Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Da'Rick Rogers predictions vs. Houston


AllYouNeedIsLuck

Recommended Posts

Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

Not bitter, just an observation. When the military is allows basic trainees to pull out 'stress' cards because they feel too stressed, you know something is wrong. The military also changed the the whole physical training program because trainees were literally physiologically incapable of doing it the old way. It had to be changed and made easier because kids these days dont get out and do anything, they were having more shin splits and hip fractures because the stress of what? Jumping jacks, running, sit ups? Isnt that stuff you do in gym class?

I see first hand, every day the immaturity, lack of respect for authority, and discipline every day. You dont have to respect the person, but you have to respect the position above you. In a job that people die everyday in, discipline and respect is the linchpin to survival. What is the purpose of these knockout games? Most seem racially charged as they are also known as polar bear hunting. The ignorance level of the younger generation as compared to when i was the same age, in both politics and common life lessons, is drastically different. People dont know the pledge of allegiance or the national anthem anymore.

Use to, a community was a family. Not a literal family, but a family of individuals that cared for one another and looked out for one another. More and more people distance themselves from one another and distrust one another. Before if your kid was acting up you wanted your neighbor to whoop his butt if you werent around. Now people take it as a personal insult if you let them know your kid was throwing rocks at their house. Use to, you could count on your neighbor and were good friends, or you hated them. But at least you KNEW them. Now people live beside one another for years and do not know anything about them. The more social programs like twitter, facebook etc. there are, the less social it seems we become with one another.

It all just seems different, and not in a good way. But of course, the same was said about me im sure. But its true, as the generations keep coming, the softer and softer they get. If WW2 was played over again, with current generations...the results may be drastically different.

Every generation thinks the one that follows is lazy, disrespectful, and not as good as the old one.

Nothing new.

Every generation has its good and bad.

Link to comment
  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

Not bitter, just an observation.  When the military is allows basic trainees to pull out 'stress' cards because they feel too stressed, you know something is wrong.  The military also changed the the whole physical training program because trainees were literally physiologically incapable of doing it the old way.  It had to be changed and made easier because kids these days dont get out and do anything, they were having more shin splits and hip fractures because the stress of what? Jumping jacks, running, sit ups?  Isnt that stuff you do in gym class? 

 

I see first hand, every day the immaturity, lack of respect for authority, and discipline every day.  You dont have to respect the person, but you have to respect the position above you.  In a job that people die everyday in, discipline and respect is the linchpin to survival.  What is the purpose of these knockout games?  Most seem racially charged as they are also known as polar bear hunting.  The ignorance level of the younger generation as compared to when i was the same age, in both politics and common life lessons, is drastically different.  People dont know the pledge of allegiance or the national anthem anymore. 

 

Use to, a community was a family.  Not a literal family, but a family of individuals that cared for one another and looked out for one another.  More and more people distance themselves from one another and distrust one another.  Before if your kid was acting up you wanted your neighbor to whoop his butt if you werent around.  Now people take it as a personal insult if you let them know your kid was throwing rocks at their house.  Use to, you could count on your neighbor and were good friends, or you hated them.  But at least you KNEW them.  Now people live beside one another for years and do not know anything about them.  The more social programs like twitter, facebook etc. there are, the less social it seems we become with one another. 

 

It all just seems different, and not in a good way.  But of course, the same was said about me im sure.  But its true, as the generations keep coming, the softer and softer they get.  If WW2 was played over again, with current generations...the results may be drastically different.

 

At least we can take solace in the fact that the younger generation's grammar is a significant upgrade to their predecessors.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

Wait, teen pregnacy and crime at an all time low? That's a load of crap right there.

 

Shhhhhhh.  That does not fit into the narrative of the next generation is horrible and the olden days were so much better.  Just ignore the vast racism and sexism from the 50s and 60s.  It was just a magical time where nothing bad ever happened. Only now has teen pregnancy, crime, and bad behavior occurred.  :rollseyes: 

 

Every generation thinks the one that comes after it is horrible.  My grandpa thought my moms generation in the 70s was bad, my mom thought my generation of the late 80s and early 90s is bad.  At times I think the generation after me is bad.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

Pretty sure DaRick Rogers will stop teen pregnancy on his way to curing sense of entitlement while preventing 50 crimes on his way to the end zone vs. Houston.

