Is the USA getting dumber?

[cwolff]

This guy's calling us out. Unfortunately it's hard to argue with him.



America dumbs down

The U.S. is being overrun by a wave of anti-science, anti-intellectual thinking. Has the most powerful nation on Earth lost its mind?

What has doomed Olivia’s dream is a raging battle in South Carolina over the teaching of evolution in schools. Last week, the state’s education oversight committee approved a new set of science standards that, if adopted, would see students learn both the case for, and against, natural selection.

The same poll found that just 53 per cent of respondents were “extremely” or “very confident” that childhood vaccines are safe and effective.

When it comes to global warming, only 33 per cent expressed a high degree of confidence that it is “man made,” something the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has declared is all but certain. (The good news, such as it was in the AP poll, was that 69 per cent actually believe in DNA, and 82 per cent now agree that smoking causes cancer.)

If ignorance is contagious, it’s high time to put the United States in quarantine. (http://www.macleans.ca/politics/america-dumbs-down/)

Nice picture to go with the article too. Notice the Michigan gloves. That's a dead give away that this dude's an idiot.

http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/MAC20_AMERICANS_CAROUSEL01.jpg

[Parkbandit]

I feel dumber everytime I read a post of yours.

Does that count?

[cwolff]

Here's Krugman's take on it. He's making a valid point. Unfortunately the people who need to hear will refuse to even consider it.


And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the G.O.P.’s extremist fringe asserted that global warming was a hoax concocted by a vast global conspiracy of scientists (although even then that fringe included some powerful politicians). Today, such conspiracy theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against scientists reporting evidence of warming have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about climate science is turning into hostility toward science in general.

It’s hard to see what could reverse this growing hostility to inconvenient science. As I said, the process of intellectual devolution seems to have reached a point of no return. And that scares me more than the news about that ice sheet.

Points of No Return (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/krugman-points-of-no-return.html?_r=0)

[Methais]

OMG IF U DONT AGREE WITH EVERYTHING PEOPLE LIKE ME THINK THEN UR TEH DUM!

http://date-masters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/conspiracy-keanu-blank2.jpg

[Warriorbird]

http://date-masters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/conspiracy-keanu-blank2.jpg

http://stevedeace.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/idiocracy.jpg

[Methais]

http://stevedeace.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/idiocracy.jpg

http://choosethebluepillblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/idio3.jpg

[Tgo01]

Liberal thinking: I'm all for open debate and discussion, just as long as you agree with everything I say.

[Methais]

Liberal thinking: I'm all for open debate and discussion, just as long as you agree with everything I say.

http://m.quickmeme.com/img/3d/3d8566886dd626327cb4a4ba1615a32601a985db1b219a95a8 8dbcc308c7e298.jpg

[Warriorbird]

http://choosethebluepillblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/idio3.jpg

http://www.snarksquad.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/accurate.gif

[Kaldonis]

"Schoon (1989) reported that the primary misconception held by students on the causes of the different lunar phases was the Earth's shadow on the Moon; which 48.1% of the students held. What he then reported is unexpected: the older the student, the more popular this incorrect answer was. 69.5% of the college students in his study believed that Earth's shadow caused the lunar phases."

http://physicseducation.net/members/Fanetti.pdf

I like how this (not so recent) example shows that the probability for a given person to know the right answer anti-correlates with the amount of time they spent in the American education system. I would be hardly shocked if their understanding of the massive volumes of scientific evidence supporting evolution and global warming was any different.

Oh yeah, my bad, you should be able to call yourself well-educated and confuse a fairly uncommon event like a lunar eclipse with the very regular phenomena (monthly in fact, surprise!) of its phases.

If people really want to hold quaint beliefs that clearly contradicts scientific evidence for evolution, let them eat cake I say. It'd be nice if they at least knew what the evidence was, and how little scientific evidence there is against it, though.

[Dendum]

The gun/holster combo looks terrible

"Hold on now...wait a minute..I have to unsnap this here..and then unloop this there...oh look my magazine is held on by elastic bands...one moment...ok ready!"

[Thondalar]

The gun/holster combo looks terrible

"Hold on now...wait a minute..I have to unsnap this here..and then unloop this there...oh look my magazine is held on by elastic bands...one moment...ok ready!"

They're just being responsible gun owners and making sure their weapons are secure.

[cwolff]

They're just being responsible gun owners and making sure their weapons are secure.

The first C in their CCW stands for Camouflage.

[Methais]

The first C in their CCW stands for Camouflage.

But what does the c in cwolff stand for?

[Kaldonis]

But what does the c in cwolff stand for?

I thought it described the speed of the wolf

6498

[Parkbandit]

But what does the c in cwolff stand for?

Cretin.

[Latrinsorm]

Compared to when it was literally illegal to teach evolution (1967), we're much smarter.
Twenty years later, the Supreme Court ruled that radical evolutionist teachers couldn't be forced to teach creationism too.
Twenty years later, a District Court ruled that the same dangerous radicals couldn't be forced to teach intelligent design too.

I can't wait to see what new name they put on it in the next ten years. I hope "The Invisible Divine Hand of Making Animals Do It."

.

I am also delighted that 82% of people believe smoking causes cancer. Everyone knows the risks!... except for that other 18%, I guess.

[waywardgs]

.

I am also delighted that 82% of people believe smoking causes cancer. Everyone knows the risks!... except for that other 18%, I guess.

Cancensus?

[Latrinsorm]

http://chainsawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/201203211.png-census.

[Ker_Thwap]

I'm still in Kansas with my 80 year old dad and his idiot wife. This morning she was blasting an anti Obama video at 80 decibels... She was quite furious because Barry spent his youth in Africa with that socialist guy Karl Marx.

You're going to find ignorant people in every generation. The only difference is that they all have access to social media these days, so it's easier to spot them.

[Taernath]

With the proliferation of the internet and easy access to knowledge and information it's become harder and harder for anti-intellectuals to retreat back into their Plato's cave. I think in a few generations a lot of this stuff will die out.

[cwolff]

With the proliferation of the internet and easy access to knowledge and information it's become harder and harder for anti-intellectuals to retreat back into their Plato's cave. I think in a few generations a lot of this stuff will die out.

You would hope so. In the short term the easy access to knowledge and information is making things worse. If you want to hear something that you're pre-disposed to agree with, you just read the right blog or tune in to the right channel. At the rate we're going, we might actually have to pass some laws governing the definition of news. I don't think it'll get that bad but we are running the risk of having two societies that have no common base of knowledge.

