Whats wrong with me?! chat & forums.

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Show ALL Forums

Author

Thread: Whats wrong with me?!

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 13 (view)

Whats wrong with me?! Posted: 8/12/2009 4:51:43 PM
From my experience, most women on this site overvalue themselves. A lot. I'm not getting into a gender spat, because I'm sure men do it as well. It's just much easier to do that when you can click your way through 1000 profiles in the time it'd take to meet 2 people in real life. It's just the nature of the beast, but it's still a worthwhile site.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 1 (view)

Kind of indifferent, but curious about opinions. Posted: 8/12/2009 4:33:11 PM
Just wondering if anyone had any opinions. It not that I'm not entirely serious - I'm just irreverent by nature and find the general profile layout unhelpful as they reveal very little regarding the person's personality. I do worry that some might think I'm not serious because of the aforementioned, however. My philosophy up to this point has been, however, that any such person who would feel such a way is someone I'd probably be uninterested in anyway. If the profile serves as a form of filter, I have no problem with that. But I'd appreciate feedback if anyone thinks that line of thinking is flawed.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 20 (view)

The US Electoral College System Posted: 10/6/2008 4:42:46 PM
The electoral college isn't purely to force candidates to campaign in every state --> more pointedly its derived from our nation's federalist origins. The states were intended to act as independent sovereigns within their own borders, ceding only certain powers to the federal government. The electoral college is part of that. People don't directly elect the president, they states do as units. To have a direct election would cut the states out of the equation and undermine federalism. Its the same reason Senators were originally selected by each state's respective legislatures. I happen to think the federal government is overpowered as it is, so I heavily favor the electoral college. "I think the presidency should be decided by popular vote... everything else as it is. The presidency has so much power. " This is extremely troublesome statement for a representative democracy. Our system works best when power is dispersed. A president will only at best represent a slim majority of the population. As the executive branch grabs more power, our system is slowly eroding into a bureaucratic aristocracy headed up a popularly elected despot. You're now seeing the ill effects of the overpowering executive ushered in by FDR in the New Deal. When there are few checks on the power, the monster will grow out of control. The people have less say than ever because most of Congress - the body that is actually supposed to run the country - is comprised of career politicians who would prefer to do as little as possible in order to avoid political vulnerability. You ever wonder why so many of them seem vacuous? That'd be why. The result is that more and more law is created by bureaucrats who, as appointed rather than elected officials, are not truly accountable to the people. The systems of checks and balances presupposes that political actors will naturally attempt to exert as much influence as possible. When that ceases to happen the system becomes perverted and ineffectual. As I said above the president at best only represents a slim majority. That's part of the reason we have so many elected officials and levels of government. The lower level local politicians are from smaller populations and thus more likely to reflect their constituencies. They're the ones you should hold accountable for governmental failures. Instead I see more blame levied towards national politicians who are by nature the least responsive. That just gives these local politicians a free pass and diminishes the constituencies voice. So basically, I contend states and local governments need more power as independent sovereigns, not less.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 40 (view)

virginity for sale Posted: 9/15/2008 11:25:22 AM
And its not as if women don't leverage their bodies for personal benefit EVERY SINGLE DAY, just not so blatantly or, well, so intelligently.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 39 (view)

virginity for sale Posted: 9/15/2008 11:23:22 AM
I have no problem with this whatsoever. Everyone pimps themselves out in some manner. You leverage what you have in this world. Its just unfortunate that the cost of education system has become so onerous. If the choice is between this, years of debt or the forfeiture of her dreams, how can you really judge her?

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 112 (view)

Husband Fights Charge of Having Sex w/ Comatose Wife Posted: 9/14/2008 12:37:02 PM
"^^^^^^^but which is more important.............the "expectation of privacy" for this poor woman's sick phuck of a husband, or her right to not be raped? While someone is a patient in a healthcare facility, it is the responsibility of that facility to protect that patient from criminal acts against them; to keep them safe and free from harm. They had every right to place a camera in there as they clearly had suspicions but suspicions alone are useless. Sorry but her rights and wellbeing should far exceed his; she was in their care and obviously not in a position to protect herself. I hope this freak rots in hell - and he's ostracized from society for the remainder of his life." The expectation of privacy. Every...single...time. Without that we have nothing.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 64 (view)

Why do so many Americans think they won the War of 1812? Posted: 7/25/2008 2:11:19 PM
Yeah, if we'd lose we'd all be speaking their stupid language! USA, A OK!

