tvashtarkatena

not so, as their is some actual data that can be collected and analzyed, and experiments run there is certianly plenty of historical evidence to support the general notions that humans like to hurt, steal, kill and corrupt wether that outweighs our occasional capacity to heal, feed and clothe is debatable Unless you live the slums of Tijuana, Baghdad, or Cabrini Green, there's a whole lot more healing, feeding, and clothing, teaching, trading, building, caregiving, etc. that the other things you mentioned. But again, I don't know what neighborhood you live in. Most situations where someone has to rely on "human nature" to advance their argument it's essentially political ideology masquerading as "common sense". That's probably true in Baghdad as well, but it doesn't take much of the dark side to fuck the rest of it all up. One dumbfuck faux cowboy gives an order and one society is burned to the ground while another economically collapses. Do the experiment yourself. From Mon to Sat, bring your S.O. flowers and cook a nice dinner. On Sunday, serve them parboiled, whole house cat...fur still on. Record which event they remember longer.

Human nature is just as readily studied scientifically as any other natural phenomenon. Decades of study have produced excellent, predictive models of how markets, relationships, authority, and other human nature-driven phenomena work. The assumed (and false) inscrutability of such phenomena springs forth from that most fundamental of human desires: to remain inscrutable.

That is a sad commentary, but it's not a given. There are many examples, SR71 being the most recent, where the dark side outguns the good guys in money and advertising but, through better community organizing and more honest, rational messaging, the good guys win. There tends to be popular wisdom that elections are won on the 30 second sound bite battlefield, but there are many more factors involved. Plus, TV advertising isn't necessarily the best or only way to spend money. Targeted solicitation, both for money and votes, can be a far more effective and efficient way to spend a campaign dollar, for example. Opinion surveys and public information campaigns can also be a better way to spend. In the end, an engaged, educated populace, trained in critical thinking, is the best equalizer. It's pretty obvious which party supports that goal (or at least gives lip service to it), and which party seeks to burn our education system down. That, to me, is the most telling indicator of who's in it for them versus who's in it for all of us.

Human nature is metaphysical nonsense? Good luck with that. I prefer Cupcakes.

The Vietnam era, which, from a US perspective, spanned from 48, when Ho send Truman a letter asking for his diplomatic help in establishing independence from France, to 75, involved a few more presidents than Johnson. Regarding the original issue, I just presented some considerations to think about. The ACLU, for example, doesn't endorse or contribute to any political candidates, but it does contribute to and solicit donations for referendums and other electoral campaigns, mostly recently R71. Poorly written and enacted statutory restrictions on this type of political speech could potentially hobble such efforts. In the end, campaign contributions are a band aid issue that doesn't really address the more fundamental question of why the electorate makes such poor choices in the first place. I don't know that much about the issue, and therefore remain undecided, choosing instead to focus on other issues the I think are more important, interesting, and resolvable. Plus, I'm not even sure I'm posting in the right thread.

A corporation is an common way to set up a mechanism for long term giving to any cause. The ACLU, for example, is a combination of 2 corporations: one tax exempt, one (that lobbies) not. Furthermore, many individuals incorporate, often for the primary purpose of just such giving. Political speech is a form of human speech. The debate, settled recently, has been over whether or not campaign financing constitutes political speech. It's partly a free association issue. Donating is a form of association, which should be free unless the government can show a compelling enough interest to make it otherwise. It's partly a privacy issue. Typically, the government has deferred to standard of confidentiality when it comes to political involvement, with a few notable exceptions, one recent and in our very own state. It's partly an equal protection issue. Why should one type of organization or association (corporation) be exempt from regulation while another is not? The imbalanced influence adherence to such principles produces is pretty obvious, but what if you were charged with the task of proving exactly if, how, and why that is so? What success criteria would you use? Good luck, and send us the report. Popular wisdom often doesn't translate well to proving a systemic pattern that produces tangible harms when compared to a reformed system. I guess that's what happens when basic values must be interpreted by da hairless monkey.

Are you kidding? Get a fucking clue. It's not an issue I've focused on, so I can safely plead ignorance until I do. There has been one discussion on it at CHAOS headquarters, and that was enough to impart the complexity and far reaching consequences of denying contributions protected political speech status. As a 100% donor funded organization chartered with protecting privacy rights, groups like ours are naturally concerned. Remember, everything really is connected to everything else in this universe, so it's good to be careful what you wish for.

And guess which justices came down where. Big Fucking Surprise. And as for the media including labor unions as part of this dialogue as if they mattered, purely a sop to "the altar of the appearance of fair and balanced". This political system is a joke. Next teabagger I see dressed up like James Madison or Alexander Hamilton, imma run his ass over. It's not a teabagger issue. The ACLU, for example, has long held the policy that campaign finance constitutes free speech (much to the ire of a good portion of its membership). How do I feel about it? Haven't figured that one out yet.

I think KKK had it right (as do most of the other civilized nations) when he posted a recommendation for ending for profit health care. The two are mutually exclusive: basic conflict of interest.

Hey FFWP, how about a side of Iraq, gay marriage and health care? LOL!

PP bags another troll, but Psycho doesn't quite land a sig with the FFWP concatenation, although imagining the neural fibrillation that produced it filling that tiny rodent brain brings a smile.

Not one of you anal retentives caught my retro triple biner biner action cuz I forgot my rappel device.

Most climbers don't venture south of the Mason Dixon line here. It's true, I don't suffer idiocy with much consideration. PP's posts, for example, provide a target rich environment, but I only respond to a fraction of them, really.

You never answered my conjecture that we actually believe in roughly the same things, there, KKK. Shall I repost?

Harmony through balance.

Interesting, Jon, that your comment went one direction but not the other. Not at all effective, but interesting.

I suk. Carry on.

The 'we're not Right enough' is just another BS campaign from the RNC. Anybody who has worked a campaign on either side knows that Dems outnumber Rfucks and have for a long, long time...the game is getting enough of your side off their asses to vote. In actuality, the Right is becoming more left...and rapidly so. Much of the Rfuck electorate has abandoned its belief in the Lets Roll, Gays back to Africa, Corporate Cock Sucking, Environment Ass Fucking, Waterboard-em; an agenda of excess that could only survive within the exuberant atmosphere of an inflating economic bubble. The Palin Phenomenon represents the charred remains of that movement, not its political future. Obama's rapid fall from grace was completely predictable given voters unrealistic but unshakable expectation that the president can pull a lever and fix the economy. Americans rightfully and more realistically expected a solution to our number one problem: health care, and got basically nothing. Americans are and should be concerned about a bailout that handed out national wealth to the very culprits who caused the mess in the first place. And finally, Obama has been less than timid on fixing our officially sanctioned policy of human rights and civil liberties abuse. Most Americans are nervous about either losing their job or not getting one. Neither these very real concerns nor the dissatisfaction they generate point to a populace aching to go back to the type of idiotic leadership that caused so much of this fuck up in the first place. But the worry and concerns are there, they're real, and they can make voters do some very squirrelly things come election time.

Nice route. Those ice bulges on limestone can be pretty bombproof at the right temps.

Wah!

How's your exploded face photo collection, psycho?

Rapping off one of the more shapely towers in the PNW: [video:youtube]

If you were any fucking dumber, Peter, you'd have to choose between breathing and digestion.

The card has only 22kb of storage available - well 32kb but 22kb all that is used now. (Give me a guess how much memory a mri requires) Check out these links: link1 link 2 see page 2 You are clearly suggesting that the Taiwan system is more advanced that it is. The cards have limited info and there are still significant barriers to information holders sharing data seamlessly. You also ignore the cost containment issues. Um...you don't need to store one's medical history on the card itself to have cardkey access to it. We realize that such technological wonders may continue to baffle you, however. Another revelation: that little man on TV? He's not actually IN THE BOX. Now back to our regularly scheduled 25 person medical billing department... Reading comprehension is still a challenge for you Tvash....hopefully the emphasis above will help.........the claim was that the card "stored" the medical info clearly false....I addressed your point (card key access) as well..... ...and then there are people who put their full faith in the expertise of journalists...LULZ!

A hefty 3$/gallon discount at the pump yields a savings of about 100 billion per year the American consumer when one considers only oil imported from the Middle East (about 20% of our national consumption). Of course, we're spending 500 billion during the same period on our military, with a significant % of that in the Middle East and central Asia, so we're actually paying a hefty premium over, say, the Euros.