[waywardgs]

Proliferation of information uses the same channels as proliferation of stupidity.

[kutter]

This will incur the ire of any number of people that love to rant about climate change but there is too much vagueness in the argument they make. I remember the very first logic class I took back in, well, it was a while back, on the first day the professor gave us this fallacy to work with. A. Chuck enters a party. B. The party breaks up. C. Chuck broke up the party. On the surface it seems reasonable but it assumes facts that are not in evidence. My comparison is. A. The world is getting warmer. B. Man adds greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. C. Man is causing global warming.

But in general I have to say, yes the US is getting dumber.

[Latrinsorm]

You would hope so. In the short term the easy access to knowledge and information is making things worse. If you want to hear something that you're pre-disposed to agree with, you just read the right blog or tune in to the right channel. At the rate we're going, we might actually have to pass some laws governing the definition of news. I don't think it'll get that bad but we are running the risk of having two societies that have no common base of knowledge.It was worse before, because if you weren't in the monoculture you just didn't exist. Now people are at least aware of alternate points of view. Atlanteax can dislike rap music but in doing so he is at least aware of its existence.
This will incur the ire of any number of people that love to rant about climate change but there is too much vagueness in the argument they make. I remember the very first logic class I took back in, well, it was a while back, on the first day the professor gave us this fallacy to work with. A. Chuck enters a party. B. The party breaks up. C. Chuck broke up the party. On the surface it seems reasonable but it assumes facts that are not in evidence. My comparison is. A. The world is getting warmer. B. Man adds greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. C. Man is causing global warming.If that was the position of climatologists, it would be unforgivably vague. But the position is:
A. The world has undergone certain climate changes over the past 800,000 years, which are empirically measurable.
B. These changes can be modeled with high accuracy by using the variables of solar activity, volcanic activity, atmospheric currents, etc.
C. Except for the past 200 years, which should have demonstrated cooling but in fact demonstrated warming to a statistically significant degree.
D. Therefore, something in the past 200 years that did not occur in the previous 800,000 is causing global warming.

E. One thing that fits those time scales neatly is man's industrialization.
F. Man's industrialization adds greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, which cause warming.
G. Therefore, industrialization is causing global warming.

Of course, this is no more logically sound than the first argument. Nothing logically entails the conclusions of empirical science, that's why empirical scientists have to do math and collect data and all that boring stuff instead of just sitting under a tree and deriving from first principles. It is, however, very much as sound as all the other science that you personally agree with: automotive science, computer science, medical science, etc.

[Methais]

It was worse before, because if you weren't in the monoculture you just didn't exist. Now people are at least aware of alternate points of view. Atlanteax can dislike rap music but in doing so he is at least aware of its existence.

You mean Atlanteax isn't from the streets?

[Back]

You mean Atlanteax isn't from the streets?

LOL! Atlanteax is straight up thuggin.

[Thondalar]

Proliferation of information uses the same channels as proliferation of stupidity.

Exactly this. There is a wealth of information available, but also a wealth of misinformation...which is why it's generally a good idea to stay away from "opinion" programming on either side. They pander to their audience, mixing in just enough information with the rhetoric to be dangerous. If you get most of your information from a source that is either "mostly left" or "mostly right", you can pretty much guarantee you're not getting the full story.

Unfortunately, human nature dictates that the vast majority of us have a primal need to belong to groups...we actually feel better when watching/being near someone saying things we agree with. The much harder route is to do your own independent research and form educated opinions based strictly on facts.

[Candor]

With the proliferation of the internet and easy access to knowledge and information it's become harder and harder for anti-intellectuals to retreat back into their Plato's cave. I think in a few generations a lot of this stuff will die out.

Yeah they said that about the John Birch Society a generation ago. It's still around...

[Warriorbird]

Yeah they said that about the John Birch Society a generation ago. It's still around...

The sadder bit is Mitt Romney bowing down to the modern version and George Romney told the original version to fuck off.

[caelric]

Liberal thinking: I'm all for open debate and discussion, just as long as you agree with everything I say.

Word.

Also, I'm all for tolerance, as long as your beliefs are the same as mine.

[Methais]

Right up there with the conservative "Give me tolerance! I want to deny your basic rights! Stop being so mean to me by saying I can't!"

You say that as if both sides aren't wanting to deny us rights.

They each just have different rights they want to deny us is the only difference.

[caelric]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of tolerance of other points of view, such as the right to bear arms (not gonna find much tolerance on the left for that), or similiar things.

Tolerance of intolerance? Don't really think that is necessary, but certainly tolerance of a persons religious and spiritual views is necessary, even if that persons religious views say you are going to burn in hell for your actions. Not a whole lot of tolerance for christians in today's left (and I say that as an atheist).

[waywardgs]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of tolerance of other points of view, such as the right to bear arms (not gonna find much tolerance on the left for that), or similiar things.

Tolerance of intolerance? Don't really think that is necessary, but certainly tolerance of a persons religious and spiritual views is necessary, even if that persons religious views say you are going to burn in hell for your actions. Not a whole lot of tolerance for christians in today's left (and I say that as an atheist).

You're complaining that someone may take issue with being told they're gonna burn in hell for who they are?

[Warriorbird]

You say that as if both sides aren't wanting to deny us rights.

They each just have different rights they want to deny us is the only difference.

Christianity is totally forbidden. Heterosexual marriage too. And we can't have guns at all!

Oh wait.

[cwolff]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of tolerance of other points of view, such as the right to bear arms (not gonna find much tolerance on the left for that), or similiar things.

Tolerance of intolerance? Don't really think that is necessary, but certainly tolerance of a persons religious and spiritual views is necessary, even if that persons religious views say you are going to burn in hell for your actions. Not a whole lot of tolerance for christians in today's left (and I say that as an atheist).

I'm not seeing this in everyday life and I don't think any of us are. Gun Control's a good example. The left isn't taking away your firearms. They are interested in things like registration, magazine capacity, rates of fire etc... This is just basic regulation. You can't own a fully automatic weapon today without a class 3 license and that's nothing new. The 2nd amendment doesn't mean that it's a free for all. We've regulated firearms for quite a long time. Even GA passed a law in 1837 banning handguns. The law was deemed unconstitutional but you can see that at least going back 177 years gun control has been something of an issue in the USA. To say that the left is intolerant is blatantly a lie. You can point out the extremes but it doesn't mesh with what we experience IRL.

