Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue

Well today is Election Day here in the U.S., our annual opportunity to practice democracy (insert joke here about continuing to practice until we get it right). Here's hoping all those who are registered get out and vote, and that the process proceeds smoothly.

Smooth Links: Thanks Ant and Acleacius.
Play: Obama vs Romney Boxing Match
Legendary Thieves.
Links: 'Battlestar Galactica- Blood and Chrome' being released online Friday.
New! GameMaxx. Thanks HARDOCP.
Science: Experiencing math anxiety may be like the experience of physical pain.
Broken Heart Syndrome: Now doctors say you really CAN die from a sudden shock to the system.
New dinosaur named after Sauron from Lord of the Rings. Or Blue's forum poster. Thanks nin.
Media: The Brooklyn Hipster.
Adam Savage Builds Patton Oswalt's Halloween Costume.
How Videos Go Viral.

View
236 Replies. 12 pages. Viewing page 4.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Older >

176. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 15:04 RollinThundr
 
Cutter wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 14:59:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:12:
And when we're a bankrupt 3rd world social utopia that you idiots want, those "social issues" won't mean shit. It's not that they've been courting the wrong people, it's that the liberal indoctrination that has gone on in public schools/colleges for the last 20-30 years have produced a bunch of entitled douchebags like yourself.

Try visiting some socialist nations and marvel at how much better their standard of living is than yours and then ask yourself why you keep defending the elites who only make your life worse by getting you to parrot th lie that socialism is bad.

Yeah let me get on a plane to china or north korea right now. I hear they're both total social utopias. Those folks building apple products seem like such a happy bunch with 20 hour work days and suicides. Such an excellent standard of living.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
175. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 14:59 Cutter
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:12:
And when we're a bankrupt 3rd world social utopia that you idiots want, those "social issues" won't mean shit. It's not that they've been courting the wrong people, it's that the liberal indoctrination that has gone on in public schools/colleges for the last 20-30 years have produced a bunch of entitled douchebags like yourself.

Try visiting some socialist nations and marvel at how much better their standard of living is than yours and then ask yourself why you keep defending the elites who only make your life worse by getting you to parrot th lie that socialism is bad.
 
Avatar 25394
 

"Nobody wants to be nobody in America. Ed is the apotheosis of a prevailing American syndrome. It used to be that someone became famous because they were special. Now people are considered special just for being famous. Fame, itself, is its own virtue.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
174. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 14:54 Scottish Martial Arts
 
I think you're quoting the wrong person, every US citizen has the right to vote, and that's how it should be. Or you didn't realize my reply was 100% sarcasm.

I understood that your reply was sarcasm. My point was that if you're going to wave around the Constitution like it's the word of God, then it might help to read it one day and discover that ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION ordinary people don't get to vote for President or for US Senators. Obviously, the election of Senators by popular vote was amended (18th amendment, I think? I need to look it up), and state legislatures have turned over the selection of Electors to a popular vote. But that's not what's in Articles I and II of the US Constitution, and certainly was not what was intended by the Founders.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
173. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 14:48 Beamer
 
Actually, it's the conservatives which are playing the race card today.


But you didn't respond to my map, which showed that the red states are red in more ways than one - most of the states that went red are the states that have been running a deficit for decades. How can they be the fiscally responsible ones if they're the states that are in deepest debt?
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
172. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 14:46 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 14:37:
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 13:54:
It's hilarious that for a party that prattles on about tolerance so much, libs tend to not tolerate anyone that doesn't share their views, instead falling on the old playbook calling them bigots and racist for not buying into wealth redistribution so that those who make bad life choices can still prosper. It's ok Obama will level the playing field.

So back to "tolerate my intolerance." "I don't believe gay people should have equal rights. It's my point of view, you should tolerate it!"

Who said anything about gay rights? I couldn't care less if they marry or not, it doesn't affect me either way.

No, what I was getting at is the liberal play book, 1 play the race card early and often, republicans are all racist. 2. Republicans don't care about citizens only dems, 3. Class warfare it's all the rich people hoarding wealth! BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!

All the while ignoring economic issues which should be at the forefront, especially now, and focusing on far less important issues like gay marriage.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
171. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 14:37 Beamer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 13:54:
It's hilarious that for a party that prattles on about tolerance so much, libs tend to not tolerate anyone that doesn't share their views, instead falling on the old playbook calling them bigots and racist for not buying into wealth redistribution so that those who make bad life choices can still prosper. It's ok Obama will level the playing field.

