Post by: cerberus on September 13, 2008, 01:49:35 PM
here is a fascinating new essay on the topic:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
here are some considered responses:
http://www.edge.org/discourse/vote_morality.html
i think this is a serious, scholarly work. it draws heavily on
scientific research. please allot some time for reading
and contemplation; it could be enlightening.
jeff dinces
Post by: Steve Hudson on September 13, 2008, 02:25:17 PM
Word.
Post by: PookyNMR on September 13, 2008, 02:44:21 PM
Aside from that complaint, I find the entire paper highly activistic and in general disagreeable with a number of it's overall tone and many of it's assumptions. And I'm even a person who is thoroughly repulsed by the Republican administration.
I'd give it a 3 out of 10 in generous mood.
Post by: cerberus on September 13, 2008, 02:50:36 PM
your time to formuate a full rebuttal of haight and his supporters.
at the moment, i intend to send the links directly to all of my friends;
and to urge them to send it to all of their friends; and so on.
please feel welcome to try and convince me not to spread what
i presently regard as fruit from the tree of knowledge.
your emotional reaction was not my intention in posting
the links. i sincerely regret that this has upset you.
jeff dinces
Post by: PookyNMR on September 13, 2008, 03:52:56 PM
No worries. I'm not at all upset in the least.
My point was, in particular, his theological arguments were incredibly poor, inaccurate, and ignorant in the sense the they obviously did not engage a scholarly process. Or (hopefully not) he was aware, but just was not honest in disclosing such arguments for the sake of his activism.
For anyone who has not studied such matters, it would not be obvious and it would be easy to acquiesce to his view point. But for anyone who has studied the subject, it's very easy to see that his arguments have no basis in legitimate history, theology, exegesis, and other scholarly processes.
The instructions in Leviticus were not written because 'the writers found the behaviours disgusting.' Within the book itself you'll see that the various instructions were believed to be from God himself. AND those instructions were given with specific reasons. They were given, as it says in the text itself, so that the people could have life, quality life of justice (as in righteousness / right-relatedness) and peace, so they would not get the diseases of the other neighboring nations due to their behavior. Other instructions in the Torah also carry the same concept --> God trying to bless his people by offering them a way to peaceful, righteous life. He shows them the way saying that before you is the choice to chose life or death, chose life (second half of Deut 30 for example).
If I had more time, I'd make out a more detailed argument, but for now, I think even those thoughts can adequately display the incredible differences between what the text is communicating and what this Physiologist is trying to twist the text into for his own conclusions / opinions.
Aside from the theological arguments, I find a number of his other assumptions that he uses his evidence to back up far to over-reaching. If I have time later, I'll expand..
Post by: Larrchild on September 13, 2008, 03:56:41 PM
| Steve Hudson wrote on Sat, 13 September 2008 14:25 |
"I believe it is because, having stated a position, based on either their own family values or those dictated by their religion, [Republicans] are loathe to change their minds and declare that they have been wrong. And so, following Festinger, the disconfirming evidence causes them (or at least many of them) to dig in their heels more deeply." Word. |
That makes me wonder if that sea of white faces that was the GOP convention, who seemed to be digging their heels in even further against the liberal-devils, really know deep down inside, how badly mangled their team has made things?
Pride is a bitch, eh?
Post by: Jay Kadis on September 13, 2008, 04:08:28 PM
Post by: Steve Hudson on September 13, 2008, 04:10:47 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Sat, 13 September 2008 14:56 | ||
That makes me wonder if that sea of white faces that was the GOP convention, who seemed to be digging their heels in even further against the liberal-devils, really know deep down inside, how badly mangled their team has made things? Pride is a bitch, eh? |
Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance suggests you're right. I think many Republicans, in this example, balance their negative feelings about taking selfish moral positions, telling lies, etc. with a stronger need to feel like they "belong" to a group that shares their views. It's hard for many people to admit they're wrong and even harder for some to change when they realize their views and behaviors are morally corrupt.
Post by: Larrchild on September 13, 2008, 04:17:23 PM
| Quote: |
It's hard for many people to admit they're wrong and even harder for some to change when they realize their views and behaviors are morally corrupt. |
I think that if you can convince yourself that God is a Republican, the rest just breezes by, cognitively, lol.
In other words, if you believe you are on the side of good, morally, it immunizes you against the self-scrutiny needed for objectivity.
Post by: danickstr on September 13, 2008, 04:27:39 PM
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060320/alterman
Post by: Devin Knutson on September 13, 2008, 05:03:56 PM
| Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 13 September 2008 13:08 |
My BS detectors are set off any time I see an attempt to make a scientific analysis of religion. Religion is entirely an arbitrary human invention and as such is outside the realm in which science may function. |
I tend to disagree somewhat that "Religion is entirely an arbitrary human invention". In my view, religion probably stems from our original ability to reason inductively, which was an early survival trait.
Mog went to the water hole at noon.
Mog got ate by lions.
Don't go to the water hole at noon.
From there, as our species became aware of our own mortality, (I don't think it can be a coincidence that most major religions were founded in deserts) certain persons who were perhaps a bit quicker on the uptake realized the control potential of organizing a common Belief structure, and "don't go to the water hole at noon" becomes "Thou shalt not take sustenance during the mid-day fast".
In the end, all traditions are sets of solutions for which we no longer remember the problems.
These days of course, our prehensile predilection for inductive reasoning does more harm than good, and should be eradicated through education and critical thought.
And yes, the world would be a much nicer place if religion and science kept to their own sides of the issues. Particularly if religion would stop attempting to make physical statements about the universe in which we live.
Belief is a disease.
Get over it.
Post by: Larrchild on September 13, 2008, 05:06:03 PM
With obsolete bios.
