Artful Dodger: You are right, motivation for doing more than most of us are willing to do would fly right out the window. The only reason some people work hard to make their business grow is because it's possible for them to make their business grow. I don't have that kind of drive, but I've done okay working for people like that.

Taking away the incentive for getting ahead is the best way I can think of to kill anyones motivation for getting ahead. I've known guys who refused to work because they didn't want to pay alimony or child support. If some dead beat dads refuse to work because they won't see all the money they earn, then what makes socialists think killing any incentive to work is such a good idea?

I've never been rich or owned my own business, and I've never been hired to work for someone who wasn't in a position to pay me. Actually, I did work for someone like that once. I got talked into working for a short time for someone who couldn't afford to pay me, so as you can imagine that job didn't last very long. He was paying me with stories and explanations and promises, but I can't buy groceries with nothing but a mouthful of words, so it had to end.

The idea that it's not fair for some people to have more than others is nonsense. Not everyone is willing to do what it takes to get ahead. What is not fair is to reward non productivity and penalize productivity. When that happens then everyone suffers, even the people who put themselves in the position to gain the most.. you can't gain much when there is much less being produced to gain.

Übergeek 바둑이: Connect the dots. If we were really concerned about getting control of oil (anyones oil), then why do we resist drilling for it in our own backyard? Are you suggesting we aren't accessing the oil we are already in control of so that we have an excuse to invade other countries?

Your obsession with oil is like obsession with aliens. You can make a case for U.S. greed for oil, and I can make a case for why aliens are interested in our planet. Mine isn't predicated on looking for any reason to find fault with the U.S., especially when it's obvious that the rest of the world couldn't care less about your concerns if you bothered to apply them equally across the board.. the aliens are equal opportunity invaders.

: Lemon lyme: I meant probing, not probling.

Probing, as in poking us and making us stick out our tongues and say "aaaaaaaah".

Probing.

Übergeek 바둑이: So I guess the fact that Saddam attacked Kuwait and we were asked to take millitary action against him at the behest of Arabian nations had nothing to do with it, we just used that as an excuse to eventually take control of Iraqs oil. Right.

On a side note, the reason aliens were scooping people up and probling them had to do with the fact that they originally came here for our jobs and our women. But before they could go after our women, they first had to figure out which of us are the women. You see, we all look alike to them. Personally, I think they are all a bunch of imperialist spacists!

Artful Dodger: I knew we found some of it after the initial search, but didn't realise how much there really was. The news of what we found wasn't exactly splashed across the headlines as most of the negative reporting was.

Just because news agencies lose interest in the story after the initial find doesn't mean everyone else has lost interest. All I saw were bits and pieces of news stories that made a few finds sound anti-climatic, so it was never front page news.

(V): lol.. Yes, there are many possible explanations, but only if you ignore the facts and let your imagination run wild.

(V): We were first invited to go after Saddam by other Arab nations. It was the only time they have ever directly asked for our help. Do you really not understand what was happening over there?

(V): The answer can be found in your statement that by the time Bush invaded Iraq we didn't find WMDs. We found evidence that there had been those devices and materials used to make them, but you are ignoring the fact (or have forgotten) that several months passed while Bush was trying to get the UN to sanction the invasion, giving Saddam ample time to get rid of them. We later stopped a ship containing those materials coming from another country after they believed we might strike there next. Can you guess (or do you know) what contry that was?

Artful Dodger: I'll have to wait until tomorrow to hear the link. I didn't think of taking earphones with me to my favorite wi-fi spot this evening, and it's difficult to hear what my computer is trying to say. And when I say favorite spot, I mean it's only a 15 minute walk from my home. I'll probably get internet service at my home before the new year, but until then I'll be slumming it.

You wealthy fat cats (that's code for 'employed') have it easy, but I need to venture outside and walk to get my online fix... I have to work before I can get my pop corn brain cells popping.

Vikings: That's right, I had forgotten that. They are already in the process of distancing themselves from their own global warming prediction. Sometime down the road, after making other changes to the rhetoric, they can then claim that global warming was never an issue.

I know how stupid that sounds, because who would believe that global warming proponents never warned us about global warming? A few years ago I was involved in a debate over another subject, where someone claimed opposition to the big bang theory had nothing to do with religion. I was alive at the time when some scientists opposed the big bang theory because of how it resembled the genesis account of creation. If you compared both the steady state universe and big bang theories to the genesis account, it's a no brainer which one comes closest to resembling the biblical acccount. But here it is only a few years ago someone is telling me that never happened. It makes me wonder, how many other things never happened that I've personally witnessed?

Artful Dodger: I usually don't click on links, as I am afraid of getting a virus which might give me a runny nose that drips onto my keyboard and shorts it out, but on the off chance that I might not be you I should probably take a look at it. If I've already seen it because I posted it then I'll have to re-evaluate the facts surrounding the question of my being a separately existing sentient being..

Vikings: Heck, I can remember when global cooling was supposed to usher in the next ice age.

They could at least wait until all of us old farts have died off before they start in predicting the opposite of what they had been predicting. The excuse is usually something like "Well, we know more now than we did then." I guess that means no one can be wrong about it now.. at least not until the next consensus is taken.

Artful Dodger: even if his figures were spot on it wouldn't make a difference. Many climatologists caved under political pressure to go along with this, some for financial gain and others out of fear for their jobs. Where I live the state climatogist came under fire for challenging the global warming position. No word after that whether he was able to keep his prestigious job or not.. odds are he has been quietly replaced or effectively muzzled. I saw the governor in a news cast expressing his displeasure over a scientist (his scientist) not going along with the program.

For whatever reasons (V) has jumped on the politically correct version of global climate science. What I've noticed about various liberal causes over the years is they can change at any time, and even promote the opposite of what they used to promote.

(V): Balony. Any scientist worth his salt can tell you that consensus is not the one and only method whereby science determines something to be true or not. The idea that no scientist would bow to political presure and never jigger results for financial gain is nonsense.

When I was 10 years old I had no trouble believing in the purity of science and anyone who called himself a scientist, but I had a good reason for being naive.. I was 10 years old.

Artful Dodger: me also too, as well.

Artful Dodger: other possible answers

1) Aliens-R-Us
2) why not
3) them
4) area 51

1) where did they get the alien?
2) why would they place one on your property?
3) who are "they"?
4) where do I go to join the Wallstreet protest?

Iamon lyme: oops..

I was going to ask you if you had ever known me to resort to name calling, but I guess we both know the answer to that now..

heh heh heh heh heh heh heh

Artful Codger: lol

despite?

rod03801: "survival of the fittest has nothing to do with right or wrong."

I'm talking about two irreconcilable points of view. I'm not attempting to mix the two as though they are same the thing, because that would be inaccurate as well as confusing. It's better to talk about them as if two purists were comparing notes.

An evolutionary purist doesn't believe in God, or is willing to allow the possiblity but doesn't acknowledge His involvement. He doesn't acknowledge morality because it is grounded in God. His own sense of 'morality' is grounded in himself (what man deems is right) and not in God, so his own version of 'morality' is called ethics.

The idea of right and wrong can transcend what we might find convenient, or beneficial only to ourselves. For reasons that should be obvious, a lot of people don't like the concept of morality, because what is right and wrong is ultimately determined by God and not by ourselves.

When an evolutionist talks about how evolution occured, he never puts it in terms of right and wrong. He never says morality played a part in evolution.. because evolution just happened, and the only forces in play were those that enabled a living thing to continue living and progress to becoming other living things. Survival of the fittest means whatever it takes to survive, and ultimately dominate and/or replace creatures who are not as fit as they are for survival.

If you watch nature shows you can't miss the fact that one of the features that enable survival is deception. I see it especially when they show ocean life.. or when someone here (not you) attempts to divert my attention to defending Christian principles, when the only point I was making was that it's okay to own a weapon if it's used for self defense. I was also accused of name calling when it was obvious I wasn't. An attempt to intimidate by alerting the moderator?

(V): Who said the American constitution is perfect? It did provide a templet for wrongs, which were already established practice, to be corrected. You talk about it as though the change should have been instantaneous. A better question would be, how did an established and approved of way of doing things, and practiced all over the world (including your own country), become abolished?

The constitution was built upon, among other things, judea-christian principles and laws and your own magna carta.

Were non white folk banned in England from owning guns immediately after your own slaves were freed?

rod03801: Your point is well taken, but I don't see how defending yourself, your family or your property is not crucial or beneficial to a societies survival. In a "perfect world" we would not have to deal with people constantly on the prowl looking to do violence and take what is not theirs. Like it or not we do not live in a perfect world. I might expect to see Ubers argument coming from someone hoping to fool me into believing I have no right to stop him from harming me.. I may be a fool, but I'm not that kind of fool.

I wasn't just blowing smoke when I said (in a previous post) that nothing could live in a 'perfect universe', where all mass and energy is evenly distributed. Nothing works where there is even distribution. Not the economy, not the universe, not anything.