So back to "tolerate my intolerance." "I don't believe gay people should have equal rights. It's my point of view, you should tolerate it!"
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
170. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 14:34 RollinThundr
 
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 14:27:
Yep it totally sucks that voting isn't totally restricted to socialists and those that share the view point that in order to prosper again, America needs to become another Europe.

You're a tea partier, right? So you view the Constitution as a document to be unerringly followed to the letter, correct? Did you ever notice how US Senators and the President are "voted" for? Go look it up: I'll wait. Back now? What's that? You couldn't find any provision for citizens to directly vote for either their US Senators or their President? Did you notice that Senators are to be selected by the state legislatures, with no voter input, and that Electors for the Presidency are to be selected by the state legislatures as well, again with no input from voters?

See the thing is, the Founders were HIGHLY suspicious of ordinary citizens being given too much power. They looked at the example of Ancient Athens, and generally recoiled in horror at the influence of demagogues on the hoi polloi, especially during the Peloponnesian War. As such, while they wanted to give ordinary citizens a voice in government, they didn't want to give them TOO MUCH of a voice. Therefore, they sought to insulate the Senate and the Presidency from the volatility of the public mood, by ensuring that only "the right kind of people" had the power to elect them, i.e. state legislatures, and electors, who were envisioned as being prominent citizens reputed for political wisdom, and thus less likely to be carried away by the will of the mob.

The point of all of this is that if you were truly a "Conservative" trying to preserve (the literal meaning of conservare, the Latin root of conservative) the original meaning of the US Constitution, then you'd very much be in support of only "the right kind of people" being allowed to vote.

I think you're quoting the wrong person, every US citizen has the right to vote, and that's how it should be. Or you didn't realize my reply was 100% sarcasm.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
169. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 14:27 Scottish Martial Arts
 
Yep it totally sucks that voting isn't totally restricted to socialists and those that share the view point that in order to prosper again, America needs to become another Europe.

You're a tea partier, right? So you view the Constitution as a document to be unerringly followed to the letter, correct? Did you ever notice how US Senators and the President are "voted" for? Go look it up: I'll wait. Back now? What's that? You couldn't find any provision for citizens to directly vote for either their US Senators or their President? Did you notice that Senators are to be selected by the state legislatures, with no voter input, and that Electors for the Presidency are to be selected by the state legislatures as well, again with no input from voters?

See the thing is, the Founders were HIGHLY suspicious of ordinary citizens being given too much power. They looked at the example of Ancient Athens, and generally recoiled in horror at the influence of demagogues on the hoi polloi, especially during the Peloponnesian War. As such, while they wanted to give ordinary citizens a voice in government, they didn't want to give them TOO MUCH of a voice. Therefore, they sought to insulate the Senate and the Presidency from the volatility of the public mood, by ensuring that only "the right kind of people" had the power to elect them, i.e. state legislatures, and electors, who were envisioned as being prominent citizens reputed for political wisdom, and thus less likely to be carried away by the will of the mob.

The point of all of this is that if you were truly a "Conservative" trying to preserve (the literal meaning of conservare, the Latin root of conservative) the original meaning of the US Constitution, then you'd very much be in support of only "the right kind of people" being allowed to vote.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
168. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 13:54 RollinThundr
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 12:06:
PHJF wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:55:
There are already millions of disenfranchised Americans... they're called people with criminal convictions.

There definitely should be higher standards for voters. My grandmother, for instance, is racist. She wouldn't vote for Obama on the sole fact of his being black. She should absolutely, positively, NOT be allowed to vote. In this day and age every citizen pretty much has access to tools to educate themselves and stay modestly informed... but a startling amount choose not to. I don't want uninformed bigots to have any say in a national election.

I agree that it sucks that uninformed and/or racist/bigoted folks can vote based only on their ignorance and hatred, but there's no good way to screen voters, so we just have to keep trying to educate more people and hope that each generation is at least a little more tolerant and a little less ignorant than the last. I think we're making progress on the tolerance part. Not sure about the ignorance, as there's plenty of that on both sides. I can't even talk to most co-workers, teammates, etc about politics, because they tend to have nothing more than gut reactions and crap they heard on TV/radio to go by.

Yep it totally sucks that voting isn't totally restricted to socialists and those that share the view point that in order to prosper again, America needs to become another Europe.

It's hilarious that for a party that prattles on about tolerance so much, libs tend to not tolerate anyone that doesn't share their views, instead falling on the old playbook calling them bigots and racist for not buying into wealth redistribution so that those who make bad life choices can still prosper. It's ok Obama will level the playing field.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
167. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 13:45 Wowbagger_TIP
 
PHJF wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 13:38:
Wish you guys were sensible enough to realize this whole "us vs them" shit propagated by hardline party politics isn't helping anyone. People are always drawing and defending borders between each other; it must be a relic of caveman culture. Your party sucks, your football team sucks, Mexico sucks, Muslims suck, console gamers suck (well I guess I'm guilty there), on and on and on. I think we need a good old-fashioned drug-fueled orgy. Peace love save the trees and shit.

Actually I don't see too many team players here. Not entirely sure about RollinThundr, but I think he just gerrymanders his arguments in such a way as to avoid the inclusion of any facts. Most are arguing issues, and given enough time and attention span, these things could probably be worked out. Hopefully Congress can actually start doing something useful now, but given Boehner's recent statements, I don't hold out much hope.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
166. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 13:45 Beamer
 
PHJF wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 13:38:
Wish you guys were sensible enough to realize this whole "us vs them" shit propagated by hardline party politics isn't helping anyone. People are always drawing and defending borders between each other; it must be a relic of caveman culture. Your party sucks, your football team sucks, Mexico sucks, Muslims suck, console gamers suck (well I guess I'm guilty there), on and on and on. I think we need a good old-fashioned drug-fueled orgy. Peace love save the trees and shit.

It's the biggest issue in politics today. People treat it like sports, not like it's the good of our nation. People go down party lines, and parties desperately oppose each other to distinguish themselves. It was very nice hearing Romney agree with Obama during the last debate. It was very nice hearing Christie praise Obama after Sandy. These were moments when you realized some politicians are willing to look at what's right to do, rather than what's 180 degrees opposite of what the other guy is doing.

Or, often, they say the same things but phrase them to sound contrary.


Romney and Obama were actually pretty close, depending on which Romney you believe we'd get (I believe it would have been the one that was a bit right of center, the one we saw before the primaries.) I think neither of them would be particularly effective, as I think neither had strong enough ideas away from their party, and neither would ever manage to unite the House and Senate enough to have much influence. Because the House and Senate would rather see the country fall apart than give power to the other guy.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
165. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 13:42 Beamer
 
Here's the voter demographic breakdown.

Who voted Democrat:
1) Women (55%)
2) Minorities (58%-93%, seems to likely average around 80%)
3) People under 44 (60% and 52%)
4) Single people (56% of men, 67% of women)

They don't break out grad degrees here, but give college degrees to Obama, though not close enough to care.

Who voted Republican:
1) Men (52%)
2) White people (59%)
3) Old people (56% of senior citizens)
4) Married men (60%)

Not sure how saying that the GOP needs to reconsider its stance, as appealing to old white men isn't working for them is incorrect. They appealed to old, white men if you look at the demographics. It did not work, as Romney got trounced.

Creston, I am not saying those old white men shouldn't vote. Honestly, I am confused that you reached that conclusion. My point is that the GOP went right after them, and failed horribly for it.

I expect the GOP to have extremely different tactics in 2016. Very different messaging. I think this was a wake-up call on their social agenda.

To Prez' point, I don't see how this conclusion is idiotic.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
164. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 13:38 PHJF
 
Wish you guys were sensible enough to realize this whole "us vs them" shit propagated by hardline party politics isn't helping anyone. People are always drawing and defending borders between each other; it must be a relic of caveman culture. Your party sucks, your football team sucks, Mexico sucks, Muslims suck, console gamers suck (well I guess I'm guilty there), on and on and on. I think we need a good old-fashioned drug-fueled orgy. Peace love save the trees and shit.  
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
163. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 13:18 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 12:12:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:44:
Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 09:21:
Yeah I agree with that. What bothered me most about his first term is what he *didn't* get passed - no federal budget in 4 years ( 2 of them while Democrats contolled the Congress and virtually any budget he wanted would have passed with ease)

Please please please stop repeating this nonsense about Democrats controlling Congress for 2 years. It didn't happen.