I'm on topic right?

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

There's no way crime is lower. I seriously doubt the pregnacy stat either. Crime, murder has skyrocketed all across the u.s. But that's neither here nor there.

Go Colts!!

You both are correct... violent crime is down but crime overall is up.  But when you look at things you see that violent crime is not really down, things are just catagorized differently.  For example hate crimes are not catagorized under violent crimes, so they move more crimes to hate crimes and say the percentage of violent crimes are dropping.  that then serves a double purpose, they also say hate crimes are rising so we need more laws to force tolerance. 

 

But I do agree with you, there is no way you can look at things now and look at things 20 years ago and claim in anyway that things are getting better.  On teen pregnancy, rates fell from 199 to 2008 but since 2008 they have been on the rise, with a dramatic rise since 2009 in not only the number of 1st time teen pregnancies but also then those teen mothers are having more children.  I won't go into the polictical reasons on why that is happening.

 

But to get back on subject.  Da'Rick had an mediocre game.  Looked like he took some plays off, rounded some of his routes, etc.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

Every generation thinks the one that comes after it is horrible.  My grandpa thought my moms generation in the 70s was bad, my mom thought my generation of the late 80s and early 90s is bad.  At times I think the generation after me is bad.

That does not mean they are not correct.  All you have to do is look at TV and the music industry, what is accetable nowadays was not acceptable back, even in the 80s, let a lone back in the 50s.

 

Not to say my generation (same as yours it sounds like) was perfect or great, we weren't but that does not make this generation better.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

That does not mean they are not correct.  All you have to do is look at TV and the music industry, what is accetable nowadays was not acceptable back, even in the 80s, let a lone back in the 50s.

 

Not to say my generation (same as yours it sounds like) was perfect or great, we weren't but that does not make this generation better.

 

On the other hand you can say things that were acceptable in the 50s like separate but equal are not acceptable now.  In some areas we have regressed as a society, but in other areas we have been much more progressive and open minded. 

 

Every generation hates on the next generation as being worse than the previous.  I am sure my great great grandpa said the same stuff about my great grandpa when he was growing up. 

 

it is all a cycle.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

Regress or progress, none of it will matter if we don't relieve our debts. And lowering tax rates will never allow this to happen. We're reducing our revenue while increasing our spending. Spending creates revenue. Yet we don't properly tax the revenue we create, and thus can't properly invest in the long term. It's an endless cycle of 2 differing ideologies working towards absolute complacency. Hence the economic growth being so consistently behind the inflation rate over the past 30 years. There's just not enough Rob Lowe in politics

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

On the other hand you can say things that were acceptable in the 50s like separate but equal are not acceptable now.  In some areas we have regressed as a society, but in other areas we have been much more progressive and open minded. 

 

Every generation hates on the next generation as being worse than the previous.  I am sure my great great grandpa said the same stuff about my great grandpa when he was growing up. 

 

it is all a cycle.

You really think racism is less today than in the 50's?  If this were the proper forum, I'd argue against that as well.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

You really think racism is less today than in the 50's?  If this were the proper forum, I'd argue against that as well.

 

No, probably not...but at least it is moving more and more towards being socially and morally unacceptable. 

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

You really think racism is less today than in the 50's?  If this were the proper forum, I'd argue against that as well.

 

Racism is far from dead because there are to many ignorant people out there spreading their hate, but I do think we are in a better place than in the 50s.  I think it is definitely less socially acceptable as it was back then.

 

I am definitely not the type that think racism died because elected a black president.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

At least we can take solace in the fact that the younger generation's grammar is a significant upgrade to their predecessors.

Ya sure it is, with all the ebonics going around. Is that all you got? Pointing out that there were grammar errors?  Well thank you Professor Anton for your enlightening English 101 course.  Can i get some semester hours from this?

