay...

~ One was extradited to my country. I don't doubt that.

~ You make reference to Christians and comparing them with Islamists (?) as though it is somehow relevant... are we getting ready to delve yet again into the past, to find some historical perspective you believe may shore up your point?

Here you said: "Such videos as that guy made are not winning hearts and minds."

It isn't his job to "win hearts and minds". Is it YOUR job at this board to "win hearts and minds"? Do you think someone could charge you with a crime, and have you tossed into jail for saying anything here? I doubt it. But who knows? Fencer might show up with an armed detail of soldiers and capture you in the middle of the night.

The youtube video guy is a private citizen, who was spouting off on youtube. That is all he is, and all he did... if anyone (not just the president) wanted to find an offensive video he could use to claim is the cause of a violent attack, how difficult could that be? The president didn't just tell a lie, he told a stupid lie. He wasn't the only one sitting in the situation room. He was surrounded by people who may have been advising him, but everyone was waiting for him to make some kind of decision... because it was HIS decision to make.

~ "They put our troops and civilians at risk. They help recruit more psychos to the terrorist cause."

A youtube video can do all that? Wow... so, the president serves you up a glass of koolaid and you don't hesitate to drink from it. It's remarkable what some people are willing to believe.

Do you believe backing down to bullies and appologizing to them for hurting their little feelings will stop them? Making excuses for them doesn't make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside and wanting to become our friends... it encourages them to ramp up their efforts.

Iamon lyme: Correction: Obama falsely accused him, not charged him. But he WAS charged and arrested as a result of that accusation. A false accusation leading to a criminal charge and arrest is itself a crime.

But as we saw with Bill Clinton, it's not always easy to go after the top dog... Clinton got away with doing and saying things anyone else would have gone to jail for doing (or saying). Lying before a grand jury, insider trading (cattle futures payed off handsomely for those in the know)... too many misdeeds for me to get into, but I guess the point here is as Mel Brooks once said... "It's good to be the king."

(V): No one is saying much about Fast and Furious either, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, having trouble finding what you don't want to see? That's odd, I had no trouble finding lodes of information about it. Have you tried using a search engine like, oh say, maybe "Google"? Or how about "Bing"? I hear that's a good one too.

It seems the only thing Obama can't hide from (with or without the help from his buddies in the press) will be the Benghazi story. He won't be about to lie his way around that one. Too much information has already gotten out contradicting the video excuse, resulting in his apology to the terrorists for offending them... the same terrorists who killed four of our people on embassy property. BTW, any US embassy is considered to be US domain... so in effect it's same as if the attack took place on US soil.

I don't know if the American citizen who ended up in jail because of Obama lying is out yet or not, but I'll bet his lawyers are waiting to see what Congress will do about this. On top of everthing else, allowing people to die unnecessarily, and then lie about it, the president may have to account for being responsible for causing a US citizen to be falsely charged and thrown into jail.

Remember the cartoonist who is still in hiding because he drew an "offensive" cartoon? He wasn't thrown in jail or turned over to Islamic terrorists, was he? No, he was and still is being hidden and protected from them.

But what does Obama do? He falsely charges a guy who made an "offensive" youtube video with being responsible for an expected and planned attack on 9/11, and as a result the guy gets taken from his home in the middle of the night and tossed into jail.

Artful Dodger: Elephant? I'd have more luck passing myself off as the Bearded Lady. Add a little padding here and there, let my hair grow out... use the ladies room instead of the other one. If I forget and start walking into the mens room someone might get suspicious and... and, uh... wait a sec... Peanuts!! That's right... I forgot about the peanuts!
Okay then, forget the circus... I'll get a job as peanut inspector at a dry roasted peanut factory.

ketchuplover: [ Subject: All hands...
abandon ship!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ]

I decided to wait until after the election before designating myself as either "retired" or "unemployed". It's official now... I'm calling meself retired. So I'll be nothin' but a bow-leggedly corn cob pipe chewin' land-lubber from here on out.

Maybe I can do some occasional day labor... or maybe work from home? Posting messages at this board seems to be the only real job I have at the moment, and I'm working for less than peanuts....

.... ( ? )

.... ( ! )

Eureka, that's it! I know what to do now! I'll get a job working for peanuts... dry roasted peanuts.

(V): [ Seriously.. stop thinking for a second and empty your mind... .... Do you really think that the entire establishment (as we are talking about both parties here as well as 'civil servants' could hide such a fraud? ... ]


Seriously, START thinking (for more than a second) and ask yourself this question... if it ISN'T a fraud, then why did the president show FRAUDULENT papers in an attempt to settle the question? He could have settled the question once and for all by simply showing true documentation.