Christians are free to practice their religion as much as they want. Where they run into trouble is when their freedom of religious expression interferes with the freedom of another. Believe me when I say that if all the religious people kept their religion private and kept government secular we'd never have these discussions. It's unfortunate that's not the case. Since it's not the case, Atheists and people of other religions have to fight back.

[Tisket]

Right up there with the conservative "Give me tolerance! I want to deny your basic rights! Stop being so mean to me by saying I can't!"

I've advocated for equal marriage rights for years. Way before it was the popular thing to do.

Unlike most liberals who are much like the political equivalent of grass swaying with whatever wind comes along. Get three people together who believe that people with hazel eyes are from an alternate universe and there will probably be a democrat who will use it as a platform to run for office.

[Gweneivia]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of tolerance of other points of view, such as the right to bear arms (not gonna find much tolerance on the left for that), or similiar things.

Where are you coming up with that? I have several EXCEEDINGLY (irritatingly, even) liberal friends who love nothing more than to hit the gun range. Maybe you're confusing the right to bear arms with unrestricted access to all types of guns.

[waywardgs]

Cons go on and on about how weak the culture of victimhood makes our society but will turn right around to shriek about being victims of intolerance themselves without batting an eye.

[Jarvan]

Where are you coming up with that? I have several EXCEEDINGLY (irritatingly, even) liberal friends who love nothing more than to hit the gun range. Maybe you're confusing the right to bear arms with unrestricted access to all types of guns.

There are a lot of Liberals that think guns should be Banned.

Hell, look at Chicago. Do all liberals think that way? No.

As for the left being intolerant, hell yes they are.

If a person says that they personally don't agree with gay marriage they are yelled at, threatened, and made fun of. Yep.. sounds like tolerance to me. Look at these forums.. you disagree with Cwolff on "Climate Change" you are an idiot or stupid.. the debate is over don't you know.

Liberals don't want people to be tolerant of other people, they want you to be tolerant of what THEY say is a good thing to be tolerant about. If you have a contradictory opinion, you are the one that is being intolerant.

[Jarvan]

Cons go on and on about how weak the culture of victimhood makes our society but will turn right around to shriek about being victims of intolerance themselves without batting an eye.

Libs go on and on about being tolerant, then proceed to be the most intolerant people there are without batting an eye. (Same with them and Racism)

[waywardgs]

I think we need to have a discussion of the meaning of the word "tolerance."

Again.

[Taernath]

If a person says that they personally don't agree with gay marriage they are yelled at, threatened, and made fun of. Yep.. sounds like tolerance to me.

Freedom of speech doesn't include immunity from criticism.

[waywardgs]

"You don't deserve the same rights as me because you're gay."
"I object to that stance. I deserve the same civil rights afforded to you by the constitution because I'm a human being."
"STOP BEING INTOLERANT OF MY BELIEFS!!1"

[Methais]

Freedom of speech doesn't include immunity from criticism.

Liberals take it far beyond just criticism in a lot of cases, to the point where they basically try to destroy your entire life.

Sounds pretty tolerant to me.

[Jarvan]

Freedom of speech doesn't include immunity from criticism.

Isn't it funny that when it's the Left doing it.. it's freedom of speech, and when it's the right, it's Intolerance.

[cwolff]

There are a lot of Liberals that think guns should be Banned.

Hell, look at Chicago. Do all liberals think that way? No.

As for the left being intolerant, hell yes they are.

If a person says that they personally don't agree with gay marriage they are yelled at, threatened, and made fun of. Yep.. sounds like tolerance to me. Look at these forums.. you disagree with Cwolff on "Climate Change" you are an idiot or stupid.. the debate is over don't you know.

Liberals don't want people to be tolerant of other people, they want you to be tolerant of what THEY say is a good thing to be tolerant about. If you have a contradictory opinion, you are the one that is being intolerant.


Libs go on and on about being tolerant, then proceed to be the most intolerant people there are without batting an eye. (Same with them and Racism)

Hardly a post can go by without one of you bringing up my name. I suggest that you get some perspective. Yes, people here talk shit to each other. Names get called and criticism can be rather personal. To single me out is pretty warped when you look at the kind of abuse that goes on and how much of that abuse is directed my way.

[Taernath]

Liberals take it far beyond just criticism in a lot of cases, to the point where they basically try to destroy your entire life.

Sounds pretty tolerant to me.

Are you talking about people making racist or homophobic comments who wind up getting fired when someone notices? Because private companies can do that.

[waywardgs]

I think Methais is referring to the gaggle of liberals that follow him around all day screwing with him. Stuff like letting the air out of his tires, knocking his grocery bag out of his hands, screwing up his mcdonalds order at the drive-thru, etc.

[Parkbandit]

Hardly a post can go by without one of you bringing up my name. I suggest that you get some perspective. Yes, people here talk shit to each other. Names get called and criticism can be rather personal. To single me out is pretty warped when you look at the kind of abuse that goes on and how much of that abuse is directed my way.

You poor innocent little victim!

[Taernath]

I think Methais is referring to the gaggle of liberals that follow him around all day screwing with him. Stuff like letting the air out of his tires, knocking his grocery bag out of his hands, screwing up his mcdonalds order at the drive-thru, etc.

That's fucked up! I'm sorry Methais. :(

http://patriotupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/bullies.jpg

[Parkbandit]

MSNBC has defined tolerance already:

"Tolerance, no, is not – it should not be a two-way street. It’s a one-way street." - Jonathan Capehart - contributor

So basically, you have to tolerate him, but he doesn't have to tolerate you.

[Warriorbird]

I've advocated for equal marriage rights for years. Way before it was the popular thing to do.

Unlike most liberals who are much like the political equivalent of grass swaying with whatever wind comes along. Get three people together who believe that people with hazel eyes are from an alternate universe and there will probably be a democrat who will use it as a platform to run for office.

And that's completely respectable. You also don't QQ that people are taking your rights to be a straight, Christian, married, potentially gun owning, woman away, because that would be silly. That's what I'm addressing. Methais apparently believes he suffers all sorts of discrimination in Louisiana and is losing all sorts of rights. This is a ridiculous notion.


I think Methais is referring to the gaggle of liberals that follow him around all day screwing with him. Stuff like letting the air out of his tires, knocking his grocery bag out of his hands, screwing up his mcdonalds order at the drive-thru, etc.

We should send 80s video game heroes to save him.

[Taernath]

We should send 80s video game heroes to save him.