Post by: Devin Knutson on September 13, 2008, 05:09:42 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Sat, 13 September 2008 13:17 |
In other words, if you believe you are on the side of good, morally, it immunizes you against the self-scrutiny needed for objectivity. |
Religion became organized for precisely this purpose. With God on our side, how can we fail?
There has been tons of research showing that people of truly substandard intelligence completely lack the necessary wiring in the brain to make the connection between their own actions and the results. Stupid people are physically incapable of realizing their own stupidity.
And they vote more.
And they breed more.
We're fucked.
Post by: Devin Knutson on September 13, 2008, 05:13:33 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Sat, 13 September 2008 14:06 |
So we're just chimps with driver's licenses, if I get you, correctly? With obsolete bios. |
I don't drive.
But my bio is pretty obsolete, yes.
Post by: Larrchild on September 13, 2008, 05:24:45 PM
| Devin Knutson wrote on Sat, 13 September 2008 17:09 | ||
Religion became organized for precisely this purpose. With God on our side, how can we fail? |
Well they can't all have God on their side.
He must be pissed.
Post by: Larrchild on September 13, 2008, 05:29:56 PM
| Quote: |
Stupid people are physically incapable of realizing their own stupidity. |
Yes. In the way my cat thinks I am just a larger cat.
Post by: cerberus on September 13, 2008, 09:46:46 PM
| PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 13 September 2008 15:52 |
The instructions in Leviticus were not written because 'the writers found the behaviours disgusting.' Within the book itself you'll see that the various instructions were believed to be from God himself. AND those instructions were given with specific reasons. They were given, as it says in the text itself, so that the people could have life, quality life of justice (as in righteousness / right-relatedness) and peace, so they would not get the diseases of the other neighboring nations due to their behavior. |
not so well researched. i think he should have added the word "modern" to: "there is
no rational or health-related way to explain these laws." then i could completely
agree with that specific example haidt chose to support his main argument.
since i am not regarded as a person of faith; i don't know how you can reach me with the
argument that the laws were from god. i do agree that they would have made sense
in the ancient world. i understand that only orthadox jews attempt to follow them
literally today; and i don't know of evidence that they have accrued any
supernatural advantages as individuals, or as a group from it.
jeff dinces
Post by: Bill_Urick on September 13, 2008, 10:21:22 PM
Really original thinking.
Five years ago this kind of stuff upset me. Now it's just sadly amusing. I guess we all need someone to hate and blame. It makes us feel more at one with our selected tribe.
But I love you guys, really I do.
Now, back to the circle jerk.
Post by: danickstr on September 13, 2008, 10:58:18 PM
I am always willing to listen to a point of view. There are a lot of touchy-feely artist types here (myself included) and they almost always vote predominantly in favor of liberal views. No surprise there.
The republican view typically takes a strong defensive posture to be more important than many social programs, which made more sense historically since without a good defense, a republic will be overthrown.
It also focuses on making business exchange more fluid so that the economy can grow through free-market capitalism.
It holds the view that all people can benefit from a free democratic society where everyone has an equal chance to succeed.
These are all noble ideals, and many fine republicans have died to defend them.
So I don't want to go on the record as a wanton "Rebublican basher".
If you feel I have misrepresented your party, please correct me.
Whether or not I am willingto put these ideals in the year 2008 above those of a more liberal platform is a good topic for debate.
The way Karl Rove runs a republican election I find reprehensible, but I am sure you can find a corrupt Dem to counter with.
cheers from this side of the aisle.
Nick
Post by: PookyNMR on September 14, 2008, 12:42:04 AM
| cerberus wrote on Sat, 13 September 2008 19:46 |
since i am not regarded as a person of faith; i don't know how you can reach me with the argument that the laws were from god. i do agree that they would have made sense in the ancient world. i understand that only orthadox jews attempt to follow them literally today; and i don't know of evidence that they have accrued any supernatural advantages as individuals, or as a group from it. jeff dinces |
Whether or not the Bible is true is not the issue. So whether or not they are from God is a moot point. The point is that the text states this as the case along with several other arguments and his explanation/exposition of the text was embarrassingly poor.
There are a number of the instructions that do indeed make sense health wise - like, for example, the prohibition on shellfish or pork (both of which were unlikely to be thoroughly cooked, which we know is necessary for both). Other restrictions are based on a sense of justice (as in right-relatedness), social order, and what is necessary for peace (in the shalom sense).
Now whether or not anyone agrees with that is not a major point. What is the point is understanding that the text and the thought of the ancient Jews and how they believed that God and his law were about bringing restoration, justice, peace to back to a creation which as been marred by human brokenness.
So my objections to the article and it's attempts to crap on Christians has to do with the fact that the author displays incredible ignorance of the Bible and its intended message (regardless of whether or not the Bible is true). I'd also add an objection to where he puts an over-emphasis on blaming evangelical Christians for the Republican vote when only 7-8% of all voters are from the Evangelical type of Christianity. So what about the other 40+% of non-evangelicals that vote Republican? What about the fact that Christians as a whole vote more for democrats?
Post by: danickstr on September 14, 2008, 12:59:09 AM
And we all know where I stand.
Post by: Andy Peters on September 14, 2008, 01:59:13 AM
| cerberus wrote on Sat, 13 September 2008 10:49 |
what makes people vote republican? |
Oh, well, let's dispense with the pseudo-scholarly bullshit and get to the crux of the biscuit.
It's the "Politics Of Aspiration." Which means that these people vote against their best interests because they truly believe that they will be rich some day, and by G-d, when they're rich, they don't want to be taxed.
Of course, when you devalue education, you're not gonna get that good job that make you rich. And the powers-that-be like it that way.
