100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
Idont know it seems to me that the liberals on this sight are the ones who are hard working and productive and most the right wing are liveing on unemployment or workers comp or social security. I am sure biteing the hand that feeds you is also a form of mental illness but I am no phyciatrist. What's usually going on is something called 'projection bias'. According to Sigmund Freud, projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else. 'Emotions or excitations which the ego tries to ward off are "spit out" and then felt as being outside the ego...perceived in another person'. It is a common process.The related defence of 'projective identification differs from projection in that the impulse projected onto an external object does not appear as something alien and distant from the ego because the connection of the self with that projected impulse continues'. In one example of the process, a person might have thoughts of infidelity with respect to a spouse or other partner. Instead of dealing with these undesirable thoughts consciously, the subject unconsciously projects these feelings onto the other person, and begins to think that the other has thoughts of infidelity and that the other may be having an affair. In this way, the subject may obtain 'acquittal by his conscience - if he projects his own impulses to faithlessness on to the partner to whom he owes faith'. In this sense, projection is related to denial, arguably the only defense mechanism that is more primitive than projection. Projection, like all defense mechanisms, provides a function whereby a person can protect the conscious mind from a feeling that is otherwise repulsive. Projection can also be established as a means of obtaining or justifying certain actions that would normally be found atrocious or heinous. This often means projecting false accusations, information, etc., onto an individual for the sole purpose of maintaining a self-created illusion. One of the many problems with the process whereby 'something dangerous that is felt inside can be moved outside - a process of "projection"' - is that as a result 'the projector may become somewhat depleted and rendered limp in character, as he loses part of his personality'. Compartmentalization, splitting and projection are ways that the ego continues to pretend that it is completely in control at all times, when in reality human experience is one of shifting beingness, instinctual or territorial reactiveness and emotional motives, for which the "I" is not always complicit. Further, common in deep trauma, individuals can be unable to access truthful memories, intentions and experiences, even about their own nature, wherein projection is just one tool. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and the APA says what about this illness? It's far more instructive to look at what the APA has to say about Narcissism in its DSM. By regurgitating the pap from right wing extremists, the people who declare anyone that isn't an extremist conservative to be mentally ill are really only getting the Narcissistic Supply they crave so badly to satisfy their addiction to bile. You want to see what's tearing the country apart? It's these people-- who polarize EVERYTHING and make an "illness" out of it. Yanno, I thought America was founded on a diverse political bedrock where we could debate endlessly about our differences. This sort of Bad Science is an attempt to shut down that debate. It, and the people who promulgate it, deserve the contempt one usually reserves for the 'reporting' found in grocery store tabloids. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are all athiests male?
|
|
AGNOSTIC: A person too lazy to take a stand on any belief and doesn't bother to decide. I don't deny it. I don't watch the news either. Is it gonna rain tomorrow? I don't give a ****, I'm still here, might as well enjoy it. I hardly see how you can define me without knowing me. I've given my agnosticism a HUGE amount of thought over the years, especially after I coded in an ambulance 7 years ago. You'd be amazed at what such an experience does and _doesn't_ do to someone who doesn't subscribe to any particular religion. Or as Lt.Cmdr Data said in Star Trek TNG: Captain, the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is, "I do not know". You have my attention fellow Trek Fan. Data is indeed a wise being. However, I was talking about myself, as a way of saying to you, "Hi, me too." It seems we are two very different Agnostics, I really don't give it that much thought, never have. I was raised in a strict catholic background and it has always felt wrong for me to believe in an all knowing being. If there was a CHURCH of PICARD, I might believe in that. Saint Data...Reverend Mother Troi, Worf the Arch Angel defend us in Battle, be with us against the wicked snares of the Borg. Fair enough. I don't think of Agnosticism as another 'religion', I think of it both as a considered response to organized religion on one's own part and as a license to explore one's gestalt and the way the Universe works. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, but mankind didn't achieve such stupendous feats of intellect and courage such as going to the moon by reading and regurgitating Holy Writ. It was the Skeptics that said "Something is Wrong With This", rolled up their mental sleeves and went to work on their own to solve the mysteries of the Universe, leaving the priests and theologians to natter incoherently in the dust as they have always done. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KerryO, The bill does not eliminate collective bargining. It 'modifies' collective bargaining to allow for bargaining on wages but not on 'benefits' (which cost the government much more than wages). That puts a lie to the propaganda that the bill takes away collective bargaining. It does not effect the PRIVATE sector unions... That puts a lie to the propaganda that the bill effects such organizations. (i.e the AFL/CIO claiming it 'strips' all unions of rights). These little propaganda wars are destroying our country... (and before any one can start labeling me a righty... I have as many examples of THEIR propaganda also) Not yet-- but as Judge Judy might say, "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." I think it's blindingly OBVIOUS that the Koch brothers would love to see all unions busted for equally OBVIOUS selfish reasons. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Are all athiests male?