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 55 (view)

Why do so many Americans think they won the War of 1812? Posted: 7/21/2008 5:13:46 PM
You know, as I'm patriotic as anybody, but WWII in the European Theater was won almost exclusively by the Soviets. We certainly hastened the end and prevented even more severe loss of life and infrastructure, but if the Soviets hadn't held out theres no way we'd have been able to win the war with Germany. I doubt the war as a whole could've been won without any one of the 3 Great Allied powers. The US was a massive industrial force that kept Britain and the rest of the allies supplied with the machines of war. Britain, outside of serving as an excellent staging ground for the US, was instrumental in preventing the Axis from stripping the world of resources. Who knows what would've happened in the Middle East if both England and France were conquered. If Germany and Japan had ever been able to link up, I don't think there would've been anything capable of stopping their combined war machine.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 73 (view)

Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing? Posted: 7/21/2008 5:02:38 PM
Thats the real question. If we conceptualize it being as a 'natural' development because humans did it and humans are natural agents, then everything humans do can be justified under those auspices. I agree morality and nature are constructed ideas, but without those constructs I don't know how we as a species have any ground on which to stand. I think its very clear the are things we shouldn't be doing, but have no real basis for saying such other than its 'dehumanizing', a term which is as relative as anything else.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 47 (view)

Why do so many Americans think they won the War of 1812? Posted: 7/18/2008 10:16:25 PM
"whenever I meet someone from canada, the first thing I say to them is 1812 in your mother freaking face! this is usually followed by a fist pump and a moonwalk." God Bless the USA, brother! I totally burn maple leaves in the fall! I don't even care about the air quality!

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 56 (view)

TV One: Celebrating black candidate or backing black dependency? Posted: 7/18/2008 10:10:09 PM
This begs the question: Can a white guy pull the "Its because I'm black" race card on a black guy? What a confusing world we live in... Shaw is right on. Votes are a scarce commodity and the only way to extract benefit from that commodity is to open it up to competition. By giving the Democratic party a monopoly on their votes, the black populace (as a general unit) ensure the Democratic party will be non responsive to their needs, ie they're selling their scarce commodity at a price the monopolist sets: dirt cheap. Its really a flaw of the two-party system. But thats a different debate altogether.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 136 (view)

Flap over New Yorker's Obama cover Posted: 7/18/2008 10:07:59 PM
Stranger, Your points aren't even worthy of response. Making groundless assertions and wildly specious arguments serve only to the detriment of your cause. That goes for you, as well, loco-whatever. This thread is merely proof that the two sides have so much more in common than they'd ever acknowledge. Kudos for the New Yorker for giving impetus to such a demonstration.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 89 (view)

Flap over New Yorker's Obama cover Posted: 7/16/2008 10:37:12 PM
Everyone thinks Bush is an idiot and he graduated from Yale and Harvard Business School. I try not to put too much faith in institutions.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 87 (view)

Flap over New Yorker's Obama cover Posted: 7/16/2008 9:42:30 PM
Come on, Obama is intelligent but he's no savant. He's not so 'brilliant' that common people won't recognize it. Don't be silly - his ideas are hardly groundbreaking or in any way novel. He's just very well spoken whereas Bush is a feeble orator. Its the presumption that he's so 'far above' everyone else that makes him seem condescending. He strikes me as like every law professor I've had: very well-read, engaging and intriguing, but also slightly aloof to normal life and prone to extremely annoying pontification. Not to mention so convinced of their own grandeur they become shocked and overly offended when slighted in the least. Which is why every criticism of him becomes a 'misconception.' Theres a common criticism to academics as preaching from an 'ivory tower' whilst possessing little to no real life experience and therefore extolling theoretically pleasing but empirically flawed ideas.... This seems about right; Obama is, after all, an academic.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 53 (view)

Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing? Posted: 7/16/2008 8:36:24 AM
I still think you're underrating the social implications of genetic engineering. Consider the stock companies/universities place on standardized testing. One great score can make your career, essentially. These tests are only PROXIMATE indicators, that is, they're used to test the skills that may allow you to succeed. Now imagine how much stock employers/universities would potentially put into genetic indicators of intelligence/aptitude/athleticism. Not only are these probably more accurate than standardized tests, but they also have much, much less room for error. You could see a world wherein your life's trajectory is established at birth. Pair with this with the fact that genetic engineering would almost certainly be driven by the free market, ie, accessible to those with more money, and you're see the makings of a true class system. A class system more powerful and fool proof than any we've ever encountered in human history. One that is not only premised on the idea that people of a different class are superior, but one in people of a different class actually ARE, genetically speaking, superior. Thats just one facet of the potential ills, but think of that one effect alone. The entire presumption of meritocracy, so intrinsic to our American society, destroyed. "I just meant at the very least we should allow people to choose to stay at the plateau if they like." No one would do this, lest they be 'left behind.'

