siggie, are you so intellectually bankrupt you cannot attack Old Crank's ideas? And so morally bankrupt you are more than willing to attack the man instead?
I would hope that Mr. Crank writes his response from a maximum security facility in which he is kept in restraints. The word delirium comes immediately to mind.
"Everybody does better when everybody does better." "If only our leaders in Washington and on Wall Street would begin practicing this American philosophy."
Back in the day when there WAS bi-partisanship in Washington, this was known as "A rising tide lifts all boats." Ronnie Raygun (R) and Tipsy O'Neill (D) actually got a lot done, even while robbing us blind with the awarding of loopholes and tax breaks; at least the highway robbery was an equal opportunity game, a stasis of sorts.
The game now is all scorched earth, lies, destroying the other side, and stunning greed.
The GOP and its evango-fascist base have become our Al Queda and Taliban, ruining us.
siggie, are you so far to the right, you think the Little League is a Communist organization? All you have proven is that you have never read the Communist Manifesto, you have no clue as to the nature and meaning of Marxism, and you have no idea what America is all about.
The preamble of the United States Constitution says the document was "ordained and established" in order, among other things, to "promote the general Welfare." By your "logic" siggie, our Founding Fathers were just as "Red" as Jim Hightower.
"...we can make our individual lives better by contributing to the common good." Sounds like it was taken directly from the Communist Manifesto. And Hightower is so Red, he actually believes this is what America believes.
So, Hightower, what have you ever given? If you think this column is a contribution, you are sadly mistaken.
In this article Jim Hightower calls the news media "fearful" and "pusillanimous," but nowhere does he say it is "biased to the right" or "conservative." It seems to me I have heard similar opinions expressed by conservatives.
Hightower thinks the media is biased TO THE RIGHT!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, what kind of Marxist nutjob do you have to be to think that the news media is conservative! Stop it now, my sides are splitting!
You state: "Yet, reporters and their bosses, fearful of being accused of taking sides, failed to make a distinction - which, after all, is their job."
I would submit that it is not their job. Their job is, by definition, to report.
One of the great problems we have today is that no one reports the news as is. Everyone has to "make a distinction" and color any and all news with their opinion.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide in which direction that opinion overwhelmingly blows.
Why don't you try something novel, TejonTech, and put your argument in scientific terms.
In the meantime, perhaps this will sink in: "only the strong survive" are your words, not Darwin's. Darwin never said nor meant any such thing.
Jimmy, they're not coming out of bankruptcy. They are getting "Bained" right up their "Hostess Twinkie."
Maybe if I put in terms of rock music it will sink in: only the strong survive.
Natural selection will rid the world of liberals.
Since you repeat your point, TejonTech, allow me to repeat mine: your thesis and conclusions are not supported by Darwinism, and your interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" does not agree with Darwin's.
So those who adapt to self sufficiency in the midst of dwindling resources (the amount of money that can be redistributed from workers to no workers) will survive...my point.
You are correct, TejonTech. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I took your advice, googled, and discovered I must have misunderstood my anthropology professor many years ago. Nevertheless, Wikipedia confirms I am correct in pointing out that "fittest" does not mean physically or morally healthier, stronger, or superior.
"By the word 'fittest' Darwin meant 'better adapted for immediate, local environment', not the common modern meaning of 'in the best physical shape' (think of a puzzle piece, not an athlete)" [Stephen Jay Gould, Darwin's Untimely Burial", 1976; from Michael Ruse, ed., Philosophy of Biology, New York: Prometheus Books, 1998, pp. 93-98. as quoted in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_t…]
I am also correct in pointing out Darwin was referring to the species as a whole, not any individual or group within a species.
Finally, I was wrong in writing of species fitting into a "biological niche." The correct term is ecological niche.
Google it genius, it is survival of the fittest
When Darwin proposed the theory of the survival of the fit (not fittest) he was speaking of entire species, not of any of the species' individual members, nor any group of individuals. By "fit" he meant they fit into a biological niche. According to Darwin, humans survive as a species because we fit into a biological niche.
TejonTech, your theory that strong humans will survive while so-called "parasites" perish, even if true, is not Darwinism. It does fall under the heading of so-called "Social Darwinism," but social Darwinism is not Darwinism. It is a distortion and misunderstanding of Darwin.
TejonTech, you need to learn to read more carefully. I did not claim there is no voter fraud. I claimed that the very same people who promoted the Voter ID laws, that is Republican states attorneys, conceded in court, when the laws were challenged, that no such voter fraud exists.
As for precincts that voted 100% for Obama, although that may be unusual, even suspicious, it is not evidence of fraud. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the Voter ID bills, unless you are maintaining that Republicans did not show up to vote because there was NO requirement for them to show ID.
K...the words mean exactly what I said...and this is always the case in your pseudo smart arguments.
So all these precincts in PA and OH come up 100% Obama votes and you claim no evidence of voter fraud...right.
It appears, TejonTech, that you know just as little about Darwinism as you do about physics, by which I mean practically nothing. Your mention of "survival of the fittest" is a dead giveaway. Although that is the popular notion, Darwin never said it. What Darwin proposed is that nature favors the survival of the fit, not the fittest. Your homework is to look up who survives, because Darwin does not mean the individual, and what he means by the word, "fit," because he does not mean healthy.
Obama won in spite of the best Republican Party efforts to wrongfully deprive American citizens of their right to vote with bogus Voter ID laws. When challenged in court, the laws' proponents themselves conceded there is no evidence of this kind of voter fraud occurring any time, anywhere. But never let be said that TejonTech let a little thing like a lack of evidence deter him from libeling the president.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation