Connect with us

We have lost our minds

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by amdx, Oct 12, 2009.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. amdx

    amdx Guest

  2. amdx

    amdx Guest

    Yes, the plastic spork, schoolchildren don't eat with metal fork, spoon and
    knife anymore.
    When will sharp pencils be eliminated.
    Mike
     
  3. ehsjr

    ehsjr Guest

    Its likely those pols have a second job: they select the
    Nobel Peace Prize winner.

    Same amount of intelligence.

    Ed
     
  4. PeterD

    PeterD Guest

    You can expect much, much more of this stupidity over the next few
    years...
     
  5. PeterD

    PeterD Guest

    Dissection of frogs is considered crulity to animals and is no longer
    allowed in progressive and liberal school systems...
     
  6. Rich Webb

    Rich Webb Guest

    Yes, the whole "zero tolerance" thing has really gotten out of hand,
    along with mandatory "sentences" for things like that kid. But I guess
    the schools are terrified of litigation and always over-reacting is
    safer, for some definition of safer, than risking Johnny getting cut
    playing mumbly-peg with Billy's knife and facing an 8-figure settlement.
     
  7. Charles

    Charles Guest

    On a computer screen with dissection simulation sopware!
     
  8. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    Have you been living under a rock for the last 50 years?

    It's about time you noticed.

    Thanks
    Rich
     
  9. Rich Grise

    Rich Grise Guest

    You think they still teach biology or any science at all? All they teach
    these days is "self-esteem." "Duh, I don't know how to add two plus two,
    but I feel real good about myself, yup, yup, yup, yup."

    Thanks,
    Rich
     
  10. Artemus

    Artemus Guest

    <don> wrote in message ...

    <snip>
    : > The politicians who allowed such arrests, as above, should be dragged
    : > behind a pick-up truck until some sense returns to their heads, or
    : > they die.
    :
    : And if these politicians were Republicans and Christians, would you say
    : the same ??
    :
    You didn't mention gender, gay/straight, color of skin/hair/eyes, height,
    weight, or day of the week they were born on. All of these are equally
    important criteria as the two you mentioned.
    Art
     
  11. Andrew

    Andrew Guest

    And here is the result.

    Ken Rogulski reporting on WJR in Michigan, two people here in line for Obama
    cash.

    =================

    ROGULSKI: Why are you here?

    WOMAN #1: To get some money.

    ROGULSKI: What kind of money?

    WOMAN #1: Obama money.

    ROGULSKI: Where's it coming from?

    WOMAN #1: Obama.

    ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?

    WOMAN #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know
    where he got it from, but he givin' it to us, to help us.

    WOMAN #2: And we love him.

    WOMAN #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!

    WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)
    =================

    ROGULSKI: Did you get an application to fill out yet?


    WOMAN: I sure did. And I filled it out, and I am waiting to see what the
    results are going to be.


    ROGULSKI: Will you know today how much money you're getting?


    WOMAN: No, I won't, but I'm waiting for a phone call.


    ROGULSKI: Where's the money coming from?


    WOMAN: I believe it's coming from the City of Detroit or the state.


    ROGULSKI: Where did they get it from?


    WOMAN: Some funds that was forgiven (sic) by Obama.


    ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get the funds?


    WOMAN: Obama getting the funds from... Ummm, I have no idea, to tell you the
    truth. He's the president.


    ROGULSKI: In downtown Detroit, Ken Rogulski, WJR News.

    ===================


    Someone pelase explain me the difference between this behavior and king
    spreading coins around himself to entertain crowd.
     
  12. Charlie E.

    Charlie E. Guest

    Of course! Liberal anti-religionists are not the only ones capable of
    folly, just they are more likely to... ;-)

    Charlie
     
  13. I would have thought that those non-negotiable zero tolerance laws did
    not come from liberals in the first place.

    --
    Dirk

    http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
    http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
     
  14. Yes, my thoughts exactly. I seem to recall the "war on drugs" was
    started by republicans. Who is it that tends to push "mandatory minumum"
    sentences and "zero-tolerance" policies in the USA? (Don't know, but
    sounds like more of a republican thing).
     
