Re: MS-13 seeks to unify

[Guest guest]

One good thing that may happen in the short turn is that those thugs

that will be unwilling to give up power will get executed. That will

clear out some of the lesser fry.

Then the feds can go after whichever big shots are left.

Tom

Administrator

MS-13 gang seeks to unite nationwide

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/25/2007 7:39:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 6emini@... writes:

Will it take apol being murdered by an illegal to incite some action?

Perhaps not one of the pols themselves, but if it happens to close supporters and the elites, or some friends of relations of their, it might.

This is what I see as a major failing of our system. Here is a known threat and we know that it has strong potential to get extremely bad, yet nothing will be done about it. The Democrats today have said that they won't even push the immigration issue again, until the second term of a Democratic President. The Republicans aren't any better mind you. Most of them supported the last bill up to the last minute and the President was trying to ram it down our throats.

Now, this doesn't directly have anything to do with AS. I post these stories for reasons, however. Part of it is to demonstrate how politicians will use different special interest groups for their own advantage and will turn these groups against each other to distract them and the public from what they are really up to. This is key reason that I oppose AS becoming a special interest group, too. If we do, we will simply become cannon fodder in the political wars, no longer valuable as citizens, just votes.

The other reason is simply that we can't trust the government to help us, we have to learn to do as much as we can for ourselves as we can. As I mentioned above, we could jump on the gravy train, but what happens when the eventual budget cuts come, and they will. I'm pretty sure that AS and some other mental health issues will be dropped first in favor of larger interest groups. It has happened before, with states and the fed closing mental hospitals and cutting care for patients.

I'm also not advocating one party over the other. I myself am conservative and neither party represents my views anymore. It would just plain be nice to get some statesmen again with common sense rather than our "lawmakers." Such a grandiose title for people who fall so far short.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Take away citizens rights to own gun, only the law breakers will have

them. Ban alcohol, only law breakers make & drink it. Imprision gangs,

cartels, etc.. and a new one will always be there to fill the void.

There is no end to those who will by any means they deem fit, " earn " a

living.

I'm so tired of hearing about immigrants who are here illegally crying

about how they are being singled out and discriminated against when THEY

are breaking the LAW. When will we crack down on them? Will it take a

pol being murdered by an illegal to incite some action?

If INS was able to deport as they should would it keep this type of gang

from recouping?

Kim

>

> This article doesn't really state it, but many in this gang are

illegal

> immigrants. This gang could turn out to be worse than the mafia. First

off, they

> are much more brutal and violent than the mafia. Second, the mafia

lost power

> as the Italian-American community became just American. That took away

a lot

> of the cover the mafia depended on. The Hispanic community, on the

other

> hand, is growing and more and more of it is not bothering to

assimilate. That

> means the gangs will have strong base. PC is on their side too, and

cowardly

> politicians. As it is, the numbers stated in this article are low

compared to

> what I have seen in other sources. There are probably 15,000 of them

in the

> Washington DC and surrounding area alone.

>

>

[Guest guest]

" The Democrats today have said that they won't even push the

immigration issue again, until the second term of a Democratic

President. "

I live in Illinois where we have a Democratic Governer and a

Democratic congress.

Today, we just beat the state record for having no budget. 55 days

without one.

Additionally...

-The governor wanted a gross receipts tax. (Congress shot it down.)

-The governor wanted universal health care. (Congress shot it down.)

-The governor does not want to raise state income tax. (But that is

what congress wants to do.)

In the county where I live, the board is run by a Democrat who

promptly voided his campaign promises and sought to raise taxes

while cutting funding to our county hospital to such a degree that

people are being turned away in droves, doctors and nurses have lost

their jobs, and more doctors and nurses are thinking of quitting.

This as the the County Board asks the state for $120 milllion to

keep the hospital open.

The Chicago Transit Authority is so messed up now due to state under-

funding that " L " trains on a few of the lines have to travel 15 MPH

on more than 50% of their tracks. This has caused people to abandon

public transportation in favor of cars. So roads are clogged.

There is more going on, but my point is, NOTHING CHANGES when one

party holds all the power. What happens is you get political

infighting instead of inter-party squabbling.

I believe that when we have a Democratic President with Democrats in

the House and Senate, what will happen is that things will be worse

than ever as eager beaver ignorant Senators and Representatives try

to shove legislation through that is against the public's interest

and consvervative knowledgeable Senators and Representatives try to

blockade their efforts.

If we get and ignorant President, there will be no vetos to bad

legislation, but if we get a smart one, s/he will veto almost

everything that comes across the desk.