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 48 (view)

Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing? Posted: 7/15/2008 4:21:07 PM
Friendilione has a good grasp of how evolution occurs.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 28 (view)

Why do so many Americans think they won the War of 1812? Posted: 7/15/2008 8:30:48 AM
Well, after the Spanish-American war.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 46 (view)

Flap over New Yorker's Obama cover Posted: 7/15/2008 8:26:09 AM
Good post Green, the New Yorker cover is instigating the type of discussion that decries the 'uneducated voters' and maybe the mass media will cause someone to pause and say "Wow, that really is ridiculous, I can't believe I responded that way. I can't believe I thought that way. I guess I was duped." If the last two elections taught you anything, its that people prefer to draw their own conclusions rather have some mighty preacher tell them how they should think. So I think you're better served trying to coax someone to your beliefs. Thats a particularly American characteristic and one I'm personally thankful for.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 44 (view)

Flap over New Yorker's Obama cover Posted: 7/15/2008 8:17:33 AM
Despite the huge furor over Obama's ex-pastor, 11% of the population still believe he's a Muslim. How intelligent can they be? Some people (one particular poster on this very thread would be a good example) probably think that the magazine is satarizing Obama's beliefs without being able to discern that the mag is actually satarizing people like him. One can never underestimate the ignorance of wide swathes of the general public, particularly in certain demographics, and here in America this really goes double (especially in today's "post-9/11" America). No, quotes like this don't sound condescending. We live in a democracy. That inherently means you have to trust the judgment of the masses. For better or for worse. I will never accept the idea that we must 'lead' certain people around simply because they know no better. Thats the very antithesis of what this country stands for. Again, this is a great quote: "They sound so elitist," Spiegelman told The Chronicle. "The essence of what they're saying is, 'I get it, but I don't trust the people in Kansas to get it.' But isn't that what the whole hope and change thing is supposed to be about? That they will get it." You know, I think there tons upon tons of 'ignorant' people on the left that are drawn to Obama's grandiose and vacuous speeches. I'm not on here arguing that we should limit their exposure to news and argument because they 'don't know better.' Honestly, do you people see what you're arguing? Its utterly anti-democratic. "instead of dumbing down the media and making everything "simple" and forthright, how about people becoming better informed, satire is satire and this was satire" ==> exactly. You know we're talking about it. As far as I'm concerned, the New Yorker achieved its goal.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 24 (view)

Flap over New Yorker's Obama cover Posted: 7/14/2008 10:08:45 PM
This is a good quote about the magazine: "They sound so elitist," Spiegelman told The Chronicle. "The essence of what they're saying is, 'I get it, but I don't trust the people in Kansas to get it.' But isn't that what the whole hope and change thing is supposed to be about? That they will get it." The degree of truth is that people won't get it. But I have to agree, I don't think its funny either. Its rather like publishing a satire of McCain in a POW camp... but I have no problem with them publishing it. I almost never have a problem with any publication provided its not blatantly libelous.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 24 (view)

Why do so many Americans think they won the War of 1812? Posted: 7/14/2008 9:47:44 PM
We aren't really taught we 'won it', but rather that it was a victory due the what the war meant and its consequences. We're essentially taught 'we survived.' And our textbooks mention the failed invasion of Canada. We consider it a victory because we once again held our own as young nation against what was then the greatest power on Earth. Its called the Second War of Independence because its what really reaffirmed our status as a nation. And unlike the Revolution, which was more of a guerrilla insurrection, we fought this on equal terms with Britain. It not only gave Americans a sense of their own independence but forced the British to 'accept' that the USA was no longer merely 'the colonies.' As Churchill put it: "the lessons of the war were taken to heart. Anti-American sentiment in Britain ran high for several years, but the United States was never again refused proper treatment as an independent power." It also ushered in the 'era of good feeling' in which the United States really coalesced as a unified people. In particular, Andrew Jackson absolutely crushed the British at the Battle of New Orleans, so I suppose people figured we were winning when the war ended. (Even though that battle occurred a month after the war officially ended - news traveled slow.) Its also where the Star Spangled Banner came from. So, I suppose it was mostly a moral victory, with the military victory being our mere survival against a superior foe. And, you mean Britain fought us to a quagmire right? Canada's native forces were rather negligible in the outcome.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 19 (view)