If you think about opposing forces as conflict, then the moon is orbiting the earth precisely because of a conflict.. the moon is trying to fly away and the earth is trying to get the moon to come crashing down on it. The opposing forces keep the moon orbiting the earth, which is highly beneficial for those of us here living on the earth. So conflict in the physical universe is not a bad thing.. that and the fact that everything is NOT evenly distributed works very well for us here living on this earth.

There is another kind of conflict, I don't fully understand it but I have the sense that it too is neccessary if for nothing else then maybe for some higher purpose. And the universe is a staging area for that higher purpose to be worked out.. btw what I believe created that conflict in the first place is free will. The universe doesn't make free will choices, but we do, and that is why we experience a different kind of conflict. It won't always be unresolved, but I think there is a purpose for that conflict and some good will come from it.

Übergeek 바둑이: Okay, I can see now why you might not understand my point. My bad.

If your own sense of morality doesn't come from God, it would have to come from something else. If there is no God and everything we have is owed to evolution, then it follows that whatever sense of morality we have would have neccessarily been derived from eons of evolutionary development.

I've sudied evolution, so I know what the forces are that enable simple organisms to change into increasingly complex ones, the primary one being whatever change that brings about an advantage to survival.

Morality does not play any part in this, as it implies a higher responsibily to a creator who, in the mind of the evolutionist, either does not exist or only exists in some far away place, and does not intervene in our affairs.

This is already getting too long, so I'll stop here and ask you why it even matters what people do or don't do, since survival of the fittest has nothing to do with right or wrong. The concept of right and wrong are MORAL precepts. Not evolutionary precepts. According to evolution, there is no such thing as right and wrong, only what works for you and what doesn't.

The condratiction in your argument, which I admit is based on an assumption of your own particular world view, is evident in how your own sense of morality finds it wrong that anyone should own a weapon for ANY reason.

If I'm wrong about what you believe (about God or about evolution) then I appologize for assuming too much. Of course, then you WOULD be a phonie and a fake for suggesting you actually care one way or the other about Christian principles.

I'm sure you will suggest that neither is right, and that there is some middle ground here.. can't wait to hear it.

Übergeek 바둑이: "?? What does evolution have to do with any of this?"

It has to do with your own particular world view, and how perceptions are filtered through that view.

I've taken a leap of faith by assuming two things:
1. You don't believe in God, or if you do you don't believe he created life on earth
2. You believe we are all here because of evolution

If my assumptions are correct, and I admit they are only assumptions, then you are free to show me how you do not contradict yourself.

Übergeek 바둑이: ???

I wasn't calling you a phonie or a fake. If you are a 'Christian' preacher, then you would be. Are you?

It takes two to carry on an intelligent conversation. I've done my part, so I'll just have to wait for you to stop repeating yourself and actually address what I've said.

Übergeek 바둑이: It's not my job to make you want enlightenment. And if you are really all that concerned about 'contradictions', then why am I being tutored in moral principles by someone whose own sense of morality is derived by eons of evolutionary development.. ???

According to you, the law of tooth and fang should not apply to me. If your own world view is correct, then why wouldn't the same evolutionary principles apply to me as well?

And please stop pretending you know anything about what I believe, you would have more luck if you pretended to be a Christian preacher..

Strike that last thought. We have enough phonies pretending to be just that. We don't need any more fakers trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Übergeek 바둑이: You are missing the point. Jesus recognised the reality of living "in the world." Paul talked about having to deal with wild animals and bandits, how far do you think he would have gotten if he didn't believe in defending himself?

Where do you see me promoting needless violence against anyone? If I manage to deter someones intended violence against me or my family, then I have successfully stopped violence from happening.

Where do you see virtue in allowing yourself to be a victim when that doesn't need to happen? Are you seriously suggesting I should allow someone to harm someone in my family when it's in my power to stop it? You seem intent on telling Christians what they should or should not do. What would you do if someone threatened to rape and or kill your wife and children? What makes you believe Christians should not protect themselves and the ones they love when it's obvious you would if it was in your power? Or perhaps this is not so obvious. What would you do?

Artful Dodger: Well that's the problem, because asking the 'wrong' questions is what got me into trouble. I found myself on the outside looking in when I thought I was already in. I became less defensive when it became obvious the people who said question everything didn't mean that I could question them. My choice was to either change affiliations or shut up and not say anything.. heh heh heh heh heh heh

It was a tough decision to make.. NOT!

Artful Dodger: I don't know the name, is he on radio or tv? Or both?

Maybe he should stick to conservatism and leave the left leaning to someone else.. I was never a good liberal myself, I asked too many questions. I think I became a full fledged conservative shortly before my thirtieth birthday.

