"The ranking is based on analysis of homicide, violent crime, policing, incarceration rates and availability of small arms data."
So we can get our ranking out of the cellar by just killing more people, having more violent fights and robberies, hiring more police, putting more people in jail, and distributing more firearms.
What on earth is there to disagree with here? It isn't really funny, but for quite a while now people have been referring to DHHS as The Department of Human Sacrifices.
"Responsible" behavior is behavior applying what you know and making responsible decisions based on what you know. If you gamble, it is a virtual certainty that you will, over your lifetime, be a loser.
There is no "responsible gambling" for anyone who can't afford to lose. How many people are there who CAN afford to lose? Is one aim of this group to convince everybody else to avoid gambling, or just to promote gambling among those who can afford to lose? That's a pretty tough assignment. The people who can't afford to lose are going to see and hear and probably be influenced by the promotions encouraging "responsible" gambling.
Wouldn't it make more sense to try discourage irresponsible gambling than to encourage any kind of gambling at all?
It would be good if the SJ would assign stories like this to reporters who know the meanings of the terms "tax return" and "tax refund." Someone who writes a story without knowing the difference only adds to the dumbing down of newspaper reporting.
I don't see much mention here of the idea that a well educated, broadly educated, public is necessary for the functioning of a democracy. Or that a well rounded, "little of everything" education may well be of more value to an individual in private life than any large amounts of cash that might be amassed in the marketplace by someone with a focused, career oriented education. Are executive recruiters who give hiring preference to prospects with a broad liberal education trying to maximize their firm's return on wages paid? Or are they mistaken and wasting stockholder dollars?
There is more to be considered in the design of a public educational system than finding efficient ways to crank out good corporate employees.
The following seems to epitomize the approach you take to having a discussion:
You quoted me: "'You probably were thinking of the anti virus software, and really meant semantics. Was I wrong?'" Then you responded with: "Once again, cherry picking, and yes you were VERY wrong." You say I was VERY wrong in thinking you meant semantics. Ok. There's no arguing with you. You won't even agree that up is up and down is down. You did mean semantics. But you now deny it. That doesn't even make sense.
And out of the blue you wrote: "Isn't there an "Occupy" protest camp you should be attending somewhere? Big Corp is not the root of Lewistons ills. Not even going there bubb." You seem that members of the working class in Lewiston were the source of the decision to send shoe manufacturing and the rest of Lewiston's former industrial base overseas. I have news for you. It was the owners and managers who made those decisions, not the workers. Don't go there, as you say, and you'll miss a big part of the explanation for Lewiston's problems, and miss one of the important factors that need consideration in finding solutions.
I cannot tell whether you are serious or not because your posts are incomprehensible, Bubba. And don't think you'll be impressing anyone with the depth or your wisdom by coming up with funny names to call me, Bubbooba. Try reading a basic logic book, fella. Then tell me if you know what it means. Or tell me that it's all the kind of academic nonsense that all those "Occupy" protest camp people would find important. Logic is logic. Your posts have rapidly declined into gobbledygook. Or maybe I just haven't read enough of your posts. Maybe it's not a decline.
Except:
"cherry picking particular words, phrases or other tidbits and taking them to the end of the philosphical spectrum as a means to argue the invalidity of said statements, intents, meanings etc.," is not from me. It's something you wrote yourself.
And "the spelling of "symantics" vs "semantics." I guess I did say there was a correct spelling to the word, but that wasn't an argument - just something that ticked you off.
And "You seem to be someone who doesn't care to waste a lot of unnecessary time checking on all the little details" is something I thought you agreed with. DO YOU think time should be spent on details (such as figuring out what the problem is before proposing a solution)?
And "You probably were thinking of the anti virus software, and really meant semantics." Was I wrong?
And "Nor can you imagine just how powerless they typically are when their free speech rights are up against the free speech rights of, for example, corporations, who are "people" with free speech rights too and who are much more likely than them to own printing presses (and TV stations and so on) that give assistance in getting their ideas out." CAN you imagine it?
And "There are plenty of things causing Lewiston's problems." Do you disagree?
And "But we can just blame it on welfare and not have to think too hard about all the rest." This was sarcasm. Did you miss it? Also, you included it in a list of "arguments" and then put a note next to it saying "not an argument." Why did you do that? If you say you are going to list some arguments, and include in the list items that you then say are NOT arguments, don't you think that's going to make people wonder?
And "When what you say and what you mean to say are two different things, one wonders what you mean to say." (another useless non-arguement" Do you disagree? You included this too in a list of "arguments" and then put a note next to it saying "(a non arguement, btw)." Why did you do that?
And then you list the following statements, claiming them to be arguments:
"You must pay better attention "
"You are not paying close attention"
"your responses are unreasonable"
"You must pay more careful attention "
"your commentary will be related to fantasy and imagination"
"your commentary will be unrelated to the world as it really is"
I expect from your post that you disagree with these statements. Nevertheless they are not "arguments." They are merely statements. I think I am beginning to see the problem. Perhaps you believe that any statement with which you disagree should be counted as an "argument." To me an argument is a series of statements beginning with premises, going on with logical inferences derivable from those premises, and ending with a statements ("conclusions") claimed to be logically derivable from the premises.
Do you believe I made any such "arguments" prior in time to your unkind statements regarding my prior posts, or not?
If you do not believe I made any such "arguments", if there were statements I made prior to your first claim that my arguments were unsound, what were those statements, and on what basis did you disagree? Your most recent post refers to material that I wrote AFTER your first comment critical of my "arguments," and after my original question. The original question -- "What argument did I make?" -- obviously referred to arguments PRIOR IN TIME to my asking "What argument did I make?"
You said my arguments were bad. I asked what the devil you were talking about. You said: "What the devil I'm talking about is you." Then you are making an ad hominem argument. This type of argument has been used and has been recognized as a producer of fallacies for thousands of years.
I asked "What arguements do I think you made?" You replied "You made alot of arguments," but did not refer to a single one. Nice try.
Perhaps you misunderstood, but I asked what (in my posts) you were talking about. You wrote: "Everyone knows what we are talking about. You cant possibly be that ignorant." Nice talk. Everyone knows that "You cant possibly be that ignorant" is a bass ackwards way of saying "Boy are you being ignorant." Another ad hominem. Another fallacy.
You must pay better attention to what I have actually written if you are to make worthwhile responses. You are not paying close attention, and as a result your responses are unreasonable. You must pay more careful attention to what is going on around you, or as a result your commentary will be related to fantasy and imagination -- in my view both wonderful things all in all -- but your commentary will be unrelated to the world as it really is, in all its astounding detail and variety.
