The Alaska Chat Thread (Nuiqsut, Central: rent, hotels, vacation)

[Xa'at]

[quote=User 2;2495889]

Originally Posted by Dusty Rhodes

So called 'humor' can be shown to a large degree, to be revelatory in regards to who is telling 'the joke', no?

The ladies might do well to take note that, as far as Dusty is concerned, (alluded to in his own admission here above), you ladies are naught but prey for the predators in some imagined food chain.

The underlying basis for 'humor' isn't often very amusing.....
.
..

I thought it was hilarious. Let's try not to take life too seriously, yes?
As for the conversation at hand- I read somewhere back that Bush is liberal or something along those lines... Truthfully, for me it's not that Bush is too conservative. Bush is a jack-. As we've been told, he's a "decider" and he makes decisions that reflect HIS personal set of values, not those of his constituents. America needs to begin moving towards a global point of view, where we respect other cultures. Jingoism is getting us absolutely nowhere, slowly.
I always remember a line from a Futurama episode when thinking about this. The story is set in the 30th century, but the main character is from our time- after being cryonically frozen.
"-Why are we voting in the Earth elections? We live in the United States!
-The United States is part of Earth.
-Wow, things have really changed..."

[Manmountain]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Look again, MM; it wasn't.

Yes It was Travelmate, I stand corrected Metla. Humble apologies User....

[Metlakatla]

Don't give it a second though, MM. It's winter in Alaska, and therefore these threads are all doomed to be derailed by someone or other. I plan on messing them all up tonight myself.

[Manmountain]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Don't give it a second though, MM. It's winter in Alaska, and therefore these threads are all doomed to be derailed by someone or other. I plan on messing them all up tonight myself.

Ive never regretted taking the Red Pill--- but DAMN -- sometimes , stay warm M




The question then is not about pills, but what they stand for in these circumstances. The question is asking us whether reality, truth, is worth pursuing. The blue pill will leave us as we are, in a life consisting of habit, of things we believe we know. We are comfortable, we do not need truth to live. The blue pill symbolises commuting to work every day, or brushing your teeth.

The red pill is an unknown quantity. We are told that it can help us to find the truth. We don't know what that truth is, or even that the pill will help us to find it. The red pill symbolises risk, doubt and questioning. In order to answer the question, you can gamble your whole life and world on a reality you have never experienced.

However, in order to investigate which course of action to take we need to investigate why the choice is faced. Why should we even have to decide whether to pursue truth?

[RayinAK]

[quote=Xa'at;2497211]

Originally Posted by User 2

I thought it was hilarious. Let's try not to take life too seriously, yes?
As for the conversation at hand- I read somewhere back that Bush is liberal or something along those lines... Truthfully, for me it's not that Bush is too conservative. Bush is a jack-. As we've been told, he's a "decider" and he makes decisions that reflect HIS personal set of values, not those of his constituents. America needs to begin moving towards a global point of view, where we respect other cultures. Jingoism is getting us absolutely nowhere, slowly.
I always remember a line from a Futurama episode when thinking about this. The story is set in the 30th century, but the main character is from our time- after being cryonically frozen.
"-Why are we voting in the Earth elections? We live in the United States!
-The United States is part of Earth.
-Wow, things have really changed..."

Yes, President Bush is too liberal on the following:

1. The creation of "No Child Left Behind" with Ted Kennedy's help
2. Amnesty to illegals
3. The biggest government ever (spend, spend, spend)
4. I am certain that there are a few more (I don't remember at the moment)

He may be conservative in the abortion issue, and in tax breaks, but I can't think of any other issues that would point him toward conservatism.
----------

Why should the US move toward globalism? Isn't this one of the reasons why we already have entered a global market? Yes, the same market used by American companies to move overseas, outsourcing, and such...For an idea of what I am talking about, call your computer company's support on the telephone, and see if you can speak to a technician on US soil.

How can you say that America does not respect other cultures when the US is comprised of people from all cultures around the world? I am a first generation immigrant. I did such as a child, and later in life served in the military for twenty years.

By the way, "America" means: North, Central, and South America as well.

If you believe that the US should move toward globalism, then you have to understand that "voting in the Earth elections" (whatever that means), is "globalism." Besides, it's former President Carter who monitors elections in Venezuela, and The West Bank.

[User 2]

Kind of makes one wonder why the US Government prohibited Carter from monitoring our own elections.......

And Ray,

About your list.....

The creation of "No Child Left Behind" with Ted Kennedy's help

No Child Left Behind is not a liberal program, there may have been at one time a liberal education reform proposal of that name, but the name was co-opted for a program that isn't descriptive of the name.

It's kind of like Bush's Clear Skies Proposal, ....it sounds like something everyone should support, but all it was is a roll back of previous Clean Air Act provisions and a license to pour more pollutants in the air.