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

Regress or progress, none of it will matter if we don't relieve our debts. And lowering tax rates will never allow this to happen. We're reducing our revenue while increasing our spending. Spending creates revenue. Yet we don't properly tax the revenue we create, and thus can't properly invest in the long term. It's an endless cycle of 2 differing ideologies working towards absolute complacency. Hence the economic growth being so consistently behind the inflation rate over the past 30 years. There's just not enough Rob Lowe in politics

You just contradicted yourself.  You say lowering tax rates will never allow this to happen, yet you turn around and say spending creates revenue?  Lowering tax rates increases the amount of money people and businesses have to spend.  Therefore, if spending creates revenue, then shouldn't lowering taxes allow people to spend more thus creating the revenue you speak of?  What would be a properly taxed revenue?  Thirty percent?  Forty?  Seventy five?  The corporate tax rate is already the highest in the world at 40%  That's just the federal corporate tax rate.  Then you have to add on state and local taxes as well as numerous other little taxes.  Businesses can be taxed upwards near 70-75% but that still isn't high enough for you?

 

You want to know what is really funny about your post?   You say economic growth has been down behind inflation the past 30 years, but do you know who was president before that 30 years when we did have economic growth?  Ronald Reagan.  Do you know what his policies were towards economics?  Trickle down, meaning less taxes on the job creators so that they could create more jobs and promote economic growth.  This lead well into Clinton's years as well. 

 

But of course, you are right.  We should tax businesses and people even higher so they have less money to spend.  This reminds me of something the President said, "You didn't build that."  That businesses had help from the people who built the roads and from the taxpayers that paid for the roads.  That is fine and all but he didn't finish this line of thinking.  Tax payers money built the roads and people built the roads that businesses use; taxes come from pay checks, paychecks come from having jobs, and jobs come from businesses.  So in all actuality, businesses did "built that."  Without businesses that had a need for that stuff, there would be no jobs to have gotten the tax money from and no positions to fill to even build the roads. 

 

Oh but i know, businesses wouldn't survive from us people buying things from them, well neither would the consumer.  It's like which came first, the chicken or the egg?  Which came first, the consumer or the supplier?  In this instance they came into existence simultaneously.  You kill one you kill the other.  You tax businesses more, you're going to kill economic growth and job creation.  It's economic fact, a law of economics basically. 

 

You want to save money for the future?  Cut the size of the bloated government.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

No, probably not...but at least it is moving more and more towards being socially and morally unacceptable. 

 

 

Racism is far from dead because there are to many ignorant people out there spreading their hate, but I do think we are in a better place than in the 50s.  I think it is definitely less socially acceptable as it was back then.

 

I am definitely not the type that think racism died because elected a black president.

I am not trying to be mean but you two are definitely naive when it comes to this.  It is less socially acceptable for some groups of people to be racist but other groups are openly racists and it is perfectly acceptable.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

You both are correct... violent crime is down but crime overall is up.  But when you look at things you see that violent crime is not really down, things are just catagorized differently.  For example hate crimes are not catagorized under violent crimes, so they move more crimes to hate crimes and say the percentage of violent crimes are dropping.  that then serves a double purpose, they also say hate crimes are rising so we need more laws to force tolerance. 

 

But I do agree with you, there is no way you can look at things now and look at things 20 years ago and claim in anyway that things are getting better.  On teen pregnancy, rates fell from 199 to 2008 but since 2008 they have been on the rise, with a dramatic rise since 2009 in not only the number of 1st time teen pregnancies but also then those teen mothers are having more children.  I won't go into the polictical reasons on why that is happening.

 

But to get back on subject.  Da'Rick had an mediocre game.  Looked like he took some plays off, rounded some of his routes, etc.

 

You've got it backwards, violent crime is up but overall crime like house break ins is down.  I think its up something like .7% while overall crime is down .9% 

 

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2012-crime-statistics

 

But it is true that they manipulate numbers to suit their purposes.  They being whoever is writing the story or creating the laws.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

You just contradicted yourself.  You say lowering tax rates will never allow this to happen, yet you turn around and say spending creates revenue?  Lowering tax rates increases the amount of money people and businesses have to spend.  Therefore, if spending creates revenue, then shouldn't lowering taxes allow people to spend more thus creating the revenue you speak of?  What would be a properly taxed revenue?  Thirty percent?  Forty?  Seventy five?  The corporate tax rate is already the highest in the world at 40%  That's just the federal corporate tax rate.  Then you have to add on state and local taxes as well as numerous other little taxes.  Businesses can be taxed upwards near 70-75% but that still isn't high enough for you?

