The inability to disprove is not proof.

Cognito ergo sum. I cannot prove nor disprove that anyone other than myself thinks, therefore I cannot prove that anyone other than myself exists or does not exist.

I am hesitant to believe that anyone that ascribes to the church of the flying spaghetti monster, sauce be upon him, would have truly radical beliefs. Mostly since the religion is a poke in the eye to Christian creationists (originally). I expect most things done with a colander on your head, are done satirically. Can I get a RAMEN?

Another long one. For the TLDR crowd: Put respect in, get respect out.


People have a right to say what they want without fear of the government stepping in. The first amendment doesn't specifically apply to society in general. You can't walk up to a Hell's Angel, call him a sissy or something, and expect to walk away without a black eye. Even though he'd be in the wrong, it's still a consequence you wrought.

That's what polite conversation and the majority of PCness is about: the consequences of your speech.

If I was to lambaste you with a diatribe, laden with petty insults and obscene language, you will very likely respond in kind or walk away. If my goal is to get you to respond in kind for my entertainment, like some people have admitted to on this site, then I'd be nothing more than a troll. If my goal was to get you to walk away, then all I've accomplished is cementing my own ideas without really listening to yours (freedom for me, not you; my way or the highway). It's a disease that I see all too frequently.

There was one poster, I feel terrible that I didn't note his/her name down, that dissented from my view point, and did it calmly and politely. I was shocked, shocked that such a person could exist, and post here of all places. Shocked and thankful. It's not something that's really so hard to find, it just that a lot of people are so worked up that they can't (or don't want to?) find the calmness of mind to post something that could lead to real understanding for everyone.

The vast majority of us Americans stand for the same broad ideals. We disagree on the minutiae, and for some reason we focus on this instead of bigger issues that will actually make a difference in our everyday lives. Both parties use this to make themselves fat, and so does the media.

There are, however, certain aspects of PC speak that I disagree with (hyphenating of American for the majority of individual cases, I see it as another way to separate us; I don't care where you came from, you're either American, want to be, or you're not), but for the most part I see that it exists to foster a respectful environment. I expect most people would want to walk out their front door, see their neighbors, wave, and get a smile and a wave back, not a scowl and a one-fingered salute. This is how I expect to converse with people, (you don't see Congress insulting each other or speaking with vulgarity in the chambers do you? not to my knowledge anyway) because if I spoke in such a disrespectful manner my opponent is going to circle the wagons and not be open to anything I have to say. Thus closing off our dialogue and avoiding ever coming to an understanding.

I want to reiterate that the first amendment only applies, specifically, to the government. I know that I (and many others) want it to be protected in regards to Facebook and your job or anything else really and your job, but the fact of the matter is that unless a business has a policy acknowledging first amendment protections they do not have to respect your free speech. The admin of this site, has no obligation to allow you to post anything. He/she provides this site free to us, and only asks that we follow the rules provided. If we break the rules, then there are consequences regardless of whether or not similar posts or posters are removed/punished as is stated in the forum rules. For example, this section of the forum is moderated by Glaucon, if you break his/her (sorry) rules then he/she doesn't have to suffer you. You can call it censorship all you want. If the problem with a post isn't the content of the message per se but rather the mode of delivery (insult laden, etc), then I'll stand behind the rule maker. If there was a crusade against dissenting view points in spite of them following the rules, then I'd side with the poster (unless they lost the privilege for previous infractions).

It has been my experience thus far on OPP that those that identify on the right are quicker to anger and drag the argument into a battle of who has the bigger e-peen. That's not to say that there aren't left posters that do the same.

Most of the time I find topics have been completely hijacked and have devolved into flame wars. Thus dissuading me from participating as there is no more room for intelligent, polite conversation.

Perhaps things would be better if this was a true public forum. Face to face interactions would probably lead to a lower incidence of this drivel as the angry folks would come to blows and get carted off to sleep things off in the tank for the night.

I hate how easy it is for people to trick the stupid into frothing at the mouth and attacking their fellows without any facts, just feelings about half-truths, opinions, and outright lies. Journalism died with Cronkite as did any real hope for the press. Now journalism is who has the shinniest story that can rally the bird brained people that watch to bring in the ratings and the money. Every political scandal is a never ending chimpanzee dung flinging contest and NOBODY gives a damn about the standards they project or claim to stand for. But hey, whatever it takes to get elected right? Same thing goes for the business world, decency isn't profitable. The honest thing is the wrong thing, honesty doesn't keep your job or get you elected. It would seem that the adage is wrong, honesty isn't always the best policy.

I have wanted on so many occasions to flame people out. As that's all they deserve, but then I remind myself, I'm better than that. I have no need to lower my standards to match them (I'm not no child left behind).

From now on, I won't even bother conversing with those that resort to name calling. Clearly they haven't evolved enough to understand facts, logic, and compassion. Sometimes I wonder if there are moderators or if it's just the admin, but I am entirely disgusted with the crap that gets posted and stays up indefinitely.

Sorry for slightly hijacking this.

/rant

Didn't realize I was in a pig sty, I thought this was a forum of civil discussion (ie. polite discourse). But there I go reading the forum rules again.