When what you say and what you mean to say are two different things, one wonders what you mean to say. Even people who are not hall monitors may wonder. I think you have made your point. Don't bother you with the details.
"Symantics is no defense for the truth."
"Enough with the symantics attacks."
You probably were thinking of the anti virus software, and really meant semantics. You seem to be someone who doesn't care to waste a lot of unnecessary time checking on all the little details. I'd guess you also don't have many family members or friends who are dependent on the evil and destructive welfare programs.
Consider "those who are able bodied" but who are not so able when it comes to the other facets of a productive life. I'll bet you can't imagine just how many of these people there are. Nor can you imagine just how powerless they typically are when their free speech rights are up against the free speech rights of, for example, corporations, who are "people" with free speech rights too and who are much more likely than them to own printing presses (and TV stations and so on) that give assistance in getting their ideas out.
Will "converting . . . limbs that are normally left to decay on the forest floor after a logging operation . . . into biofuel" have any negative effect on future tree growth on that land?
Is it conveivable that any of the various Maine news outlet's crack reporters might see if the MHA can break out what will be paid for by the additional costs? That is, why PRECISELY do the MHA costs exceed the average price for a 2,000 square-foot single-family home in Maine ($159,000)? What are the reasons that both the original bid/contract amount of $242,000 per 1,100 square-foot apartment unit, and the $311,000 per 1,100 square-foot apartment unit being asked for now exceed what a family would pay for a 2000 square foot single family detached?
Is he attracting lots of tourists, so that traffic is heavier when they leave at the end of the week? How did he do that? Is he scaring people away on Sunday mornings, so that they're all trying to leave in fear at once ? How's he doing that?
I'm no fan of the current administration, but I am a fan of logical thinking. This isn't it.
"Based on the current flow of the jet stream, Maine is east of the projected path of Hurricane Irene. Tom Hawley, meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Gray, said the state is more likely to see higher winds and less rain if the storm stays to the east."
What?
Maine is to the east of the projected path, and the storm may "stay to the east?"
Does anybody read these things before they are displayed on the website?
dissembling--
present participle of dis·sem·ble (Verb)
1. Conceal one's true motives, feelings, or beliefs.
2. Disguise or conceal (a feeling or intention).
All those willing to live on you can receive from welfare programs, please raise your hands. (What you can actually get, not what your imagination leads you to think you can get.)
And the ones who "pull the wagon" are "the ones who have the money?"
Wow again. Seems like the heavy lifting is being done by the ones who DON'T have money.
"Since the beginning of time there are those who work and there are those who will not."
The babies refuse to work. The six year olds refuse to work. The twelve year olds refuse to work. Even a lot of the grandmothers, grandfathers, and cancer victims are refusing to work. What a pile of lazy bums.
The U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1, states (among other things): "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts ..."
Retired Maine state employees worked under an employment contract that specified what their pay and benefits would be, including their retirement benefits. The State of Maine's legislature and governor have now passed a law reducing the state's obligations under ITS OWN contracts.
Seems like they should have read the U.S. Constitution first.
The penalty for stealing 10 grand from DHS should be at least as great as the penalty for stealing a million from the DOD. Or have I got it the wrong way around?
Yeah, "sufficiently intelligent enough to understand my real meaning." I guess you've got to know the code. I'm not sufficiently intelligent enough to know where to get a decoder ring. Do they come in cereal boxes?
I don't agree with any strings of words that don't make any sense. This string of words -- After all, these as State Union laborers -- doesn't make any sense.
You're saying the story was false? He didn't propose to remove a mural celebrating labor progress history in a Department of Labor building, and then sneak it out of the building under cover of darkness? He didn't really propose to promote openness in government actions and decision making when he ran for office?
It's on the front pages locally for the same reason that the NY Times picked it up and the late night comics are making fun of it. Don't you get it? It is behavior by an elected public official that is as uninformed and ridiculous as anything you're likely to find anywhere. People love it because it confirms the low opinion they have of politicians. If the editors believe people are going to love it, the papers will print it.
yeah. We don need no stinkin art outside the museums. Except maybe in the Socialist State of Portland. But I disagree with you where you say "After all, these as State Union laborers."
By BillTheGorilla, unverified — Tue, 12/21/2010 - 15:19
While I agree with the outrage at this person/these people's actions, I disagree when you refer to children as "our most valuable resources." WE are THEIR resources, they are not ours. Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with the new governor.
Finally, when you say "I hope you have nightmares of these children" you miss something of real importance in understanding crime and bad human behavior in general. Some crime - a substantial part but not all - is committed by people who are what used to be called sociopaths. These are people who grow up without ever developing what we typically call a "conscience." They literally don't care about other people and feel no guilt about what they do. They don't regret their own past actions unless those actions caused them harm. They generally able to learn and learn well what behaviors it takes to get what they want, and can be charming and entertaining. It is possible that one or more of the people involved in this crime could be sociopaths. An unexpectedly high percentage of sociopaths are very bright and can get away with a lot.
It is not as simple as I make it out to be here, as there seem to be gradations of sociopathic behavior, but there are at a minimum millions of people in the US who are highly sociopathic. This is a circumstance that exists in every corner of our society and is probably responsible for many of the country's problems but, to put it mildly, does not get much press attention. I wish that it could be more widely acknowledged and taken into account by all of the various people and institutions that are affected - criminal justice, ethicists, the religious, and people in general who analyze and criticize our culture.
And yes, the most awful part of this story is the consequences suffered by people in need, and the contrast their of needs with those of people who ignore them for their own benefit. The contrast is truly, truly galling in this case. But it can be found in so many other situations where it is unfortunately ignored.
Maine Public Safety Commissioner Anne Jordan . . . describes McKinney as "an incredibly well-respected and highly qualified MDEA director."
Does this mean she thinks the claim that he is well respected is incredible?
I suspect it has something to do with who's in charge. The rich are in charge. Democracy? No. ours is a so-called "republican" form of government, not a democracy. Tax rates, choices on how government contracts are awarded, and plenty of other things that affect the distribution of wealth and income are up to people who usually get elected by having plenty of cash for their campaighs to begin with. And with a recent decision by our beloved "Supremes" (the US Supreme Court) our corporations, the richest and most powerful forces in the country, can now exercise their free speech rights as "persons" and can spend enough to make sure their candidates get a more than fair hearing in election campaigns. Original intent? Strict constructionists?