The solution to all this is for voters to stop voting in charismatic

leaders and start voting in people who are smart, intelligent, and

who know more about anything and everything than the voters do. But

the problem is, even if that were to happen, it would take a few

sessions before you could fill both houses of congress with such

people.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" The Democrats today have said that they won't even push the

immigration issue again, until the second term of a Democratic

President. "

I live in Illinois where we have a Democratic Governer and a

Democratic congress.

Today, we just beat the state record for having no budget. 55 days

without one.

Additionally...

-The governor wanted a gross receipts tax. (Congress shot it down.)

-The governor wanted universal health care. (Congress shot it down.)

-The governor does not want to raise state income tax. (But that is

what congress wants to do.)

In the county where I live, the board is run by a Democrat who

promptly voided his campaign promises and sought to raise taxes

while cutting funding to our county hospital to such a degree that

people are being turned away in droves, doctors and nurses have lost

their jobs, and more doctors and nurses are thinking of quitting.

This as the the County Board asks the state for $120 milllion to

keep the hospital open.

The Chicago Transit Authority is so messed up now due to state under-

funding that " L " trains on a few of the lines have to travel 15 MPH

on more than 50% of their tracks. This has caused people to abandon

public transportation in favor of cars. So roads are clogged.

There is more going on, but my point is, NOTHING CHANGES when one

party holds all the power. What happens is you get political

infighting instead of inter-party squabbling.

I believe that when we have a Democratic President with Democrats in

the House and Senate, what will happen is that things will be worse

than ever as eager beaver ignorant Senators and Representatives try

to shove legislation through that is against the public's interest

and consvervative knowledgeable Senators and Representatives try to

blockade their efforts.

If we get and ignorant President, there will be no vetos to bad

legislation, but if we get a smart one, s/he will veto almost

everything that comes across the desk.

The solution to all this is for voters to stop voting in charismatic

leaders and start voting in people who are smart, intelligent, and

who know more about anything and everything than the voters do. But

the problem is, even if that were to happen, it would take a few

sessions before you could fill both houses of congress with such

people.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/26/2007 1:14:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

The solution to all this is for voters to stop voting in charismatic leaders and start voting in people who are smart, intelligent, and who know more about anything and everything than the voters do. But the problem is, even if that were to happen, it would take a few sessions before you could fill both houses of congress with such people.TomAdministrator

To do that, we would have to ban all TV debates, appearances, photo ops, etc. of the politicians. Remember the old Kennedy vs. Nixon debate, the first televised one. Those who listened on the radio said Nixon won hands down. Those who watched TV said it was Kennedy, based largely on looks. I really doubt that most of the pre-TV presidents would have been elected because they weren't that handsome, some were hugely fat, one was short, several didn't have the best speaking voices.

has gone all out with his Kennedy look, and Obama has been putting a lot of effort into his look too. I've read their plans and they range from misguided to pull the handle and flush the economy.

Again, the Republicans aren't much better. They were voted in for small government, immigration reform, and other things and they promptly stabbed us in the back on each and every one. Well, they did give us the war on terror, and the proceeded to wrap it in so much red tape that it is unwinnable.

They love budget shut downs and cutting vital services don't they? Yours have some gall though to actually shut down hospitals and doctors. And I thought Southern politicians played dirty. At least they only threaten to shut down school and police when they want more taxes.

This should backfire on them though. If the opposition had any guts, they would point to the doctors and hospitals and say that you can't trust the state anymore to provide these services because they will be cut off the next time a pol wants more taxes or otherwise doesn't get his way. They should be raking the governor over the coals with this and not let up, even after he gives in.

In Alabama, we did that to our beloved governor of the time. He said the school budget was underfunded and put forth a program of taxes and such that would raise more than twice as much as was needed. Part of that plane included:

1) Requiring all land be values at its highest possible rating. That would mean a lot of farms, zoned agricultural, would be rezoned as residential or commercial, which would have at least doubled more likely trippled or worse, the taxes on the farms, forcing many to sell.

2) A land use limit. It was something like a private citizen could own all the land they wanted, but they could only work 2,000 acres of it. That affected a lot more people than you would think, mostly farmers and people in the timber business.

3) I can't think of what this one was.

Anyway, this was all a big sell out to "soak the rich" to curry the "poor" vote, and to developers and the big companies who would buy up all that land. It was shot down but hard, rather a peaceful revolution. Soon as they politicians came up out of their holes again, guess what? They found enough money for the schools in the existing budget and some more besides. What accounting wizards and financial geniuses they are.

I think a solution to all of this would be to require each politician to write a thesis explaining their political beliefs. The first section would be a semi-free form essay in which they would explain their economic and legal leanings, what they thought of America, etc. The next section would be specific essays where they would answer direct questions about economic issues, social issues, etc.