This is a well-established misinformation campaign that started in the blogospere and has propagated for 2 years now. When both the house and Senate have majority leaders from the same party (as the Democrats did with Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House that party is said to have control of Congress. It has been that way forever. The difference is that they were not "filibuster-proof" (having the necessary 66 seats to break filibuster) , which makes things take longer but the Democrats unequivocally still had control. With the number of moderate Republicans in Congress at the time virtually anything that the President wanted would have passed without issue. If you'll recall, the hold-up on the Health Care vote was because Pelosi did have enough Democrat support for the bill because of their evangelical views. A simple re-write of the section in question and the rest was academic.

I find it pointless that every discussion devolves into semantics, but this has to be addressed. THE DEMOCRATS HAD CONTROL OF CONGRESS THROUGH SIMPLE MAJORITY. They simply lacked the precious 2/3rd's majority. If everyone on the majority side is of a like mind than there is nothing the minority party can do to stop legislation from passing, only delay it via filibuster.

The semantics here are on your part, saying "2 of them while Democrats contolled the Congress and virtually any budget he wanted would have passed with ease". How was he going to pass anything, let alone "with ease", when anything they do can be filibustered? The Republicans were using the filibuster three times as often as we've ever seen before in our history. They openly declared that they weren't going to work with him and that they were going to ensure that his policies failed. There was no secret here. Republicans were fighting him on everything.

How exactly can you say that they had control, let alone the kind of control to pass "virtually any budget he wanted"?
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
162. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 12:51 Verno
 
Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 12:12:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:44:
Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 09:21:
Yeah I agree with that. What bothered me most about his first term is what he *didn't* get passed - no federal budget in 4 years ( 2 of them while Democrats contolled the Congress and virtually any budget he wanted would have passed with ease)

Please please please stop repeating this nonsense about Democrats controlling Congress for 2 years. It didn't happen.

This is a well-established misinformation campaign that started in the blogospere and has propagated for 2 years now. When both the house and Senate have majority leaders from the same party (as the Democrats did with Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House that party is said to have control of Congress. It has been that way forever. The difference is that they were not "filibuster-proof" (having the necessary 66 seats to break filibuster) , which makes things take longer but the Democrats unequivocally still had control. With the number of moderate Republicans in Congress at the time virtually anything that the President wanted would have passed without issue. If you'll recall, the hold-up on the Health Care vote was because Pelosi did have enough Democrat support for the bill because of their evangelical views. A simple re-write of the section in question and the rest was academic.

I find it pointless that every discussion devolves into semantics, but this has to be addressed. THE DEMOCRATS HAD CONTROL OF CONGRESS THROUGH SIMPLE MAJORITY. They simply lacked the precious 2/3rd's majority. If everyone on the majority side is of a like mind than there is nothing the minority party can do to stop legislation from passing, only delay it via filibuster.

The problem with this logic is that moderates get shut out in politics too often, particularly in the Republican party. It's been well established that the RNC on key issues has basically told reps to vote with the party or be targeted and supplanted later by Tea Party candidates. There were a lot of moderates running to the right (Romney included) over the past 4 years and it is depressing to see the country continually divide and fracture as a result.

It is really difficult to get anything done in politics if the other party essentially establishes opposition on every key issue, doesn't matter if you're a Dem or a Republican. Our party needs to do some serious soul searching about how we've approached key issues with young demographics and start banishing the demons before we're a minority party in several years. We really need a return to the fiscal conservative middle of the party and to essentially detach the far right, it is not getting us anywhere and in fact is costing us plenty despite the appearance that its the "base".
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Alien Isolation, 7 Days to Die, Dragon Age Origins
Watching: The Canal, Brazil, The Town That Dreaded Sundown
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
161. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 12:35 Prez
 
While we are on the subject of budgets, regardless of who you think "controlled" Congress, how many budgets were even *proposed* in 4 years since 2008? I can remember one (Reid's bill that never even made it out of the Senate iirc) , but were there others I missed? Understanding that in the interim Bush made a dog's breakfast out of things with his gross fiscal irresponsibility, I still have to wonder how could we go from having a BALANCED budget under Clinton to no budget 8 years later? If you don't even propose one how can Congress "work together" on passing it (as everyone keeps saying how they wish Congress would)? It seems specious to blame the GOP of obstructionism when there was precious little ever even proposed to be potentially obstructed.