If only the redistribution of wealth an power that is done by our governments could be as generous to the those with the lowest incomes as it is to those with the highest incomes, what a different world it would be. For example: set a minimum wage that is a livable wage.
Important message from republican legislative leadership to the executive branch:
Do not pursue recovery of unwarranted government payments for too long.
Question to Sen. Earle McCormick of West Gardiner:
HUH?
"Rep. Robert Nutting, R-Oakland, last week was elected by a Republican caucus to lead the new GOP majority in the next legislative session"
Uh oh. I guess the members of the caucus must have had something more important on their minds, distracting them from what they were supposed to be getting done at the time. But what could it have been?
Why would a nurse ever go on strike against an employer? No good reason. Just huge responsibility, little decision making authority, arbitrary demands and decisions by employers, being ignored when expressing concerns about patient care and staffing, reductions in take-home pay when their shares of health insurance costs go up as a result of insurance contracts entered into by the employer, etc., etc., etc. none of which should be of any concern to them anyway. WRONG!
In conflicts between bosses and employees, What other way is there for an employee to get his/her voice heard other than working with other employees and, if their common voice isn't heard, striking? Letter writing campaigns? Polite inquiries to supervisors? The bosses have LOTS of ways to get themselves heard. Don't believe me? Lets see what happens when you want something that your boss doesn't want to give, and you get insistent. Consider the bosses' poptions. Compare their options with yours.
By BillTheGorilla, unverified — Tue, 09/21/2010 - 21:43
If you make it seem simple, the issue will be easy to deal with. But then only by luck will it be handled in the best possible way. But Sexuality is NOT a simple issue. The Devil is in the details. But then God is in the details too.
By BillTheGorilla, unverified — Sun, 09/05/2010 - 09:54
It's just that simple: "open-ended statism" versus "rights of the individual under limited government powers?"
No it's not.
There are plenty of people on the left who would like to keep government out of their bedrooms, out of their religious beliefs, out of their back yards. There are plenty of people on the left who wish they could find a way to limit what big government can do. There are plenty people on the right who worry seriously about government being very strongly influenced by religious groups, corporations, and extremely wealthy individuals.
Please stop over-simplifying.
If you think "There like a cancer here sucking all the resources they can," what do you think of this: In March 2006 Forbes reported 793 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $2.6 trillion. In March 2007 Forbes reported 946 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $3.5 trillion. That is a 1-year increase of 19% in the number of billionaires and an increase of 35% in their net worth during a time of increasing poverty. This trend is not decelerating. Severe poverty is at its highest point in three decades. You can Google all this stuff.
Who is it that is sucking up all the resources?
About nine hundred billion dollars ($.9 trillion) more was in the hands of those whose labors made them billionaires. Or maybe it wasn't their labors that made them billionaires. Maybe it was their financial advisors and managers that made them billionaires. How many working stiffs would you have to gather up to to have a group with the same assets those 946 billionaires had?
On a more down to earth note, the ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000, at the height of the stock market bubble, when CEOs were cashing in big stock options. They didn't become billionaires, but they weren't doing badly. The ratio was at 411:1 in 2005 and 344:1 in 2007, according to research by United for a Fair Economy. By way of comparison, the same ratio is about 25:1 in Europe.
In the US it isn't the poor who are sucking up all the resources. And if you will do the arithmetic, I think you'll find that in Lewiston it isn't the Somalis who are sucking up the resources.
The lack of appreciation for subtlety demonstrated in the anti-Somalian, anti Sun-Journal posts here is: (a) astonishing or (b) not astonishing at all. You choose. Any of you ever seen pictures of the "no Irish need apply" signs on hiring halls in the 1920's-1930's?
Please, stop thinking it's all so simple and easy to understand. Try walking in the moccasins of a refugee for a while, you who have had the great great luck to be born in the USA in the twentieth century.
Why wouldn't an opportunity to learn seem like a good thing to a kid? Wouldn't you expect a person to feel good about knowing more today than yesterday? Could it be that some schoolteachers themselves can't imagine this to be true, and communicate to kids that "learning is drudgery, not fun"? Could it be that teachers and administrators don't know that having fun with new information is just about as good a way to put a kid on the path to real education as you'll find anywhere?
What is it that produces so many kids whose goal is just to get through the day rather than to discover new things - to be more aware and capable at the end of the day than at the beginning? Parents, teachers, commercial television? Is there some critical mass of indifference to truth and knowledge in a culture which, once reached, causes, in so many young students, the desire to learn to become unsustainable as they grow older? Have we reached that critical mass in the U.S.?
Could it be a culture that teaches expedience to be more important than integrity or truth or dedication to doing good work? ("Just get 'er done.") What is it that allows so many people to believe that once they become adults, certainty rather than curiosity is the important thing?
To learn something new requires a person to admit that yesterday they were, in some respect, ignorant or mistaken. But to refuse to learn requires a person to continue making - tomorrow and for the rest of his life - the same mistakes he make yesterday.
Come ON everybody. Stop dropping hints to kids that curiosity kills cats. If you're going to have faith in something, have faith that learning is a good thing. Have faith that a search for truth is a good thing, not a trick used by conspirators. STOP BELIEVING THAT YOU KNOW IT ALL.
It's all soooo simple.
Has anybody noticed that it's just as simple and easy to understand for those on the left as it is for those on the right? (The questions have been changed. Only the answers are the same.)
Maybe it's not all that simple?
Mr Lowry wishes the judge had ruled on "the legal merits of the case." Please clarify for me. Is that the same thing that's referred to as "getting off on a technicality" when a decision you don't like is made on the basis of legal reasoning?
fixit001 wrote:
"WE ALL KNOW THEY WOULD HAVE DONE VERY BAD THINGS TO GAYS PEOPLE BACK THEN AND THATS A FACT JACK!!!!"
------------------------------
And by God if it's what they did back then, we should get back to doing it again now! And what's all this nonsense about children seven and eight years old not being allowed to work in factories?! If they could do it in the 1800-s and even into the early 1900's, by God what was good enough for those kids is good enough for our kids! There are lots of countries on earth where they STILL do it! And all this so called "education" business. They didn't need "high school diplomas" back then, and we don't need to spend all that money now! A bunch of educated fools, that's all these high schools turn out!