The thesis would be graded by three separate panels. These panels would be searching for evasiveness, politicians speak, etc. marking all cases of such and demanding plain English, direct answers. The thesis would be returned to the pol and they would be required to fix all the errors before they would be allowed to run. Of course I can see the potential for corruption here. However, I think that could be solved by carefully balancing the panels evenly between the left and right. For that matter, it might be just as well to write a computer program to handle this part, at least after the second or third vetting of the thesis. In addition, economists would read the economic answers and, on the final copy, put their projections as to the outcome to stage 4 at least, in an appendix at the end: both the Conservative and Liberal opinion expressed.

In all cases, this would give the voters a guide to know their pol. If they varied from their thesis, they would have to explain. If they didn't and their policy brought disaster, they couldn't pawn it off on someone else because they followed their stated beliefs. The economic section would also allow people to see which economic theory and system worked the best.

They'd never go for this, though. A modern pol can't stand being tied down and has to jump around as necessary to keep the vote and office. Too bad we can't have another round of Statesmen like those who risked it all in the Revolution. Those fellows would have all been killed if they failed. One man who lived in Yorktown but in the besieging army, turned the guns on the houses of the town to deny them to the British. The first house he set alight was his own. I can't imagine any of our modern pols doing anything like that.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/26/2007 1:14:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

The solution to all this is for voters to stop voting in charismatic leaders and start voting in people who are smart, intelligent, and who know more about anything and everything than the voters do. But the problem is, even if that were to happen, it would take a few sessions before you could fill both houses of congress with such people.TomAdministrator

To do that, we would have to ban all TV debates, appearances, photo ops, etc. of the politicians. Remember the old Kennedy vs. Nixon debate, the first televised one. Those who listened on the radio said Nixon won hands down. Those who watched TV said it was Kennedy, based largely on looks. I really doubt that most of the pre-TV presidents would have been elected because they weren't that handsome, some were hugely fat, one was short, several didn't have the best speaking voices.

has gone all out with his Kennedy look, and Obama has been putting a lot of effort into his look too. I've read their plans and they range from misguided to pull the handle and flush the economy.

Again, the Republicans aren't much better. They were voted in for small government, immigration reform, and other things and they promptly stabbed us in the back on each and every one. Well, they did give us the war on terror, and the proceeded to wrap it in so much red tape that it is unwinnable.

They love budget shut downs and cutting vital services don't they? Yours have some gall though to actually shut down hospitals and doctors. And I thought Southern politicians played dirty. At least they only threaten to shut down school and police when they want more taxes.

This should backfire on them though. If the opposition had any guts, they would point to the doctors and hospitals and say that you can't trust the state anymore to provide these services because they will be cut off the next time a pol wants more taxes or otherwise doesn't get his way. They should be raking the governor over the coals with this and not let up, even after he gives in.

In Alabama, we did that to our beloved governor of the time. He said the school budget was underfunded and put forth a program of taxes and such that would raise more than twice as much as was needed. Part of that plane included:

1) Requiring all land be values at its highest possible rating. That would mean a lot of farms, zoned agricultural, would be rezoned as residential or commercial, which would have at least doubled more likely trippled or worse, the taxes on the farms, forcing many to sell.

2) A land use limit. It was something like a private citizen could own all the land they wanted, but they could only work 2,000 acres of it. That affected a lot more people than you would think, mostly farmers and people in the timber business.

3) I can't think of what this one was.

Anyway, this was all a big sell out to "soak the rich" to curry the "poor" vote, and to developers and the big companies who would buy up all that land. It was shot down but hard, rather a peaceful revolution. Soon as they politicians came up out of their holes again, guess what? They found enough money for the schools in the existing budget and some more besides. What accounting wizards and financial geniuses they are.

I think a solution to all of this would be to require each politician to write a thesis explaining their political beliefs. The first section would be a semi-free form essay in which they would explain their economic and legal leanings, what they thought of America, etc. The next section would be specific essays where they would answer direct questions about economic issues, social issues, etc.

The thesis would be graded by three separate panels. These panels would be searching for evasiveness, politicians speak, etc. marking all cases of such and demanding plain English, direct answers. The thesis would be returned to the pol and they would be required to fix all the errors before they would be allowed to run. Of course I can see the potential for corruption here. However, I think that could be solved by carefully balancing the panels evenly between the left and right. For that matter, it might be just as well to write a computer program to handle this part, at least after the second or third vetting of the thesis. In addition, economists would read the economic answers and, on the final copy, put their projections as to the outcome to stage 4 at least, in an appendix at the end: both the Conservative and Liberal opinion expressed.

In all cases, this would give the voters a guide to know their pol. If they varied from their thesis, they would have to explain. If they didn't and their policy brought disaster, they couldn't pawn it off on someone else because they followed their stated beliefs. The economic section would also allow people to see which economic theory and system worked the best.

