US are the fattest....

[Old_Trapper70]

In relative US terms you are left of center. In UK terms maybe not.

Does anyone even know where "center" is anymore?

 

[Wag more]

Otie, the center is sort of a gray area subject to one person's individual definition. Your response to the Pulse thread is well left of center. I've never known a gun control freak with as many guns as you. Your stand on guns seems to be irrational to me and neither right nor left. Your disdain for PC is right of center.
Overall you come across to me as a left of center prog/lib/sec/hum. You seem to love gov which is left of center.
Your disdain for dietary restrictions with diabetes may indicate you already eat a healthy diet without tons of sugar and that is to be commended.
My father in law refused to follow a diabetic diet and after he lost his leg most exercise was gone. I liked him a lot and was sorry to lose a good man so young.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Otie, the center is sort of a gray area subject to one person's individual definition. Your response to the Pulse thread is well left of center. I've never known a gun control freak with as many guns as you. Your stand on guns seems to be irrational to me and neither right nor left. Your disdain for PC is right of center.
Overall you come across to me as a left of center prog/lib/sec/hum. You seem to love gov which is left of center.
Your disdain for dietary restrictions with diabetes may indicate you already eat a healthy diet without tons of sugar and that is to be commended.
My father in law refused to follow a diabetic diet and after he lost his leg most exercise was gone. I liked him a lot and was sorry to lose a good man so young.

Well, where to start. My response to the Pulse thread was based on reality, and a knowledge of the facts unlike your ignorant tripe that had nothing to do with the reality of the situation. There was nothing in my response that suggested gun control if you had actually read what I said. It had to do with common sense, and concern for the safety of others. Perhaps you should read what the Founders said about guns rather then what some right wing loud mouth says. You can start here:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/13786-the-founding-fathers-vs-the-gun-nuts

As to PC, the right whined for years about the lefts PC movement especially on college campuses. PC is both a left wing thing, and a right wing thing:

http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/08/right-wing-pc

Then, like most of your comments based on ignorance, I never said that a diabetic diet was not a good thing. What I said was in reference to myself. Each person has to determine just what they are to do to cope with diabetes. I eat what I want, but I eat the "bad foods" in measured amounts. I am a chocolate addict so that is one disadvantage. However, I am allowed to eat my chocolate by staying away from it in all other foods just as i avoid salt. And I do exercise. I have about a half acre of garden where I grow corn, peas, beans, carrots, beets, spinach, rhubarb, tomatoes, squash, blueberries, huckleberries, raspberries, strawberries, potatoes, etc. So, I stay busy since I also fish, camp, barbecue, etc.

So, when I point out your ignorance it is done with the idea that you might learn how to think, and to see what is written, and not be such as some others in here have shown themselves to be.

 

[Wag more]

Otie, I know how to think I just see things differently than you. My job required complicated analysis based on extensive research and deductive reasoning for the past 40 years.
So I guess in your mind anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. How open minded of you.
We see things differently because we have led different lives and been exposed to different forces. That doesn't make either of us ignorant but it does make you intolerant.
Frankly I'm glad my life experiences have left me with the ability to realize other's that disagree with me are not necessarily ignorant.
This will be my last post in this thread so you, Otie, may have the last say.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Otie, I know how to think I just see things differently than you. My job required complicated analysis based on extensive research and deductive reasoning for the past 40 years.
So I guess in your mind anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. How open minded of you.
We see things differently because we have led different lives and been exposed to different forces. That doesn't make either of us ignorant but it does make you intolerant.
Frankly I'm glad my life experiences have left me with the ability to realize other's that disagree with me are not necessarily ignorant.
This will be my last post in this thread so you, Otie, may have the last say.

No Waggie, when you are foolish enough to suggest that one shoot through a crowd not knowing who in that crowd might jump in front of your target, then you show you know very little about"analysis". But hey, your ego thinks that if I have the "last word" that somehow you can feel superior to me. Yes, I am "intolerant" of ignorance just as I am intolerant of liars, thieves, adulterers, abortionists, pedophiles, and a whole list of degenerate types.

 

[The Scotsman]

But hey, your ego thinks that if I have the "last word" that somehow you can feel superior to me.

As you say it seems to be his method of trying to give himself the feeling of having upper hand, however, perhaps its just a defence mechanism against being rattled.

 

[palerider]

In relative US terms you are left of center. In UK terms maybe not.

Here in the US we don't have so much left and right as liberal and conservative which are two entirely different political philosophies...conservatives favoring small unobtrusive government and adherence to the word of the constitution...liberals thinking that government is the answer to everything and favoring high taxes to support endless government bureaucratic programs...in europe there is left...center...right but they are all contained within the same house...that house being socialism. All favor large obtrusive government with the only difference being what that large obtrusive government does with its power.

