austrya Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Our kids are allowed to play whatever sports they want to. The only thing we do is that if they start a sport, or any activity, they have to stick it out for the season if they don't like it. If they make a commitment to something, they need to keep that commitment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 If they make a commitment to something, they need to keep that commitment.Even if they commit to smoking? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
austrya Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Yeah, you know, they're going to smoke anyways so I just buy them the low nicotine/low tar cigarettes to "protect" them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Even if they commit to smoking?Nobody smokes anymore. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I dont smoke cigarettes, but I smoke once in awhile. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
trestle Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 http://www.theheartlessbastards.com/main.html  i thought this was a hoot- this is my boss's blog....evidently there is no cheering aloud at this game.....they decided that the audience should be silent and only indicate pleasure in specifically described non-verbal ways....i'm a frigging liberal and yet this annoys me.......... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
trestle Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 oops- wrong site.......http://teamcushman.com/2007/10/15/goal-and-can-we-now-have-a-moment-of-silence/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TheMaker Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Living in a border town, as I have for the entirety of my nearly 30 years of life, I'm a bit of an outsider looking in on the U.S. Please take all of this with a grain of salt, because I really do love your country, but the number one problem with America, as I see it, is its tendency to obfuscate its problems so loudly, and with such vigor, that any hope for significant change is rendered damned near impossible. On a long enough timeline, everything always seems to come down to either sleight-of-hand or whiny milk-baby bullshit, both of which are counterproductive to actually getting shit done. Examples? Politics! My god, politics! Attack ads, marathon campaigning (two years on the trail before becoming president...? Fucking seriously?), hundreds of millions of donated dollars, carefully scripted rhetoric, "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," "General Betray-us," "Lewinskygate." Some of this stuff really is beyond the pale, and what's more, has not a thing to do with the important issues at hand. I really don't understand it at all, and it frustrates me that the major Canadian political parties have clearly been taking notes and have subsequently stepped up the slander and noisemaking in recent years. Religion. Touchy subject, I know. I'll leave it at this: all those big mega-churches in the South? CULT. My goodness, BASICALLY JUST A HUGE CULT. There's Christianity and then there's this, whatever it's become. This is definitely not Christianity as I, and nearly every other sane person worldwide, choose to recognise it. So... sort this garbage out, and then you'll be well on your way to fixing one major problem plaguing the nation. Also notable: your literature seems to indicate that America is a secular democracy, but your politicians seem to think otherwise. Maybe I'm nuts, but I see the outline of a conflict here. When politicians - even conservative ones - are actively campaigning against progressive policies and throwing around weighted terms like "activist judges" and "liberal media" with a completely straight face, it's time to hit the fucking panic button. And then there's the almost legendary sense of entitlement. I hate to say it, guys, but it really does exist, and it ain't flattering. I live in a tourist town that benefited for 30 years from a comparatively strong American dollar. When the Loonie was worth just 68 Greenbackian cents, most local businesses gave our neighbours a generous exchange rate of, say, anywhere from 65-55 cents on the dollar; this was done to encourage spending as well as repeat visits. It's akin to floating an extra cherry on top of the whipped cream. "There you go, sport! On the house!" It was good for tourism and it was also good for tourists. Now that the worm has begun to turn, you'd think our neighbouring American communities would follow that sensible lead, right? Not so. Spoiled Buffalo, for example, is benefiting from busloads of Canadian shoppers snarling the border, eager to dump cash into the local economy, and what has the response been like from businesses? A rather snide fuck-you in the form of unfair exchange rates as low as 65 cents on the US dollar (the Canadian dollar's current worth is actually about $1.05 USD). It doesn't make sense. I'd say it's childish, but it's worse than that. It's less like a defeated child taking her bat and ball and going home, and more like drilling a hole into the bottom of the boat to keep it from sinking. "This oughtta fix it-! Couple more holes and we'll be okay..." I was fine with Western New Yorkers treating me like shit in the past - sorry, guys, I know my accent sounds almost as dumb as yours, and I know Canada's "subsidized" film industry sucked billions out of Hollywood over several decades, but I'm just here for a concert, I swear! - but now that the shoe is on the other foot I expect fair play, at the very least. Seriously, though....If you give the same thing to people that have not worked hard for it as those who have -- all the drive to achieve something is gone. Why should I work