|
|
AGNOSTIC: A person too lazy to take a stand on any belief and doesn't bother to decide. I don't deny it. I don't watch the news either. Is it gonna rain tomorrow? I don't give a ****, I'm still here, might as well enjoy it. I hardly see how you can define me without knowing me. I've given my agnosticism a HUGE amount of thought over the years, especially after I coded in an ambulance 7 years ago. You'd be amazed at what such an experience does and _doesn't_ do to someone who doesn't subscribe to any particular religion. Or as Lt.Cmdr Data said in Star Trek TNG: Captain, the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is, "I do not know". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
KerryO
on
Sat 02/26/11 07:37 PM
|
|
Not one leftist on this site bothered to post anything about Providence Democratic Mayor Angel Tavares sending out termination notices to almost 2000 unionized teachers. Why would a Democrat do such a thing? You're not telling the whole story. Not one teacher has been terminated yet, nor will all 2000 BE terminated in the future. I think the city has an agreement with the union to provide advance notification of employment cuts and can't pick and choose to whom to send the notifications. This is entirely different from the Koch affair, where the rank and file AGREED to cuts, whereas Walker, arguably at the Koch's bequest, is saying "No retreat, no surrender". He's drawing a line in the sand with no compromise possible. They have to either knuckle under or else. Fiat by ultimatum-- the favorite mode of tin horn dictators everywhere. BTW, I'm not generally fond of unions, but the pendulum HAS swung in the other direction. I think people like the Brothers Koch need to be reined in before they cause too much damage. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole Koch/Walker/Union affair affirms what Ambrose Bierce wrote over a century ago:
Politics, n., A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Prank” No Laughing Matter
|
|
He broke no laws. If he had the lunatics here would Have already brought up charges. And as for all the issues discussed in the phone call it's basically everything he's been saying in public. You're right. It's not against the law for a politician to demonstrate he's so far into the pocket of vested interests that he comes equipped with lint and a keychain. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, those of us in Arizona are trying correct this problem by making this state as hostile towards people criminally entering the country so they don't want to come here. Do it the right way or get hassled! Does that include not hiring people without green cards? Shouldn't that be criminal, too? Especially when the person or corp who's doing the hiring KNOWS that they are hiring illegals but doesn't care because they are getting ultra-cheap labor that often the taxpayer has to pick up the tab for when their children go to school or they get sick. I hear over in Texas, this has been known to happen a time or two.... -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Ron Paul Senator from Texas
Edited by
KerryO
on
Sun 02/20/11 04:11 PM
|
|
Ron has never advocated the quasi-free (fascist) market system. He has talked about sound money, but he has also said that free market monetary systems are superior. A truly free market develops spontaneously as voluntary interactions between market actors. "just say no" (your words-a more proper, accurate term is "laissez-faire") is in fact the best system. Numerous economists, historians, and praxaeologists have demonstrated this. [\quote] Bollocks. HISTORY has demonstrated that, left to its own devices, the system will, in a cyclic manner, go off the rails in boom and bust cycles. If you REALLY want a valid economic principle that you can take to the bank, forget Lew Rockwell, Paul, Rand, Mises and all the rest and go with this one: Trees never grow into heaven. When someone tells you that something is so all-fired wonderful that there's no end in site? The End, at least of that cycle, is just around the corner. If you really believe that the "free market" exploded GM, you don't know your history. The failure of GM was a massive, disgusting display of corporatism (so far removed from capitalism it's not even funny). (See DeCoster/Englund's analysis here-http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster133.html, North's here-http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north370.html, and Reisman's here-http://blog.mises.org/10066/general-motors-rip/ ) [\quote] No, I don't need to read Gary North's outgassings. He's a religious kook. If ANY of these guys were the Oracles they claim to be, they'd be quietly getting filthy rich prognosticating where the market is going, NOT cranking on the Internet to a miniscule audience of True Believers. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not my fault you have no sense of beauty while looking at the universe or the fossil records. What does the above quote have in common with this quote? Maybe it's the fact that some are actually scared of the "beauty" and not the other way. Perhaps some people are just "ugly" and the only way they can feel better is to put down everything and everyone. Show your work. -Kerry O. Yet a prime example of the title of the thread. The last quote was first, the first quote was last. So I'll show an example of how I came to the first quote. http://mingle2.com/forum/show_posts_by_user/117819 LOL. I fail to see the words of any 'god' that are being twisted here. -Kerry O. "Perhaps some people are just "ugly" and the only way they can feel better is to put down everything and everyone." Ibid. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Ron Paul Senator from Texas
|
|
Ah, good 'ole Dr. No. Patron saint of C.A.N.E. (Citizens Against Nearly Everything).