They'd never go for this, though. A modern pol can't stand being tied down and has to jump around as necessary to keep the vote and office. Too bad we can't have another round of Statesmen like those who risked it all in the Revolution. Those fellows would have all been killed if they failed. One man who lived in Yorktown but in the besieging army, turned the guns on the houses of the town to deny them to the British. The first house he set alight was his own. I can't imagine any of our modern pols doing anything like that.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/26/2007 10:04:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 6emini@... writes:

Although I am not a Democrat, I watched the You Tube debate the othernight. I found the way Barack, Clinton, & reponded to YES or NOquestions infuriating! They never came to a point other than to give animpresssion of how much better they would do than Bush is now. Theother candidates that did answer questions pointedly haven't asnowball's chance in H*ll of winning. GRRRRKim

That is because the only thing they have is to run against Bush. Most Americans would be opposed to their policies, if they knew what they were, which is why they won't state them. Republicans are just as bad though.

The debates would be a lot more interesting if the pols were wired to cattle prods or the like. They give an evasive answer: Zap!, try again, please.

Have you seen the clip where they were asked by show of hands to indicate who flew in for the debate by private plane? I'll admit that some had the guts to raise their hands right away, but many of the rest acted like children caught with their hands in the cookie jar. One even explained that by saying that he flew in the day before, and because the question implied flying in that day, he wasn't sure if he should raise his hands. If a pol won't even admit how they travel, how can we trust them to handle a crisis?

I'm more afraid of our politicians than I am Al Quida to tell you the truth.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/26/2007 10:04:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 6emini@... writes:

Although I am not a Democrat, I watched the You Tube debate the othernight. I found the way Barack, Clinton, & reponded to YES or NOquestions infuriating! They never came to a point other than to give animpresssion of how much better they would do than Bush is now. Theother candidates that did answer questions pointedly haven't asnowball's chance in H*ll of winning. GRRRRKim

That is because the only thing they have is to run against Bush. Most Americans would be opposed to their policies, if they knew what they were, which is why they won't state them. Republicans are just as bad though.

The debates would be a lot more interesting if the pols were wired to cattle prods or the like. They give an evasive answer: Zap!, try again, please.

Have you seen the clip where they were asked by show of hands to indicate who flew in for the debate by private plane? I'll admit that some had the guts to raise their hands right away, but many of the rest acted like children caught with their hands in the cookie jar. One even explained that by saying that he flew in the day before, and because the question implied flying in that day, he wasn't sure if he should raise his hands. If a pol won't even admit how they travel, how can we trust them to handle a crisis?

I'm more afraid of our politicians than I am Al Quida to tell you the truth.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

>

> The solution to all this is for voters to stop voting in charismatic

> leaders and start voting in people who are smart, intelligent, and

> who know more about anything and everything than the voters do. But

> the problem is, even if that were to happen, it would take a few

> sessions before you could fill both houses of congress with such

> people.

Although I am not a Democrat, I watched the You Tube debate the other

night. I found the way Barack, Clinton, & reponded to YES or NO

questions infuriating! They never came to a point other than to give an

impresssion of how much better they would do than Bush is now. The

other candidates that did answer questions pointedly haven't a

snowball's chance in H*ll of winning. GRRRR

Kim

[Guest guest]

>

> The solution to all this is for voters to stop voting in charismatic

> leaders and start voting in people who are smart, intelligent, and

> who know more about anything and everything than the voters do. But

> the problem is, even if that were to happen, it would take a few

> sessions before you could fill both houses of congress with such

> people.

Although I am not a Democrat, I watched the You Tube debate the other

night. I found the way Barack, Clinton, & reponded to YES or NO

questions infuriating! They never came to a point other than to give an

impresssion of how much better they would do than Bush is now. The

other candidates that did answer questions pointedly haven't a

snowball's chance in H*ll of winning. GRRRR

Kim

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/26/2007 4:43:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

I think this is why America's economy, its system of government, its standard of living, it's standing among other countries, etc., has gone down in the past few generations. Social studies, history and government used to be of primary importance in school, but now these are being cut for increased math and science requirements. So most kids are being churned out of schools completely ignorant of what's happening in their own country and in the rest of the world. To this day you can ask people to point out where Iraq is on a map and many people will still answer that they don't know. TomAdministrator

In 1991 during the First Gulf War, many people did not know where Iraq was. In fact, many people, mainly high school and college students, thought it was somewhere around Mexico or somewhere close like that. But that isn't really new. Most people didn't know where Korea was either, or even Pearl Harbor, until war broke out there.