------------------------------
fixit001 also wrote:
"the intent of the law is the law!! a law can be totaly taken out of context to fill what ever you want it to mean however it was never ever intened to your means but you will use what ever means to force it to bend your way and of course with so many gubby little politicians and judges just waiting to have their plams greased you will eventualy find those who will take bribes to find matters your way."
------------------------------
I'm not quite sure what that means, but fixit001 is so spot on right about everything else he wrote, I'm sure it's true tool.
Wow. This is even easier to understand than I would have guessed. If everyone just realized that the president is a "socialist piece of crap," our problems would all be on the road to getting solved: unemployment, poverty, recession, war, mental illness, cancer, heart disease, iridium shortages, crime, undereducated high school graduates, crooked politicians, ugly architecture, animal species going extinct, acne, early hair loss, the heartbreak of psoriasis.
Or no, excuse me, maybe that's not correct. Maybe the devil's in the details. Maybe the gods are in the details. Maybe people really have to understand problems before they can start doing things that will actually fix em. That's right, isn't it?
Few questions have generated as much discussion across time as that of the causes of human impoverishment. The sources and origins of poverty have been debated for centuries. As the historian R. M. Hartwell notes, "The causes of poverty, its relief and cure, have been a matter of serious concern to theologians, statesmen, civil servants, intellectuals, tax-payers and humanitarians since the Middle Ages" (1986: 16). The question of causality has found itself at the heart of most debates surrounding poverty and the poor.
In recent times these debates have often been divided into two ideological camps. On one hand, poverty has been viewed as the result of individual failings. From this perspective, specific attributes of the impoverished individual have brought about their poverty. These include a wide set of characteristics, ranging from the lack of an industrious work ethic or virtuous morality, to low levels of education or competitive labor market skills. On the other hand, poverty has periodically been interpreted as the result of failings at the structural level, such as the inability of the economy to produce enough decent paying jobs.
Ir's all so simple. How little we need to know to have a full understanding of other people and of events, and to judge the characters not just of individuals, but of lots of people all at once. So many writers demonstrate such deep understanding despite the challenge of having limited information. Breathtaking!
Luckily, it's all so simple. "These people" are all exactly the same, so if one does something wrong you can reasonably conclude that all have done or will do something wrong. Oh wait a minute, there's a mistake in the logic here. If the assumption is wrong, the conclusion has not been demonstrated. And the assumption is wrong. They're not all the same. Actually, it's only the ones who were shown to have done something wrong, not all. So MAYBE IT'S NOT SO SIMPLE!
Who could be against foul mouthed bickering? And who doesn't like to watch? Without a doubt it brings eyes to the web site. Isn't that what free enterprise is all about?
"If you clean it, they will come." I think maybe cause and effect are reversed there. But never mind. What's really needed is for the state to get rid of all the the mamby pamby liberals and big spending democrats whose talk about social welfare and so on is scaring off business developers. Maybe that would work. Just support the conservative politicians like in Mississippi and Alabama. Then again, maybe not. I think not.
Life is simple. Read the Christian Bible and it will tell you everything you need to know about how to lead your life. That is, the rules change. Why should the rules change? Ask the author(s?). One Old Testament day it's ok to kill every man woman and child in an enemy city because somebody in the city committed "offences," and the next day, a New Testament day, you're supposed to turn the other cheek if somebody walks up to you in the street and pops you in the nose. Who could be happy with a world where the rules are always changing like that? What we need is a biblical law without all the mamby pamby nonsense about caring for the poor and feeding the hungry and so forth. Everybody knows that we all get exactly what we deserve, and if we're rich, we deserve to be rich. If we're born into a group that's currently out of favor with the majority, it's because we deserved it. Black, French, Jewish, Irish (you know about the signs hung above the doors of factories that said "No Irish need apply"?) -- just accept it, don't go trying to rock the boat. Not.
Come on now, Voisine. If the ideas are bad, attack the ideas. Don't get drawn in to the game of claiming that just because you've proved a person to be a bad or ignorant person (or a Progressive or a "Commie," or sumthin'), you've also shown the ideas the person articulates to be bad ideas. Ideas have a habit that sometimes makes them tedious - good ones can sometimes come from unexpected sources, and bad ones can sometimes come from our heroes.
common sense and morals used to prevail. What happened in Farmington today is proof that that is no longer true and as a result, laws/ordinances likely will be passed.
Why don't we do that here?
Common sense and morals.
How's that?
If you had any common sense or morals you'd understand.
Explain the reasoning to me?
Common sense says if we don't do that here, there must be a moral reason, because this country was founded on moral principles. And we don't do it here. And if common sense and morals are going to prevail, we shouldn't do it here. Simple isn't it?
Recent Comments
"The ranking is based on
"The ranking is based on analysis of homicide, violent crime, policing, incarceration rates and availability of small arms data."
So we can get our ranking out of the cellar by just killing more people, having more violent fights and robberies, hiring more police, putting more people in jail, and distributing more firearms.
Think we should go for it?
What on earth is there to
What on earth is there to disagree with here? It isn't really funny, but for quite a while now people have been referring to DHHS as The Department of Human Sacrifices.
"Responsible" behavior is
"Responsible" behavior is behavior applying what you know and making responsible decisions based on what you know. If you gamble, it is a virtual certainty that you will, over your lifetime, be a loser.
There is no "responsible gambling" for anyone who can't afford to lose. How many people are there who CAN afford to lose? Is one aim of this group to convince everybody else to avoid gambling, or just to promote gambling among those who can afford to lose? That's a pretty tough assignment. The people who can't afford to lose are going to see and hear and probably be influenced by the promotions encouraging "responsible" gambling.
Wouldn't it make more sense to try discourage irresponsible gambling than to encourage any kind of gambling at all?
Must do this faster:
First the hanging, then the trial.
Tax return - tax refund
It would be good if the SJ would assign stories like this to reporters who know the meanings of the terms "tax return" and "tax refund." Someone who writes a story without knowing the difference only adds to the dumbing down of newspaper reporting.
Well rounded education
I don't see much mention here of the idea that a well educated, broadly educated, public is necessary for the functioning of a democracy. Or that a well rounded, "little of everything" education may well be of more value to an individual in private life than any large amounts of cash that might be amassed in the marketplace by someone with a focused, career oriented education. Are executive recruiters who give hiring preference to prospects with a broad liberal education trying to maximize their firm's return on wages paid? Or are they mistaken and wasting stockholder dollars?
There is more to be considered in the design of a public educational system than finding efficient ways to crank out good corporate employees.
Spin
You are doing a very good job of spinning, Ms. Teel: “This is not raiding MaineCare; it is rescuing it.”