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs11/i/2006/177/e/f/The_New_Super_Buff_Mario_Bros_by_CaseyLJones.jpg

[Methais]

Methais apparently believes he suffers all sorts of discrimination in Louisiana and is losing all sorts of rights. This is a ridiculous notion.

Right, because I totally said that.

My point is more along the lines of how it's ok for a liberal to say something racist or whatever (i.e. Harry Reid and his negro dialect comment about Obama) and everything is cool. But had a republican said something like that, the liberal mouth breathers and the media would cut his nuts off over it.

It's tolerable when someone liberals agree with do it, but if anyone they disagree with does anything, the world is ending.


Hardly a post can go by without one of you bringing up my name. I suggest that you get some perspective. Yes, people here talk shit to each other. Names get called and criticism can be rather personal. To single me out is pretty warped when you look at the kind of abuse that goes on and how much of that abuse is directed my way.

It's because you're the Chris Matthews of the PC and we enjoy laughing at you.

[Warriorbird]

Right, because I totally said that.

My point is more along the lines of how it's ok for a liberal to say something racist or whatever (i.e. Harry Reid and his negro dialect comment about Obama) and everything is cool. But had a republican said something like that, the liberal mouth breathers and the media would cut his nuts off over it.

It's tolerable when someone liberals agree with do it, but if anyone they disagree with does anything, the world is ending.

I dunno about everybody else, but I think Harry Reid is an asshole.

[Shaps]

Way to solve issues:

1- Civil unions legal nationally for anyone that wants one (man+woman; woman+woman; man+man) - They recieve all the tax, death, whatever else benefits. Push the term "marriage" to the traditional entities that use the term (religious organizations). Everyone recieves all of the legal benefits and recognition from the state, but keeps church/state separate as people want all the time.

2- Race/Gender - Remove all questions of race/gender from all applications for everything (except for health concerns). Jobs, school, loans whatever else should be based on the verifiable data of your accomplishments. Want to go to school, submit grades/achievements/etc. and have people selected on what they have done.

Job interviews? Initial resumes without race/gender information, only your qualifications. Then maybe blurred out/voice altered web interviews where gender/race can not be seen. Again, hiring based off of accomplishments/job qualifications (except for Hooters of course, photos and measurements required).

Loans/grants/etc. based upon income solely and if you are in poverty or not. Not based on anything else. Your 18 and want to go to college? Can't afford it? What does your family earn, what do you earn, what level of poverty are you coming from? Do you have the grades to get into the school? Yes? Good. You're poor as dirt? Yes? Then we'll help you out.

Remove the race/gender card from it all. Let the chips fall where they may, based upon the efforts an individual puts into it.

General gist of it, but I think people would even fight some idea of this, because it would threaten their current "benefits", based solely on their race/gender.

[cwolff]

Way to solve issues:

1- Civil unions legal nationally for anyone that wants one (man+woman; woman+woman; man+man) - They recieve all the tax, death, whatever else benefits. Push the term "marriage" to the traditional entities that use the term (religious organizations). Everyone recieves all of the legal benefits and recognition from the state, but keeps church/state separate as people want all the time.

2- Race/Gender - Remove all questions of race/gender from all applications for everything (except for health concerns). Jobs, school, loans whatever else should be based on the verifiable data of your accomplishments. Want to go to school, submit grades/achievements/etc. and have people selected on what they have done.

Job interviews? Initial resumes without race/gender information, only your qualifications. Then maybe blurred out/voice altered web interviews where gender/race can not be seen. Again, hiring based off of accomplishments/job qualifications (except for Hooters of course, photos and measurements required).

Loans/grants/etc. based upon income solely and if you are in poverty or not. Not based on anything else. Your 18 and want to go to college? Can't afford it? What does your family earn, what do you earn, what level of poverty are you coming from? Do you have the grades to get into the school? Yes? Good. You're poor as dirt? Yes? Then we'll help you out.

Remove the race/gender card from it all. Let the chips fall where they may, based upon the efforts an individual puts into it.

General gist of it, but I think people would even fight some idea of this, because it would threaten their current "benefits", based solely on their race/gender.

I totally agree with your marriage idea. The union should be strictly governmental for registration purposes and that's only because we have certain rights and benefits that attach to married couples. After that people can be free to do any religious services that accompany their union all they want.

I think I know you mean you about the threat to current benefits but I may be wrong. Can you clarify that? BTW, I'm reading it as if you're saying that minorities and woman get perks which they are going to be reluctant to give up. Not sure if that's the right read on what you're saying or not.

[Shaps]

I totally agree with your marriage idea. The union should be strictly governmental for registration purposes and that's only because we have certain rights and benefits that attach to married couples. After that people can be free to do any religious services that accompany their union all they want.

I think I know you mean you about the threat to current benefits but I may be wrong. Can you clarify that? BTW, I'm reading it as if you're saying that minorities and woman get perks which they are going to be reluctant to give up. Not sure if that's the right read on what you're saying or not.

I'm saying that we created laws to ensure the equal treatment of historically discriminated groups. I think there was definetly a time for them. I do think it has been abused in a sense as the years have passed. On one hand minority groups say "white males" recieve advantages because they are white and male. White males say that the equal rights movement gives unfair advantages to unqualified people, based soley on their race/gender. Both sides will continue to make these arguments, so long as we separate everyone into different groups like this.

I leave the health issue out, because there is historical, genetic traits that happen to certain groups of people (high cholestrol, cancer, whatever - male/female is self explanatory of course).

So, just make it as level as possible for everyone. Equal rights for all, just based off of tangible accomplishments/history, experience, etc. Try to remove the race/gender card from it all. My idea of course would be hard to implement fully, and never could be 100%, but many applications could accomodate such equal standing.

I just think most would fight something like this, because many would then lose any argument or excuse they have currently to explain why they are downtrodden.

[Warriorbird]

I'm saying that we created laws to ensure the equal treatment of historically discriminated groups. I think there was definetly a time for them. I do think it has been abused in a sense as the years have passed. On one hand minority groups say "white males" recieve advantages because they are white and male. White males say that the equal rights movement gives unfair advantages to unqualified people, based soley on their race/gender. Both sides will continue to make these arguments, so long as we separate everyone into different groups like this.

I leave the health issue out, because there is historical, genetic traits that happen to certain groups of people (high cholestrol, cancer, whatever - male/female is self explanatory of course).