Flap over New Yorker's Obama cover Posted: 7/14/2008 9:19:18 PM
I have to agree, its rather like depicting McCain sweating in shackles surrounded by a bunch of outlandish and exaggerated stereotypes of Vietnamese. Its offensive, but maybe thats the point. I'm loath to ever criticize the free press. I'd be much more upset if the New Yorker weren't allowed to publish this, no matter how offensive. Liberty! From a business point of view, its a pretty brilliant strategy. Besides, this country needs to stop being so damn tender about everything. This is what you have to expect when you run for President. I'll take outrageous over mute every time.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 52 (view)

TV One: Celebrating black candidate or backing black dependency? Posted: 7/14/2008 9:10:58 PM
You can't be serious. This isn't defamation. Theres almost no chance he would win that. Its clear satire. He'd have to prove malicious intent which is essentially impossible given the context. And so you know, since this is in print, you'd be talking about libel. Slander is exclusively spoken defamation. The fact that 26% of respondents believe he is Muslim does necessarily lead to the outright conclusion that its resultant from the media's smear campaign. Some just might think Obama's misleading about his past and religious affiliations. I disagree with this, but I could see how one could rationally reach that conclusion. Besides, isn't this forum exclusively about whether Obama's media treatment is cementing black dependency?

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 56 (view)

Who are Asians?. Posted: 7/14/2008 9:15:26 AM
I'm talking about Modern Greece. You don't think 300 years of rule isn't going to effect a nation's culture? The Modern Greece is a reassertion of Greek identity thats framed precisely against the then dominant Ottoman (Eastern) culture. Just as Byzantine was a reassertion of Greek culture framed in a Roman background. Greek culture has endured because it is so rich, but you really want to claim that it wasn't influenced by centuries of foreign rule? That it was 'not influenced by anyone'? Thats absurd. Even Ancient Greece was influenced by pre-Greek culture. Its the entire point of this discussion --> no people exist in a bubble. And Russia didn't even exist as an idea until well after the formation of Byzantium. Russian history really begins around 900 AD when Novgorod and then Kievan Rus were founded by Vikings. I don't know how you consider a people founded by Vikings with Christianity as their first state religion as not rooted firmly in European culture. When Vladmir pointedly pursued a state religion as a means of unifying his then fractured population, he adopted Christianity EXPLICITLY over Islam and Judaism due to the grandeur of the Hagia Sophia. (Kievan Rus was original just a string of pirate strongholds, in keeping with their Viking heritage.) So Russian identity was very much manufactured and its earliest leaders consciously chose to embrace European culture. Its largely irrelevant that geographically its largely Asian, just as its irrelevant that the United States is ENTIRELY non-European in a geographic sense. Both have European origins. The large majority of Russia's population is in the geographic Europe anyways.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 53 (view)

Who are Asians?. Posted: 7/14/2008 8:34:46 AM
But the thing is Russia is hardly unique among European countries that are heavily influenced by extra-European cultures. Greece similarly heavily influenced by the East, as is much of the Balkans, due to the fact they were under Ottoman rule. Albania for example is majority Muslim. Yet no one ever argues that Greece is not European. Even now Turkey is arguing that it is European in tradition and thus has a place in the EU. If Turkey itself identifies as European, I have hard time believing Russia, founded by Vikings and majority Christian, isn't. What it really points out are that a lot of these definitions are relatively arbitrary to begin with. This gets back to the original intent of the thread. The terms European, Asian an African are geographic and not cultural identifiers. Asian is a particularly useless demonym because much of the population has more in common with Europe and North Africa than East or Subcontinental Asia. I always thought Oriental was a useful term for referring to those populations used Chinese characters and often practiced Buddhism, Taoism or Confucianism... but I was told it was offensive because it was also used to describe the Europeans's 'others.' But isn't that true of any of these terms we're throwing around here? Every person, and by virtue of that every population, defines themselves within relation to the 'others.'

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 48 (view)