Useless energy costs?
Useless energy costs? Useless energy costs? What?
Thank goodness.
Yes, thank goodness the people who really care are finally in charge.
Surprise
Surprise? No surprise. Example no.1 of hizzoner's single minded conviction and level headed, even-handed approach to government. What?
I am SO embarrassed to see
I am SO embarrassed to see that I have been caught up by your trolling.
I now cannot tell whether you
I now cannot tell whether you are serious or not.
The following seems to epitomize the approach you take to having a discussion:
You quoted me: "'You probably were thinking of the anti virus software, and really meant semantics. Was I wrong?'" Then you responded with: "Once again, cherry picking, and yes you were VERY wrong." You say I was VERY wrong in thinking you meant semantics. Ok. There's no arguing with you. You won't even agree that up is up and down is down. You did mean semantics. But you now deny it. That doesn't even make sense.
And out of the blue you wrote: "Isn't there an "Occupy" protest camp you should be attending somewhere? Big Corp is not the root of Lewistons ills. Not even going there bubb." You seem that members of the working class in Lewiston were the source of the decision to send shoe manufacturing and the rest of Lewiston's former industrial base overseas. I have news for you. It was the owners and managers who made those decisions, not the workers. Don't go there, as you say, and you'll miss a big part of the explanation for Lewiston's problems, and miss one of the important factors that need consideration in finding solutions.
I cannot tell whether you are serious or not because your posts are incomprehensible, Bubba. And don't think you'll be impressing anyone with the depth or your wisdom by coming up with funny names to call me, Bubbooba. Try reading a basic logic book, fella. Then tell me if you know what it means. Or tell me that it's all the kind of academic nonsense that all those "Occupy" protest camp people would find important. Logic is logic. Your posts have rapidly declined into gobbledygook. Or maybe I just haven't read enough of your posts. Maybe it's not a decline.
Now you're getting somewhere.
Now you're getting somewhere.
Except:
"cherry picking particular words, phrases or other tidbits and taking them to the end of the philosphical spectrum as a means to argue the invalidity of said statements, intents, meanings etc.," is not from me. It's something you wrote yourself.
And "the spelling of "symantics" vs "semantics." I guess I did say there was a correct spelling to the word, but that wasn't an argument - just something that ticked you off.
And "You seem to be someone who doesn't care to waste a lot of unnecessary time checking on all the little details" is something I thought you agreed with. DO YOU think time should be spent on details (such as figuring out what the problem is before proposing a solution)?
And "You probably were thinking of the anti virus software, and really meant semantics." Was I wrong?
And "Nor can you imagine just how powerless they typically are when their free speech rights are up against the free speech rights of, for example, corporations, who are "people" with free speech rights too and who are much more likely than them to own printing presses (and TV stations and so on) that give assistance in getting their ideas out." CAN you imagine it?
And "There are plenty of things causing Lewiston's problems." Do you disagree?
And "But we can just blame it on welfare and not have to think too hard about all the rest." This was sarcasm. Did you miss it? Also, you included it in a list of "arguments" and then put a note next to it saying "not an argument." Why did you do that? If you say you are going to list some arguments, and include in the list items that you then say are NOT arguments, don't you think that's going to make people wonder?
And "When what you say and what you mean to say are two different things, one wonders what you mean to say." (another useless non-arguement" Do you disagree? You included this too in a list of "arguments" and then put a note next to it saying "(a non arguement, btw)." Why did you do that?
And then you list the following statements, claiming them to be arguments:
"You must pay better attention "
"You are not paying close attention"
"your responses are unreasonable"
"You must pay more careful attention "
"your commentary will be related to fantasy and imagination"
"your commentary will be unrelated to the world as it really is"
I expect from your post that you disagree with these statements. Nevertheless they are not "arguments." They are merely statements. I think I am beginning to see the problem. Perhaps you believe that any statement with which you disagree should be counted as an "argument." To me an argument is a series of statements beginning with premises, going on with logical inferences derivable from those premises, and ending with a statements ("conclusions") claimed to be logically derivable from the premises.
Do you believe I made any such "arguments" prior in time to your unkind statements regarding my prior posts, or not?
If you do not believe I made any such "arguments", if there were statements I made prior to your first claim that my arguments were unsound, what were those statements, and on what basis did you disagree? Your most recent post refers to material that I wrote AFTER your first comment critical of my "arguments," and after my original question. The original question -- "What argument did I make?" -- obviously referred to arguments PRIOR IN TIME to my asking "What argument did I make?"
You said my arguments were
You said my arguments were bad. I asked what the devil you were talking about. You said: "What the devil I'm talking about is you." Then you are making an ad hominem argument. This type of argument has been used and has been recognized as a producer of fallacies for thousands of years.
I asked "What arguements do I think you made?" You replied "You made alot of arguments," but did not refer to a single one. Nice try.
Perhaps you misunderstood, but I asked what (in my posts) you were talking about. You wrote: "Everyone knows what we are talking about. You cant possibly be that ignorant." Nice talk. Everyone knows that "You cant possibly be that ignorant" is a bass ackwards way of saying "Boy are you being ignorant." Another ad hominem. Another fallacy.
You must pay better attention to what I have actually written if you are to make worthwhile responses. You are not paying close attention, and as a result your responses are unreasonable. You must pay more careful attention to what is going on around you, or as a result your commentary will be related to fantasy and imagination -- in my view both wonderful things all in all -- but your commentary will be unrelated to the world as it really is, in all its astounding detail and variety.
Mike, what the devil are you talking about?
Mike
What the devil are you talking about? There's not a word in any of my posts about what McDonald said. And what argument do you think I made?
Dispatch from a potential hall monitor
When what you say and what you mean to say are two different things, one wonders what you mean to say. Even people who are not hall monitors may wonder. I think you have made your point. Don't bother you with the details.
"Symantics is no defense for
"Symantics is no defense for the truth."
"Enough with the symantics attacks."
You probably were thinking of the anti virus software, and really meant semantics. You seem to be someone who doesn't care to waste a lot of unnecessary time checking on all the little details. I'd guess you also don't have many family members or friends who are dependent on the evil and destructive welfare programs.
Consider "those who are able bodied" but who are not so able when it comes to the other facets of a productive life. I'll bet you can't imagine just how many of these people there are. Nor can you imagine just how powerless they typically are when their free speech rights are up against the free speech rights of, for example, corporations, who are "people" with free speech rights too and who are much more likely than them to own printing presses (and TV stations and so on) that give assistance in getting their ideas out.