I agree that important things are being cut, but I would add science and math there too. So much time is taken up now with PC garbage and the courses that are taught are watered down so as not to offend any particular group, well except Southerners, Conservatives and a tiny few others.

Heinlein's system in Starship Troopers was probably the ideal. Every student had to take a civics class of sorts that went from Kindergarten to graduation. This course taught the literal law and functioning of the system and the philosophy behind it. Senior year, the student had to pass a cumulative test in order to pass. Passing that course meant one was eligible for federal service, which was voluntary and was not necessarily military. Only after 2 years of service were you allowed to vote.

I would like to see a course like that that was also heavy on economics, not just theory but also applied so students would know how to use it in the real world, as well as personal finance. Under my system, anyone who graduates will earns the right to vote, at age 25. Give them 7 years experience in the real world to wear off the giddiness of high school. The franchise would only be open to those who filed tax returns or were legitimately on disability. That is to say, anyone who was employed or had a legal income and was a legal citizen could vote. Anyone on government support, aside from legitimate disability, lost the franchise until they were employed again. Since retirement programs would be transferred to private accounts, the majority of senior citizens would have an income and thus would be eligible for the vote.

There would be a lot of complaints about such a system, but Heinlein had the answer. His answer was: if you want to vote, serve! My answer would be, if you want to vote, get an income. I think that would put an end to a lot of the immigrant controversy as many people would want jobs in order to vote, or would fight if their job, and thus franchise, were taken away. It doesn't matter if those people never vote anyway, just the thought of having the chance taken away would be enough to motivate many.

I think economic education is on the downswing not just in the US but elsewhere too, because if the people understood economics, even basic economics, the politicians would have a very hard time pulling their tricks. The people would know, not just feel, that taxes beyond a certain point are counter productive and that federal and state spending needs to be reined in because one day that debt will be called in. Already I think our debt, government and personal, is a big reason the Euro is ahead of the Dollar. A lot of politics too though.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/26/2007 4:43:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

I think this is why America's economy, its system of government, its standard of living, it's standing among other countries, etc., has gone down in the past few generations. Social studies, history and government used to be of primary importance in school, but now these are being cut for increased math and science requirements. So most kids are being churned out of schools completely ignorant of what's happening in their own country and in the rest of the world. To this day you can ask people to point out where Iraq is on a map and many people will still answer that they don't know. TomAdministrator

In 1991 during the First Gulf War, many people did not know where Iraq was. In fact, many people, mainly high school and college students, thought it was somewhere around Mexico or somewhere close like that. But that isn't really new. Most people didn't know where Korea was either, or even Pearl Harbor, until war broke out there.

I agree that important things are being cut, but I would add science and math there too. So much time is taken up now with PC garbage and the courses that are taught are watered down so as not to offend any particular group, well except Southerners, Conservatives and a tiny few others.

Heinlein's system in Starship Troopers was probably the ideal. Every student had to take a civics class of sorts that went from Kindergarten to graduation. This course taught the literal law and functioning of the system and the philosophy behind it. Senior year, the student had to pass a cumulative test in order to pass. Passing that course meant one was eligible for federal service, which was voluntary and was not necessarily military. Only after 2 years of service were you allowed to vote.

I would like to see a course like that that was also heavy on economics, not just theory but also applied so students would know how to use it in the real world, as well as personal finance. Under my system, anyone who graduates will earns the right to vote, at age 25. Give them 7 years experience in the real world to wear off the giddiness of high school. The franchise would only be open to those who filed tax returns or were legitimately on disability. That is to say, anyone who was employed or had a legal income and was a legal citizen could vote. Anyone on government support, aside from legitimate disability, lost the franchise until they were employed again. Since retirement programs would be transferred to private accounts, the majority of senior citizens would have an income and thus would be eligible for the vote.

There would be a lot of complaints about such a system, but Heinlein had the answer. His answer was: if you want to vote, serve! My answer would be, if you want to vote, get an income. I think that would put an end to a lot of the immigrant controversy as many people would want jobs in order to vote, or would fight if their job, and thus franchise, were taken away. It doesn't matter if those people never vote anyway, just the thought of having the chance taken away would be enough to motivate many.

I think economic education is on the downswing not just in the US but elsewhere too, because if the people understood economics, even basic economics, the politicians would have a very hard time pulling their tricks. The people would know, not just feel, that taxes beyond a certain point are counter productive and that federal and state spending needs to be reined in because one day that debt will be called in. Already I think our debt, government and personal, is a big reason the Euro is ahead of the Dollar. A lot of politics too though.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/26/2007 4:49:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

In today's social world, people elect leaders that are the best looking and most charming, much like gorillas and chimpanzees do. Fossee and Goodall of witnessed very good looking apes leading their clans astray whilst the more intelligent ones are ostracized. In a few cases, intelligent apes whp began to understand that noise and throwing tantrums can intimidate a troop into following them manages to overthrow older male leaders. After the overthrow, the apes fared better under their new intelligent leaders. Humans, not being as intelligent as apes in this regard, continue to elect handsome and pretty looking people with a winning smile and poor brains. TomAdministrator

I hadn't heard about that. Very interesting.