Who are Asians?. Posted: 7/14/2008 12:17:52 AM
Russia actually has a lot in common with Europe. Hell they, were founded by Vikings and heavily influenced by Byzantium. Moscow was modeled as the "New Constantinople" or the New...New Rome. This is why they're Eastern Orthodox, a religion shared by Greece and some in the Balkans. It was also the predominate religion in places once controlled by Byzantine like Egypt and Turkey... though of course these are now mostly Islamic. When Byzantine fell, Russia essentially considered itself the successor state of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire. Consider that the word "Tsar" is derived from the Roman "Caesar." Russia architecture is similarly largely influenced by Byzantine architecture. They are different in that they are neither Latin nor Germanic, which is what the rest of Europe primarily is. They're Slavic, which is like the red headed step child of European ethnic groups. Russia is the fusion of Slavic with Byzantine influence. Its not a surprise then that Russia is seen as non-European then, since the Slavs were of marginal importance throughout most of Europe's history, and the Byzantines ceased to exist as a nation half a millennium ago. So Russia is European, but it frames is existence in terms in of opposition to the rest of Europe. This is probably because of its geographic isolation and long history of disorganization and relative backwardness - even the idea of a "Russian identity" was essentially a construct of Vladmir the Great's attempts at unification. There have been notable attempts at making Russia more European, as exemplified by the reign of Peter, wherein he did things like tax the wearing beards (a traditional Russian sign of manhood), establish a more Western capital in St. Petersburg (with an appropriately German suffix), and adopt European styles of dress and etiquette. The biggest difference is probably the use of Cyrillic v. Roman lettering. So I suppose I'd put it this way: Russia is European, but not Western. Since most of Europe has styled itself as "Western", this leaves Russia as something of an aberration in comparison to those nations. It may be something else, but definitely not "Asian."

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 40 (view)

Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing? Posted: 7/13/2008 10:09:54 PM
Well you're pretty much talking about social changes... I think we're talking exclusively about evolution in terms of genetics. In particular, it seems you're hinting at the specialization and stratification of society. A high school diploma doesn't cut it anymore because most jobs require the specialized skills acquired in college. Meanwhile, they become much, much more valuable than those without those skills, meaning the pay rates become more disparate. And since the costs of entering these higher paying careers are also increasing, the children of those without skills have a greater time attaining skills for themselves. All this creates a more stratified and class based society, but I don't know how it does anything genetically, let alone create a separate species. Good, fire all the lawyers and social workers. They're a drain on the economy. Where: Individual humans can adapt, even change their own DNA, to an extent, within their own lifespans. I can't remember the details or the mechanisms, to be honest, but the gist is that these types of changes do not effect the DNA used in reproduction. That is to say, its no inheritable. I wish I could remember all the terms...

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 46 (view)

TV One: Celebrating black candidate or backing black dependency? Posted: 7/13/2008 9:54:41 PM
Exactly right STOP, McCain and Obama are one in the same anyway. Thats my point, Obama isn't the exception, he's the personification. One correction though: McCain didn't vote for the FISA bill though... he didn't even bother to vote at all. Where are you, Ron Paul? This goes back to the OP's original point, we're all becoming inextricably bound and dependent on the government. I'd rather they just leave me alone, I'd rather take the risk of utter failure than have little say in my own life.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 44 (view)

TV One: Celebrating black candidate or backing black dependency? Posted: 7/13/2008 9:40:46 PM
While I appreciate the great lengths you took in copying and pasting all that from Ann Dunham's wikipedia page, I already read all about them. I'm not even talking specifically about what he's said, but rather the image concocted around him. One that he embraces. In fact, I've him introduced prior to his speeches as something like, 'after overcoming the mean streets in a single parent household...' He was attendance, he couldn't have been like, 'hey tone that down a little?' That doesn't strike you as a little duplicitous? I don't discount that his grandmother worked hard become a bank vice-president, but thats the reality. His was the grandson of a banking exec. I'm sure George H.W. Bush worked really hard as well, but that doesn't stop anyone from saying George W. is a privileged son. Just as the fact that I'm the son of blue collar workers won't stop anyone from saying any children I have are privileged children of a lawyer.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 37 (view)

Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing? Posted: 7/13/2008 4:56:13 PM
Thats essentially it friend, certain genes are surviving that otherwise may not have, but theres not a PREFERENCE for these genes over any other type. The key point is that 'success' in our modern society has very little to do with chances of survival and ability to reproduce. Even ugly stupid people make babies...

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 41 (view)

TV One: Celebrating black candidate or backing black dependency? Posted: 7/13/2008 4:46:56 PM
His mom is ph.d and his grandparents were involved in banking. He's hardly representative of the impoverished class you seem to be alluding to. I don't know many inner city children raised by single mothers that can afford to attend the state's most elite private school for 7 years. Not to mention his parents met in college, which already puts him in the blatantly non-blue collar status of having parents who attended college. <div class='quote'> He did not marry into wealth like the Republican candidate did. No he took the more traditional route of being born into it. Not to say he was 'wealthy', like McCain or Bush, but rather his background is solidly middle to upper-middle class and hardly the "from the streets" story every seems to peddle. This is exactly why I consider the man a raging fraud. But you know, eat it up people. And what I've said time and again is that this isn't even a fault of Obama. Its a fault of greater political system that favors the candidates who paint the brightest picture with the smallest amount of truth. Every president now, as a requirement, must foster a strong cult of personality. Obama is just exceptional at it.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 34 (view)