hard to get something when it's given to someone who won't work as hard? Too bad this is nothing more than a fallacy, huh? You assume that hard work = just rewards. You assume incorrectly. Example: I work 10+ hours a day, freelance, seven days a week. I've banked about 26k so far this year and I have no benefits. My prescriptions cost a lot. In short, there's no possible way I could live in the U.S. (unless I took up residence in a box in some deserted alley). A friend of mine is a successful web entrepreneur and has scarcely lifted a finger all year. He's made in excess of 100k so far in 2007 on advertising revenue alone. This scenario is not uncommon, so please stop being ridiculous. Low earners are not all lazy, nor are we failures, nor are we radical hippies, nor are we interested in burdening our government with unnecessary spending. We are simply low earners, and there is no shame inherent in that. The biggest problem facing America's healthcare system right now is finding ways to convince its citizens that healthcare is a right, not a privilege. The rest of the world's free countries seem to understand it. Why can't you? If your neighbour required bypass surgery and didn't have the necessary benefits to pay for the procedure, would you tell him to buckle down and start earning harder? Of course you wouldn't - you're not a fucking monster. (Er. That was long. Sorry if it felt like I just took a dump in your corn flakes, but I used to keep a blog and, well, I don't anymore. Too busy most of the time. But I got going and I just couldn't stop.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Nice post. No sarcasm intended. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Please take all of this with a grain of salt, I did. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TheMaker Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I was sort of ranting against glib, knee-jerk crapola, but if that's your only response, I guess that's cool. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 Social Darwinism is much more ingrained in Americans than Canadians, it seems. "And devil take the hindmost" should replace "In God we trust" as our motto. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 The biggest problem facing America's healthcare system right now is finding ways to convince its citizens that healthcare is a right, not a privilege. The rest of the world's free countries seem to understand it. Why can't you? my best guess for an answer to that question is that our government is so bloated and influenced by special interest that for many people the thought of the government taking on any additional responsibility or task is frightening. Until we stop the ridiculous amount of campaign spending and practices and special interest influence, most of the issues you mention sadly will not change much, regardless of who wins our '08 election. having said all that, I shall still try and remain optimistic for change. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamin' Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 my best guess for an answer to that question is that our government is so bloated and influenced by special interest that for many people the thought of the government taking on any additional responsibility or task is frightening. Until we stop the ridiculous amount of campaign spending and practices and special interest influence, most of the issues you mention sadly will not change much, regardless of who wins our '08 election. having said all that, I shall still try and remain optimistic for change.Americans deserve better, that's for sure. After watching the Nader documentary, I'm convinced that the two party system is the root of all evil. Social Darwinism is much more ingrained in Americans than Canadians, it seems. "And devil take the hindmost" should replace "In God we trust" as our motto.And yet every American I've ever been close to in real life (a biased sample, I know, since those friendships have been formed through VC) has been incredibly kind-hearted and generous. Even more so than my dearest Canadian friends. What I learn about America through the news, docs, etc. is so different from my direct experience of the country and the people that I've had the good fortune to know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I'm convinced that the two party system is the root of all evil.The two major parties are mostly interested in maintaining power, and the nefarious part is that, with the media as their accomplice, they have designed and perpetuated a system that essentially ensures there can be no serious challenge to their power. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Americans deserve better, that's for sure. After watching the Nader documentary, I'm convinced that the two party system is the root of all evil. This is akin to Al Gore making a movie on global warming and being convinced it is the root of all evil because of that documentary... oh, wait...   (For the record, I fully agree that the two party system causes a lot of problems, but a Ralph Nader documentary on that subject isn't exactly a great, non crazy source for that.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Ralph Nader is not crazy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamin' Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Ralph Nader is not crazy.Nader is a saint and I believe that he is one of the most brilliant minds in America today. I admire him greatly. The only reason we have universal health care in Canada is because the Liberals borrowed the idea from the CCF (which later became the New Democratic Party) under Tommy Douglas. It will be a cold day in hell when the NDP forms a majority govt., but their very existence on the political landscape makes Canada a more progressive place than it could ever be without them. This is why it's so ironic that Michael Moore withdrew his support for Nader in the last election. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Nader is a saint and I believe that he is one of the most brilliant minds in America today. I admire him greatly. The only reason we have universal health care in Canada is because the Liberals borrowed the idea from the New Democratic Party (when they saw how well it was working in Saskatchewan). The NDP will never form the federal govt., but their very existence on the political landscape makes Canada a better, more progressive place than it could ever be without them. This is why it's so ironic that Michael Moore withdrew his support for Nader in the last election.Nader is the Everyman for the common man and does an admiral job as the eyes, ears, heart, and mouthpiece for a lot of folks. I admire the man. This doesn't mean I think he'd make a good President, though. It's a far leap to assume he'd be cut out for the job just because he's a decent man. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I was mostly referring to a guy who has run like 14 times as a third party candidate making a movie about why third party candidates can't gain any ground. The guy really can't see why he doesn't appeal to the common man? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 yesterday morning I went over to the mcdonald's down the street to get the wife and I some quick b-fast. The three parties waiting in front of me spoke spanish. The two parties behind me spoke spanish. The person who took my order spoke spanish. The person who fixed our food in back spoke spanish. The person who handed my food to the person who took my order spoke spanish. The person manning the drive-through and the lady in the car she helped spoke spanish. that's all. edit: oh, and I would have tried to speak spanish but I was worried that I'd sound funny, since I mostly spoke it in high school and when I went to spain. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Spanish is the new English. They could speak gibberish for all most people care, as long as they get the crap into the bag within 2-3 minutes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamin' Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Nader is the Everyman for the common man and does an admiral job as the eyes, ears, heart, and mouthpiece for a lot of folks. I admire the man. This doesn't mean I think he'd make a good President, though. It's a far leap to assume he'd be cut out for the job just because he's a decent man.Yes, but you don't have to elect Nader. Just the fact that he's able to gain some support is enough. The idea that he's a spoiler, stealing votes from the Democrats shows that most people have a hard time thinking outside the two party box. The Democrats don't own those votes, and they should work harder to win them. In Canada (okay, bear with me folks!), we currently have 17 registered political parties and 4 parties with representation in Parliament. When a party screws up, Canadian voters respond accordingly (e.g., the Progressive Conservatives were pulverized in 1993 and the Liberals were punished in 2004 and 2006) because we have a few more choices on the ballot. Believe it or not, the party currently in power was founded in 2003! I was mostly referring to a guy who has run like 14 times as a third party candidate making a movie about why third party candidates can't gain any ground. The guy really can't see why he doesn't appeal to the common man?An Unreasonable Man has a POV, but that's the point. The filmmaker tells an interesting story about democracy in America. The DVD extras are almost as long as the film itself, but they're worth the time. As for universal health care, I think that a publicly run system is actually more democratic because it must be accountable to the people (voters) rather than corporate shareholders. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 As for universal health care, I think that a publicly run system is actually more democratic because it must be accountable to the people (voters) rather than corporate shareholders. What if I like my healthcare plan, think it does a great job taking care of my family and don't want to see it change? That's what i'm worried about. Did the quality of the overall healhcare system change to accomodate everyone? While I really do want everyone to be covered, I don't feel bad in saying that my first priority is to insure that my family gets the best care possible. In the universal scenario, can I still pay for different heathcare if I don't like the 'universal' care offered? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
j4lackey Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 yesterday morning I went over to the mcdonald's down the street to get the wife and I some quick b-fast. The three parties waiting in front of me spoke spanish. The two parties behind me spoke spanish. The person who took my order spoke spanish. The person who fixed our food in back spoke spanish. The person who handed my food to the person who took my order spoke spanish. The person manning the drive-through and the lady in the car she helped spoke spanish. that's all. edit: oh, and I would have tried to speak spanish but I was worried that I'd sound funny, since I mostly spoke it in high school and when I went to spain. I was getting on here to tell how everyone was looking at me in the drivethru at McD's the other day screaming "O-RANGE JUICE!" into the order box, and she kept saying "What? I don't understand...". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.