And the Republicans lived happily ever after. What a wonderful fairy tale.

I admit, I don't know how many times I've had to facepalm and say "this again?!". It seems like it's every couple of months. If you have the right number then share it, we can at least agree that it's more than 1.

Your political supposition is pure fantasy. Democrats believe we already have the t***h and don't want to waste more time and money beating a dead horse, Republicans don't like the answer they've gotten and feel the need to continue trying.

Look, they've investigated 4 times already and haven't turned up anything definitive. The emails recently released also don't show anything definitive(I read every one of them). And they probably withheld the emails because they didn't exactly fall under what was asked originally (IIRC), and they knew the spinsters would twist this up... as they clearly have.

I would expect the party of fiscal responsibility to stop wasting money on a wild goose chase. But no, so investigate away. Just remember, if they turn up more of nothing, you should ask for the job of each member that v**ed for yet another waste of tax payer dollars when they already knew it was beating a dead horse.

I'm uncertain of how someone can simultaneously advocate for waiting for the results of an investigation and pre-convict one side. All the while claiming to be waving the banner of open mindedness.

Amazing that you read nothing else of the post, just what you wanted, and then proceed to insult me knowing absolutely *NOTHING* about me. If you wish to continue insulting people, I suggest you find a new place to do so before the admin swings the ban hammer your direction.

They did not walk down the the SS office. They filed the paperwork with the hospital, during the visit. But you'll just ignore that I said that, again.


To you, the disabled and the poor that cannot afford to take time off work are just "lazy". I don't see how a person that would rather have a roof over their head, or food on their table could possibly be lazy. Or how someone that has special needs for t***sportation is lazy. But hey, since you are able, everybody else must be able too, right?

Poll stations are plentiful and open late (7am-7pm in most cases), DMVs are not (7am-5pm, varying by state). Maybe if they set up ID centers at the poll stations, you'd get more traction. But no, that's an idea, and you have already shown you don't like helpful ideas.

If you have anything productive to say, I'd be appreciative. Else, please continue your trolling elsewhere.

As far as I can remember, my SS card showed up as if by magic.

IIRC, yes, I didn't have to do jack to get my SS card. It was all apart of the paperwork done upon my birth. How convenient. The government ensured, that I, a citizen, was given a SS number along with a birth certificate as the hospital and my parents filed all the needed paperwork during the hospital visit.

I don't recall seeing "working" in the Constitution anywhere.


Again, how does a photo ID prevent fraud? People have been making f**e IDs since the photo ID was first invented. A real comprehensive solution to really prevent v***r f***d, as I stated pages ago (along with Floyd) is not practical presently.

Until you get the infrastructure worked out to get everyone the needed IDs, and the infrastructure to ensure the IDs aren't f**e, you won't be supported by an overwhelming majority. Why? Because you're not in the middle.

Requiring an ID restricts freedom in and of itself for one.

Anyone that doesn't have this ID, but is a Citizen, is being denied their Constitutionally guaranteed right to v**e.

More people that may be unable to get to the DMV; the disabled, the elderly in general (not just ones without papers).

All I'm saying is that a v**er ID law passed, without providing a way to ensure that *every* citizen gets their ID, is inherently denying those citizens a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

As I said before, unless you ensure that every citizen is given this ID upon their 18th birthday (or when they become a citizen for that matter), you are denying people a Constitutionally given right. Requiring people to take time off work or finding t***sportation if the DMV's are too far away, that they may not be able to afford, is asking way too much of the underprivileged. Those of us posting, most likely, are not in that situation.

The homeless have no address, so how do we handle them? They very likely have all the time in the world to walk to and wait at the DMV, but no home address, and might not have all their documents.

It was mentioned by another poster, older folks that never got a birth certificate for various reasons; how do they prove citizenship?

So, my goal is "the ends justify the means".

Your end is: no alien can v**e.
Your means are: some citizens will be denied their rights.

And you dare to claim that I believe "the ends justify the means"?

You are sorely mistaken.

You both, Sheep and Tree, have proven that you have nothing positive to say. I do hope that you are proud of the things you post claiming that I have meds to take or need a nap (it's not a work day, so no I have no need for one presently). I also don't throw things and stomp my feet, I let other people handle the immature things in life.

If you have evidence of v***r f***d then file the appropriate charges in court. Whining about it on an internet site will not achieve anything productive.

I do not pretend about being fair and open minded. You can make wh**ever claim you want about that regard, it won't change the fact that I am as fair and open minded as I can be. I support my claim in that I do not always do what's good for me alone, I look for ways that everybody wins.

I have already given you that v***r f***d is wrong, and that it happens. To what scale we disagree on, however, I have conceded that requiring an ID would be a good idea. To any reasonable person I suspect that would be construed as fair and open minded. All I asked was the acknowledgement from either of you two that taking away an otherwise eligible Citizen's right to v**e was wrong. You both, have yet to answer my question as to whether it is right to deny a citizen their rights and freedoms just to ensure an alien doesn't get any un-entitled rights and/or freedoms.

If you refuse to come to the middle, you won't get what you want.