There was a program about the Ice Age and how humans survived. The tribe in question was being lead by one of those strong, handsome types and was in bad shape. Finally one of the smart ones took over and lead the people, what was left of them, south toward warmer weather, where they met a settled tribe. Handsome wouldn't join up, but smart guy did. It took seeing smart guy die defending the new tribe to get handsome to join it.

The reason so many businesses crashed during the late 1990's was because a lot of good looking people with good PR departments sold themselves over capable people. They put on fancy shows and presentations (think about Mr. Jobs running around screaming on stage in front of a lot of flashing monitors) and were chosen over the more able who probably just showed up for the interview. Lots of companies fell or nearly did because of that. Some brought in reliable types and recovered, only to get rid of them again for flashy types. As you can guess, some of those companies are in trouble all over again.

It does seem to be an animal thing that the biggest and loudest gets the mates. It must go back to having to fight for mates. These days though, brains count for more than brawn. Also, there was Colt. There was a saying about him: God made men, but Colt made them equal. For those who don't know, Colt made some of the first, reliable revolving pistols. That's what I think is so funny about big guys puffing up these days. Go ahead and puff: a midget with a pistol could take down the biggest man easily. Silly to still judge by such things, especially when smart people earn so much more than laborers.

Still, I guess we haven't come as far as we think. Harkens back to the wisdom discussion.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/26/2007 4:49:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

In today's social world, people elect leaders that are the best looking and most charming, much like gorillas and chimpanzees do. Fossee and Goodall of witnessed very good looking apes leading their clans astray whilst the more intelligent ones are ostracized. In a few cases, intelligent apes whp began to understand that noise and throwing tantrums can intimidate a troop into following them manages to overthrow older male leaders. After the overthrow, the apes fared better under their new intelligent leaders. Humans, not being as intelligent as apes in this regard, continue to elect handsome and pretty looking people with a winning smile and poor brains. TomAdministrator

I hadn't heard about that. Very interesting.

There was a program about the Ice Age and how humans survived. The tribe in question was being lead by one of those strong, handsome types and was in bad shape. Finally one of the smart ones took over and lead the people, what was left of them, south toward warmer weather, where they met a settled tribe. Handsome wouldn't join up, but smart guy did. It took seeing smart guy die defending the new tribe to get handsome to join it.

The reason so many businesses crashed during the late 1990's was because a lot of good looking people with good PR departments sold themselves over capable people. They put on fancy shows and presentations (think about Mr. Jobs running around screaming on stage in front of a lot of flashing monitors) and were chosen over the more able who probably just showed up for the interview. Lots of companies fell or nearly did because of that. Some brought in reliable types and recovered, only to get rid of them again for flashy types. As you can guess, some of those companies are in trouble all over again.

It does seem to be an animal thing that the biggest and loudest gets the mates. It must go back to having to fight for mates. These days though, brains count for more than brawn. Also, there was Colt. There was a saying about him: God made men, but Colt made them equal. For those who don't know, Colt made some of the first, reliable revolving pistols. That's what I think is so funny about big guys puffing up these days. Go ahead and puff: a midget with a pistol could take down the biggest man easily. Silly to still judge by such things, especially when smart people earn so much more than laborers.

Still, I guess we haven't come as far as we think. Harkens back to the wisdom discussion.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

You have a great idea. The problem is that most Americans are

functioning on the sixth grade reading level and have no real

comprehension of the issues anyway. Reading the theses put forth by

candidates would only further frustrate them and confuse them.

Ask your average voter what they think about how to resolve certain

issues and most will give you simple answers that have no real

foundation in reality. Ask your average voter why they vote for the

people they do and they will tell you because either

A) They like the candidate they are going to vote for because they

have a great personality, or

The candidate seems smart and so they will trust that their

candidate knows what they are doing.

I think this is why America's economy, its system of government, its

standard of living, it's standing among other countries, etc., has

gone down in the past few generations.

Social studies, history and government used to be of primary

importance in school, but now these are being cut for increased math

and science requirements. So most kids are being churned out of

schools completely ignorant of what's happening in their own country

and in the rest of the world. To this day you can ask people to

point out where Iraq is on a map and many people will still answer

that they don't know.

Tom

Administrator

I think a solution to all of this would be to require each

politician to write a thesis explaining their political beliefs. The

first section would be a semi-free form essay in which they would

explain their economic and legal leanings, what they thought of

America, etc. The next section would be specific essays where they

would answer direct questions about economic issues, social issues,

etc.

The thesis would be graded by three separate panels. These panels

would be searching for evasiveness, politicians speak, etc. marking

all cases of such and demanding plain English, direct answers. The

thesis would be returned to the pol and they would be required to

fix all the errors before they would be allowed to run. Of course I

can see the potential for corruption here. However, I think that

could be solved by carefully balancing the panels evenly between the

left and right. For that matter, it might be just as well to write a

computer program to handle this part, at least after the second or

third vetting of the thesis. In addition, economists would read the

economic answers and, on the final copy, put their projections as to

the outcome to stage 4 at least, in an appendix at the end: both the

Conservative and Liberal opinion expressed.

In all cases, this would give the voters a guide to know their pol.

If they varied from their thesis, they would have to explain. If

they didn't and their policy brought disaster, they couldn't pawn it

off on someone else because they followed their stated beliefs. The

economic section would also allow people to see which economic

theory and system worked the best.

[Guest guest]

You have a great idea. The problem is that most Americans are

functioning on the sixth grade reading level and have no real

comprehension of the issues anyway. Reading the theses put forth by

candidates would only further frustrate them and confuse them.

Ask your average voter what they think about how to resolve certain

issues and most will give you simple answers that have no real

foundation in reality. Ask your average voter why they vote for the

people they do and they will tell you because either

A) They like the candidate they are going to vote for because they

have a great personality, or

The candidate seems smart and so they will trust that their

candidate knows what they are doing.

I think this is why America's economy, its system of government, its

standard of living, it's standing among other countries, etc., has

gone down in the past few generations.

Social studies, history and government used to be of primary

importance in school, but now these are being cut for increased math

and science requirements. So most kids are being churned out of

schools completely ignorant of what's happening in their own country

and in the rest of the world. To this day you can ask people to

point out where Iraq is on a map and many people will still answer

that they don't know.

Tom

Administrator

I think a solution to all of this would be to require each

politician to write a thesis explaining their political beliefs. The

first section would be a semi-free form essay in which they would

explain their economic and legal leanings, what they thought of

America, etc. The next section would be specific essays where they

would answer direct questions about economic issues, social issues,

etc.

The thesis would be graded by three separate panels. These panels

would be searching for evasiveness, politicians speak, etc. marking

all cases of such and demanding plain English, direct answers. The

thesis would be returned to the pol and they would be required to

fix all the errors before they would be allowed to run. Of course I

can see the potential for corruption here. However, I think that

could be solved by carefully balancing the panels evenly between the

left and right. For that matter, it might be just as well to write a

computer program to handle this part, at least after the second or

third vetting of the thesis. In addition, economists would read the

economic answers and, on the final copy, put their projections as to

the outcome to stage 4 at least, in an appendix at the end: both the

Conservative and Liberal opinion expressed.

In all cases, this would give the voters a guide to know their pol.

If they varied from their thesis, they would have to explain. If

they didn't and their policy brought disaster, they couldn't pawn it

off on someone else because they followed their stated beliefs. The

economic section would also allow people to see which economic

theory and system worked the best.

[Guest guest]

" Although I am not a Democrat, I watched the You Tube debate the

other

night. I found the way Barack, Clinton, & reponded to YES

or NO questions infuriating! They never came to a point other than

to give an impresssion of how much better they would do than Bush is

now. The other candidates that did answer questions pointedly

haven't a snowball's chance in H*ll of winning. GRRRR "

What Obama, Clinton, & are doing is trying to replace " yes "

or " no " with their own personalities. Generally, the weakest

candidates intuitively know that all they have to go on is their

looks and personalities.

In today's social world, people elect leaders that are the best

looking and most charming, much like gorillas and chimpanzees do.

Fossee and Goodall of witnessed very good looking apes leading their

clans astray whilst the more intelligent ones are ostracized. In a

few cases, intelligent apes whp began to understand that noise and

throwing tantrums can intimidate a troop into following them manages

to overthrow older male leaders. After the overthrow, the apes fared

better under their new intelligent leaders.

Humans, not being as intelligent as apes in this regard, continue to

elect handsome and pretty looking people with a winning smile and

poor brains.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" Although I am not a Democrat, I watched the You Tube debate the

other

night. I found the way Barack, Clinton, & reponded to YES

or NO questions infuriating! They never came to a point other than

to give an impresssion of how much better they would do than Bush is

now. The other candidates that did answer questions pointedly

haven't a snowball's chance in H*ll of winning. GRRRR "

What Obama, Clinton, & are doing is trying to replace " yes "

or " no " with their own personalities. Generally, the weakest

candidates intuitively know that all they have to go on is their

looks and personalities.