It's all so simple isn't it.
It's all so simple isn't it. “The city is going to pot with that welfare."
No. It's not that simple.
There are plenty of things causing Lewiston's problems.
But we can just blame it on welfare and not have to think too hard about all the rest.
(Sarcasm font)
Grammar IS important.
"She brushed off claims her . . . would benefit . . ."
Where are the editors? Publishing a news story that has not been reviewed for grammar sheds doubt on that story and on the reliability of the paper.
all the 'Time Out' room we ever needed
Did you all have a psychiatric problems when you were in school?
"Waste" normally left to decay on the forest floor
Will "converting . . . limbs that are normally left to decay on the forest floor after a logging operation . . . into biofuel" have any negative effect on future tree growth on that land?
$242,000 per unit contractor's bid; $311,000 asked for
Is it conveivable that any of the various Maine news outlet's crack reporters might see if the MHA can break out what will be paid for by the additional costs? That is, why PRECISELY do the MHA costs exceed the average price for a 2,000 square-foot single-family home in Maine ($159,000)? What are the reasons that both the original bid/contract amount of $242,000 per 1,100 square-foot apartment unit, and the $311,000 per 1,100 square-foot apartment unit being asked for now exceed what a family would pay for a 2000 square foot single family detached?
How is Peter Mills influencing traffic on the bridge?
Is he attracting lots of tourists, so that traffic is heavier when they leave at the end of the week? How did he do that? Is he scaring people away on Sunday mornings, so that they're all trying to leave in fear at once ? How's he doing that?
I'm no fan of the current administration, but I am a fan of logical thinking. This isn't it.
Quote: "Based on the current
Quote:
"Based on the current flow of the jet stream, Maine is east of the projected path of Hurricane Irene. Tom Hawley, meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Gray, said the state is more likely to see higher winds and less rain if the storm stays to the east."
What?
Maine is to the east of the projected path, and the storm may "stay to the east?"
Does anybody read these things before they are displayed on the website?
Spelling?
dissembling--
present participle of dis·sem·ble (Verb)
1. Conceal one's true motives, feelings, or beliefs.
2. Disguise or conceal (a feeling or intention).
Low Income
Imagine how things would be if low income candidates were elected to high political offices in Maine. The mind boggles.
Raise your hands
All those willing to live on you can receive from welfare programs, please raise your hands. (What you can actually get, not what your imagination leads you to think you can get.)
Let them starve?
Let them eat cake.
Wow.
And the ones who "pull the wagon" are "the ones who have the money?"
Wow again. Seems like the heavy lifting is being done by the ones who DON'T have money.
"Since the beginning of time there are those who work and there are those who will not."
The babies refuse to work. The six year olds refuse to work. The twelve year olds refuse to work. Even a lot of the grandmothers, grandfathers, and cancer victims are refusing to work. What a pile of lazy bums.
Constitution, Article I, section 10
The U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1, states (among other things): "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts ..."
Retired Maine state employees worked under an employment contract that specified what their pay and benefits would be, including their retirement benefits. The State of Maine's legislature and governor have now passed a law reducing the state's obligations under ITS OWN contracts.
Seems like they should have read the U.S. Constitution first.
Just saying.
Know your enemy
Al-Jazeera's Washington bureau chief is the enemy?
What led you to that conclusion?
Penalties
The penalty for stealing 10 grand from DHS should be at least as great as the penalty for stealing a million from the DOD. Or have I got it the wrong way around?
sufficiently intelligent enough
Yeah, "sufficiently intelligent enough to understand my real meaning." I guess you've got to know the code. I'm not sufficiently intelligent enough to know where to get a decoder ring. Do they come in cereal boxes?
Least healthiest
Least healthiest, but most awesomist.
(Don't you have somebody checking grammer before these items show up on the website?)
bux for a printing press
As has so often been said - Freedom of the press is a great thing for those who have the money to buy a printing press.
these as State Union laborers
I don't agree with any strings of words that don't make any sense. This string of words -- After all, these as State Union laborers -- doesn't make any sense.
the news agencies . . . will keep on lying!
You're saying the story was false? He didn't propose to remove a mural celebrating labor progress history in a Department of Labor building, and then sneak it out of the building under cover of darkness? He didn't really propose to promote openness in government actions and decision making when he ran for office?
why does the media put this story on the front page
It's on the front pages locally for the same reason that the NY Times picked it up and the late night comics are making fun of it. Don't you get it? It is behavior by an elected public official that is as uninformed and ridiculous as anything you're likely to find anywhere. People love it because it confirms the low opinion they have of politicians. If the editors believe people are going to love it, the papers will print it.
the Socialist State of Portland
yeah. We don need no stinkin art outside the museums. Except maybe in the Socialist State of Portland. But I disagree with you where you say "After all, these as State Union laborers."
our most valuable resources, our children
While I agree with the outrage at this person/these people's actions, I disagree when you refer to children as "our most valuable resources." WE are THEIR resources, they are not ours. Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with the new governor.
Finally, when you say "I hope you have nightmares of these children" you miss something of real importance in understanding crime and bad human behavior in general. Some crime - a substantial part but not all - is committed by people who are what used to be called sociopaths. These are people who grow up without ever developing what we typically call a "conscience." They literally don't care about other people and feel no guilt about what they do. They don't regret their own past actions unless those actions caused them harm. They generally able to learn and learn well what behaviors it takes to get what they want, and can be charming and entertaining. It is possible that one or more of the people involved in this crime could be sociopaths. An unexpectedly high percentage of sociopaths are very bright and can get away with a lot.
It is not as simple as I make it out to be here, as there seem to be gradations of sociopathic behavior, but there are at a minimum millions of people in the US who are highly sociopathic. This is a circumstance that exists in every corner of our society and is probably responsible for many of the country's problems but, to put it mildly, does not get much press attention. I wish that it could be more widely acknowledged and taken into account by all of the various people and institutions that are affected - criminal justice, ethicists, the religious, and people in general who analyze and criticize our culture.
And yes, the most awful part of this story is the consequences suffered by people in need, and the contrast their of needs with those of people who ignore them for their own benefit. The contrast is truly, truly galling in this case. But it can be found in so many other situations where it is unfortunately ignored.
incredibly well-respected
Maine Public Safety Commissioner Anne Jordan . . . describes McKinney as "an incredibly well-respected and highly qualified MDEA director."
Does this mean she thinks the claim that he is well respected is incredible?