So, just make it as level as possible for everyone. Equal rights for all, just based off of tangible accomplishments/history, experience, etc. Try to remove the race/gender card from it all. My idea of course would be hard to implement fully, and never could be 100%, but many applications could accomodate such equal standing.

I just think most would fight something like this, because many would then lose any argument or excuse they have currently to explain why they are downtrodden.

There's definitely still systematic discrimination (documentably so in certain legal issues). If your system were implementable it would be a nice idea.

[Back]

This guy's calling us out. Unfortunately it's hard to argue with him.

Been thinking a lot about this lately. It seems like there is a war on reason in this country. Perhaps there always has been and we only notice it more now because of our more advanced communication network.

I'm confused by people who want to attack science, medicine, educational institutions, journalism, and government. All the pillars of contemporary society are being challenged by a vocal minority, that appears to be growing, when once we all celebrated our advances. It really seems like there is some insane desire to tear down these pillars. I still don't understand for what? What is the inspiration to want to go backwards?

Religion? Pride?

[Tisket]

2- Race/Gender - Remove all questions of race/gender from all applications for everything (except for health concerns). Jobs, school, loans whatever else should be based on the verifiable data of your accomplishments. Want to go to school, submit grades/achievements/etc. and have people selected on what they have done.

Job interviews? Initial resumes without race/gender information, only your qualifications. Then maybe blurred out/voice altered web interviews where gender/race can not be seen. Again, hiring based off of accomplishments/job qualifications (except for Hooters of course, photos and measurements required).

Orchestras have been using blind auditions now for a while with great success. Before that, of the big five national orchestras, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Cleveland, only 10 percent of the musicians hired by them were women. After blind auditions commenced, that figure rose to a whopping 45 percent.

I don't know how practical blind auditions would be in real world scenario but it's also interesting that, in a recent study where the race question was removed entirely from an application, a very clearly ethnic sounding name was used for one applicant vs. a "normal" sounding white name, there was clear bias exhibited against the application with the ethnic sounding name even though the school and work history was identical.

[cwolff]

There's definitely still systematic discrimination (documentably so in certain legal issues). If your system were implementable it would be a nice idea.

This group did an experiment about this. Interesting results.


"Job applicants with white names needed to send about 10 resumes to get one callback; those with African-American names needed to send around 15 resumes to get one callback."

A job applicant with a name that sounds like it might belong to an African-American - say, Lakisha Washington or Jamal Jones - can find it harder to get a job. Despite laws against discrimination, affirmative action, a degree of employer enlightenment, and the desire by some businesses to enhance profits by hiring those most qualified regardless of race, African-Americans are twice as likely as whites to be unemployed and they earn nearly 25 percent less when they are employed.NBER (http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html)


Been thinking a lot about this lately. It seems like there is a war on reason in this country. Perhaps there always has been and we only notice it more now because of our more advanced communication network.

I'm confused by people who want to attack science, medicine, educational institutions, journalism, and government. All the pillars of contemporary society are being challenged by a vocal minority, that appears to be growing, when once we all celebrated our advances. It really seems like there is some insane desire to tear down these pillars. I still don't understand for what? What is the inspiration to want to go backwards?

Religion? Pride?

It's crazy isn't it. It's by definition, or at least some definitions, conservatism.

My feeling is that we're seeing a lot of change. Groups that have been pushed aside aren't taking it any more and they're challenging the status quo. For traditionalists this is highly threatening behavior.

[Tisket]

cwollf: behind the times once again.

[Tgo01]

Perhaps there always has been and we only notice it more now because my main man Barack is in the White House.

Fixed that for ya.

Seriously it's humorous that you think any of this is new or that you're just "now noticing it" because of "more advanced communication network."

People think vaccines are bad? Certainly that's new because of religious nut jobs infiltrating our governments.

People think journalism is bad? I've never heard of this before until Fixt News became a household name.

You think people attacking science is new? Attacking science is new?! Mere words cannot convey my thoughts about this one. I just...I...what?!

But you're right about people attacking government. That is new. It never happened before Obama was elected. Certainly there must be some sort of correlation going on here...what can it be...what can it be...

[Shaps]

Orchestras have been using blind auditions now for a while with great success. Before that, of the big five national orchestras, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Cleveland, only 10 percent of the musicians hired by them were women. After blind auditions commenced, that figure rose to a whopping 45 percent.

I don't know how practical blind auditions would be in real world scenario but it's also interesting that, in a recent study where the race question was removed entirely from an application, a very clearly ethnic sounding name was used for one applicant vs. a "normal" sounding white name, there was clear bias exhibited against the application with the ethnic sounding name even though the school and work history was identical.

Never heard of the blind auditions for the Orchestras, that's cool to hear they started that and I guess? now actually getting the best musicians, regardless of race/gender.

The name thing, yea not sure with a way around that. Though I could imagine it would depend on the field of work they conducted the study in. I think it would change depending on the type of work.

Example: Filing for a position that revolves around, hmmm... lets say "mathematics". Would the hiring company be more inclined to hire those with Asian sounding names? As the data proves that those from Asian countries statistically have higher math scores?

[cwolff]

Fixed that for ya.

Seriously it's humorous that you think any of this is new or that you're just "now noticing it" because of "more advanced communication network."

People think vaccines are bad? Certainly that's new because of religious nut jobs infiltrating our governments.

People think journalism is bad? I've never heard of this before until Fixt News became a household name.

You think people attacking science is new? Attacking science is new?! Mere words cannot convey my thoughts about this one. I just...I...what?!

But you're right about people attacking government. That is new. It never happened before Obama was elected. Certainly there must be some sort of correlation going on here...what can it be...what can it be...

What Back said was benign. Why do you react so strongly and attack him out of context. You even changed his words, then reacted to the editing that YOU did. That's some creepy shit tg. Don't be a creep.

Also noticed you how managed to get in an oblique reference to racism. You wonder why I call you a racist? It's because you always manage to bring it up even if you have to make it up.

[Tgo01]

What Back said was benign. Why do you react so strongly and attack him out of context.

Why do you feel the need to claim that I always attack people "out of context" when you can't even begin to refute what I just said? Oh yeah, I guess I answered my own question :)


You even changed his words

You mean about Obama being in the White House? That's what you're arguing about? You have nothing else to comment about what I said? If Latrin wasn't busy pretending to be a Republican I bet he would have a few words to say about anyone suggesting that people attacking science is something new. People have been attacking science before there was even a word for science.


then reacted to the editing that YOU did.

Is reading really this hard for you? I responded to what Back himself said.