  15. Hehe.. good one ;) Unfortunately "they" won't get it.
     
  16. We would have very little need for such things if it wasn't for liberals in
    the first place. How many drug dealers are republicans/conservative? How
    many rapists are? What about murders?

    Oh, wait... I'm sure it's all conservatives/republicans fault in some way or
    another.


    True conservatives and christians(I'm an atheist BTW) generally follow a
    pretty balanced and peaceful life. They are generally not narccisists
    because they put a god first. Liberals generally only believe in themselves
    and their own self-gratification and narcissism. Hence why our country has
    rapidily went into the sewers. When you stop caring about your fellow man
    and don't have a "god" to keep you in line then you tend to become self
    absorbed.

    Of course your a liberal so I don't expect you do agree with this.

    At least (true)christians believe in something worth believing(something
    that benefits humanity). Any intelligent person, regardless of religion,
    would have similar beliefs. Liberals, most, have no religion and only
    believe in perpetuating their own god complex.
     

  17. The lunics are running the asylum. This is what happens when the guards
    don't beat the shit out of them and keep them medicated. This started 40+
    years ago and hasn't been put in check and now as too much momentum that it
    can't be stopped.
     
  18. I suspect they are not all that interested in politics!
    I think the american "liberal" means something different from that in
    the UK. Generally I believe in maximising personal freedoms. This sounds
    to me like the definition of "liberal" but maybe this is no longer true
    in modern usage?
     
  19. Your a fucking joke. You use one bad example to disprove the whole thing?
    You can find tons of atheists that are worse than Bush. Get over your
    bloodlust for bush and maybe you'll be able to do something useful with your
    life.
     
  20. Liberalism is a mindset and politics is only one aveneue that liberals
    create there distruction.

    Liberalism is the opposite of conservatism. Hence anything that is not
    conservative is liberal. Now a person might have a mixture of ideas from
    both sides but those that are true liberals(who's beliefs are almost all
    opposite that of conservatism) are destructive.
    Liberalism started with the perpetuation freeing individuals from
    oppression. But because it is diametrically oppsosed to conservativism it
    includes anything that is not conservative. Hence anyone that is against
    conservatism is a liberal more or less.

    Liberalism is about change. The problem is that it is always about change.
    When liberalism reaches one goal it must create a new goal. Then after that
    it will work towards something else. But a goal will always exist. The goals
    are for social and political change. Now this doesn't sound all that bad but
    when you factor in ignorance, arrogance, economics, and finite resources
    then you'll eventually end up with major problems.

    Liberalism started out with good intentions but is no longer that. It has
    been used and abused for power hungry people.

    Conservatism is mainly about keeping the things the way they are(this isn't
    always good but is better than random change). Conservatism is based on
    capitalism which is based on the princples of evolution. This is quite
    strange considering most christians are conservatives and do not believe in
    evolution. This is unfortunate as it is due to ignorance but ultimately at
    least they have it right in what counts.

    Liberalism is always pulling conservatism outward towards the unknown while
    conservatism struggles to maintain it's current position. The problem is
    that it is an impossible battle as it is if you play tug of war without ever
    tuging back but only holding your ground. Eventually you will loose.

    Now, if you believe in personal and interpersonal responsiblity over all
    else then you are basically a conservative. The problem with conservatism
    today is that it is not true conservatism. It is a mixture of liberal
    ideologies that have created huge problems. As far as I know liberalism may
    work fine by itself in ideal conditions... but getting there is the hard
    part and may come at the cost of humanity.


    For example, Suppose every person in society had absolute personal
    interpersonal responsibility. Then would we need liberalism? Would we need
    government? Would we need social and economic justice? Of course not.
    Everyone would take care of theirselves(no welfare needed) and do whats
    right for humanity. This would be independent of religion also but note most
    religions have some idea of this in their doctrines.


    What does liberalism create? Well, it a society where individualism is
    unnecessary. There would be no welfare in a sense because everyone would
    agree to help each other. Here we would all be robots because any
    distinction would be looked down upon. Eventually individualism would be
    removed genetically from what it means to be human. In all likelyhood this
    would result in the extinction of the human race since there would
    eventually be no desire to exist. Although there is a very small chance to
    become a "collective". In this case liberalism would work but would not
    exist since their would be no need for such things. There would be no social
    justice since everyone is identical. The likelyhood of ever reaching the
    ultimate goal of liberalism is virtually nill.