I am older than Obama, and record keeping has improved since I was born... I can get replacement papers at any time, so no one can convince me that anyone born in the US is somehow unable to get his hands on true documentation.

Showing faked documentation to prove legitimacy is worse than showing nothing at all... so why would he do that?

You don't need phony ID to buy beer if you are old enough to buy beer. Does it make sense for someone who is old enough to buy liquor to get phony ID to prove they are old enough?

No, it makes no sense at all. You could be turned away for using phony ID, when all you had to do was to show your true ID.



Okay, I've made my point now so you can turn your brain off... sorry for the inconvenience.

Übergeek 바둑이: [ Modern democracy is a game of perception. It is popularity contest. It is not about chosing the most capable man for the job, but the most popular man for the job. ]

It has been moving in that direction for a long time. When I think about how Reagan talked to people, one thing that stands out (for me it did) is that he didn't play the popularity game. Which is kind of ironic... by NOT playing that game, he ended up being more popular than if he had tried juggling various (and conflicting) positions in an attempt to please the most number of people. But it's not the politicians who started this weird move toward winning popularity contests. They are simply responding to what they've learned will convince the most number of people to vote for them.

Politics today looks like a day time "reality" gotcha type of show. I can't stomach watching Jerry Springer or Maury, but that type of format is being imitated and appears to be permanently incorporated into modern American politics. And to make matters worse, we are being instructed in politics and foreign policy by movie stars and tv personalities. These folks have become experts by virtue of their images appearing on television and in movies. Isn't it comforting to know the most qualified people are in a position to shape public perceptions and influence policy?

Eons ago a social studies teacher in my high school told us that in a democracy anything can happen... and he said it's possible to vote freedoms away to the point where you can never get them back again.

(V): [ If everyone in the US .. ok, the 99% got together and closed all the tax loopholes.. I think it'd be quite feasible to permanently lower tax rates for the rich. ]

If the tax code had been simplified and constructed to be truly "fair" a long time ago, there would have been no need for tax loopholes to come afterward. After excessively taxing the wealthiest, legislators needed to go back and create ways for them to be able to keep more of their money... why? So they might have something left over to invest in growth, that's why. If this sounds crazy it's because it IS crazy... take it away with one hand and give it back with the other. Sound familiar?

Investment means growth of business (that means more jobs) and fewer people out of work, and that means more taxable income is being generated for the government!!! So why does government invariably try to discourage the goose that lays the golden eggs from laying the golden eggs? The government doesn't benefit from a distressed economy, so what are they trying to do?

If potentional investors are discouraged from investing it doesn't mean they are shoving their money into off shore accounts. It means they are shy about investing their money. So it's really not my business or yours what they do with that money, because it belongs to them. And if they decide NOT to invest, because of governmental rules and restrictions and charging fees for doing this than and the other (taxable) thing, what can the government do about that? Make it illegal to NOT make investments? Okay, maybe (I wouldn't put it passed them) but until that happens there's nothing to stop potential investors from pulling out of doing any future business and simply retire on what they have.

Because of how poorly the economy is doing and because of what Obamacare will do to business starting in 2014, we will continue to see more and more people retire before they had planned to... that's already happening, people are already starting to jump ship, and why not? The damn thing is sinking fast, and Obama is up there on the deck drilling more holes in it so the water will (hopefully) drain out. Well, good luck with that Mr President... you insufferable moron!!

(V): [ "I have more of a right to occupy the White house as the executive leader of my country than our current president does. I don't need to conjure up poorly faked documents because I really WAS born in this country." ] ~ [ "No you don't. He was born in America, just for some reason you hate liberals.. or at least your definition of what they are." ]

And you know he was born on US soil because he showed faked documents to prove it? Come on V, you can do better than that.


By the way, I WAS careless and did use the wrong word when talking about older subtexts to an original saying... I didn't mean to give the impression those subtexts started with the original saying, but apparently I did. And you were not lax in jumping on that mistake.

One of the things I like about this site is people will point out mistakes in meaning, but I've never been jumped on for making a spelling mistake. A few years ago I was at different site and it was like talking to third graders... it was more important to the people there to catch spelling mistakes than to make any attempt at dealing with issues. As crazy as it can get here I have say it's a step up from some of the crazier craziness I've seen. And the moderation here isn't bad either, but I confess to occasionallyl trying to slip by the censors by burying my insults in a lot of innocuous sounding words...