Also noticed you how managed to get in an oblique reference to racism. You wonder why I call you a racist? It's because you always manage to bring it up even if you have to make it up.

Don't be mad just because I'm right. Nothing Back mentioned is "new." Nothing. It happened during Bush. It happened during Clinton. It happened during Reagan.

What's different now? A Democrat is in office? No...Clinton was a Democrat. Oh! A man is in office! No...wait...

You tell me then, cwolff. What has changed to make Back think that all of this is suddenly new?

[cwolff]

Why do you feel the need to claim that I always attack people "out of context" when you can't even begin to refute what I just said? Oh yeah, I guess I answered my own question :)

You mean about Obama being in the White House? That's what you're arguing about? You have nothing else to comment about what I said? If Latrin wasn't busy pretending to be a Democrat I bet he would have a few words to say about anyone suggesting that people attacking science is something new. People have been attacking science before there was even a word for science.

Is reading really this hard for you? I responded to what Back himself said.

Don't be mad just because I'm right. Nothing Back mentioned is "new." Nothing. It happened during Bush. It happened during Clinton. It happened during Reagan.

What's different now? A Democrat is in office? No...Clinton was a Democrat. Oh! A man is in office! No...wait...

You tell me then, cwolff. What has changed to make Back think that all of this is suddenly new?

Back didn't say what you are accusing him of saying. Do you understand that or not?

[Tgo01]

Back didn't say what you are accusing him of saying. Do you understand that or not?

Be more specific.

Back didn't imply that this was all new?

Back doesn't think that something has changed to bring about this era of hating science, government and copious amounts of violence and sex on television?

[cwolff]

Be more specific.

Back didn't imply that this was all new?

Back doesn't think that something has changed to bring about this era of hating science, government and copious amounts of violence and sex on television?

Specifically he said "Perhaps there always has been and we only notice it more now because of our more advanced communication network." This is not a declaration.

Do you understand the difference?

Edit: I notice that you are now interjecting "copius amounts of violence and sex on television." This is another diversion. Back made no comments at all on the subject of pop television culture. Why you introduce this is something that you need to examine.

[Back]

Fixed that for ya.

Seriously it's humorous that you think any of this is new or that you're just "now noticing it" because of "more advanced communication network."

People think vaccines are bad? Certainly that's new because of religious nut jobs infiltrating our governments.

People think journalism is bad? I've never heard of this before until Fixt News became a household name.

You think people attacking science is new? Attacking science is new?! Mere words cannot convey my thoughts about this one. I just...I...what?!

But you're right about people attacking government. That is new. It never happened before Obama was elected. Certainly there must be some sort of correlation going on here...what can it be...what can it be...

I think you're looking for something that isn't there. My feeling is that there seems to be more and more of a lunatic fringe in modern American culture. It seems to be snowballing and becoming accepted as normal where in the past people were usually laughed at, shamed, or pitied for believing in wild conspiracies.

I think FOX News is a huge part of the problem disseminating vaugely distorted misinformation for an audience of crackpots.

[Tgo01]

Specifically he said "Perhaps there always has been and we only notice it more now because of our more advanced communication network." This is not a declaration.

Is this like you questioning me about 20% of American children go hungry then later on said you never questioned it?

He questioned whether or not it was new. The fact that he questions it means he either doesn't believe it or he's ignorant to the truth.

Do you not understand this?

It's simple. Either Back really believes all of this is new or he doesn't realize it's all new. I'm not sure how anything I said in response to his post is wrong given what I'm working with here.

I'm either A) Calling him stupid for thinking it's all new or B) Calling him ignorant for thinking it's all new.

If you would like to refute anything I said feel free and then we can have a discussion about this. But you are sounding kind of like a lunatic right now, cwolff.

[cwolff]

Is this like you questioning me about 20% of American children go hungry then later on said you never questioned it?

He questioned whether or not it was new. The fact that he questions it means he either doesn't believe it or he's ignorant to the truth.

Do you not understand this?

It's simple. Either Back really believes all of this is new or he doesn't realize it's all new. I'm not sure how anything I said in response to his post is wrong given what I'm working with here.

I'm either A) Calling him stupid for thinking it's all new or B) Calling him ignorant for thinking it's all new.

If you would like to refute anything I said feel free and then we can have a discussion about this. But you are sounding kind of like a lunatic right now, cwolff.

Stay on topic here Tg. This is the response that started this conversation between us.


What Back said was benign. Why do you react so strongly and attack him out of context. You even changed his words, then reacted to the editing that YOU did. That's some creepy shit tg. Don't be a creep.

Also noticed you how managed to get in an oblique reference to racism. You wonder why I call you a racist? It's because you always manage to bring it up even if you have to make it up.

One thing I want to notice is the binary way you create answers. Either he doesn't believe it or he's ignorant, Calling him stupid or calling him ignorant.

The only thing Back did was to express something that he's been thinking about lately. Why you feel the need to respond so critically, over the top and out of context is what I'm questioning.

[Tgo01]

I think you're looking for something that isn't there. My feeling is that there seems to be more and more of a lunatic fringe in modern American culture. It seems to be snowballing and becoming accepted as normal where in the past people were usually laughed at, shamed, or pitied for believing in wild conspiracies.

I can't believe someone thinks there are more people distrustful of the government now than in the past when just 150 years ago we fought a civil war.

Feel free to read a bit of history of people being distrustful of vaccines in American history. (http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-anti-vaccination-movements) Keep in mind people were distrustful of vaccines before this as well.

I hope you feel yourself more enlightened now, Back. Always happy to educate someone.


One thing I want to notice is the binary way you create answers. Either he doesn't believe it or he's ignorant, Calling him stupid or calling him ignorant.

Hey I said if you wanted to discuss anything I said, including offering up a third option, I'm all ears. But as usual all you want to do is bitch and moan and never actually, y'know, discuss anything :)


The only thing Back did was to express something that he's been thinking about lately.

So what? I can't respond to what Back said, even if it's just his personal thoughts and opinions? If Back doesn't want feedback to his posts then may I suggest he look into starting a blog sans a comment section.

[Tgo01]

It's funny because I had this entire thread pegged on the first page:


Liberal thinking: I'm all for open debate and discussion, just as long as you agree with everything I say.

[Warriorbird]

It's funny because I had this entire thread pegged on the first page:

Let's generalize more. That's cool.

[cwolff]

I hope you feel yourself more enlightened now, Back. Always happy to educate someone.