-a
Post by: cerberus on September 14, 2008, 03:54:36 AM
that haidt writes and means: "right wing christians".
jeff dinces
Post by: bblackwood on September 14, 2008, 08:50:44 AM
Post by: organica on September 14, 2008, 10:25:38 AM
| bblackwood wrote on Sun, 14 September 2008 08:50 |
I'm not a republican, but I think it's obvious that most repubs vote that way for the same reasons most dems vote for dems - they agree with more of the fundamentals of their respective party. Some of those voters may be single-issue voters - like abortion - but many intelligent republicans I know can't fathom some of the democratic party's ideals. |
+1
and on and on and on it goes .............
Post by: mcsnare on September 14, 2008, 11:30:25 AM
Dave
Post by: mgod on September 14, 2008, 12:26:34 PM
SCIENCE JOURNAL
By ROBERT LEE HOTZ
The Biology of Ideology
Studies Suggest Many of Our Political Choices May Be Traced to Genetic Traits
September 4, 2008;
Post by: danickstr on September 14, 2008, 12:44:46 PM
I guess if I extend my hand to help someone, and it gets bitten off, a republican would say, "see what happened?" That is why they do not rush to help quite like a dem.
another saying goes, a coward dies a thousand deaths, a brave man dies but once.
But the coward has a lot of nice meals and enjoys days of sunshine and TV in between those coward "deaths" of spirit.
Post by: grantis on September 14, 2008, 01:34:33 PM
| Quote: |
by G-d, when they're rich, they don't want to be taxed. |
You are aware that the wealthiest people in this country pay a higher percentage of tax than the middle class right?
Post by: Bill_Urick on September 14, 2008, 01:56:59 PM
| danickstr wrote on Sat, 13 September 2008 22:58 |
Bill I wager that no one thinks all Republicans are evil and stupid. I am always willing to listen to a point of view. There are a lot of touchy-feely artist types here (myself included) and they almost always vote predominantly in favor of liberal views. No surprise there. The republican view typically takes a strong defensive posture to be more important than many social programs, which made more sense historically since without a good defense, a republic will be overthrown. It also focuses on making business exchange more fluid so that the economy can grow through free-market capitalism. It holds the view that all people can benefit from a free democratic society where everyone has an equal chance to succeed. These are all noble ideals, and many fine republicans have died to defend them. So I don't want to go on the record as a wanton "Rebublican basher". If you feel I have misrepresented your party, please correct me. Whether or not I am willingto put these ideals in the year 2008 above those of a more liberal platform is a good topic for debate. The way Karl Rove runs a republican election I find reprehensible, but I am sure you can find a corrupt Dem to counter with. cheers from this side of the aisle. Nick |
Nick, I love your post. Very fairly said. I don't consider myself a Republican anymore, and I see no benefit in comparing the failures or shortcomings of either party, plentiful as they might be. It just seems that, as intelligent as most of the folks around here are, the level of discussion might occasionally be able to rise above the level of "Republicans/Democrats really suck and I hate them."
Post by: wwittman on September 14, 2008, 01:59:22 PM
look around the internets at what's out there in general, and I think you'll find about 100 times as many "those Democrats are all stupid, and wussy, and communists, and endangering the country, and hate america.." and on and on and on, as you will "Republicans are stupid..." variants.
the right has made an industry of it.
I think part of the problem with the way liberals have run campaigns in recent years is that they're far too willing to 'see the other side', whereas conservatives by their very nature ENJOY the dogma.
read John Dean. He's a genius.
Post by: Bill_Urick on September 14, 2008, 02:25:07 PM
| danickstr wrote on Sun, 14 September 2008 12:44 |
Interesting paper. Many of the republicans that I know are more prone to a defensive lifestyle, and that is what works for them. I am reminded of the saying, "just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get me.' |
At least if we accept this premise (of the paper in question) we should be forgiving and accepting of one another's political views. Einstein was right, it's a deterministic universe, so we can't help who we vote for.
| Quote: |
I guess if I extend my hand to help someone, and it gets bitten off, a republican would say, "see what happened?" That is why they do not rush to help quite like a dem. |
There's a generalization for ya! If you will refer here...
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/generosity_i nde.html
It would seem that Reps are just as giving as Dems. They just prefer to do it with their own money as opposed to someone else's.
FWIW, in the post I made here, there were three of us riding in my van, one confirmed Democrat, one Republican and one independant. We all pitched in with equal fervor. So now I just don't know what to think.
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/347432/8119/?sr ch=nashville#msg_347432
| Quote: |
another saying goes, a coward dies a thousand deaths, a brave man dies but once. But the coward has a lot of nice meals and enjoys days of sunshine and TV in between those coward "deaths" of spirit. |
Not really sure about what your saying here. But I feel good that we're talking. It appeals to my touchy-feely artistic side.
Post by: Bill_Urick on September 14, 2008, 02:47:02 PM
| wwittman wrote on Sun, 14 September 2008 13:59 |
I DO realise it's a somewhat pointless observation, but I still think it's an ACCURATE one, and it's this: look around the internets at what's out there in general, and I think you'll find about 100 times as many "those Democrats are all stupid, and wussy, and communists, and endangering the country, and hate america.." and on and on and on, as you will "Republicans are stupid..." variants. the right has made an industry of it. I think part of the problem with the way liberals have run campaigns in recent years is that they're far too willing to 'see the other side', whereas conservatives by their very nature ENJOY the dogma. read John Dean. He's a genius. |
William you may be right. (Sorry poor choice of words...)
It would be interesting to research and document the incidence of "opposition bashing" on the left vs the right.
At least it might be interesting to read about, probably very tedious to do.
I do propose that we more readily recall incidents of denigration when they are directed toward those with whom we are sympathetic.
Although I may be biased, I do not agree that the problem with most left wing politicos is that they are not vicious enough.
Somehow I feel as though the level of dialogue here has already improved somewhat.
