sexual_chocolate

funny line in the article: "As a Stanford undergraduate, he was a de facto Marxist before being seduced, quite accidentally, by economics.

hey tat boy, i don't think this is your thread. nice original ink though.

sorry, I fell asleep. lemme guess your tattoo - a rapier? no tats. doesn't mean i haven't had moments of wanting one. would have been a home job, but i came to the conclusion that the motivations underlying the desire were pretty much what booby guy wrote above.

By posting your interesting opinions on an internet bulletainboard? sounds like you have a tattoo. let me guess: it's a skull, empty of course.

#1, #2, #3, and #4: Media Group Unlimited, LLC.

baa. i wanna express my individuality like everyone else is doing.

is there a way that complete economic equality can be achieved? i'm not an advocate of an unfettered rapacious capitalism godhead, but to me it seems a heck of a lot better that "the poor" of today are better off than "the poor" of yesterday; couple that with the fact that there is, however difficult and unequally enjoyed, more economic mobility now than with many times in the past, and the ad hominem attacks aimed at the conditions we live in seem a bit....flaccid.

exception to what rules? it seems quite obvious that his exposure early on to a "successful" environment would help give him both the freedom to follow his dreams and the abilities to pursue his professional career later in life. definite advantages over someone growing up being taught that life sucks, everyone is against you, no use trying etc etc negative crap. i think everyone has the same potentials; i also think that realizing those potentials is more of a challenge for some. i think you'd agree with the above, but i can't say i understand your anger towards those who aren't "succeeding" in this life game. i'd guess it has something to do with an overbearing father? mother? being picked on early in life? some latent self-hatred issues? (interesting possibility, since you blame others (projection?) for having this issue)....

there wouldn't even be a middle-class without the rich, morons.

? that is a strange non-sequitur that does nothing to address his point, but you will be happy to hear that seattle home prices fell for the third month in a row, with single family (non-condo) prices falling nov. '07 to nov. '08 by a point or so. yay!

cool man. hard crux from what i hear. i'm starting to get psyched again; climbed for the first time in a month two days ago and forearms are fukd. time to get in shape!

we need names.

i think it relevant to administer the fecund pointage of JayB's post above to the apologist sentiments regarding "capitalism" that you espouse.

"NO NO! it's not in the scripture!"

por favor, en ingles ensolamente. listo? communismo: BUENO! Capitalismo: MALO! no no no, otra vez: communismo: MALO! Capitalismo: BUENO! puedes continuar ahora.

please continue. you are all here to entertain me.

that's kinda funny too!

that made me laugh.

i got summadat and i don't even know it? damn....

why....do.....i....waste.....my.....breath......with.....you..... well, i guess i wasn't interested in your brain, only your body.

yea the jewish religion is exclusive in its identity branding: not any old riff-raff can say praise be jebus and be an in; but certainly aipac exerts an influence that does play havoc with our foreign policy to a degree that perhaps rivals the evangelical movement.... your second claim above is just plain silly though. i'm hardly "christian", but the attacks against "christians" in general in various threads have been uncomfortable for me to say the least. i have "christian" friends who i think highly of, and that kind of slander was ridiculous (i do have a big problem with the "christian" belief that only believers get to heaven. i think it might be a hard one for some "christians" to deal with also....?).

tell that to aipac. same goes for "christianity". by god, i do believe we agree. actually, i think the left one is a bit bigger.

that's funny man. by the way, i'm jewish and i eat pork.

How do you test religion? You can test faith. People like to take pride in their unshakeable faith. Looked at from another angle you can call it stubborness. the word "religion" i think is rather vague, where even the etymology of the word seems unagreed upon. but, would you call buddhism a religion? again, i would say that it commonly gets "used" as a "religion" (like evolution), in that you have many who "believe", without even knowing what the buddha taught specifically. but when one gets past the flowery prose and (pretty neat) aphorisms, one can start to realize that this "religion" is really a psychology of sorts, very weak on any requirement to "believe", but high on a requirement to experiment with certain approaches and SEE PERSONALLY what the results are. there is nothing in the more central esoteric teachings that seem to require a "belief", beyond a willingness to experience and experiment, but of course this does nothing at keeping the average humanoid from worshipping the buddha as a "god". (there are more esoteric christian teachings that approach this, but are considered heretical by the main church body, probably historically because they threatened the authority of the church, and today because of fear and orthodoxy; can you imagine people like seahawks and vertical hiker opening their minds to anything contrarian to their beliefs, when the penalty is eternal damnation? whew). sufism (heretical to the muslim orthodoxy) is another good example where experience of the "divine" over-rides an inflexible need to cling to orthodoxy. i'd say "become christ", not a follower. become buddha, not a follower (oh the heresy!!!).