Hey I said if you wanted to discuss anything I said, including offering up a third option, I'm all ears. But as usual all you want to do is bitch and moan and never actually, y'know, discuss anything :)

So what? I can't respond to what Back said, even if it's just his personal thoughts and opinions? If Back doesn't want feedback to his posts then may I suggest he look into starting a blog sans a comment section.

Discuss what? You're just trolling. Keep it up if that's what gets you off.

I'll ask it again, for the 3rd time; why do you react so harshly? He said nothing controversial and even allowed for the fact that it's always been this way. You're reaction is an over reaction. I suspect that it's only because Back posted it. He's one of your targets so no matter what he posts you're going to misquote, over react, make assumptions and even fabricate his position for the sole reason that you want to be a dick to him.

Keep in mind, no one's telling you that you can't be a dick. You can. That's your right. I'm just questioning why you'd want to do that.

[Back]

Is this like you questioning me about 20% of American children go hungry then later on said you never questioned it?

He questioned whether or not it was new. The fact that he questions it means he either doesn't believe it or he's ignorant to the truth.

Do you not understand this?

It's simple. Either Back really believes all of this is new or he doesn't realize it's all new. I'm not sure how anything I said in response to his post is wrong given what I'm working with here.

I'm either A) Calling him stupid for thinking it's all new or B) Calling him ignorant for thinking it's all new.

If you would like to refute anything I said feel free and then we can have a discussion about this. But you are sounding kind of like a lunatic right now, cwolff.

Maybe I didn't put it into words correctly but that is not what I meant. Just that it seems like the fringe is growing and becoming accepted rather than staying on the fringe.

[Methais]

I think FOX News is a huge part of the problem disseminating vaugely distorted misinformation for an audience of crackpots.

What's your opinion of MSNBC?

[cwolff]

Let's generalize more. That's cool.

I'm starting to think that all of these guys are just troll accounts. They classify the other posters as an "enemy" or "not an enemy" then respond according to this classification regardless of the content.

[Methais]

cwolff thinking someone else is a troll account...

Let's let that sink in for a moment.

[Tgo01]

Let's generalize more. That's cool.

I'm not saying all Democrats worship Satan but...


I'll ask it again, for the 3rd time; why do you react so harshly?

This coming from the man who keeps calling me a racist for absolutely no reason whatsoever? If you want to be taken seriously may I suggest you start taking yourself seriously first.


I'm starting to think that all of these guys

In response to a sarcastic quote about generalizing more. Too funny.

[cwolff]

I'm not saying all Democrats worship Satan but...

This coming from the man who keeps calling me a racist for absolutely no reason whatsoever? If you want to be taken seriously may I suggest you start taking yourself seriously first.

In response to a sarcastic quote about generalizing more. Too funny.

I keep giving you reasons why I think you're a racist. Refer to post #68 in this thread:


Also noticed you how managed to get in an oblique reference to racism. You wonder why I call you a racist? It's because you always manage to bring it up even if you have to make it up.

That's one reason why I think you are racist. Every opportunity you will interject racism into a thread. Certainly there was nothing in Back's post even alluding to racism, yet you brought it up anyway. I have said this before and included my reasons. For you to say "no reason whatsoever" is more lying from you. You'll say anything at all in attempt to "win" these little PC conversations. It's pathetic. Have you no character at all? I can understand if you disagree, I can not understand you just making shit up like you do.

[Tgo01]

Just that it seems like the fringe is growing and becoming accepted rather than staying on the fringe.

Less than 1% of Americans don't have vaccinations. It's okay. We'll be okay.

You also have to keep in mind that some people are just shitty parents and has nothing to do with not trusting vaccinations.

Sometimes scientists are assholes, it doesn't help matters when things such as the Tuskegee "study" occur.


I keep giving you reasons why I think you're a racist. Refer to post #68 in this thread:

My bad, you're right. Let me rephrase; you keep giving bullshit, nonsensical reasons for why you think I'm racist.

[Latrinsorm]

I've advocated for equal marriage rights for years. Way before it was the popular thing to do.

Unlike most liberals who are much like the political equivalent of grass swaying with whatever wind comes along. Get three people together who believe that people with hazel eyes are from an alternate universe and there will probably be a democrat who will use it as a platform to run for office.But seriously, what's up with hazel eyes? Why can't we just pick a single color? What are we trying to hide?
But had a republican said something like that, the liberal mouth breathers and the media would cut his nuts off over it.

It's tolerable when someone liberals agree with do it, but if anyone they disagree with does anything, the world is ending.I hope you appreciate the humor in likening verbal criticism to castration, then blasting liberals for overreacting.

[Tisket]

But seriously, what's up with hazel eyes?

I know, right? They are freaks.

[Gelston]

I've advocated for equal marriage rights for years. Way before it was the popular thing to do.



Hipster.

[Warriorbird]

Hipster.

She lives in the Pacific Northwest. Hmm.

http://static.tvguide.com/MediaBin/Galleries/Shows/M_R/Pi_Pp/Portlandia/portlandia.jpg

[Thondalar]

I think FOX News is a huge part of the problem disseminating vaugely distorted misinformation for an audience of crackpots.

You would, because you don't agree with their viewpoint. You probably have no problem at all gobbling up everything that left-wing media feeds you, though. That's just a guess on my part...well, and an observation from the numerous links you've posted over the years to unapologetically leftist sources. To criticize Fox alone is incredibly hypocritical.

[Methais]

But seriously, what's up with hazel eyes? Why can't we just pick a single color? What are we trying to hide?I hope you appreciate the humor in likening verbal criticism to castration, then blasting liberals for overreacting.

If I remember correctly, it was Jesse Jackson who brought up cutting off Obama's (to whom Mr. Jacksoff referred to as "that nigga") nuts.

I guess Obama wasn't black enough.

[Warriorbird]

If I remember correctly, it was Jesse Jackson who brought up cutting off Obama's (to whom Mr. Jacksoff referred to as "that nigga") nuts.

I guess Obama wasn't black enough.

I remember that too. It was after Obama gave a very conservative "man up and address your problems" speech to black men. It hasn't stopped him from being the Great Satan to all of you.

I've thought Jesse Jackson was ridiculous ever since he gave a protest speech and interrupted a school field trip to Washington when I was a kid.

[Tgo01]

It hasn't stopped him from being the Great Satan to all of you.

Generalizations!

Personally I don't think Obama is all that great, he's a mediocre Satan at best.