Carry on!
Post by: Larrchild on September 14, 2008, 03:14:45 PM
As long as they share the steering wheel on a regular basis.
And both sides stop demonstrating they are wrong about always being right.
Post by: stevieeastend on September 14, 2008, 03:31:09 PM
your signature kills me, gonna put a copy up my console, absolutely awesome
.. but please take care that no member of a german speaking left wing party gets to see this, it would cause you serious problems
cheers
St
Post by: Bill_Urick on September 14, 2008, 04:17:00 PM
| steveeastend wrote on Sun, 14 September 2008 15:31 |
Bill, your signature kills me, gonna put a copy up my console, absolutely awesome .. but please take care that no member of a german speaking left wing party gets to see this, it would cause you serious problems cheers St |
It's a Babel Fish translation, of course. Even funnier if you translate if back into English. For some reason it occurred to me one day that a bluegrass arrangement of Baby Got Back, sung in German might be really amusing. It's a sickness not a gift. Listened to Joe's Garage a couple a hundred times too many, I guess. Thanks for noticing.
Post by: Bill_Urick on September 14, 2008, 04:28:40 PM
| Larrchild wrote on Sun, 14 September 2008 15:14 |
I think it would be a lesser country without both sides. As long as they share the steering wheel on a regular basis. And both sides stop demonstrating they are wrong about always being right. |
EXACTLY! See, if we can get past the labels there's lots of stuff reasonable people can agree on. I'm really tweaked about the VP selection cause I really wanted to vote for a Democrat this time around. I don't mind at all if Obama gets elected, but I have to vote my conscience, and Palin's just better looking than Biden and she's not a lawyer.
I do agree that the executive should be flipped every four to eight years so everyone gets a chance to play with all the big boats and planes. Also, congress should always be controlled by the opposing party, because our government works best when it doesn't work at all.
Post by: Larrchild on September 14, 2008, 04:44:09 PM
That said, if I had any inkling that McCain would be the old maverick dude, I'd consider him. I believe he sold that to the neocon devil to get this position, and that they will populate the cabinet with the usual suspects.
That isn't the best thing right now.
Post by: PookyNMR on September 14, 2008, 04:56:20 PM
| mgod wrote on Sun, 14 September 2008 10:26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From a friend who identifies himself as very rightist: SCIENCE JOURNAL By ROBERT LEE HOTZ The Biology of Ideology Studies Suggest Many of Our Political Choices May Be Traced to Genetic Traits September 4, 2008; Post by: PookyNMR on September 14, 2008, 05:00:11 PM
While he identifies them a few times, there are other times where he mentions Christians in general. From the overall tone, I get the distinct impression that he does not like believers in general, no matter what the type. From this I detect I high level of bias that taints his argument. Other parts of his argument, while he presents some evidence, I think it would only be true on a small scale. I'd have to agree with Brad that folks vote mostly for their agreement with policy and general emotional feeling that they have about their candidates. Post by: mgod on September 14, 2008, 06:13:30 PM Johnson went after Goldwater hard in 64, but Nixon went after Humphrey much harder, not just with ads but with negotiations with the enemy. Treason. Nixon committed crimes againt the dems and his own office - illegal. He damaged the office. Reagan negotiated with the enemy - treason. And so on. McCain, who I respected until recent years, and who I really believed this time when he said it would be a conversation between friends, was destroyed by his own party in 2000 for being uppity, and transformed by it. Should he win, we might see the old McCain (no great shakes but the best they have despite his record of corruption) but now that he's hired an attack dog with a vagina to shield him, hiding behind her beehive, he's shown he can't be respected. Atwater, Rove, Nixon, show me the democrat who is in this league of political terrorism, and then we can discuss the equality issue. What's wrong with Republicans? Simple - they vote for these guys, they support the tactics of these guys. And harm themselves and the whole nation. DS Post by: mgod on September 14, 2008, 06:22:03 PM Conservative Political Forum Sells Racist "Obama Waffles" AP | JOAN LOWY | September 13, 2008 at 04:14 PM http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/conservative-forum-obama-w affles WASHINGTON — Activists at a conservative political forum snapped up boxes of waffle mix depicting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a racial stereotype on its front and wearing Arab-like headdress on its top flap. Values Voter Summit organizers cut off sales of Obama Waffles boxes on Saturday, saying they had not realized the boxes displayed "offensive material." The summit and the exhibit hall where the boxes were sold had been open since Thursday afternoon. The box was meant as political satire, said Mark Whitlock and Bob DeMoss, two writers from Franklin, Tenn., who created the mix. They sold it for $10 a box from a rented booth at the summit sponsored by the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council. David Nammo, executive director of the lobbying group FRC Action, said summit organizers were told the boxes were a parody of Obama's policy positions but had not examined them closely. Republican Party stalwarts Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney were among speakers at the forum, which officials said drew 2,100 activists from 44 states. While Obama Waffles takes aim at Obama's politics by poking fun at his public remarks and positions on issues, it also plays off the old image of the pancake-mix icon Aunt Jemima, which has been widely criticized as a demeaning stereotype. Obama is portrayed with popping eyes and big, thick lips as he stares at a plate of waffles and smiles broadly. Placing Obama in Arab-like headdress recalls the false rumor that he is a follower of Islam, though he is actually a Christian. On the back of the box, Obama is depicted in stereotypical Mexican dress, including a sombrero, above a recipe for "Open Border Fiesta Waffles" that says it can serve "4 or more illegal aliens." The recipe includes a tip: "While waiting for these zesty treats to invade your home, why not learn a foreign language?" The novelty item also takes shots at 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry, Obama's wife, Michelle, and Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The Obama campaign declined to comment. Wearing white chef's aprons, Whitlock and DeMoss were doing a brisk business at noon Saturday selling the waffle mix to people crowded around their booth. Two pyramids of waffle mix boxes stood several feet high on the booth's table. "It's the ultimate political souvenir," DeMoss told a customer. Asked if he considered the pictures of Obama on the box to be racial stereotypes, Whitlock said: "We had some people mention that to us, but you think of Newman's Own or Emeril's _ there are tons and tons of personality-branded food products on the market. So we've taken that model and, using political satire, have highlighted his policies, his position changes." The socially conservative public policy groups American Values and Focus on the Family Action co-sponsored the summit. Post by: maxim on September 14, 2008, 07:14:33 PM that's what you think it thinks just because humans anthropomorphise everything in sight, doesn't mean that cats do do you think that your cat thinks that a pigeon is a flying cat? the conservatives are, by their nature, more likely to use stereotypes and prejudice the left-wingers, tied, as they are, to their humanist ideology, find it more difficult to reconcile with the idea of tarring with the same brush but they will try, for it is human nature i wish the cats could vote... Post by: John Ivan on September 15, 2008, 01:31:13 AM