In today's social world, people elect leaders that are the best

looking and most charming, much like gorillas and chimpanzees do.

Fossee and Goodall of witnessed very good looking apes leading their

clans astray whilst the more intelligent ones are ostracized. In a

few cases, intelligent apes whp began to understand that noise and

throwing tantrums can intimidate a troop into following them manages

to overthrow older male leaders. After the overthrow, the apes fared

better under their new intelligent leaders.

Humans, not being as intelligent as apes in this regard, continue to

elect handsome and pretty looking people with a winning smile and

poor brains.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/26/2007 7:13:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 6emini@... writes:

Har Har! That idea may make it to fruition some day with the wayreality TV is heading.

You could be right there. Actually, I think there may have been a program like that long ago, but I'm not sure, some kind of quiz show. On second thought, shocking them probably wouldn't bother them too much, since it would only be a temporary annoyance and there probably would be a public outcry, cruelty to dumb animals and all that. Instead, the pols should be fined 10% of campaign funds raised to date and from then on for each evasive answer. Very quickly they would be put out of the running funds wise.

> Have you seen the clip where they were asked by show of hands toindicate> who flew in for the debate by private plane?Yea, and I liked the one about private schools too.Kim

I didn't hear about that one. I haven't watched any of the campaign nonsense since I was about 21 or so. Reading about their policies and such in the paper or whatever, without all the playing to the cameras and posing is a bit easier and allows time to think about those policies.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/26/2007 7:13:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 6emini@... writes:

Har Har! That idea may make it to fruition some day with the wayreality TV is heading.

You could be right there. Actually, I think there may have been a program like that long ago, but I'm not sure, some kind of quiz show. On second thought, shocking them probably wouldn't bother them too much, since it would only be a temporary annoyance and there probably would be a public outcry, cruelty to dumb animals and all that. Instead, the pols should be fined 10% of campaign funds raised to date and from then on for each evasive answer. Very quickly they would be put out of the running funds wise.

> Have you seen the clip where they were asked by show of hands toindicate> who flew in for the debate by private plane?Yea, and I liked the one about private schools too.Kim

I didn't hear about that one. I haven't watched any of the campaign nonsense since I was about 21 or so. Reading about their policies and such in the paper or whatever, without all the playing to the cameras and posing is a bit easier and allows time to think about those policies.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/26/2007 7:43:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 6emini@... writes:

Well we can't include Hillary in on these attributes. She's got brains,though using them to BS the public isn't the type of person I want incharge. It wouldn't be a change at all I guess but she really rubs methe wrong way!Kim

I've never liked her in the first place. Although, it was rather amusing that she was most likely carrying on an affair with a certain Vince . Witnesses saw them together and acting rather randy shall we say. Never admitted to it though. She also strikes me as being very arrogant and obnoxious. The Secret Service didn't like her one bit and was rather afraid of her because of her temper, among other things.

But I don't trust any of them. I've read their policies and if they enact them, the economy is going to take a real hit.

Haven't paid any attention to what the Republicans are saying, since I distrust them more than the Democrats.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/26/2007 7:43:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 6emini@... writes:

Well we can't include Hillary in on these attributes. She's got brains,though using them to BS the public isn't the type of person I want incharge. It wouldn't be a change at all I guess but she really rubs methe wrong way!Kim

I've never liked her in the first place. Although, it was rather amusing that she was most likely carrying on an affair with a certain Vince . Witnesses saw them together and acting rather randy shall we say. Never admitted to it though. She also strikes me as being very arrogant and obnoxious. The Secret Service didn't like her one bit and was rather afraid of her because of her temper, among other things.

But I don't trust any of them. I've read their policies and if they enact them, the economy is going to take a real hit.

Haven't paid any attention to what the Republicans are saying, since I distrust them more than the Democrats.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

> The debates would be a lot more interesting if the pols were wired to

cattle

> prods or the like. They give an evasive answer: Zap!, try again,

please.

Har Har! That idea may make it to fruition some day with the way

reality TV is heading.

> Have you seen the clip where they were asked by show of hands to

indicate

> who flew in for the debate by private plane?

Yea, and I liked the one about private schools too.

Kim

[Guest guest]

> The debates would be a lot more interesting if the pols were wired to

cattle

> prods or the like. They give an evasive answer: Zap!, try again,

please.

Har Har! That idea may make it to fruition some day with the way

reality TV is heading.

> Have you seen the clip where they were asked by show of hands to

indicate

> who flew in for the debate by private plane?

Yea, and I liked the one about private schools too.

Kim