Paul Ryan

[FBM]

With reference to "evolution", sorry, that's probably the influence of reading Ken Wilbur. I guess I haven't found another word that's comparable and not so buzzword-like. I am open to suggestions

Growth? Maturity? Hmm...I'll have to see if I can make up a new buzzword...

[Coito ergo sum]

Martha Steward got convicted for not talking to the feds about a crime that it turned out she didn't commit.

Never did figure out what happened to the fifth amendment in that case.

She was, I think, convicted of lying. It's o.k. not to talk, but in the securities arena, lying even when you haven't committed a provable underlying offense of insider trading is a crime. I find that repugnant, too, but it isn't exactly a 5th amendment issue. It's just, to me, a fundamental fairness issue. If a cop asks me questions about whether I robbed a liquor store, and I was in New York at the time, but I lie and tell him I was busy getting head from his wife at the time, that ought not be a crime. They ought to prosecute crimes. Not lying.

[Coito ergo sum]

With reference to "evolution", sorry, that's probably the influence of reading Ken Wilbur. I guess I haven't found another word that's comparable and not so buzzword-like. I am open to suggestions

Growth? Maturity? Hmm...I'll have to see if I can make up a new buzzword...

Evolution is a perfectly fine word. Change over time. No biggie.

Social Darwinism is about bogus claims of "superiority" among different groups of humans. Since evolution doesn't posit humans being superior to ants, but rather merely different evolutionary adaptations, it most certainly does not posit some humans as being superior to others. That is where Social Darwinism goes wrong -- well, that's one of the areas where it goes wrong. Another is by equating different cultures with genetic change. Evolution refers to the change in allele frequencies in given populations, whereas social darwinism posits that Anglo-Saxons are superior because they created the industrial revolution and the gun, whereas the American Indians did not. That's not attributable to allele frequencies, sot it's not Darwinism or Evolution. IMHO.

[Coito ergo sum]

With reference to "evolution", sorry, that's probably the influence of reading Ken Wilbur. I guess I haven't found another word that's comparable and not so buzzword-like. I am open to suggestions

Growth? Maturity? Hmm...I'll have to see if I can make up a new buzzword...

Evolution is a perfectly fine word. Change over time. No biggie.

Social Darwinism is about bogus claims of "superiority" among different groups of humans. Since evolution doesn't posit humans being superior to ants, but rather merely different evolutionary adaptations, it most certainly does not posit some humans as being superior to others. That is where Social Darwinism goes wrong -- well, that's one of the areas where it goes wrong. Another is by equating different cultures with genetic change. Evolution refers to the change in allele frequencies in given populations, whereas social darwinism posits that Anglo-Saxons are superior because they created the industrial revolution and the gun, whereas the American Indians did not. That's not attributable to allele frequencies, sot it's not Darwinism or Evolution. IMHO.

[FBM]

Depends on the context, I'd say. Gotta keep an eye on them damn connotations!

[Coito ergo sum]

Clinton chief of staff, Erskine Bowles, speaking of Paul Ryan: "Cut This Ad! Clinton COS on Ryan: ‘This Guy is Amazing.’" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cut ... 49942.html

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Warren Dew]

Clinton chief of staff, Erskine Bowles, speaking of Paul Ryan: "Cut This Ad! Clinton COS on Ryan: ‘This Guy is Amazing.’" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cut ... 49942.html

Considering Ryan's economic plan is a pretty close copy of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles proposal, this is not surprising.

[Warren Dew]

Martha Steward got convicted for not talking to the feds about a crime that it turned out she didn't commit.

Never did figure out what happened to the fifth amendment in that case.

She was, I think, convicted of lying. It's o.k. not to talk, but in the securities arena, lying even when you haven't committed a provable underlying offense of insider trading is a crime. I find that repugnant, too, but it isn't exactly a 5th amendment issue. It's just, to me, a fundamental fairness issue. If a cop asks me questions about whether I robbed a liquor store, and I was in New York at the time, but I lie and tell him I was busy getting head from his wife at the time, that ought not be a crime. They ought to prosecute crimes. Not lying.

While it's basically true that she was "convicted of lying", the "lie" that she was convicted for was basically "I didn't commit insider trading". Since she didn't actually commit insider trading, it wasn't actually a lie.

Great illustration of that other thread we had, where the advice was, "never ever talk to the authorities".

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, she lied and covered up a $45,000 profit she made, or at least that is what she was convicted of. That was considered obstructing the investigation. But, you are correct about the never talk to authorities reference.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What goes around, comes around.

[Coito ergo sum]

What goes around, comes around.

Yes, all that and it's still a less expensive alternative to ObamaBiden.

[Tero]

The gubment cant fix the economy, with Romney or Obama, at this point. Best to vote on your own social, librul or libertarian issues.

At best, Romney would be a placebo effect on the so called "job creators".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Warren Dew]

The gubment cant fix the economy, with Romney or Obama, at this point. Best to vote on your own social, librul or libertarian issues.

At best, Romney would be a placebo effect on the so called "job creators".

Even a placebo effect would help at this point.