 

[Openmind]

Here in the US we don't have so much left and right as liberal and conservative which are two entirely different political philosophies...conservatives favoring small unobtrusive government and adherence to the word of the constitution...liberals thinking that government is the answer to everything and favoring high taxes to support endless government bureaucratic programs...in europe there is left...center...right but they are all contained within the same house...that house being socialism. All favor large obtrusive government with the only difference being what that large obtrusive government does with its power.

Your comment is so funny. . .or ignorant!

You are saying that "conservatives favoring small unobtrusive government and adherence to the word of the constitution." And yet, conservatives are those who want to get into people's bedroom and decide what is "right and wrong" about personal relationships. Conservatives are those who want to get into women's uterus and decide not only whether she should be forced to have a child that is unwanted, but even whether or not she should have access to reasonable birth control. Conservatives are those who would love to force "prayers and pledge of allegiance to the flag" in schools, and who are now considering wether our Constitutional RIGHT to peaceful protest and freedom of speech should be removed!

And YOU THINK that they are faithful to the Constitution? Where in the Constitution does it give anyone the right to own a military killing machine? Where in the Constitution is anyone forced to be a "Christian" or a "heterosexual" to be protected by the full bill of rights/

Where in the Constitution does it say that our right to own a killing machine supersedes our right to "be free and pursue happiness" and how do we "pursue happiness" if we are constantly threatened by guns and by the threat of a catastrophic illness without affordable coverage for healthcare?

Where, in the Constitution, does it say that the super wealthy should continue to become wealthier because of tax "relief" while the other 99% get poorer because of corporate welfare?

What in the Constitution gives priority to CORPORATE welfare versus social welfare?

Face it: Republican policies are infinitely more perversive and obtrusive than ANY Democratic policies!

And. . .Republican policies over the last 50 years have NOT been as successful for America as Democratic policies. . .

 

[dogtowner]

There is another person involved with pregnancy and it's their rights conservatives try to protect.
No laws about who populated with who outside of age. You ok with adults doing children ?

 

[The Scotsman]

in europe there is left...center...right but they are all contained within the same house..

...in terms of what?

 

[palerider]

Your comment is so funny. . .or ignorant!

Clearly you are driven by emotion and not rational thought or you wouldn't have found my comment either.

You are saying that "conservatives favoring small unobtrusive government and adherence to the word of the constitution." And yet, conservatives are those who want to get into people's bedroom and decide what is "right and wrong" about personal relationships.

Can you show me anywhere in the constitution that suggests that special rights should be granted to anyone based on sexual preference? Of course you can't, and yet, in your emotionally flawed logic, you probably believe such a right is there....it isn't.

Conservatives are those who want to get into women's uterus and decide not only whether she should be forced to have a child that is unwanted, but even whether or not she should have access to reasonable birth control.

Again...pure emotion without the first bit of rational thought...or apparently knowledge of the constitution. Which article of the constitution suggests that it is acceptable for one human being to kill another human being for reasons that rarely amount to more than convenience? I have read, in detail, both the constitution and the federalist papers which the founders wrote with the purpose of explaining the constitution to the people of the new United States and I am afraid that they don't mention any such right.

Conservatives are those who would love to force "prayers and pledge of allegiance to the flag" in schools, and who are now considering wether our Constitutional RIGHT to peaceful protest and freedom of speech should be removed!

Pure bullshit...the days of prayer in school are long gone and even when prayer was part of school life, no one was forced to do anything other than remain silent in respect of the rights of others to participate if they wished...You believe disrespectful, and disruptive behavior is a right?

And I am not sure what you are talking about with regard to the right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech being removed...clearly you aren't considering the jim crow laws, and assorted laws put in place by democrats in an effort to keep blacks marginalized...or the actions taken by democrats to assembly by blacks in the south during the civil rights era...or the fact that if it hadn't been for conservative republicans, the civil rights laws would have never been passed as the vast majority of democrats voted against them...

And YOU THINK that they are faithful to the Constitution? Where in the Constitution does it give anyone the right to own a military killing machine? Where in the Constitution is anyone forced to be a "Christian" or a "heterosexual" to be protected by the full bill of rights/

I can only guess that you have never read the constitution.. as the right to keep and bear arms is a protected right stated explicitly in the second amendment...and as to those who believe the constitution is a "living" document subject to liberal interpretation...clearly they never read the federalist papers, or the public writings of the founders where they stated in clear terms what the constitution meant. For example:

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
― Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"
— Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

And the references go on and on....the constitution and those who wrote it were explicit in their intention that the people of the US never be disarmed by their government.

And where has anyone ever been forced by conservatives to be a Christian...as if that were even possible...as being a Christian is an internal thing, not external...

Liberals, on the other hand have literally brought the thought police into being here in this country with their "hate crime" laws that change the punishment for a given crime based on what a person might have been thinking at the time they committed the crime. Hello big brother.