Who are Asians?. Posted: 7/13/2008 4:24:19 PM
You guys are completely ignoring the Central Asian nations and I am quite sure they are all offended.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 33 (view)

Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing? Posted: 7/13/2008 1:18:00 AM
I know that social pressures are effecting the population. I just don't see how its doing it in any kind of a coherent way such to change our overall genetic trajectory. Social pressures are by their very being incoherent and constantly changing forces. They're dependent PRECISELY on the being they are supposedly shaping. That is they're mere constructions. That is to say, social pressures work on the basis of SOCIAL constructs, which are often totally removed from genes. They are not rewarding or penalizing on the basis of any genetic composition. They're rewarding or penalizing on the basis of social standings. Since changes in genetics and evolution are one in the same, I contend social pressures will not augur new evolution. Now if you want to assume that the poorer are inherently and consistently genetically different than the wealthier than maybe theres some coherence. But I don't think anyone finds logic in that. Certainly social pressures will CHANGE the overall genetic composition, but the lack of coherence or, that is, building towards any specific adaptability, means that its not true evolution, but rather akin to the 'genetic dispersal' I kind of hinted up above. And I will never believe anything a anthropologist says. In my experience those 'experts' are usually wrong. I vomited my way through every anthro and sociology class I ever took. I had a professor tell me the entire field of economics was useless. Chyeah. Not like anthropology!

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 9 (view)

Bush Oil Propaganda: What you may not know... Posted: 7/13/2008 1:11:51 AM
Except OPEC does control oil prices. Its supply and demand, only the ones who control supply really can set prices. Its irrelevant who we import oil from. Whats relevant is that OPEC has such a dominance of the GLOBAL market that their level of production heavily influences global supply and ergo global price. Oil companies are profit maximizing entities and they as such, they would want to increase production to increase total profit. American oil companies have been for a long time relegated to largely a distributive status.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 343 (view)

Obama Posted: 7/12/2008 4:32:17 PM
How is stating he has no tangible platform irrelevant? Its not that he took the middle ground, its that he stated time and time again he would fight against this bill, then rolls over and signs it the minute he wins the nod. That just confirms what I already thought, that he I don't care about your definitions. But you're right, I don't think I want to vote for him. I didn't before I came to this forum. So its his job, or yours as his supporter, to tell me why I should vote for him. I came here because I want to give a got a shot, not be lectured by someone who about rhetoric by someone who likely doesn't have a clue.. THATS irrelevant. As is interjecting his skin color. He's not anointed by a higher power, I feel no great urgency to defend why I won't vote for him. Faith, you seem to think he's explained something here. Can you tell me why I should vote for Obama either?

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 3 (view)

Bush Oil Propaganda: What you may not know... Posted: 7/12/2008 9:11:17 AM
The solution to our oil problem has got nothing to do with oil. We're in a global market right now, and we could dip into our entire reserve and barely nudge the global price. We're subservient to OPEC, and the only way out is to get off oil. I don't really care about ANWR or any of that, I just think its stupid because it won't fix anything. Its not worth fighting about something thats of such negligible importance. Its very possible that the Republicans are using ANWR as a wedge issue to divert attention from the real problem. Yes, why haven't we used Nuclear Power? Most fossil fuel power plants are just, if not more, dangerous. I also liked the solution Bob Zubrin puts forward in his Energy Independence book of mandating flex-fuel cars.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 29 (view)

Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing? Posted: 7/12/2008 9:00:53 AM
Where, You're right, humans will eventually live in extremely harsh and new environments from the ones we evolved. But it will have no effect on our actual genetic composition because evolution works at a much slower pace than human adaptability. Long before our bodies begin to respond to the environment, we will have changed the environment to match our home environment. So, there really won't be any negative selection to drive evolution. That is, people won't be dying because they don't fit their environment. Even if a lighter bone structure is more preferable in space, it won't really effect your ability to survive and reproduce. Our tech will make it irrelevant. For this reason, it won't become more prevalent in space than on Earth. Evolution for humans is almost without a doubt over. There is no coherent selection pressure (I don't see how social pressures influence who reproduces and who doesn't. The only way I see us 'evolving' is a proliferation of genetic mutations/diseases, ie the human population will become carries of more genetic flaws. This is because there is no negative selection going on in our society to kill of those with such flaws at a higher rate. Empirical evidence seems to back this up a bit - genetic diseases seem to be on the rise. But this is not true evolution in any real sense, not in the way we think of it. The presumption cited by the OP is correct, our capacity to genetically engineers ourselves obviates evolution anyways. We have essentially become our own makers... and that apparently doesn't worry anyone else.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 332 (view)