Even though he's IN the government, he'll veto anything that asks the government to have a hand in... anything. One can note that in the article posted above--all his 'solutions' begin with the theory that anytime the government gets involved in something, it turns out bad. Better to let everything come tumbling down and let anarchy and the "Free" market. sort it out later. Never mind that it was rigged 'Free' Markets that got us here-- according to Dr. Paul, we should just go back to the good ole days where monopolists were given free rein to put corners on the market. I'm sorry-- Just Say No may work for some endeavors, but as policy it has a lot to be desired. And casting the Federal Reserve as the ultimate Ayn Rand villain may be poetic-- it's just not very productive. BTW, the government didn't 'take over' General Motors--- it picked up was demonstrably left over after the 'Free' Market exploded it and wished it a fond 'Rest in Pieces'. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
speeding fine $1,143
|
|
Finally, a tax on stupidity. With all the Dale Earnhardt wannabees on the highways these days, if they'd only hire more traffic cops, the states could balance their budgets in no time. -Kerry O. That's exactly right but instead they put up speed enforcement cameras and use the money on non police related nonsense like "public art"! I suspect we don't agree on much, but it sounds like we both think 'plop art' is tantamount to a fleecing of the public. I'd REALLY like to see the money go towards more cops on the beat. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh well now if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black. Usually when we on the right try to debate you leftys all we get are links to what the liberal media has to say. Like no one is able to give their own opinion on matters, they just copy/paste a link and let someone else speak for them. In true liberal fashion. Debate away, Mister. You won't find one link in my replies. I'm quite capable of speaking for myself. As long as you're civil, I'm civil. Fire away. Likewise, I don't need the 'liberal media' (as if anyone really knows who or what that is) to do my thinking for me. There is a definite difference between raw news, editorializing and pure propaganda. Usually when somone who declares themselves to be from the Far Right, it's almost a given that they feel the use of 'Stop Thinking Here' words like 'lefty' and 'liberal' is all that's required to short circuit the debate without any debate-worthy facts being arranged in a well-thought out argument. You see it here all the time-- scroll back to the thread on Sharia Law and note the doctored up picture of Obama with his fingers in his ears. That's pure propaganda and it's often reinforced by its travelling companion, Yellow Journalism. And neither camp is above using it. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
speeding fine $1,143
|
|
Finally, a tax on stupidity. With all the Dale Earnhardt wannabees on the highways these days, if they'd only hire more traffic cops, the states could balance their budgets in no time.
-Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Sharia Law already in the US
Edited by
KerryO
on
Sat 02/12/11 01:18 PM
|
|
If you say so.  Please don't tell me that you honestly believe that all muslims around the world are all blood thirsty extremist fundamentalists, do you? I hear very few actually denouncing it. And I don't hear many of the same right-wing Christians who claim this country is their god-given oyster denouncing the slaughter in the Old Testament, either. To anyone except those same right-wing Christians who are attempting to stoke the flames of religious intolerance for votes, this ruling meant ONLY that the way it was written was unconstitutional because it attempted to single out a single religion. At NO TIME did the judge say she favored provisions of Sharia law-- most such provisions would be unconstitutional on their own merits. I guess it takes a John Birch Society mentality to see what wasn't actually there and use it to fearmonger. Yanno, Willing-- as an secular agnostic, I would have far more to fear from these inaccurate caricatures you're constantly posting against other religions than you would. And I'm not the least bit worried about Muslims or Sharia Law becoming the law of the land any more than I'm worried about the Mormons passing laws requiring us all to wear their 'magic underwear.' -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Progressive Media
|
|
To the funnies section? Progressives, no matter how dangerous to the country they are, give great comedy. Showing their ignorance and hatred of America and family values. Ah, but they are mere pikers compared to Conservative-leaning Obama-haters who wail about illegal immigrants ad nauseum but then hire them to do construction work because they are cheaper. And because they aren't... how did that go...' lazy, greedy American workers who wanted twice as much and took too long to do the same job'? Funnier still, they brag about it on the Internet? Hoping no one would notice? LOL. Since the money goes back to Mexico via remittances, one might say those who do that are placing Mexican Family Values above American Family Values? Not that we know anyone like that, huh? :) -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You opinion... Hardly. I gave you figures from my OWN experience that conclusively show the difference where insurance is required for treatment and where it isn't. Draw whatever conclusion you want from the facts or close your eyes to it, but to just keep saying "Show me where 'Obamacare' yada, yada, yada....'is not a credible rebuttal, it's just plain denial. Where in the so called Obamacare does it address the insurance problem... No regulations on insurance at all... Once we are all ON