    But thats ideally. Since we live in a practical world we have to ask
    ourselfs which view, assuming that is our only choices, is best for
    humanity. But theory always dictates practice. Since liberalism is basicaly
    analogous to a logical contradiction it is useless to pursue. But I'm sure
    you know that many people attempt to solve the unsolvable. (squaring the
    circle, for example)


    Modern day conservatism in America has been dilluted with liberal
    ideologies. This isn't all bad, mind you, because we live in an impractical
    world. Problem is, many liberals see the problems and blame it on
    conservatism(or rather capitalism).

    For example, a big topic is health care. Many liberals complain that health
    insurance companies make a fortue off the backs of suffering people. They
    see the profits of the CEO's and wonder how they could make such money. Mind
    you, this is total narcissism right off the bat because they are questioning
    why someone else has more than they do. Second, they don't understand the
    basic economics involved. The insurance companies deal with tens of millions
    of people and make a small margin off each one. If you make a penny off
    each sale of an item but sale a billion then the profits look huge but the
    margin is insignificant... and are you really hurting people for charging
    them a penny more than what it costs you?

    Now, capitalism is about survival of the fittest and unfortunately this
    allows problems that are not necessarily beneficial to the whole and can
    create major problems. But this is not due to conservatism or capitialism
    being wrong but a problem with peoples morals. Capitalism with conservatism
    is best. Capitalism with liberalism is worse... and thats precisely what we
    have in America.

    It used to be that your average business owner didn't care about screwing
    over his customers as he took pride in his work/product and cared about his
    fellow man. Now you have narcissists that use capitalism to further their
    narcissism. They have no concept of interpersonal responsibility. Hence they
    are liberal. (They may vote republican only to save money, for example, but
    they are not a true conservative)

    You then get people who don't understand the problem and blame it on
    capitalism. Now, in some sense, it might be capitalism that allows the
    narcissist to exist the way he does but it is not the fault of capitalism.
    Just like you might kills someone with your car but it is not the car's
    fault. Of course you'll have those that reason illogically that "If car's
    didn't exist then you couldn't have killed him with your car". That is true
    but you can still kill him. The only way to prevent you from killing him is
    for you not to exist... hence the root problem is with you.


    There are some people that call themselves liberals who are actually
    conservatives but don't want to associate themselves with the connotation
    that soceity have put on conservatism. Similarly you have people that call
    themselves conservatives who are liberals but for the connotations do not
    call themselves liberal(they may be christians in a "conservative"
    community, for example).

    In both instances all you have to do is look at their children. True
    liberal's have children that are wild, disrespectful, ignorant(generally),
    etc. Why? Because of the personal and interpersonal responsiblity. (Note
    that it's actually hard to judge now days because of the drastic influence
    of society on children. You can be extremely conservative but your children
    can be wild because liberal society has become the parent(and in some
    instances it might be vice versa)

    Guess what though? Liberalism is precisely a negative feedback look,
    psychologically of course. As a liberal you only care about yourself. You
    raise your children and they end up only caring about themselves. They
    influence their friends and perpetuate the problem. It's only a matter of
    time like the tug of war analogy.

    It's actually very complex and I'm simplifying things for the sake of
    brievity. But in mathematics you can model such things and there are
    "points" where the parameters change from one state to another. The "point
    of no return" is an example. Here, if liberalism gets to a certain size then
    it will grow uncontrollably ignoring certain constraning effects. It is
    analogous to population growth which grows exponentially if you have more
    than 1 person. Take into account a certain probability of death then it
    depends on the parameters. In some cases the population may die out, sustain
    itself, oscillate wildy, or grow exponentially. All models basically have
    such effects and this discussion of liberalism is exactly analogous if it
    was modeled as a differential equation. No doubt it could be if we had the
    necessary information. I am simply modeling it approximately in my head with
    the information I have. Hence the reason I am a conservative(or side with
    the conservatives rather than the liberals) even though I am an atheist and
    this is very rare because the religious issues.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-