Obama Posted: 7/11/2008 9:48:43 AM
Did I not just post a link to his most recent vote? - Apparently I didn't. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/obamas-fisa-shi.html Compare it to his no vote on this: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/1/votes/309/ He wants to appeal to the middle. Perfect politician. But in all honesty, he IS hard to attack. Thats my entire point. He's so ephemeral you've got nothing to hold onto. I'm not voting for a guy just on the basis of flash and I'm not boxing with shadows. How can I tell you what I dislike about him politically if I don't know what he is politically? YOU give me some reason to vote for him. Please do. I feel no need to defend my reasons for disliking someone of no substance. Its not my job to 'fill in the gaps.' He's running for president for God's sake.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 19 (view)

Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing? Posted: 7/11/2008 9:40:10 AM
Its terrible. Imagine the class structure. It also makes us highly susceptible to unforeseen environmental changes. Particularly in a capitalistic society such as hour where presumably the best access to the genetic modification will be afforded to the wealthy. Think of a society where there are not only social, monetary and systemic benefits afforded on the basis of class, but one wherein the people in the higher class are actually, on a genetic level, better people. Genetic discrimination is highly possible and in fact probabl.e Imagine a world where your entire life's work is mapped out from conception. In fact, don't, just watch Gattaca. Its already happening by the way, its highly influential in the insurance field, where people are already being, effectively, refused insurance for their predetermination for such genetic diseases. In fact, the potential for genetic disease is more relevant than actual HISTORY of disease. Think about that, think about how much faith these corporations are putting in our genes. Plus theres that whole privacy issue...

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 330 (view)

Obama Posted: 7/11/2008 9:31:33 AM
Maybe you don't have the nuance to understand my point: He talks in extreme vagaries such that he doesn't really say anything other than broad proclamations. I could say "Everyone should have food" and everyone will agree. But that doesn't make me exceptionally insightful or indicative of any 'change' in my politics. He has exceptional rhetorical skills so as to adequate veil what he's actually doing. He's essentially just dressing up the same dull old platitudes with exceptional flowering. I also find it troublesome that he colors his comments in such a way that they bend to the crowd he's speaking too. He doesn't really say much - he just allows his audiences to assume what they want. Though, I have to say, your effective use of emoticons has really shut me up. I feel so silly.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 69 (view)

Pelosi Declare July 4 - 2007 - Energy Independnece Day - OOPS! Posted: 7/11/2008 9:22:09 AM
Can you tell me what this Congress has accomplished? Anything?

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 328 (view)

Obama Posted: 7/11/2008 9:14:33 AM
Yeah, except he's a fraud. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/09/obamas_fisa_vote_goes_against.html Don't tell me his quotes. I know he says all the right things. To all right people. At all the right times. Thats what worries me. "Never negotiate out of fear, and never fear to negotiate." Stuff like that. Ok who wouldn't say this?

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 24 (view)

TV One: Celebrating black candidate or backing black dependency? Posted: 7/11/2008 9:03:01 AM
Heres one of my favorite quotes: "There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs." Still relevant after all these years. Democracy only works when parties are forced to compete for votes. Since the majority of the black population will always and without fail vote for the Democratic candidate over the Republican one, they ensure that the Democrats give only lip service to their causes while addressing the concerns of the swing voters. Self-disenfranchisement. Shoot, I'm not even saying vote Republican... maybe for once people should opt for a third party. Oh and yeah: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/09/obamas_fisa_vote_goes_against.html Real change? No, he's the antithesis. He's the perfect politician who talks as much as possible while standing for as little as possible. Its a fundamental MO of all politicians today, don't really do anything lest you be held accountable for at least trying. Barry is just the best of the bunch at it. He's a veritable Rorschach ink blot, you see what you want. Look at how Hillary got beat up over her record. If a person answers a question a hundred times and gets it wrong 20 times, that doesn't make them any more fallible than a person who refuses to even answer. It really should demonstrate their political courage. Yet our political system rewards cowardice and penalizes courage. I liked this quote: "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he’d bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." How can have a real election if you don't know the candidates?

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 326 (view)

Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq? Posted: 7/11/2008 8:44:17 AM
Right, invading and warring with two neighboring countries in the prior two decades, developing and using chemical weapons, suppressing your own people through use of economic and military force, consistently throwing out UN weapons inspectors and repeatedly flaunting UN resolutions... no you're right. Iraq was just a peaceful, fun loving country under Saddam!