 

You want to know what is really funny about your post?   You say economic growth has been down behind inflation the past 30 years, but do you know who was president before that 30 years when we did have economic growth?  Ronald Reagan.  Do you know what his policies were towards economics?  Trickle down, meaning less taxes on the job creators so that they could create more jobs and promote economic growth.  This lead well into Clinton's years as well. 

 

But of course, you are right.  We should tax businesses and people even higher so they have less money to spend.  This reminds me of something the President said, "You didn't build that."  That businesses had help from the people who built the roads and from the taxpayers that paid for the roads.  That is fine and all but he didn't finish this line of thinking.  Tax payers money built the roads and people built the roads that businesses use; taxes come from pay checks, paychecks come from having jobs, and jobs come from businesses.  So in all actuality, businesses did "built that."  Without businesses that had a need for that stuff, there would be no jobs to have gotten the tax money from and no positions to fill to even build the roads. 

 

Oh but i know, businesses wouldn't survive from us people buying things from them, well neither would the consumer.  It's like which came first, the chicken or the egg?  Which came first, the consumer or the supplier?  In this instance they came into existence simultaneously.  You kill one you kill the other.  You tax businesses more, you're going to kill economic growth and job creation.  It's economic fact, a law of economics basically. 

 

You want to save money for the future?  Cut the size of the bloated government.

Good points.  I agree with everything you said (assuming I correctly It seems Rob Lowe is cofusing consumer spending with govt. spending.  Govt. spending does not create revenue, govt. spends the revenue.

 

I do agree with his comment about revenue is not taxed properly.  If we would instute a flat income tax (and the necessary constitutional amendment so the flat tax amount cannot be raised easily, the federal govt would take in more revenue.  But, as you stated, before they do that they need to reduce the size of govt dramatically so the flat tax amount can be set.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

You've got it backwards, violent crime is up but overall crime like house break ins is down.  I think its up something like .7% while overall crime is down .9% 

 

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2012-crime-statistics

 

But it is true that they manipulate numbers to suit their purposes.  They being whoever is writing the story or creating the laws.

Thanks, I was going off memory from an article I read a year or so ago.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

Good points.  I agree with everything you said (assuming I correctly It seems Rob Lowe is cofusing consumer spending with govt. spending.  Govt. spending does not create revenue, govt. spends the revenue.

 

I do agree with his comment about revenue is not taxed properly.  If we would instute a flat income tax (and the necessary constitutional amendment so the flat tax amount cannot be raised easily, the federal govt would take in more revenue.  But, as you stated, before they do that they need to reduce the size of govt dramatically so the flat tax amount can be set.

THANK YOU!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.  I was a big proponent for the Fair Tax Act.  Too bad i knew it was going to get shot down just because Ron Paul supported it, but still.  Something like the Fair Tax Act, flat tax, was economically studied and shown that it would bring in an extra 368 Billion a year. This is because with a flat tax on products bought new, it would make all tourists here and all drug dealers and other black market, under the table payments be taxed as well.  You keep all of your income and you only pay taxes on stuff bought new.  This eliminates, or at least reduces, the IRS because now only businesses would be submitting the paid taxes and not all 314 million people in the US submitting 1040EZ's.  It is semantics as to whether its tax inclusive or exclusive, the outcome is still the same.  Better for EVERYONE...well except for the politicians who lose out on all the payments they get from tax lobbyists.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

You just contradicted yourself.  You say lowering tax rates will never allow this to happen, yet you turn around and say spending creates revenue?  Lowering tax rates increases the amount of money people and businesses have to spend.  Therefore, if spending creates revenue, then shouldn't lowering taxes allow people to spend more thus creating the revenue you speak of?  What would be a properly taxed revenue?  Thirty percent?  Forty?  Seventy five?  The corporate tax rate is already the highest in the world at 40%  That's just the federal corporate tax rate.  Then you have to add on state and local taxes as well as numerous other little taxes.  Businesses can be taxed upwards near 70-75% but that still isn't high enough for you?