Anyway, with that thought I am now going back to not caring about politics again.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
160. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 12:19 Bhruic
 
Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 12:12:
I find it pointless that every discussion devolves into semantics, but this has to be addressed. THE DEMOCRATS HAD CONTROL OF CONGRESS THROUGH SIMPLE MAJORITY. They simply lacked the precious 2/3rd's majority. If everyone on the majority side is of a like mind than there is nothing the minority party can do to stop legislation from passing, only delay it via filibuster.

Sure, you can call it "had control of" as long as you agree that "had control of" doesn't equate with "could pass whatever legislation they wanted". Despite your claim that filibuster "only delays" legislation, we both know that's not true. If you don't have the 60 votes to invoke cloture, and the other side is filibustering, that bill is dead. And by all means, look at how many times filibuster was used the last 4 years compared to the all the previous years.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
159. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 12:14 Bhruic
 
Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:47:
Beamer's utter idiocy aside, I have to say that I don't believe the electoral college is bullshit, Creston. Yeah, the way things work now basically Ohio and Florida decide every election, but that's more a factor of deep-seated demographic differences. Without it, votes of those in smaller states would count for even less than they do now. There are counties in California and Burroughs in New York that have populations that dwarf entire states. The popular vote of these counties alone could render entire states voiceless, and ultimately wholly unrepresented on the Federal level. The difference between California's 54 college votes and RI's 4 is tiny compared to the differences in the populations. It's all about trying to ensure each state has a voice in every election, and it has worked well for its existence.

Not actually true, as that's why the Senate has a flat 2 people per state, while the House is population based. Those tiny states would have less say in who becomes President (not that they have much say now, but they'd still get less), but they'd retain their influence in the Senate, which would definitely give them a voice and representation on the Federal level.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
158. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 12:12 Prez
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:44:
Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 09:21:
Yeah I agree with that. What bothered me most about his first term is what he *didn't* get passed - no federal budget in 4 years ( 2 of them while Democrats contolled the Congress and virtually any budget he wanted would have passed with ease)

Please please please stop repeating this nonsense about Democrats controlling Congress for 2 years. It didn't happen.

This is a well-established misinformation campaign that started in the blogospere and has propagated for 2 years now. When both the house and Senate have majority leaders from the same party (as the Democrats did with Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House that party is said to have control of Congress. It has been that way forever. The difference is that they were not "filibuster-proof" (having the necessary 66 seats to break filibuster) , which makes things take longer but the Democrats unequivocally still had control. With the number of moderate Republicans in Congress at the time virtually anything that the President wanted would have passed without issue. If you'll recall, the hold-up on the Health Care vote was because Pelosi did have enough Democrat support for the bill because of their evangelical views. A simple re-write of the section in question and the rest was academic.

I find it pointless that every discussion devolves into semantics, but this has to be addressed. THE DEMOCRATS HAD CONTROL OF CONGRESS THROUGH SIMPLE MAJORITY. They simply lacked the precious 2/3rd's majority. If everyone on the majority side is of a like mind than there is nothing the minority party can do to stop legislation from passing, only delay it via filibuster.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
157. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 12:06 Wowbagger_TIP
 
PHJF wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:55:
There are already millions of disenfranchised Americans... they're called people with criminal convictions.

There definitely should be higher standards for voters. My grandmother, for instance, is racist. She wouldn't vote for Obama on the sole fact of his being black. She should absolutely, positively, NOT be allowed to vote. In this day and age every citizen pretty much has access to tools to educate themselves and stay modestly informed... but a startling amount choose not to. I don't want uninformed bigots to have any say in a national election.

I agree that it sucks that uninformed and/or racist/bigoted folks can vote based only on their ignorance and hatred, but there's no good way to screen voters, so we just have to keep trying to educate more people and hope that each generation is at least a little more tolerant and a little less ignorant than the last. I think we're making progress on the tolerance part. Not sure about the ignorance, as there's plenty of that on both sides. I can't even talk to most co-workers, teammates, etc about politics, because they tend to have nothing more than gut reactions and crap they heard on TV/radio to go by.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
236 Replies. 12 pages. Viewing page 4.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo