taks

funny, i've never heard that... got proof? taks

no, it wasn't poor planning. dylan kleebold wanted people to die. eric harris was suicidal and depressed. dylan is the sort that would have been a serial killer if he had not been tempered by eric. that said, dylan was deluded... psychopathic, actually. if i can find the link to the "analysis" i read, i'll post it. taks

moore isn't just a victim of typos mkreku... you need to do a bit of research. we aren't talking about "stretching" statistics or making bad quotes... he literally takes parts of different interviews and stitches them together out of context to convey different meaning. there's a very good reason real politicians on the left don't quote moore or make any of the same connections he does... because they just don't cut it under truly objective, intellectual scrutiny. taks

odd that none of the bullies was killed... some people just go wonky. taks

probably not, LostStraw... i think any sarcasm i've had was merely to highlight how far off i had steered this topic... well, in a related vein, but still OT. i'd imagine sex addiction is recognized as a true addiction by whatever medical/psychiatric association(s) make the recoginzations... of course, if done properly (with a like minded mate), there's certainly something to be said for the benefits of such a malady. taks

yes, but now we have a website where these poor evengelical pedophiliac porn addicts (PEPPAs) can ease their pain and address their problem. taks

uh, mkreku, nobody said these sites don't put in some of their own editorializing... the "facts" cited, particularly regarding the problems with columbine, are verifiable. 10 minutes on the web. that's what you should be concerned with. when moore cuts up two different ads regarding different topics, splices them together and then subtitles the ads (which were previously NOT subtitled), i think he's engaging in dishonest "documentarizing" for sure. his "facts" are oddly hard to verify... taks

yeah... but your comment about the brain falling out was before i go any further... grrrr... damn CTRL key is having issues. ugh. anyway, the porn did not, and i'm assuming that's what you agree with so i'll leave it at that. this is a classic correlation/causation issue. yes, i agree that sexual offenders often use/read porn. i think statistics indicate as much. very strong correlation. but not causation. i don't think porn (stepping into hard-core opinion now) causes anything. i think it is an outlet they explore, but without that outlet, they would have found another. like saying marijuana creates heroin addicts. well, a lot more folks smoke pot than do harder drugs, so it must not be a rule. i turned out ok smoking pot as a kid... we don't have denial, btw, i think we truly don't want children exposed to adult themed concepts. the hard left wants demorilization... maybe amoralization? the conservatives want strict biblical fire and brimstone approach to sin... i'm in the middle, personally. as a result of the strong opinions... the edge gets pushed and we end up with janet showing nipplage and the outcry to boot... ugh (i thought what she did was tasteless, but so are the scantilly clad cheerleaders and cameramen focused on THEIR nipples...). taks

LOL! quote #1 "Should a 320lb. man advise us on the perils of overconsumption?" hehe, live right, vote left. taks

so exactly how do i fit into that group? taks

yes, i read it. i was merely referring to your mention of the tiny percentage of people that may extend their porn activities to violence. an argument that is unprovable other than said "citizens gone awry" testimony... and more often than not, such perpetrators are looking for someone to blame for their problems. remember MC, a liberal is actually somebody that thinks everyone else is to blame for his lot in life. hardly me.

it's scary that mr. white doesn't like judges writing laws without the chartered authority to do so? it's scary that you would think as such. even if people think a law is good or even just, it must be formed within the framework of the system, otherwise, what's the point of the system? taks

no. seriously. these types are going to get their fix one way or another. the same argument can be used for just about anything to control what the public has access too. at some point, it's nothing more than control. we can't write laws willy nilly for the freaks in life that refuse to behave responsibly. they commit a crime, they are punished for said crime. the "reason" behind their crime can be argued in court as mitigating or otherwise... taks

you apparently didn't read the forum rules... taks

the multi-party thing is what is strange to me... well, that's what makes it interesting at least. as i noted before, we used to have one (a multi-party system), but mergers and the like, and a real need for funding brought us to the two party system. funding, btw, is probably the prime motivator in a large society for a two party system... it just gets too hard to counter the bigger party, so smaller ones unite to offset the power, the bigger party is now smaller so they modify their platform to absorb some related small parties, etc... till there are only two left. perhaps canada is on this path as well? taks

charlie brown in da house! taks

oooh, blame the development geek. i like that. i really do agree with you, eldar. caesar was doomed because he was a wimp politically. well, he was forgiving and trustful. a good heart with an inability to properly lead i suppose. perhaps that's why he's been so immortalized (that and the whole 'world's most infamous betrayal' story). taks

sorry eldar, this was counter-factual... what IF some crazed socialist really implemented a plan anyhow? perhaps ender, perhaps. yeah. what he said. taks

yeah... a bit. i don't like duston hoffman as the lead, however. oldman is spot on though. pacino, too, but maybe even harrison ford in his younger days. i just don't like hoffman. hmmm... not sure who. this would certainly qualify as radical change. the result the terrorists are shooting for, however, is undermined by their methods. i think any time a political, economical or social agenda (often one in the same) are forced on people, they will be unwilling to accept it, regardless of the potential benefit (or detriment). bottom line: we don't like being TOLD what to do taks

capitalism (from capitalism.org): Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom. taks

1st: why exactly do you think our doctors make more and are better? because a free market system can afford to pay them more than a socialist market. this is the supply and demand curve of capitalism at work. also, even the lowly worker does not have to wait but a few days for a doctor's appointment and he can certainly be seen in most places the day he calls... 2nd: if an entire country is run like a corporation, that's a system more akin to fascism. taks

that's a start for sure... certainly any radical over the top sudden adjustment will wreak havoc. the only reason it all worked in our early years was because havoc was already underway! i read a cool listing the other day that defined the various stages of successful societies. we're in the "complacent" bracket but darned if i can remember the others. if i find it, i'll post it. there were 13 or 14 IIRC, and we're near the end. the author of the list, however, was more doom and gloom than i'd prefer, as he seemed to think the end of the list (civil war, revolution, etc.) was inevitable. i do agree, however, that given the size of our society, the division of ideals may be too tough to overcome. taks

yeah, but they've got the most accurate test. at least up to genius levels... above that the society is called mega (there's one other, but i can't recall the name). that high, however, becomes a self pity society because they can't relate to ANYBODY! taks

that's generally how people become more conservative... as they age. i think the biggy for me is the hypocrisy (that i see) in the social programs. those that are getting a free ride, in my experience, don't deserve it. they're perfectly capable workers. perfectly qualified for better than minimum wage. but perfectly lazy. (i do realize not all are like this...) i voted for clinton *ducks* believe it or not. i was pseudo-liberal based partly on the lack of religion in my life and a general 'idealist' view of the world. as i grew, and became more educated, and paid more taxes, and saw more of the world, that view shifted. shifted to the point that both the extreme right and the left looked stupid in my eyes. taks

marilyn vos savant at 212 (i think that's the right #). they claim that a # that high is very hard to verify that accurately... it could be more or less, nobody knows how to tell. for adults, you are correct... we're capped. it's meaningless actually. the difference between learning at 40 and 50 probably is the difference between, say, 10 and 15. the former conveys an IQ of 120 while the latter 150. i think the mensa test is calculated to offset this. taks