The rich get richer
I suspect it has something to do with who's in charge. The rich are in charge. Democracy? No. ours is a so-called "republican" form of government, not a democracy. Tax rates, choices on how government contracts are awarded, and plenty of other things that affect the distribution of wealth and income are up to people who usually get elected by having plenty of cash for their campaighs to begin with. And with a recent decision by our beloved "Supremes" (the US Supreme Court) our corporations, the richest and most powerful forces in the country, can now exercise their free speech rights as "persons" and can spend enough to make sure their candidates get a more than fair hearing in election campaigns. Original intent? Strict constructionists?
If only the redistribution of wealth an power that is done by our governments could be as generous to the those with the lowest incomes as it is to those with the highest incomes, what a different world it would be. For example: set a minimum wage that is a livable wage.
Nutting was pursued too long
Important message from republican legislative leadership to the executive branch:
Do not pursue recovery of unwarranted government payments for too long.
Question to Sen. Earle McCormick of West Gardiner:
HUH?
"Rep. Robert Nutting,
"Rep. Robert Nutting, R-Oakland, last week was elected by a Republican caucus to lead the new GOP majority in the next legislative session"
Uh oh. I guess the members of the caucus must have had something more important on their minds, distracting them from what they were supposed to be getting done at the time. But what could it have been?
Why would a nurse ever go on
Why would a nurse ever go on strike against an employer? No good reason. Just huge responsibility, little decision making authority, arbitrary demands and decisions by employers, being ignored when expressing concerns about patient care and staffing, reductions in take-home pay when their shares of health insurance costs go up as a result of insurance contracts entered into by the employer, etc., etc., etc. none of which should be of any concern to them anyway. WRONG!
In conflicts between bosses and employees, What other way is there for an employee to get his/her voice heard other than working with other employees and, if their common voice isn't heard, striking? Letter writing campaigns? Polite inquiries to supervisors? The bosses have LOTS of ways to get themselves heard. Don't believe me? Lets see what happens when you want something that your boss doesn't want to give, and you get insistent. Consider the bosses' poptions. Compare their options with yours.
Sexuality is a VERY very simple issue, isn't it?
If you make it seem simple, the issue will be easy to deal with. But then only by luck will it be handled in the best possible way. But Sexuality is NOT a simple issue. The Devil is in the details. But then God is in the details too.
rights of the individual
It's just that simple: "open-ended statism" versus "rights of the individual under limited government powers?"
No it's not.
There are plenty of people on the left who would like to keep government out of their bedrooms, out of their religious beliefs, out of their back yards. There are plenty of people on the left who wish they could find a way to limit what big government can do. There are plenty people on the right who worry seriously about government being very strongly influenced by religious groups, corporations, and extremely wealthy individuals.
Please stop over-simplifying.
the reality of it all
"This is just the reality of it all"?
This is just a small small part of the reality of it all.
If you think "There like a
If you think "There like a cancer here sucking all the resources they can," what do you think of this: In March 2006 Forbes reported 793 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $2.6 trillion. In March 2007 Forbes reported 946 billionaires in the US with combined net worth of $3.5 trillion. That is a 1-year increase of 19% in the number of billionaires and an increase of 35% in their net worth during a time of increasing poverty. This trend is not decelerating. Severe poverty is at its highest point in three decades. You can Google all this stuff.
Who is it that is sucking up all the resources?
About nine hundred billion dollars ($.9 trillion) more was in the hands of those whose labors made them billionaires. Or maybe it wasn't their labors that made them billionaires. Maybe it was their financial advisors and managers that made them billionaires. How many working stiffs would you have to gather up to to have a group with the same assets those 946 billionaires had?
On a more down to earth note, the ratio of CEO pay to factory worker pay rose from 42:1 in 1960 to as high as 531:1 in 2000, at the height of the stock market bubble, when CEOs were cashing in big stock options. They didn't become billionaires, but they weren't doing badly. The ratio was at 411:1 in 2005 and 344:1 in 2007, according to research by United for a Fair Economy. By way of comparison, the same ratio is about 25:1 in Europe.
In the US it isn't the poor who are sucking up all the resources. And if you will do the arithmetic, I think you'll find that in Lewiston it isn't the Somalis who are sucking up the resources.
Somalians
The lack of appreciation for subtlety demonstrated in the anti-Somalian, anti Sun-Journal posts here is: (a) astonishing or (b) not astonishing at all. You choose. Any of you ever seen pictures of the "no Irish need apply" signs on hiring halls in the 1920's-1930's?
Please, stop thinking it's all so simple and easy to understand. Try walking in the moccasins of a refugee for a while, you who have had the great great luck to be born in the USA in the twentieth century.
Humor
Humor?
Liking School
Why wouldn't an opportunity to learn seem like a good thing to a kid? Wouldn't you expect a person to feel good about knowing more today than yesterday? Could it be that some schoolteachers themselves can't imagine this to be true, and communicate to kids that "learning is drudgery, not fun"? Could it be that teachers and administrators don't know that having fun with new information is just about as good a way to put a kid on the path to real education as you'll find anywhere?
What is it that produces so many kids whose goal is just to get through the day rather than to discover new things - to be more aware and capable at the end of the day than at the beginning? Parents, teachers, commercial television? Is there some critical mass of indifference to truth and knowledge in a culture which, once reached, causes, in so many young students, the desire to learn to become unsustainable as they grow older? Have we reached that critical mass in the U.S.?
Could it be a culture that teaches expedience to be more important than integrity or truth or dedication to doing good work? ("Just get 'er done.") What is it that allows so many people to believe that once they become adults, certainty rather than curiosity is the important thing?
To learn something new requires a person to admit that yesterday they were, in some respect, ignorant or mistaken. But to refuse to learn requires a person to continue making - tomorrow and for the rest of his life - the same mistakes he make yesterday.
Come ON everybody. Stop dropping hints to kids that curiosity kills cats. If you're going to have faith in something, have faith that learning is a good thing. Have faith that a search for truth is a good thing, not a trick used by conspirators. STOP BELIEVING THAT YOU KNOW IT ALL.
Left vs. Right
It's all soooo simple.
Has anybody noticed that it's just as simple and easy to understand for those on the left as it is for those on the right? (The questions have been changed. Only the answers are the same.)
Maybe it's not all that simple?
The legal merits of the case
Mr Lowry wishes the judge had ruled on "the legal merits of the case." Please clarify for me. Is that the same thing that's referred to as "getting off on a technicality" when a decision you don't like is made on the basis of legal reasoning?