Übergeek 바둑이: The so called contradiction between Christian values and gun use exists primarily in your own mind. During his ministry Jesus only had the clothes on his back. Are you suggesting all Christians give up everything but the clothes on their backs?

And can you show me where he exorted his followers to 'lay down thy staff and thy rod'? Those were the common weapons of choice in those days, for defense against wild animals and people who would attack them. You over simplify Christian values and beliefs, either intentionally or because of ignorance. I doubt you would claim ignorance, so should I assume it's intentional?

Übergeek 바둑이: It depends on your point of view. In the would be thief or rapists "perfect world", he shouldn't expect to find himself staring down the barrel of a gun and being invited to re-examine his evaluation of my values somewhere else.

Whose 'perfect world' are you promoting here?

rod03801: I've wondered about that too, but have you noticed we are aways informed of a crazies political views if it sounds like right wing ranting?

In my local news paper if a politician has done something embarassing or said something odd, more often than not you'll see his party affiliation in parenthesis next to his (or her) name. But not if that politician happens to be a Democrat. Sometimes misinformation is subtley passed along more by omission than by out right lying. So it is very possible to create a mental image in the publics eye that doesn't necessarily reflect reality.

When someone talks about the public being ignorant of what is going on, I don't believe it's always the publics fault. It never hurts to read between the lines.. the aliens are watching, and waiting to make their move, so we must be ever vigilant.

Artful Dodger: Little Suzie knows that Johnny is coming, and is waiting to take him out with her laser sighting anti-tank thingy. Before that happens they need to call a cease fire so Johnny can hurry home to go potty.. hopefully, he will reach his objective before accomplishing his mission.

Artful Dodger: Afraid to disagree with their own, and of course deathly afraid of pre pubescent kids.

I get the same hillarious image of toddlers going camando in their pull ups, the little rambos and ramboettes running around terrorizing the neighborhood. Parents often joke about their kids this way, but maybe liberals think we are being serious.

There seems to be no end to the things we are supposed to be afraid of.. and we can't spend too much money to fight the imaginary dragons either.

Artful Dodger: A few years ago I read about a town where a law was passed requiring every person of age to own a gun. After that law was passed there was no (zero) crime reported during the following year. So what does this mean? It probably means that no criminal in his right mind is going to assault anyone in a town where everyone is required to own a weapon.

Liberals seemed to be focused on what a violent or deranged person might do. It begs the question, just what percentage of the population do they believe is mindlessly violent and deranged?

(V): "Seeing pre pubescent kids owning over a dozen firearms is freaky."

Where have you seen that? Here in the U.S. pre pubescent kids are too young to own guns, and the pubescent ones are usually too preoccupied with thoughts of sex to care about having a gun.

Übergeek 바둑이: We've already done something like that, not with guns but with something else. Schools were required (I don't know if they still are) to teach youngers about sex and in some districts even taught how to go about it, and to stop admonishing them to "keep it in their pants". Look at what that has led to.

The fact alone that kids have percieved this as permission to go on unintentional baby making missions has been enough to disrupt lives, and in many instances have killed people through the transmission of STDs. And you are worried about people knowing how to handle a gun? Knowing how to handle guns would reduce the number of accidental deaths, which is still far less than the number of people who have contracted life threatening STDs.

What has happened to a sense of balance, when not knowing about rights and responsibilities of gun ownership is a good thing, but expecting kids to act responsibly is a bad thing?

Artful Dodger: Exactly. The causes they supposedly stand for are actually just conduits for what they are really after.. power and money.

I know how cynical that sounds, but when I see it happening time after time after time, I can't come to any other conclusion. Al Gore selling his snake oil (carbon credits) for curing global warming. Obama trying to win favor with the left wingnuts who think health care funds grow on trees.. or should grow on trees, I don't know because I can't figure out how their minds work. Raising taxes for schools (do it for the children) when it's obvious that throwing money at the teachers unions has done nothing to actually help those kids do better in school.. the list goes on and on. The people at the top of this game know exactly what they are doing. It's the people they supposedly represent who wholeheartedly buy into it without thinking it through.

Artful Dodger: Even Robin Hood must have taken a cut of the profits for himself and his merry men. You know, operating costs such as mutton, wine, and a little something to keep Maid Marian happy. Not exactly ethical for anyone to be acting as an unofficial middle man, but hey.. it's a living.

(V): "This is great that people in America love their neighbours!!"

How do you figure it's 'loving your neighbour' if you don't have a choice?

(V): Why those clever Republicans! I wonder, why hasn't the left thought of doing that? Cudos to those intelligent and highly innovative Republicans for coming up with something entirely new. Maybe the left should try doing something like that.

Iamon lyme: Actually I do hold myself responsible for both my actions and my feelings. After all, feelings follow (are caused by) actions and not the other way around.

One of the big lies out there is that we have no control over how we feel.. that's a big old load of alien hooey. It's why so many people who don't really need it (some people do need it) get suckered into taking anti-depressants. And speaking of aliens.. when global economics melt down into an incomprehensible mess, that's when the aliens will make their move.

(V): wow, that's depressing.

I suppose if someone isn't already bummed out, there are plenty of facts and figures to remedy that situation.

I'm not only not responsible for my actions, I'm also not responsible for how I feel.

Aganju: That explains the motivation for making stupid decisions. Many of them are motivated by only a desire to excercise control and to keep their jobs.

The argument here doesn't hinge on no government vs complete government control. Government control and regulation are a good thing up to a point, but beyond that point it just gums up the works and doesn't help free enterprise to do what it naturally does all by itself. As I see it the real problem is when government tries to excercise too much control by inserting itself into the market, as though their involvement will somehow help a process that works best if left alone.

Iamon lyme: Or, I suppose I could've just said "good principles work!"

Vikings: The fact that the government can spend more that it has and keep going is not spin. It's the reason some people want government work, because they can make more than they can in a comprable private secter job, along with having more job security. A public secter job can only go belly up if the tax revenue for that particular job dries up, or if the private secter itself is damaged to the point where it can no longer provide tax revenue for any government job.. hopefully we can pull back before it reaches that point, but it is that point which is precisely what we are being warned about. We are not being warned about not being able to support someones pet project, we are being warned about a complete system wide shutdown. Killing the goose that lays all of them golden eggs won't get ya anymore of them eggs.. know what I mean?

The problem as I see it is not that there is no solution, the problem seems to be that people have been fooled into believing it can't be corrected because of the scale of the problem. What works on a small scale will work on a larger scale. It's worked before, so why all the confusion over what needs to be done?

Artful Dodger: Is the banana a fruit or a veggy..

I'm trying to figure this one out which without googling it. I think fruits have the seeds on the inside of the fruit itself, and veggies have their seeds somewhere else. The carrot makes its seeds up on the green part.. not sure, but I think that's right. Same with radishes. I remember having a garden with carrots and radishes once, but neglected it. I think eventually they both produced seeds up on the leafy part of the plant. The potato has its seeds on the skin.. again, I'm not sure but that seems right. The "eyes" of the potato (on the skin) are the seeds, aren't they?

So I'm going to say that fruits have their seeds inside of the fruit itself, while vegetables and grasses produce the seeds on the leafy parts of the plant.. or on the outside of the 'meaty' part of the plant. So that would make the banana a fruit.. ???

What about coconuts?

(V): Typical government interference with free market forces. In many instances banks were pressured into making bad loans by government policy makers. Ask Barney Frank, he'll tell you, (actually no, he won't) And now they turn around to sue those banks because, well, a bad loan is a bad loan, no matter who is telling you to do it. A real estate lady tried talking me into getting a Fanny May loan so I could start making payments on a condo that I wasn't even interested in. ?? I said thanks, but no thanks, I wasn't comfortable borrowing money from an institution that essentially existed because of some governmental policy. She looked at me like I was a stupid rube, but that's okay because a few months later the morgage crises hit the fan.. well, something hit the fan, I was just glad I wasn't anywhere near the blowout.. know what ah mean?

(V): It's a cookbook! It's a cookbook!

Hey (V)ern, it's Earnest!

I knew it, the aliens are trying to fatten up our children! And look.. it's working! Perhaps working too well, because fighting aliens with clogged arteries could very well work in our favor.

Artful Dodger: That's too technical for me. I just can't wrap my head around the idea of a "Fruity Vegetable".

My 9th grade English teacher could eat a raw tomato, and without so much of a drop of it falling onto his desk. He would eat his sack lunch during our study period.. it was hard to study though, because you just had to watch this guy eating his lunch. He'd shove 3 or four saltines into his mouth, and then take another bite of tomato. During the summer he was a carpenter, and had built his own house. I visited him once at his home, and was amazed at what looked like an expensive home in an area where most of the high rollers lived.. on a high school english teachers salary! But like I said, he worked all year round and had built his own house, so I can see how he was able to do it. He was also a high school track coach, and ran with the guys when they went for their long distance runs. All this, and he didn't appear to have a high opinion of himself. That didn't stop a lot of us kids from having a high opinion of him.