it those self same companies have no controls on what they can do... Only on that they HAVE to insure the preexisting... Depending upon what area a person lives in. ( They can still deny by geographical areas - as determined by competant authority) I am seriously thinking that very few people are actually reading this bill... Instead every picks out the parts they need to firm up their postions and no one seems to be putting it all together. It will HAVE to be re booted in 2018 or 2019 (with additional taxes)... It will not cover all the uninsured it will leave at least 23 million still uncovered in 2019 (that comes from the CBO that everyone quotes but misses the important stuff - or leaves it out)... This bill is a nightmare comming. I suspect that people who use this reasoning are operating on the not-so-hidden agenda of not habing health insurance and adamantly refusing to buy any because they have 'other' priorities in life on the grounds that it infringes on their freedom. Or that all insurance is bad because it's 'Socialism'. Yanno, nothing infringes on one's freedom more than a major heart attack and early death. But hey, if that's their choice, probably 'Obamacare' will flush the quail out into the open. How'd they say it in the first colony of what was to become the United States? "He who will not work will not eat." -Kerry O. - I am sorry, and this is not meant personally, but that is just stupid. I DO work. That's why I object to this mandate. If I want to die from an early heart attack, it's no one else's business, AND I won't- as I have pretty much stayed away from modern western medicine I am healthier than most people my age, and than a lot who are much younger. So yes, I am very skeptical about socialism in healthcare and it's mandate to force me into participating in and paying for a system that I have not been using by choice Well this isn't meant personally either, but if you're not going to contribute to the system, then don't use the system when some hidden medical condition has you on the floor gasping for breath in tremendous pain at 2 a.m. Of course, when it comes to that ACTUALLY happening, most peoples' game faces dissolve into a puddle of fear. Then they show up at the metropolitan ER, run up bills into the tens of thousands of dollars and evade collection agencies until they can declare bankruptcy. You can't have it both ways. That's what's been bogging the system down for these last dozen years. It didn't used to be as bad as this. And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, because I HAVE been through the system with life-threatening congenital illnesses that were in NO way preventable. I left a lot of things go so I could have coverage. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hardly know which false premise to address first. 1. I have no problem with health insurance. I do have a problem with someone telling me how I feel or think (when they have no clue). 2. Where did I ever claim that insurance is bad. (or for that matter that I believe it to be a form of socialism)... This is standard misdirection and will not misdirect either me or someone that has seen the truth in what I have said. 3. Obamacare will flush out those that would die early anyway... Whatever dude! Obamacare will flush out some things allright... It will eventually highlight the colusion between certian elements in both parties that have made this situation possible. 4. We actually need to go back to that premise... 'he who does not work does not eat...' Nor should they get cash, medical, benefits, tax credits (when no tax is payed) and such 'bleeding heart' crap. I'm betting you don't have health insurance. And since you profess to feel this way, will you refuse medical treatment, knowing it will mean your death? That's what it should come down to-- but most of the people talking the talk can't walk the walk when they can't breathe at 2 a.m. in the morning. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You opinion... Hardly. I gave you figures from my OWN experience that conclusively show the difference where insurance is required for treatment and where it isn't. Draw whatever conclusion you want from the facts or close your eyes to it, but to just keep saying "Show me where 'Obamacare' yada, yada, yada....'is not a credible rebuttal, it's just plain denial. Where in the so called Obamacare does it address the insurance problem... No regulations on insurance at all... Once we are all ON it those self same companies have no controls on what they can do... Only on that they HAVE to insure the preexisting... Depending upon what area a person lives in. ( They can still deny by geographical areas - as determined by competant authority) I am seriously thinking that very few people are actually reading this bill... Instead every picks out the parts they need to firm up their postions and no one seems to be putting it all together. It will HAVE to be re booted in 2018 or 2019 (with additional taxes)... It will not cover all the uninsured it will leave at least 23 million still uncovered in 2019 (that comes from the CBO that everyone quotes but misses the important stuff - or leaves it out)... This bill is a nightmare comming. I suspect that people who use this reasoning are operating on the not-so-hidden agenda of not habing health insurance and adamantly refusing to buy any because they have 'other' priorities in life on the grounds that it infringes on their freedom. Or that all insurance is bad because it's 'Socialism'. Yanno, nothing infringes on one's freedom more than a major heart attack and early death. But hey, if that's their choice, probably 'Obamacare' will flush the quail out into the open. How'd they say it in the first colony of what was to become the United States? "He who will not work will not eat." -Kerry O. - |
|
|
|
|
Previous