(((aww crap, I did it again... why do I always tell on myself like that?)))

Übergeek 바둑이: Reagans first election was definitely a response to Carters failed policies. It was said of Carter that he couldn't say no to anyone, and as a result the poor fool was besieged by lobbyists on all sides... they were all over him like flies on [fecal matter]. But you failed to mention that Reagan had already proven he was able to turn the nations economy around. And he did, which accounts for why he won by an even bigger margin for his second term. During his tenure as governor of California, he not only turned the economy around by encouraging (instead of discouraging) business, but the resulting increase in tax revenue (more jobs, more tax money) allowed more money (not less) to be funneled into social services... Big Bird wasn't a bit worried about job security at that time. If he cut any social services it's because they didn't really function as a safety net. Many so called "social services" do nothing to help people with real needs, but rather exist as incentives (give aways) to encourage voter loyalty.

Übergeek 바둑이: I can agree with much of what you say about Reagan except for the parts you rightly describe as "perceptions". You don't say who had these perceptions, but I think it's clear who they were. There were supporters and detractors (as there always are) on both sides would likely try shoring up their own perceptions with some obvious misperceptions. And one of those obvious misperceptions is when you imply cases of sexual discrimination had risen as a result of Reagans presidency.

"I saw a claim that said that sexual discrimination claims increased 25% in the 1980s."

This is probably true, but had nothing to do with Reagan. It's the same as if you implied feminist influence didn't begin until 1980 and then quickly peaked during the Reagan administration. If (reported) discrimination cases rose to that level during that time, it would be incidental to Reagans tenure. Feminist influence had been steadily growing for at least two decades prior to the 80's.

I personally got a taste of that influence during the 80's when I applied for a job, and was immediately grilled about my personal life. It was obvious I was not going to get the job and why. But even if I did get the job, I could see what lay in store for me working for those people. The problem with the interview began when it came out that I was a married man who had three children... when that little secret(?) came out I could see a definite shift in attitude in the woman who was doing the interview. After a few more minutes of listening to insulting questions and comments I decided not to sit through any more of it, and excused myself from the meeting. It was funny in a way, because when I got up to leave her attitude shifted to one of surprise, and she told me the interview was not over yet. So I said "It is for me. You can continue with the next guy who walks in, but as far as I'm concerned we are done here."

By the way, the feminist movement took a big hit, one I believe they've never recovered from, when after Reagan they stood by and supported the next (Democrat) president. And they were suspiciously quiet over his adulteries and misogynist behavior... I don't need to comment on that. It speaks for itself.

Iamon lyme: V): [ ...he refers to from his 'childhood'. ]

What's up with the parenthetical reference to my 'childhood'?

Are you suggesting I might be lying? Granted it was a long time ago, but I do have papers showing where and when I was born. And just to be clear, my birth record and SS# are perfectly valid. In fact, I have more of a right to occupy the White house as the executive leader of my country than our current president does... I don't need to conjure up poorly faked documents because I really WAS born in this country.

(V): [ I think it's just where lamon was raised, it got made racist by the old timers he refers to from his 'childhood'. ]

Bingo, you figured it out! I'm impressed.

Language is always changing... new words are always being coined and old words gain different shades of meaning, as do phrases. When I said the old timers were transplants, I meant that literally. Many were old south racists who were influenced from their youth by the clan, and some were probably former clan members. I didn't understand why they held such deep hatred and resentments, but as a kid living in the time and area I lived in you were expected to respect your elders no matter what.

To this day I still don't know what prejudices my parents may have had, because they were smart enough not to poison their own children with that kind of thinking. My dad was a fiscal Republican, and was a law and order kind of guy. Other than that his personal views leaned more toward the liberal side. My mother was the go along to get along type, a Democrat who never questioned what her party did. She would complain about high taxes, but never made the connection between that and the fact it was her party who was mostly responsible for the high tax rate. And I'm talking about the tax rate back then... If she was still alive and working, she would be furious about todays taxation, but I suspect she would still be a party loyalist.

Artful Dodger: [ My wife carries a leather strap. ]

Well there ya go! And for all of you young people out there who might have been wondering about this, romance ISN'T dead! It's just taken a slight turn is all... and gone off in a strange direction. But it's still alive, and that is what is important! Yes.




ohhhh man, what have I gotten myself into here?

rod03801: He directed that comment to AD, but I hear what you're saying about the level of maturity. Actually, the comment he made sounded a bit catty so it all evens out. *</:oP