[Methais]

I remember that too. It was after Obama gave a very conservative "man up and address your problems" speech to black men. It hasn't stopped him from being the Great Satan to all of you.

I've thought Jesse Jackson was ridiculous ever since he gave a protest speech and interrupted a school field trip to Washington when I was a kid.

Obama also said, "If you like your doctor/health plan, you can keep it."

How did that turn out?

[Warriorbird]

Obama also said, "If you like your doctor/health plan, you can keep it."

How did that turn out?

Pretty good unless you're trying to count on society paying your emergency room bills due to your terrible insurance plan/lack of one in spite of your income.

[Latrinsorm]

You would, because you don't agree with their viewpoint. You probably have no problem at all gobbling up everything that left-wing media feeds you, though. That's just a guess on my part...well, and an observation from the numerous links you've posted over the years to unapologetically leftist sources. To criticize Fox alone is incredibly hypocritical.Everyone knows the two brothers, one of whom tells only truth and the other only lies. Slightly less well known is that the family had four sons: the third brother says all things are red and the fourth says all things are blue. It seems easy, you imagine, to gravitate instantly and unwaveringly towards the belief that both are wrong in equal measure.

But I wonder... in the world where millions of underprivileged live in Kryptonian flowerpots under the light of five hundred red suns, how can reality not have a rederal bias? If the two brothers observe a stop sign, only spite could prevent one from agreeing with the red's analysis, no?
If I remember correctly, it was Jesse Jackson who brought up cutting off Obama's (to whom Mr. Jacksoff referred to as "that nigga") nuts.

I guess Obama wasn't black enough.I can already guess what Latrinestorm is going to say. "Oh, if a black person said it it's okay." Typical liberal infantilizing minorities. Now a libertarian like me is above all that left/right nonsense, so I can criticize Jackson and Republicans or my name isn't Thondalar.
Generalizations!

Personally I don't think Obama is all that great, he's a mediocre Satan at best.Like Alexander before him, he's Pretty Good.

[Methais]

Pretty good unless you're trying to count on society paying your emergency room bills due to your terrible insurance plan/lack of one in spite of your income.

So you're saying that everyone who liked their doctors and their health plans got to keep them?


Now a libertarian like me

WHAT HAPPENED TO "AS A REPUBLICAN..."?!?!((

[Warriorbird]

So you're saying that everyone who liked their doctors and their health plans got to keep them?

That would be a cool translation. I'm saying it worked out for most folks. The ones who it didn't work out for are people who should have more "skin in the game." Wow, that sounds just like a crb quote. That evil liberal Obama.

[Methais]

That would be a cool translation. I'm saying it worked out for most folks. The ones who it didn't work out for are people who had perfectly good health plans that they were happy with that Obamacare ruined with its ridiculous and senseless governmental imposed guidelines.

Fixed.

[Thondalar]

Now a libertarian like me


WHAT HAPPENED TO "AS A REPUBLICAN..."?!?!((

I don't think you smelled what he was cooking.

[Methais]

I don't think you smelled what he was cooking.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bnaibm1zOI

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRpVtm9-OpTqZTv4AlEH_rUO2DaiMZfLMxq5Fdkh34bhrS2XB2Iqg

[Warriorbird]

Fixed.

I understand you want to have a different discussion with invisible WB. You're not really going to find evil liberal Obama in this direction though. If he was an ass he was a conservative one.


I don't think you smelled what he was cooking.

Latrin, I don't think you're able to be both a Republican and understand satire.

[Jarvan]

I know, right? They are freaks.

Screw you, I have hazel eyes.

Ok.. maybe I am a freak.

[Methais]

Latrin, I don't think you're able to be both a Republican and understand satire.

I thought we were at a point on these forums where italics weren't required anymore.

I guess I was wrong. First time for everything I suppose.

[Warriorbird]

I thought we were at a point on these forums where italics weren't required anymore.

I guess I was wrong. First time for everything I suppose.

Woosh.

[Back]

I think the whole italic for sarcasm thing was for the sarcasm detection impaired.

[~Rocktar~]

I remember that too. It was after Obama gave a very conservative "man up and address your problems" speech to black men. It hasn't stopped him from being the Great Satan to all of you.

I am not Christian so I don't believe in Satan. Also, Hitler rebuilt the German economy, fed the starving and made the trains run on time, none of these decent things do anything to alleviate the fact that he gave orders that sent 11+ million people to death camps and killed and wounded millions more in a wholesale war of conquest and destruction. Seriously, your ability to suggest that one or two fairly ok things done by a person counteract the heaping truck loads of bullshit, racism, class warfare and economic destruction they have dumped on us is simply incredible. For a nice biblical quote to apply "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Mathew7-20 KJV 1611 edition. And frankly, Obama's fruits are trail apples.

[Warriorbird]

I am not Christian so I don't believe in Satan. Also, Hitler rebuilt the German economy, fed the starving and made the trains run on time, none of these decent things do anything to alleviate the fact that he gave orders that sent 11+ million people to death camps and killed and wounded millions more in a wholesale war of conquest and destruction. Seriously, your ability to suggest that one or two fairly ok things done by a person counteract the heaping truck loads of bullshit, racism, class warfare and economic destruction they have dumped on us is simply incredible. For a nice biblical quote to apply "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Mathew7-20 KJV 1611 edition. And frankly, Obama's fruits are trail apples.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Mike_Godwin_at_Wikimedia_2010.jpg

[Methais]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Mike_Godwin_at_Wikimedia_2010.jpg

http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/2011/07/harry-potter-glasses.jpg

[Gelston]

http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/2011/07/harry-potter-glasses.jpg

http://img0.etsystatic.com/il_570xN.173067236.jpg

[Warriorbird]

http://cdn.sheknows.com/articles/2011/07/harry-potter-glasses.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YVAfaWUHXJ0/TZLrdzmh_cI/AAAAAAAAAUQ/viLTqSspMVE/s1600/hp_crabbegoyle.jpg

[Atlanteax]

If I remember correctly, it was Jesse Jackson who brought up cutting off Obama's (to whom Mr. Jacksoff referred to as "that nigga") nuts.

I guess Obama wasn't black enough.

As Obama is not poor, he will never be 'black enough'

[Latrinsorm]

The first three are hard to quantify, but economic destruction? The economy is clearly in a better place than it was when Obama took office, let alone taking into account the negative velocities he inherited. Real GDP/capita, unemployment, DJIA, inflation... even real median household income has recovered to Jan 09 levels.