Where, in the Constitution, does it say that the super wealthy should continue to become wealthier because of tax "relief" while the other 99% get poorer because of corporate welfare?[/quote

Again, it is clear that you have never read the constitution...the constitution lays out the rightful duties and responsibilities of the federal government...Strictly speaking, they are to defend the national borders, ratify and supervise treaties with foreign powers, and deliver the mail...everything else was to be governed by the individual states....any power the federal government has to collect revenues for other than those 3 things is a power they gave to themselves.

What in the Constitution gives priority to CORPORATE welfare versus social welfare?

And the bullshit slogans just keep on rolling with you. Do you know anything that isn't a slogan or propaganda? Maybe you should take some time to actually learn something...You could begin the process by actually learning what the authors of the constitution thought about helping the poor...their ideas would have been far more successful than the welfare state created by liberals which has done little more than create an angry underclass that is enslaved by its generational dependence on the state.

Face it: Republican policies are infinitely more perversive and obtrusive than ANY Democratic policies!

Which policies would those be? Which enacted laws are you speaking of exactly...or is that just another slogan you heard somewhere?

And. . .Republican policies over the last 50 years have NOT been as successful for America as Democratic policies. . .

If by success you mean creating further dependence on the largess of government, then I suppose you are right....of course creating dependence on government is a failing proposition in the long term and can lead to nothing but tyranny..

 

[palerider]

...in terms of what?

Not sure I understand exactly what you are asking. It seems to me that in european politics, right, center, and left are all socialist in nature...all favor large government...big bureaucracy, program after program, ever burgeoning taxes on working people....the only difference I see between right, center, and left is what the want the ever growing government to do.

Is there a group that could be considered to be solidly within the right....center...left category which is actively calling for smaller government and less intrusiveness into peoples lives?

 

[Openmind]

Clearly you are driven by emotion and not rational thought or you wouldn't have found my comment either.



Can you show me anywhere in the constitution that suggests that special rights should be granted to anyone based on sexual preference? Of course you can't, and yet, in your emotionally flawed logic, you probably believe such a right is there....it isn't.



Again...pure emotion without the first bit of rational thought...or apparently knowledge of the constitution. Which article of the constitution suggests that it is acceptable for one human being to kill another human being for reasons that rarely amount to more than convenience? I have read, in detail, both the constitution and the federalist papers which the founders wrote with the purpose of explaining the constitution to the people of the new United States and I am afraid that they don't mention any such right.



Pure bullshit...the days of prayer in school are long gone and even when prayer was part of school life, no one was forced to do anything other than remain silent in respect of the rights of others to participate if they wished...You believe disrespectful, and disruptive behavior is a right?

And I am not sure what you are talking about with regard to the right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech being removed...clearly you aren't considering the jim crow laws, and assorted laws put in place by democrats in an effort to keep blacks marginalized...or the actions taken by democrats to assembly by blacks in the south during the civil rights era...or the fact that if it hadn't been for conservative republicans, the civil rights laws would have never been passed as the vast majority of democrats voted against them...



I can only guess that you have never read the constitution.. as the right to keep and bear arms is a protected right stated explicitly in the second amendment...and as to those who believe the constitution is a "living" document subject to liberal interpretation...clearly they never read the federalist papers, or the public writings of the founders where they stated in clear terms what the constitution meant. For example:

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
― Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?"
— Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

And the references go on and on....the constitution and those who wrote it were explicit in their intention that the people of the US never be disarmed by their government.

And where has anyone ever been forced by conservatives to be a Christian...as if that were even possible...as being a Christian is an internal thing, not external...

Liberals, on the other hand have literally brought the thought police into being here in this country with their "hate crime" laws that change the punishment for a given crime based on what a person might have been thinking at the time they committed the crime. Hello big brother.

Sorry, I have read the Constitution. . .and I do not share your "interpretation" of a very short, very specific document.

Where did I say that "special rights" should be granted based on sexual orientation? What you seem to call "special rights" are merely EQUAL RIGHTS. . .as you stated, the Constitution does not focus on three inches of "skin" to determine the rights of its citizens!

The rest of you rant follows the same path, so it is not worth my time answering everyone of your silly "interpretations!"

Enjoy being a bigoted Right winger, stuck in an outdated (and very selective) interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[PLC1]

Obesity is a huge problem in the US, as well as some other nations (yes, pun intended)

So, maybe what we need to do is determine whether being a Republican or a Democrat is more likely to lead to obesity (yes, that was sarcasm)

Problem is, people eat too much and don't exercise enough. How do you fix that one?

 

[dogtowner]

Obesity is a huge problem in the US, as well as some other nations (yes, pun intended)

So, maybe what we need to do is determine whether being a Republican or a Democrat is more likely to lead to obesity (yes, that was sarcasm)

Problem is, people eat too much and don't exercise enough. How do you fix that one?

Sorts itself out over time with chronic disease.