Well, I guess I don't know what to say about this.. People are either dumb enough to walk out in front of an on coming train or they aren't. The republicans I know, for the most part are smart enough, until they walk into the voting booth. There, for some strange reason, they are willing to believe almost anything.. They vote on only a few issues for one thing, and they KNOW BETTER than this. Most democrats I know do not vote on single issues. We {I guess I'm a democrat this year} really can not believe what the republican party has sold to the American people. We don't want to sound so mean, but we can't figure out what the hell could be going on in the brains of all these people who keep doing this REALLY DUMB thing, over and over again. I don't know what else it can be called.. There are people who are now going to vote republican because Sarah Palin is on the ticket. I'm sorry. But that is just plain old dumb. It's not my fault. Ivan........... Post by: Andy Peters on September 15, 2008, 01:57:49 AM
They'll change their minds the minute they get a huge hospital bill due to an unforeseen illness. -a Post by: Andy Peters on September 15, 2008, 01:59:34 AM
The rate is irrelevant. It's the delusion that they'll get rich is what's startling. -a Post by: stevieeastend on September 15, 2008, 03:41:44 AM But unfortunately right now it seems to be that the best of us is nowhere to be seen anymore... cheers St Post by: mgod on September 15, 2008, 09:53:02 AM http://www.madison.com/tct/news/304606 http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/304878 DS Post by: danickstr on September 15, 2008, 10:46:04 AM
Grant, this is not exactly accurate. The highest "wage-earners" pay the highest rate of tax, but most of the wealthy are not "working at the office" for a salary, or it is a minute amount fo their actual take, which is dividends and capital gains from their holdings. They currently pay 15% tax on these holdings, or less. So if a billionaire makes 10 million in stock gains, he pays only 15% on that tax, while a man with a wife and three kids pays 36% tax on a 190 thousand dollar income. Post by: Bill_Urick on September 15, 2008, 06:04:47 PM
Hey Dan, just scanned the stories. The second is disturbing, I would agree, and if accurate should be investigated for potential prosecution. Regarding the first and addressing the issue of picture ID's in general, I've yet to grasp the problem of requiring an ID to vote. If I want to buy a bottle of wine at Kroger I have to have a photo ID. If I wanted to write or cash a check I'm pretty sure I'd need one. Is is possible to exist financially in this country without having a photo ID of some kind? Seriously, can someone explain to me why this should be a problem? I'm open minded and prepared to be enlightened... Post by: mgod on September 16, 2008, 10:21:45 AM DS Post by: mgod on September 16, 2008, 10:26:42 AM
Damn straight. So the illusion is the idea that a republican tax-cut applies to them, and that a democratic tax-increase does too. Most of these cuts and increases happen in the stratosphere, and its why decade after decade, if you're not rich, if you're even only upper-middle crust, you do better under democrats. Consistently. My taxes went UP after the Bush tax "cuts". DS Post by: E Merrill on September 16, 2008, 11:17:57 AM
There is a large economy that exists within the one most of us recognize that is based on check cashing establishments. They charge high fees and do not require ID. There are many neighborhoods without banks and so it is difficult to avoid using the check cashers. Most of us on this forum do not have this problem. The choice to work in the recording industry requires a great deal of financial power. That isn't to say that everyone is making a great deal of money but everyone was in a position to decide they would pursue a career with high expenses and questionable returns. Requiring voter ID might not affect many people but those who are affect are the most vulnerable in our society and the ones who have the most trouble confronting such roadblocks. If you're working three jobs as a cashier, it is incredibly difficult to even get to the polls and vote. Going to the DMV to wait and paying for a drivers license is even more difficult. That difficulty is aggravated by the fact that, in many places, these underserved communities also lack agencies that can provide ID cards. The more fundamental issue, however, is the role of voting in civil life. Buying liquor usually requires ID but liquor is not a fundamental part of citizenship. We do not require national ID cards and many on the right are terrified of the idea and yet they are happy to require ID when the evidence of voter fraud is all but nonexistent. Given the history of manipulating the rules surrounding voting, I think there is a real danger that a voter ID requirement will be used to further disenfranchise those who already face the most significant challenges. I think that many people in this country were shocked that so many were unable to evacuate before Katrina. We take a certain ease in life for granted and a degree of that is OK when discussing liquor purchases, but voting, like life and death issues such as evacuations in the face of hurricanes, is fundamental and should be made MORE accessible. Post by: Nick Sevilla on September 16, 2008, 12:02:40 PM In my case, I married a Republican (now Democrat). My wife is a teacher. She likes to help others, and is community-oriented. However, she voted for bush the first time. I asked her why. this is what she said: "Because my dad is a Republican". No reasoning, no research into the process, no KNOWLEDGE at all. And this is a woman who holds 3 MASTERS degrees. So she is not stupid. But what she said, once she realized what Bush was really doing to our nation, was that she was the dumbest person on the planet. She now looks into what the issues are, and makes more informed decisions BEFORE voting. This is what the Republican Party is hoping for, from their base, that they do not look at their record, that they do not see what is really