VERY BAD THINGS
fixit001 wrote:
"WE ALL KNOW THEY WOULD HAVE DONE VERY BAD THINGS TO GAYS PEOPLE BACK THEN AND THATS A FACT JACK!!!!"
------------------------------
And by God if it's what they did back then, we should get back to doing it again now! And what's all this nonsense about children seven and eight years old not being allowed to work in factories?! If they could do it in the 1800-s and even into the early 1900's, by God what was good enough for those kids is good enough for our kids! There are lots of countries on earth where they STILL do it! And all this so called "education" business. They didn't need "high school diplomas" back then, and we don't need to spend all that money now! A bunch of educated fools, that's all these high schools turn out!
------------------------------
fixit001 also wrote:
"the intent of the law is the law!! a law can be totaly taken out of context to fill what ever you want it to mean however it was never ever intened to your means but you will use what ever means to force it to bend your way and of course with so many gubby little politicians and judges just waiting to have their plams greased you will eventualy find those who will take bribes to find matters your way."
------------------------------
I'm not quite sure what that means, but fixit001 is so spot on right about everything else he wrote, I'm sure it's true tool.
socialist piece of crap
Wow. This is even easier to understand than I would have guessed. If everyone just realized that the president is a "socialist piece of crap," our problems would all be on the road to getting solved: unemployment, poverty, recession, war, mental illness, cancer, heart disease, iridium shortages, crime, undereducated high school graduates, crooked politicians, ugly architecture, animal species going extinct, acne, early hair loss, the heartbreak of psoriasis.
Or no, excuse me, maybe that's not correct. Maybe the devil's in the details. Maybe the gods are in the details. Maybe people really have to understand problems before they can start doing things that will actually fix em. That's right, isn't it?
f you’re poor (just another term for lazy, irresponsible, ignora
if you’re poor (just another term for lazy, irresponsible, ignorant)
IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE.
Take a look at this cite, one of many thousands on the question: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYZ/is_4_30/ai_111933181/
A short part of what's on that site"
Few questions have generated as much discussion across time as that of the causes of human impoverishment. The sources and origins of poverty have been debated for centuries. As the historian R. M. Hartwell notes, "The causes of poverty, its relief and cure, have been a matter of serious concern to theologians, statesmen, civil servants, intellectuals, tax-payers and humanitarians since the Middle Ages" (1986: 16). The question of causality has found itself at the heart of most debates surrounding poverty and the poor.
In recent times these debates have often been divided into two ideological camps. On one hand, poverty has been viewed as the result of individual failings. From this perspective, specific attributes of the impoverished individual have brought about their poverty. These include a wide set of characteristics, ranging from the lack of an industrious work ethic or virtuous morality, to low levels of education or competitive labor market skills. On the other hand, poverty has periodically been interpreted as the result of failings at the structural level, such as the inability of the economy to produce enough decent paying jobs.
How little we need to know
Ir's all so simple. How little we need to know to have a full understanding of other people and of events, and to judge the characters not just of individuals, but of lots of people all at once. So many writers demonstrate such deep understanding despite the challenge of having limited information. Breathtaking!
These people are abusing
Luckily, it's all so simple. "These people" are all exactly the same, so if one does something wrong you can reasonably conclude that all have done or will do something wrong. Oh wait a minute, there's a mistake in the logic here. If the assumption is wrong, the conclusion has not been demonstrated. And the assumption is wrong. They're not all the same. Actually, it's only the ones who were shown to have done something wrong, not all. So MAYBE IT'S NOT SO SIMPLE!
foul mouthed bickering
Who could be against foul mouthed bickering? And who doesn't like to watch? Without a doubt it brings eyes to the web site. Isn't that what free enterprise is all about?
help to kill economic development
"If you clean it, they will come." I think maybe cause and effect are reversed there. But never mind. What's really needed is for the state to get rid of all the the mamby pamby liberals and big spending democrats whose talk about social welfare and so on is scaring off business developers. Maybe that would work. Just support the conservative politicians like in Mississippi and Alabama. Then again, maybe not. I think not.
What is wrong is wrong
And it's all very very simple. Easy to understand. Not.
Evolution freaks
Life is simple. Read the Christian Bible and it will tell you everything you need to know about how to lead your life. That is, the rules change. Why should the rules change? Ask the author(s?). One Old Testament day it's ok to kill every man woman and child in an enemy city because somebody in the city committed "offences," and the next day, a New Testament day, you're supposed to turn the other cheek if somebody walks up to you in the street and pops you in the nose. Who could be happy with a world where the rules are always changing like that? What we need is a biblical law without all the mamby pamby nonsense about caring for the poor and feeding the hungry and so forth. Everybody knows that we all get exactly what we deserve, and if we're rich, we deserve to be rich. If we're born into a group that's currently out of favor with the majority, it's because we deserved it. Black, French, Jewish, Irish (you know about the signs hung above the doors of factories that said "No Irish need apply"?) -- just accept it, don't go trying to rock the boat. Not.
What ever you ID says
What ever you ID says is the public restroom you have to use!!
And that's the way it is, Monday, June 14, 2010. We should not have complicated rules, because life is not complicated, and we don't need them. Right?
Wrong.
Attack the person or the idea?
Come on now, Voisine. If the ideas are bad, attack the ideas. Don't get drawn in to the game of claiming that just because you've proved a person to be a bad or ignorant person (or a Progressive or a "Commie," or sumthin'), you've also shown the ideas the person articulates to be bad ideas. Ideas have a habit that sometimes makes them tedious - good ones can sometimes come from unexpected sources, and bad ones can sometimes come from our heroes.
What is a "rascist"? Did you
What is a "rascist"? Did you mean "raz-cist" - somebody who razzes other people for the mistakes they make?
Suspended sentence
"Suspended sentence" doesn't mean "no sentence."
common sense and morals
common sense and morals used to prevail. What happened in Farmington today is proof that that is no longer true and as a result, laws/ordinances likely will be passed.
Why don't we do that here?
Common sense and morals.
How's that?
If you had any common sense or morals you'd understand.
Explain the reasoning to me?
Common sense says if we don't do that here, there must be a moral reason, because this country was founded on moral principles. And we don't do it here. And if common sense and morals are going to prevail, we shouldn't do it here. Simple isn't it?
.
lesson
We don't do that here.
Why don't we do that here?
Because it's not right.
Why isn't it right?
Because we don't do that here, silly.