 

You want to know what is really funny about your post?   You say economic growth has been down behind inflation the past 30 years, but do you know who was president before that 30 years when we did have economic growth?  Ronald Reagan.  Do you know what his policies were towards economics?  Trickle down, meaning less taxes on the job creators so that they could create more jobs and promote economic growth.  This lead well into Clinton's years as well. 

 

But of course, you are right.  We should tax businesses and people even higher so they have less money to spend.  This reminds me of something the President said, "You didn't build that."  That businesses had help from the people who built the roads and from the taxpayers that paid for the roads.  That is fine and all but he didn't finish this line of thinking.  Tax payers money built the roads and people built the roads that businesses use; taxes come from pay checks, paychecks come from having jobs, and jobs come from businesses.  So in all actuality, businesses did "built that."  Without businesses that had a need for that stuff, there would be no jobs to have gotten the tax money from and no positions to fill to even build the roads. 

 

Oh but i know, businesses wouldn't survive from us people buying things from them, well neither would the consumer.  It's like which came first, the chicken or the egg?  Which came first, the consumer or the supplier?  In this instance they came into existence simultaneously.  You kill one you kill the other.  You tax businesses more, you're going to kill economic growth and job creation.  It's economic fact, a law of economics basically. 

 

You want to save money for the future?  Cut the size of the bloated government.

You just contradicted yourself.  You say lowering tax rates will never allow this to happen, yet you turn around and say spending creates revenue?  Lowering tax rates increases the amount of money people and businesses have to spend.  Therefore, if spending creates revenue, then shouldn't lowering taxes allow people to spend more thus creating the revenue you speak of?  What would be a properly taxed revenue?  Thirty percent?  Forty?  Seventy five?  The corporate tax rate is already the highest in the world at 40%  That's just the federal corporate tax rate.  Then you have to add on state and local taxes as well as numerous other little taxes.  Businesses can be taxed upwards near 70-75% but that still isn't high enough for you?

 

You want to know what is really funny about your post?   You say economic growth has been down behind inflation the past 30 years, but do you know who was president before that 30 years when we did have economic growth?  Ronald Reagan.  Do you know what his policies were towards economics?  Trickle down, meaning less taxes on the job creators so that they could create more jobs and promote economic growth.  This lead well into Clinton's years as well. 

 

But of course, you are right.  We should tax businesses and people even higher so they have less money to spend.  This reminds me of something the President said, "You didn't build that."  That businesses had help from the people who built the roads and from the taxpayers that paid for the roads.  That is fine and all but he didn't finish this line of thinking.  Tax payers money built the roads and people built the roads that businesses use; taxes come from pay checks, paychecks come from having jobs, and jobs come from businesses.  So in all actuality, businesses did "built that."  Without businesses that had a need for that stuff, there would be no jobs to have gotten the tax money from and no positions to fill to even build the roads. 

 

Oh but i know, businesses wouldn't survive from us people buying things from them, well neither would the consumer.  It's like which came first, the chicken or the egg?  Which came first, the consumer or the supplier?  In this instance they came into existence simultaneously.  You kill one you kill the other.  You tax businesses more, you're going to kill economic growth and job creation.  It's economic fact, a law of economics basically. 

 

You want to save money for the future?  Cut the size of the bloated government.

Teeheehee

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

I'm Rob Lowe, I stand for Keynesianism and gov spending. Creating revenue through investments. Giving money to the people who haven't earned it, taken from those who have for a fairer society! Have ye no heart, have he no soul? Have ye no sarcasm?

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

I'm Rob Lowe, I stand for Keynesianism and gov spending. Creating revenue through investments. Giving money to the people who haven't earned it, taken from those who have for a fairer society! Have ye no heart, have he no soul? Have ye no sarcasm?

 

Trust me, i know plenty of people who are not sarcastic about taxing everything into the dirt.  So to see sarcasm in that was a stretch.  There are people who still think the AHCA aka "Obamacare" is working perfectly and is the answer to all our problems.