going on in their party. All the Republican party wants is blind voters. I am usually a Democrat, however, every voting period, I RESEARCH the issues, and ESPECIALLY the people that are trying to get into an office, before casting my vote. Sometimes I do not vote Democrat. I'll go Independent, or another party. It's the least I can do to ensure my vote goes where it should : to the most responsible candidate. I hope all of you can research for yourselves, and make the right decision for you. Or live with some pretty horrible consequences. It is our country, not the governments'. The government is here to serve US, not for us to serve it. Cheers. PS I am also a Mexican citizen, and have lived under a Party Dictatorship when I was growing up in Mexico. The Republican Party right now looks, sounds, and acts WAY TOO CLOSE to the Mexican PRI Party, who ruled for 72 years in Mexico, wiht an iron fist. So no one can tell me that the Republican Party is harmless, or that it has the people's interests in mind. It does not. Post by: ssltech on September 16, 2008, 02:48:08 PM http://www.buzzfeed.com/scott/diy-anti-obama-sign?w=1 Keef Post by: John Ivan on September 16, 2008, 03:33:07 PM
This was my favorite!! http://www.buzzfeed.com/jeffgreco/the-obama-sign-is-a-fine-a ccompaniment-to-my-favor-6x7-o8 I LOVE IT!! Post by: bblackwood on September 16, 2008, 03:50:32 PM
That one's a classic, but not from the campaign - it's much older than that... Post by: ssltech on September 16, 2008, 03:54:24 PM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmcupSmgraw Notice: These are getting pulled down fairly regulalry, so search "Hannity Kuttner" on Youtube if this one gets yanked also. Keith Post by: John Ivan on September 16, 2008, 03:56:52 PM Ivan................... Post by: bblackwood on September 16, 2008, 04:04:06 PM
Oh, I have no idea, I just know I first saw it probably 3-4 years ago... Post by: John Ivan on September 16, 2008, 04:07:36 PM
He should have just turned around, and gone back to Colmes.. "hey, what's with with phycho boy?". He did call him a fool.. AND he made it clear that his time could be better spent by simply leaving.. Ivan................... Post by: stevieeastend on September 17, 2008, 02:50:49 PM
To be honest I think this this is just wrong. As far as I know it is a common thing having to show an ID for voting. In Austria, Germany for sure and the rest of europe as well as far as I know. And I can tell you that the basic rights are nowhere as developed than in middle europe. What should be wrong with this? Post by: stevieeastend on September 17, 2008, 02:55:24 PM
I would rather be worried why somebody needs three jobs in order to survive than discuss the need of showing an ID for voting. Or did I miss something here? It is about just showing an ID before voting or is there more about it? Post by: Jay Kadis on September 17, 2008, 03:00:48 PM
Post by: Bill_Urick on September 17, 2008, 07:09:36 PM
I thought it was spelled maroons... Post by: maxim on September 17, 2008, 10:16:35 PM http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonah/white-power-mccain-endorsement Post by: John Ivan on September 18, 2008, 02:04:46 AM I know many republicans in my home town and I'm quite sure none of them are racists. Having said that, to the extent that racists are involved in American politics, they do tend to vote for republicans. Republicans know this too and they silently invite these people to vote for them by constantly invoking nationalism and implying/saying, they are the party of "American Values". They know these people are out there and will vote for them if they stay away from creatively moving forward. {helping to advance equality} This lack of progressive thinking is seen as graceful simplicity by some As in- "Liberals are always screwing things up with all this fancy thinking they do",- but seen as- "sticking to great traditional values! What the hell was wrong with the way things used to be?!!?"- by others. The republican leadership KNOWS this is code for- "we understand how and why you white folks are upset about the advancement of Black people"- This is why I say the republican party has died. They needed to die as a party because this baggage was hanging around their collective necks. I think most Republicans are NOT racists. BUT, they ARE the party that racists turn to, and they know this, and count on it come voting day. There is still a lot of passive racism going on in this country. The presidents reaction to Katrina is a perfect example of this. I've rambled here but I think you get what I'm saying. The ideas that still linger around the republican party are tired, worn out ideas that now have a bad track record. Part of this is and has been a quiet nod to bigotry. An invitation to "join us" as long as "you just don't come out and say it".. Sick but true. Most Republicans I know vote based on "business" issues, or "moral" issues. They don't know enough about their own party to see that what I've said here, is true. My 2 cents Ivan................... Post by: jimlongo on September 18, 2008, 10:13:36 AM Everyone is a racist, we live in a racist society, you cannot live in this society and not be a racist. However the good thinking person needs to understand this and consciously check themselves in their actions and attitudes . . . the unconscious have no understanding of their actions and effects. Just like any addiction, you need to acknowledge it before you can confront it, never mind conquer it. Post by: mgod on September 18, 2008, 10:29:20 AM Or something like that. But of course, some of America sure knew it did. DS Post by: organica on September 18, 2008, 11:42:57 AM maybe it's a fashion thing ..... http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/09/17/lah.japan. palin.glasses.cnn Post by: Devin Knutson on September 18, 2008, 02:26:49 PM
Bingo. It is not possible to be human, and not be wary of a group other than your own. It's a leftover survival trait, and it's hard-wired in. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something. That said, it is a trait which is no longer useful or advantageous in any way, and does only harm to all. And so, society is trying (with varying degrees of success thus far) to root it out. To really advance this goal, we must stop thinking in terms of race at all. It is an artificial classification to begin with. Scientifically, it is an outmoded and useless concept, originally introduced by those who refused to accept Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and instead preferred to find a way to class some members of our species as biologically inferior to others (generally, as a way to reconcile Christian teachings with slavery). There is no such thing as race. There is only Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. Species being the primary unit of biological classification. Species members share a basic genetic similarity and can interbreed and produce viable or fertile offspring. If you are reading this, you are ANIMALIA - CHORDATA - MAMMALIA - PRIMATA - HOMINIDAE - HOMO - SAPIENS That's it. That is all there is. This describes everything useful to know about you. Everything from how you convert energy, to how many fingers you have, and how you breed is right there. If we are going to keep referring to "race" as though it actually existed, then we will have to also incorporate a "race" of tall people, a "race" of skinny people, a "race" of people with red hair, etc. The word, while emotionally charged, is utterly meaningless, and its continued use in our society serves only to expose the true purposes of those who use it. Post by: maxim on September 18, 2008, 10:51:59 PM usually it goes: i'm not a racist, but.... Post by: John Ivan on September 19, 2008, 12:20:43 AM