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 41 (view)

Who lies better--men or women? Posted: 7/10/2008 6:56:04 PM
I just think women anticipate having to lie and therefore plan it out better. Men just assume they'll get away with it all and thus get ambushed when called on anything.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 148 (view)

What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ? Posted: 7/10/2008 1:36:26 PM
You obviously know more about the Iranian governmental organization than me, but all that just strengthens my assessment. Thanks for the info. I think the real solution is just to entangle our economies such that war is simply out of the question. I know that sounds rather New World Orderish, but it really the best insurance of peace. If thats the priority. We never see liberal capitalisms waging war on one another. But then again, that does nothing to counteract non-state actors and may even provide them greater funding. Kinda a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 146 (view)

What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ? Posted: 7/10/2008 12:55:31 PM
I agree Nero, I also think such an invasion would only bolster Iranian support for their government's actions. An invasion would, in a sense, 'validate' Admadinejad's attempts at obtaining nuclear devices as a deterrent to invasion. (Which is what I think he's really trying to do, akin to Cuba's nukes once upon a time.) Iran has a pretty well educated and informed population with real Democratic sympathies. I think we forget that Admadinejad is an elected official and up for re-election fairly soon. Additionally, if I'm not mistaken, the Iranian Presidency is term limited. Meaning, Admadinejah is not a dictator in the sense that Saddam was and Kim Jong is. Now, I may have some serious quibbles with the ambitions and methods used within Iran, and I do think they are major sponsors of terror. I appreciate that the president indeed has near dictatorial power. That being said, they are a RELATIVELY open society already, at least in comparison to Iraq. There are already many intellectual dissidents that receive publicity. American style consumerism, for good or bad, is already taking hold, such that the government has recently had to ban its public endorsement by celebrities. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=4&article_id=93912 They also feel the need to crackdown on criticism: http://www.payvand.com/news/07/oct/1216.html That tells me the Iranian gov't sees it as a real threat to its hold. All this, to me at least, points to a society already moving towards liberalization. But I also get the impression they're are a very proud people who will not respond to bullying. If anything, an American invasion would not help this democratic transition but stifle it. I want to stop their support of terrorism as much as anyone, but I've said time and time again the war against terrorism cannot be won with force. Terrorists don't really use weapons anyway, they use fear and anarchy. So, the best we can do is counter that with hope and stability in terms of economic progress. IMO, the best way to stop people from giving up their lives is to give them something more to lose. Military invasion impoverishes a nation and therefore does the opposite.

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 145 (view)

What are the Consequences of attacking Iran ? Posted: 7/10/2008 12:32:53 PM
But I have to say thanks for the best joke I've heard all week this is the first really gut wrenching laugh I've experienced in a while. Thank you. Maybe you should have bothered to read my entire post and its conclusion in context, but I suppose nuance and logic aren't your strong suits. But funny sarcastic comments are! Because missile defense systems really work! Because Star Wars and other programs like it aren't only useful as a means to instill a false sense of security and placate the masses! Because terrorists would even bother with missiles anyway! Now thats funny!

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 72 (view)

Good idea or abuse of power? Posted: 7/10/2008 11:53:20 AM
Its coincidental that I happen upon this thread today, as I was reading part of "Satire" by a Roman named Juvenal (no, not the rapper Juvenile). "Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses" Replace bread with fast food and circuses with mass media and uh... well, they used to same the United States was the new Roman Empire...

drackoe28

Joined: 3/4/2008

Msg: 71 (view)

Good idea or abuse of power? Posted: 7/10/2008 11:46:41 AM
Abuse of power. It is overly broad and allows for any kind of mere speculation to merit 'a threat'. Its inherently different from a neighborhood watch because its not comprised of mere citizens, but of public workers who often give an impression of authority. I'm all for protecting this country, but not to the point where we lose whats worth defending. If Americans must fight with one hand behind our backs, well, I consider that the cost of our liberty. "When fascism comes to America, it will be because the majority didn't care." I disagree. 'When' is arrives/d, it will because the majority of Americans begged for it. We're already a society that disdains accountability. No one wants to be help responsibility for anything, so no one wants to be seen palpably doing something of substance, lest they be held responsible. The next step is the willing and eager resignation of that responsibility and ergo, the authority that accompanies it. "I would like to hear anyone on this thread make a suggestion as to how to protect ourselves from those who wish to harm us. There are people out there, who don't give a crap where our military is. Radical Muslims have been targeting the West for over 50 years." Some would be willing to sacrifice everything for mere survival. I do not count myself as one of them. We can do what our conscience allows, but the moment it infringes on liberty is the moment I step out. Theres a reason Patrick Henry phrased it as liberty or death.

Show ALL Forums