Greatest? Probably Carlin. I don't think there's anyone who "pushed the envelope" or redefined boundaries the way that he did.
Personal favorite, though?....Bill Hicks.
A-t-h-e-i-s-t.
I can't seem to wrap my brain around why that word is only spelled right 1 out of 10 times on this site.
No, not really....I mean there are worse songs :) But me personally, I don't particularly enjoy it....
I like how you admitted you were wrong but downvoted me anyway. Regardless, I accept your apology.
What makes you think I'm against patriotism? It's a sh!t song, that's all.
I hate journey too, and almost equally so. What does that make me? I'm really curious.
That Lee Greenwood Proud to Be An American song.
=================================
Nixon to Hirohito ( http://bit.ly/cWWaHZ )
Eisenhower to DeGaulle ( http://i.imgur.com/ODtkJ.png )
And just for kicks, on an admittedly tangential point, there was Bush holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia ( http://i.imgur.com/fIjMo.png ) which somehow didn't cause much of a ruckus at the time.
Just to correct a minor factual error, Clinton actually was impeached by the House, but was acquitted by the Senate. But otherwise, I think you're spot on.
Sorry, but neither is Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Or Carrie Prejean, for that matter.
=============================
Angie Harmon and Janine Turner?
====================================
From Yes We Can:
Scarlett Johansson
Kate Walsh
Tatyana Ali
Aisha Tyler
Maya Rubin
Esthero
Nicole Scherzinger
Taryn Manning
Amber Valletta
Kelly Hu
Sarah Wright
Shoshannah
Tracee Ellis Ross
Vera Farmiga
Not any more than your question was, honestly. That is, I certainly didn't intend it to be. I just don't see how on one hand, you could insinuate that majority rule is some noble idea, then on the other, not see the irony in the fact that a filibuster (by definition) is an obstructionist tactic used by a minority party to not allow a vote by the majority in a representative democracy.
If you really want to be a defender of majority rule, don't you think 59/100 should be enough of a mandate to get legislation passed?
Seriously, JakeJ? What was so offensive that I needed to be downvoted in a thread called "what's your favorite quote"? It wasn't my quote, and it didn't even have anything to do with Nazis or liberals or dead puppies.
Was it the compassion? Was it the becoming adult part? That life is not black and white? Leaning into the light?
How is one to live a moral and compassionate existence when one is fully aware of the blood, the horror inherent in life, when one finds darkness not only in one’s culture but within oneself? If there is a stage at which an individual life becomes truly adult, it must be when one grasps the irony in its unfolding and accepts responsibility for a life lived in the midst of such paradox. One must live in the middle of contradiction, because if all contradiction were eliminated at once life would collapse. There are simply no answers to some of the great pressing questions. You continue to live them out, making your life a worthy expression of leaning into the light.
-Barry Lopez
Best reason? All objections to gay marriage fall into two primary categories - religious or moral. While people certainly have the right to hold such objections, neither should be the basis of any legislation to exclude anyone from what is essentially a civil right, at least as far as a government is concerned.
Eeeeh, I'm kind of with you, but I think that's really grasping pretty hard for an explanation. It still doesn't explain "so I'll say it for them" (if it's meant to say 'who cares' as you offer it, then there are a lot of more creative - and tactful - ways to say it), and more importantly, it still doesn't answer the question of how it belongs in a news broadcast.
Wow. That's an interesting take. So, "Despondent leftism"? The "Ill say it for them" bit at the end? Trying very hard to paint someone as irrelevant who clearly wasn't (all one need do is look at the sales of Man Without A Country to effectively counter this.)?
None of that strikes you as editorializing a news piece? You think he really wanted his kids to have him remembered as an unhappy man?
I think the quintessential example of that is Kurt Vonnegut's obit done during FOX News (that's FOX News, proper - the self-described "fair and balanced" part, not FOX News punditry). What better example of not letting someone defend themselves is there than mercilessly attacking a dead man the day after he died?
And this also addresses the false equivalent that FOX News is only as bad as the other ideological extreme (whatever that is). Case in point: Find another obit as ruthless as this one DURING A NEWS BROADCAST on another network. You simply can't (or, maybe you can. prove me wrong.).
No, your question was "how often do you hear about people getting off welfare?". The answer is: 80 percent of the time within 5 years. I'd say that's pretty significant, and again, hardly amounts to an entire welfare state, which is all I said to begin with.
Well, it's a pretty easy statistic to look up....
For the most part, welfare is a transient program. Recipients don't remain on the program forever. Fewer than 20 percent of all people on welfare remain on the program for less than seven months. Another 20 percent are on welfare for one to two years. Still, 27 percent remain on welfare for two to five years. Of all welfare recipients, 20 percent remain on welfare more than five years. (link below)
Of course you'll have people that are either in such a dire situation that it becomes permanent...or, maybe they're taking advantage of the system, who knows. The statistics seem to indicate that this is the exception rather than the rule however, and hardly seems indicative of a government that's enabling an entire population of freeloaders.
So, I guess to directly answer the question, 80 percent of the time, welfare recipients go on to be "productive members of society" (or at least off welfare).
"Screw it, the union will take care of us regardless and if things go wrong, the government will bail us out."
I actually agree with you there, however I think it speaks more to the runaway power of unions than it does about any specific political ideology. Unions are too strong, and have been for a long time.
But if you mean to make a blanket statement that "[liberal] policies...are proven not to work" as a whole (which really seems to be the point of this debate), then I think you're off base. Socialized health care certainly "works" in many countries. Not many people would argue that the Civil Rights Act, signed by the demon from your video (LBJ) wasn't an important step forward as a whole in our nation's history or that equality isn't an important American ideal. Government farming subsidies certainly circumvent anything that most conservatives would call "free market", but they are a significant contribution to our quality of life. And there are plenty of other things that reasonable people can disagree on, but that discussion should happen without one side being regarded as mentally ill.
And that goes double if you're going to use the "better class of people" argument. If you're going to argue that liberalism can work in some places but not in others, it becomes necessary to ask why conservatism works in Texas (or pick your conservative utopia, I'm actually curious as to what that might be), and not in Iran. Then it becomes necessary to ask how one identifies a population geared for liberal policies versus one geared for conservative ones. But the interesting part (at least to me) is that with that philosophy, how do you tell what policies are fundamentally right and what policies are fundamentally wrong?
Of course I watched it. As I stated, I don't think the video was wholly without merit. Unions have crippled American car companies' ability to compete, and since the backbone of Detroit is the auto industry, Detroit suffered incredibly. And since one of the biggest cogs in the US economy is the auto industry, this also resulted in handouts to prop up Detroit.
However, surely you can't argue that there wasn't more partisan garbage in the video as well, and simply put,
(partisan garbage) + (partisan garbage) = [multiple] x (partisan garbage)
To wit, I know UAW workers personally who are massively conservative, and have contributed money to conservative candidates and causes, which is a direct takedown of one of the crucial points of the argument (one which, I'll add, absolutely no source was given).
Not to mention, if one is going to say that "liberal" policies are the primary cause of the squalor in Detroit, a responsible journalistic endeavour would have been to ask why "liberal" policies in , say, Norway have resulted in one of the most consistently recognized best places to live.
But none of that is the point. The point is, you created an argument almost solely based on Dr. Rossiter's laurels as a psychiatrist holding up his supposedly revolutionary finding, and now for the third time, I've asked why such a supposedly revolutionary finding by a "top psychiatrist" is not being subjected to the scientific method.
There are two extremely easy ways to address this: 1) Produce a part of his book which he has submitted for legitimate peer review, or 2) Produce an excerpt from a medical journal in which any of Rossiter's assertions are independently verified by anyone else with a "Dr." in front of their name and not named Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin. Easy enough, right?