I can live in this country. And I am not a racist. Edit to respond to Devin:-- It looks like we need to define the term racism.. It is true that all people are somewhat afraid of cultures they do not understand at first, but this is NOT racism. I see racism as a set of decisions that get made by people regarding how they will react to these fears/curiosities. Whether or not this trait is useful is up to individual people. I have decided that it is not useful. I simply am not a racist and believe that most people aren't. I believe racism is proactive for the most part {even though the term passive racism is used, even by me,and it is sometimes institutionalized}. Racism goes hand in hand with laziness and ignorance for the most part. Ivan............ Post by: Devin Knutson on September 19, 2008, 03:24:46 AM
<sigh> Okay... but first, we should define the term "flubwizzle". Flubwizzle is the condition that results from arriving at work, getting out of your vehicle, and accidentally slamming your scrotum in the door, BUT not realizing it until you return to your vehicle several hours later and discover your dried sack hanging pathetically from the oh, so groovy handle of your lime green 1979 Gremlin. Has this ever happened to you? ... To anyone you have ever known? ... No, you say? Then why do we need a term to define it? But, now that we have agreed to create a euphemism for something that doesn't actually exist, why not waste even more energy having a completely superficial discussion about who has the more thorough understanding of this imaginary condition? Race does not exist. There is no such thing. Full stop. At the risk of repeating myself,
What DOES exist, are popularly defined (and therefore largely self-identified) social structures and groups. And while we can all agree (I would hope) that the idea of a group other than your own somehow representing a different - and therefore lesser - sub-species is laughable, the deep seated guilt associated with the hard-wired desire to think otherwise is very real, and very dangerous. Many people do Believe that they belong to a "race" however, perhaps because it speaks to something primal within them, but mostly I think because it relieves them of personal responsibility, and precludes the need for further reflection. This is the root of Nationalism (and Elitism, if it comes to that). I do not mean to offend or dismiss your argument, but I will not waste words attempting to define a red herring, or mince about with a meaningless term which conveys nothing. One of our main goals, if we are to survive as a species, must be to drag crap like this into the light of day, and stomp on it until it dies. Modern Republicans, of course, do not agree. Post by: cerberus on September 19, 2008, 03:27:35 AM i mean: phrenology, eugenics. and the "pitbulls are dangerous and need to be regulated" thread here. jeff dinces Post by: mgod on September 19, 2008, 09:43:13 AM This is Your Nation on White Privilege By Tim Wise 9/13/08 For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help. White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay. White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug. White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action. White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested." White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals. White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful. White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist. White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look." White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being atypical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt. White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America. White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodgingthe question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced. White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden. And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain. White privilege is, in short, the problem Post by: jimlongo on September 19, 2008, 11:11:40 AM What is the first thing you notice about someone upon meeting them, assuming they're not 9 feet tall, or weigh 600lbs . . . the first thing you notice is their skin color and their gender. It's what we're programmed to note. It permeates everything in our society (and I don't just refer to America). We don't even need to venture into literature, advertising, and other realms of creative society, nor laws and government to see that race is a primary factor that colors human interaction. Devin makes a very good point that it is an abstract construct, but that does not make it imaginary, it is real and it is pervasive. It has implications across all demographics and groups. Whether or not it is positive or negative is not what I refer to in this definition. I suspect John objects to being called a racist because it is tinged with "negative meaning", as if you were called a KKK member or something. I don't use it in this accusatory sense here, I mean it merely as a statement of fact. Unfortunately our society has turned the word into an accusation of despicable behavior. The effects of racism are what concern me. It's the demoralizing effect on both the practitioner and victim that corrodes our social fabric. Plus the fact it is so insidious that we cannot even recognize it in many instances. It is so pervasive, and it is in this sense that I think we all need to realize our participation in it. I am a racist, but I try to recognize it in my actions. I try to improve as a human, and take notice of my effect on others. Some people consider themselves perfect . . . don't you love the phrase, "I don't care if someone's black, yellow, red or green" . . . that's someone who can't reflect on racism. As for the "redneck" (to coin a Rothschild term) racist, I'd much rather be faced with one of those disgusting people than a "closet racist" who tends to sound nice in mixed company and only slips up after a couple of drinks, or acts out their hostility when their power legally allows it, or unconsciously allows their bias to demean people. Give me the blatantly racist person any day, at least I know what I'm dealing with. Post by: Jay Kadis on September 19, 2008, 11:44:27 AM Of course we notice skin color, hair color, and many other physical features but that does not necessarily mean we use only those characteristics to determine our relationships. I choose my friends on the basis of common interests and outlooks on life. Some of that may be related indirectly to physical characteristics but they are not the foundation of all decision-making. Post by: organica on September 19, 2008, 12:57:00 PM