The current NCLB is not a liberal policy.

2. Amnesty to illegals

Amnesty for 'illegals' is a perennial Republican program, the first Amnesty program was instituted by Ronnie RayGun, and the current proposal is designed by Bush and the Republicans to allow their corporate buddies the free license to exploit cheap labor.

Democratic Congressmembers were able to pass some amendments to cut back on Bush's proposal to grant amnesty and bring in an additional 400,000 'guest workers' each year.

Once Bush saw he wouldn't get all he wanted, Republican support was withdrawn by a few key players in the leadership.

In the Senate, which passed their Amnesty bill, Murkowski, and Stevens (and McCain) voted for the passage of Amnesty along with many other Republicans.

Again, the latest amnesty proposal was not a liberal proposal. It was born in the Rethugnant Party of corporate cronyism.

3. The biggest government ever (spend, spend, spend)

Never has any one but a Republican administration adopted a view that deficits don't matter, and that we can borrow our way to solvency by cutting taxes for the wealthiest of our citizens.

Never has a liberal administration taken this country to war without imposing taxes to pay our way as we go.

Nothing to do with spending is a liberal policy, liberal policy dictates that if you spend, you have to create revenue to pay for the spending. (sort of like every one of us have to do)

This administration's fiscal policy, it's domestic economic policies, it's war spending, all it's spending by borrowing without giving any consideration to raising any revenue is not a liberal policy.

You may be in need of a reminder that the last time we had a surplus, and any recent government attempts to rein in the free traders was during a Democratic administration.

4. I am certain that there are a few more (I don't remember at the moment)

When you remember any more of your 'offerings', .......let me know, ...I might be able to help jog your memory,

........just in case you may not typify things quite as clearly as they may be typified. .....just in case you might mistakenly describe something liberal that is not and never has been liberal.

.
..


.
..

[Xa'at]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

Yes, President Bush is too liberal on the following:

1. The creation of "No Child Left Behind" with Ted Kennedy's help
2. Amnesty to illegals
3. The biggest government ever (spend, spend, spend)
4. I am certain that there are a few more (I don't remember at the moment)

He may be conservative in the abortion issue, and in tax breaks, but I can't think of any other issues that would point him toward conservatism.
----------

Why should the US move toward globalism? Isn't this one of the reasons why we already have entered a global market? Yes, the same market used by American companies to move overseas, outsourcing, and such...For an idea of what I am talking about, call your computer company's support on the telephone, and see if you can speak to a technician on US soil.

How can you say that America does not respect other cultures when the US is comprised of people from all cultures around the world? I am a first generation immigrant. I did such as a child, and later in life served in the military for twenty years.

By the way, "America" means: North, Central, and South America as well.

If you believe that the US should move toward globalism, then you have to understand that "voting in the Earth elections" (whatever that means), is "globalism." Besides, it's former President Carter who monitors elections in Venezuela, and The West Bank.

I called GCI today. The only person I talked to was a young woman with an Indonesian accent. She may well have been sitting in the Juneau office, or in an office halfway across the world. I don't know.
Outsourcing and globalism are not the same thing. My dictionary says...
Outsourcing: obtain (goods or a service) from an outside or foreign supplier, esp. in place of an internal source
Globalism: policy or world view that advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world.
Hmm...

[RayinAK]

Outsourcing: obtain (goods or a service) from an outside or foreign supplier, esp. in place of an internal source
Globalism: policy or world view that advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world.
Hmm...

Can't you see how one is related to the other? How could anybody conduct business around the globe unless global "economic policies" to conduct such a business are created?

But that was not the only point I made on my previous post.

[User 2]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

But that was not the only point I made on my previous post.

I'll agree that the free trade agreements are ruinous, and globalism is tied to outsourcing or vice versa.

Care to address those 'other points'?

Maybe then we can get back to telling the story of where NAFTA came from, eh?

You do remember that HW Bush signed that treaty before Clinton took office and that a Republican Majority Congress pushed the successful vote to ratify it?

I'd hate to hear that mischaracterized again...


.
..

[Xa'at]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

Outsourcing: obtain (goods or a service) from an outside or foreign supplier, esp. in place of an internal source
Globalism: policy or world view that advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world.
Hmm...

Can't you see how one is related to the other? How could anybody conduct business around the globe unless global "economic policies" to conduct such a business are created?

But that was not the only point I made on my previous post.

I see how they are related, but they are not the same thing. Living with a global world view is all about realizing that we are all the same. People who are isolationists seem to have this idea that Americans are the only people out there, that somehow we don't have any responsibility for other people's (say, those "illegals" you speak of) well being. Globalists know that beyond being Americans, we are human beings. Physiologically, being American means NOTHING! Simply a matter of chance that we happened to be born here. Until we of the "first world" begin to understand that, we have no right to call ourselves civilized.