 

People say America is turning socialist, but thats not true, the policies look more communist.

 

Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution

 

Communism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

Personally I haven't seen any improvement or worsening from what was already in place. It was a % system to begin with. However, I did read a stat where for every 1 person who has lost their coverage and/or provider, 336 people have now gained it. The problem as I see it is whether the majority of that "336" number are those who have newly purchased packages or simply newly admitted government-paid recipients. I'm betting on the latter. In which case, private business will only benefit as much as the government can afford to pay, or rather take our money to pay for those who cannot pay for themselves. % system all around, before and after.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

I am not trying to be mean but you two are definitely naive when it comes to this. It is less socially acceptable for some groups of people to be racist but other groups are openly racists and it is perfectly acceptable.

I simply said things were moving more towards racism begin unacceptable? How is that "definitely naive"? Can you really say that has not been the case as compared to say 70 years ago? What groups do you mean?

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

Ya sure it is, with all the ebonics going around. Is that all you got? Pointing out that there were grammar errors?  Well thank you Professor Anton for your enlightening English 101 course.  Can i get some semester hours from this?

 

No, you can't.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

Where are the mods when this thread became the Economist?

lmao

There are a lot of personal shots and disrespect in this thread...

I may not have done everything right, and I'm sure there is plenty I've done wrong over the years, but my children were raised to respect their elders, as well as and including their peers. In doing so, they have also earned the respect of others.

Practice what you preach, people. We could use a little less hate, and a lot more Love, especially around this time of year.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

I'm Rob Lowe, I stand for Keynesianism and gov spending. Creating revenue through investments. Giving money to the people who haven't earned it, taken from those who have for a fairer society! Have ye no heart, have he no soul? Have ye no sarcasm?

I have to admit, I missed the sarcasm and I don't know Rob Lowe's politics (and I never watched West Wing).

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

I simply said things were moving more towards racism begin unacceptable? How is that "definitely naive"? Can you really say that has not been the case as compared to say 70 years ago? What groups do you mean?

Well, I don't know for sure about 70 years ago, I'm not that old.  But don't mistake hidden for acceptable.  As far as what groups I will answer that with a series of questions:  Have you ever heard of: a white history month? White Expo? Has the NFL celebrated a WASP heritage month?  I could go on.  Now, me personally, I think these things are great; the US began as a nation of immigrants and I think people should celebrate their heritage.  But if someone wants to celebrate their white heritage they are called racists, many times, by the people who are the real racists.

Link to comment
Posted · Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review
Hidden by Nadine, December 18, 2013 - off topic and under review

Well, I don't know for sure about 70 years ago, I'm not that old.  But don't mistake hidden for acceptable.  As far as what groups I will answer that with a series of questions:  Have you ever heard of: a white history month? White Expo? Has the NFL celebrated a WASP heritage month?  I could go on.  Now, me personally, I think these things are great; the US began as a nation of immigrants and I think people should celebrate their heritage.  But if someone wants to celebrate their white heritage they are called racists, many times, by the people who are the real racists.

 

And I don't mistake hidden for non-existent.  I'm not nearly that old either but i was referring to the times when there were separate schools, separate restaurants, separate water fountains etc.  Things have certainly progressed to some extent since then wouldn't you agree?  That's all I was originally trying to say.  Sure there are still a lot of things that are messed up in our society and I could give many more examples other than what you gave, but the original point was simply that overall things seem to at least be moving in the right direction.  

Link to comment

There were multiple posts in this thread that were not only off topic..........but rude, insulting and in violation of several site rules.

There was even a political discussion started......

 

All of you knew that all of this was in violation of site rules.......and some questioned why moderation was not here

 

The answer is, NOT A SINGLE POSTER  reported this thread.

 

Moderators try to get around but we do not see everything and as a site member, YOUR responsibility first is to uphold site rules........and second to report posting that is in violation of site rules

 

Incredibly disappointed in everyone that saw this going on and took the opportunity to make it worse.

 

FYI..........when you see a personal disagreement in a thread........rather than making it worse, please report it so that moderation can deal with it before it spins out of control..........as this thread did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...