yes ..... this (usa) is the most diverse country on the planet . We likely have more liberal/conservative kooks too ...... and most of the time you can say/do whatever the fuck you want . I sorrowfully contend however that there are 2 USA's , 2 France's , 2 Iran's , 2 China's , 2 Nigeria's , 2 Canada's and so on ...... 1 is the rulers ...... they love to see the common people having big dreams , little wars , political clashes , holy wars , soccer games , ect . It keeps little folks busy ( lowers the odds for revolution attempts for instance) and the bigger the population of a country the more valuable these kinds of activities are . 2 is everybody else .......... many of whom fall for and even participate in the holy wars( psychological or physical depending upon locality ) , the two party political scheming , going to a U2 concert and so on . It's easy many for them to get duped /brainwashed into performing a numerous assortment of (often futile) exercises (and tricked into believing that their governments are not all puppet shows ) ...... hell it's almost forced upon them in so many ways . Many of whom are highly intelligent beings who have been tricked from day one . Human nature is really kinda neat . The moderates are coming but it may take a great disaster first ...... but it probably won't change much . Post by: cerberus on September 19, 2008, 01:41:10 PM what colour is yours? jeff dinces Post by: Berolzheimer on September 19, 2008, 01:53:16 PM http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-sci-politics19-2008s ep19,0,3434467.story "The researchers, whose findings were published today in the journal Science, looked at 46 people who fell into two camps -- liberals who supported foreign aid, immigration, pacifism and gun control; and conservatives who advocated defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism and the Iraq war. In an initial experiment, subjects were shown a series of images that included a bloody face, maggots in a wound and a spider on a frightened face. A device measured the electrical conductance of their skin, a physiological reaction that indicates fear. In a second experiment, researchers measured eye blinks -- another indicator of fear -- as subjects responded to sudden blasts of noise. People with strongly conservative views were three times more fearful than staunch liberals after the effects of gender, age, income and education were factored out." Post by: cerberus on September 19, 2008, 02:02:04 PM http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B2GGGL_enUS177US 232&pwst=1&q=+site:mediamatters.org+media+matters+li mbaugh+race jeff dinces Post by: MagnetoSound on September 19, 2008, 02:40:44 PM
What colour is my Jesus? ... Jesus! How did you know I called it that?  Post by: ssltech on September 19, 2008, 05:28:11 PM I'm dumbfounded after watching this... Utterly speechless. Keith Post by: Nick Sevilla on September 19, 2008, 06:50:47 PM
Feel free to give constructive criticism: http://atlah.org/about/contact.html Cheers Post by: MDM, on September 19, 2008, 09:15:14 PM what's better? a kick in the groin or a punch in the nose? there isn't any real difference. to make a difference people need to not back the candidates who are on TV and are ruining it for most of us (including Europe).. avoid organized-crime politics and go for the remaining candidates, even though they are not TV-stars.. there is no other way to get back to being the USA and not a product of globalized collectivism. without the USA as an example many nations will get sucked into the 'league of democracy' and we will see a huge spread of what in appearance resembles the old communist system. Post by: ssltech on September 19, 2008, 10:06:19 PM You really need to learn a different tune. -That one is worn out. Yes... we GET it. Post by: danickstr on September 20, 2008, 11:03:58 AM Post by: jimlongo on September 20, 2008, 02:18:45 PM http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13669.html Post by: cerberus on September 20, 2008, 03:17:23 PM
so what... a black facist church exists in new york. every type of freak exists here. tourism has been our biggest industry since 2002. come and see the show; come and drop your dough. ——— oh, here's a fun list: euphemisms-for-naming-white-folk jeff dinces Post by: stevieeastend on September 20, 2008, 05:42:40 PM
I am not 100% sure if I get what you exactly mean by that, but until further explanations from your side I have to say that this is just plain stupid. Sorry. Post by: John Ivan on September 21, 2008, 12:34:15 AM
I'm out on the road playing shows and just saw this.. This post is wonderful.. I really do see what you mean and understand how the term "Species" as apposed to "Race" is the one that has any real weight. The Social structures and Groups you refer to are in fact self made as a matter of simple fact. Or at least the way we have come to see each other negatively simply because we are "grouped" off by geography, or money, etc is made up.. I agree. I am thankful that I was raised by people who helped me understand that the differences between say, me, and other "groups" of people, say Black people, were to be celebrated and closely examined so that we might DECIDE to recognise that we are in fact all the same Species...We all want the same things, have the same needs, and the smell of coffee or a moving performance hits us all the same way, for the same reasons. Through this thinking and proactive investment in this thinking, we can become one group of humans on earth.. This would be wonderful and I'm hopeful that it can happen someday. The fact that I and many others use the term "Race" is just more proof that we have not grown up enough as a people. By "a people" I mean us, here on earth. You have made an observation that we don't see everyday and the language you use needs to be driven home as frequently as possible. This should be taught in our Schools.. I admit that I have not seen it put this way. Your post made my balls hurt though.. I'll be using an abundance of caution around my car door from here on out.. It's a great post Devin, and thanks for reminding us that deep down inside, we all know this to be true in our modern world, even if some refuse to admit it for fear of having to do a little work in their minds. People can choose. The first thing I needed to do as a young man{a teenager from an all white town in Michigan} was admit that certain cultures brought a sense of fear. Then I had to admit that this was silly. Then I had to decide that the fear was not needed. Then I decided to find what I knew was there. What we have in common. I don't know whether I've explained myself very well. Thanks. Post by: jimlongo on September 24, 2008, 01:57:50 PM How lying works, even when corrected . . .
Post by: Devin Knutson on September 25, 2008, 03:26:51 PM
Oh. My. God. |