Is this guy serious? What's so damn wrong with happiness?

“Did God give us the right to pursue a good time? Don’t get me wrong—happiness is a wonderful emotion and a state to be desired. But is that what our founders really intended to be the pursuit of our country and its people—to be happy? Let’s put it this way: How would you like your tombstone to read, ‘Here lies [your name]. He/she was happy’? Count me out!"

chemvictim wrote:Is this guy serious? What's so damn wrong with happiness?

“Did God give us the right to pursue a good time? Don’t get me wrong—happiness is a wonderful emotion and a state to be desired. But is that what our founders really intended to be the pursuit of our country and its people—to be happy? Let’s put it this way: How would you like your tombstone to read, ‘Here lies [your name]. He/she was happy’? Count me out!"

Santorum is a fruitcake. I suspect what the Founders meant by happiness was rather different from the hedonism which many think it consists of today. I think the key thought there was the right to pursue one's own chosen ends, whatever those might be. Such a notion is anathema to an Ultramontane Catholic like Santorum. He represents a small subset of Catholic thought in the US, though it was predominant in Europe in the 19th century and even influential into the 20th. It's the strain in Catholicism which rejected republican values and classical liberal thought and economics. It's the strain that has never reconciled itself with the existence of Protestantism (which it sees as schismatic heresy) and does not accept even 18th century notions of religious tolerance.

rpm wrote:Santorum is a fruitcake. I suspect what the Founders meant by happiness was rather different from the hedonism which many think it consists of today. I think the key thought there was the right to pursue one's own chosen ends, whatever those might be. Such a notion is anathema to an Ultramontane Catholic like Santorum. He represents a small subset of Catholic thought in the US, though it was predominant in Europe in the 19th century and even influential into the 20th. It's the strain in Catholicism which rejected republican values and classical liberal thought and economics. It's the strain that has never reconciled itself with the existence of Protestantism (which it sees as schismatic heresy) and does not accept even 18th century notions of religious tolerance.

I don't love Romney, but hey - it could have been worse. If he keeps Ryan reigned in, that is.

chemvictim wrote:I don't love Romney, but hey - it could have been worse. If he keeps Ryan reigned in, that is.

I don't love Romney, but I detest Obama. As for Ryan, keep him focused on the budget and spending and he'll do the country some good - there's certainly enough to do between that and rolling back ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, that there's no need to worry much about "social conservative" legislation. Nobody's gonna steal your lady parts.

rpm wrote: Nobody's gonna steal your lady parts.

Psssshhh...there have been three attempts this week alone. I'm clutching birth control pills in one hand and a gladius in the other.

rpm wrote:Let's leave which of the two bozos will do a worse job aside for now - we're unlikely to convince each other.

The rest of the post raises all of the thorny issues I've been worrying about with respect to Iran since we decided not to do anything about the mullahs after we took out Saddam. For all the reasons you suggest. I think had it been done then, the world would have cheered and it would have been merely difficult and expensive. A few tens of thousands of casualties - which you and I as know as historians are small casualties in serious wars.

A successful war with Iran will not be a panacea, but as you point out will give the fanatics at least some pause. The future of the Muslim world will depend on whether than pause is enough time for reasonably moderate and sensible people to come to power, become just ruthless enough to hold it, and slowly bring Islam out of the dark ages. If not, and they insist on having a clash of civilizations - which is possible - then someone will have to take out Muslim nations as they become significant threats.

As for the cost of all of this, we'll have to swallow our prior generosity and extract the financial costs of the wars and occupations from the vanquished in the form of reparations - taking their oil. Ugly, but really within the traditional law of war and the only alternative to the American taxpayer footing the bill. Unless the Saudis, Kuwatis, and Japanese want to pay as they did in 1991.

We could end up with some like the Delian League with our allies paying tribute to the US, which maintains the military muscle. Now, we maintain the muscle and our feckless allies neither pay not contribute to the cost of defense. That's ultimately not sustainable. Either they pay, they share the burden, or we stop defending. If we determine their defense is essential to ours, it gets dicey if we have to look for ways to 'make' them pay up.

The current impasse is all the result of good intentions combined with a healthy regard for the risks of action - good things - but without serious consideration of the long-term costs of inaction.

We'll be very, very lucky if this whole mishigas ends up with the dead numbered only in the hundreds of thousands.

I think we essentially agree on all of the main points. There are many subtleties and nuances going through my mind but not enough time or space to expound on them. Too bad we couldn't discuss this over a few bottles of very old Bordeaux and Burgundy.

edlada wrote:I think we essentially agree on all of the main points. There are many subtleties and nuances going through my mind but not enough time or space to expound on them. Too bad we couldn't discuss this over a few bottles of very old Bordeaux and Burgundy.

Can I moderate?


Well, not with the wine. There shall be no moderation there.

bhodilee wrote:Can I moderate?


Well, not with the wine. There shall be no moderation there.

Sure, come on over. When it comes to old wine moderation doesn't apply!

Bachmann on the hot seat? Come on Minnesota!

Next up, Pelosi! Then maybe we can start weeding out some of these other crazies.

I realize I just named two women, I'm not implying women do a bad job in Congress, just that these two in particular are HORRIBLE at life. Wait til Deb Fischer gets there, she's a real treat.

edlada wrote:Sure, come on over. When it comes to old wine moderation doesn't apply!

QFT!

Only care in opening and decanting....

bhodilee wrote:Bachmann on the hot seat? Come on Minnesota!

Next up, Pelosi! Then maybe we can start weeding out some of these other crazies.

I realize I just named two women, I'm not implying women do a bad job in Congress, just that these two in particular are HORRIBLE at life. Wait til Deb Fischer gets there, she's a real treat.

I have often said that I greatly regret moving out of Bachmann's district, because I no longer can vote against her.

And I have said here before that Pelosi is an id.iot. Unfortunately, we have a system that leads to the election of good campaigners and good fundraisers instead of good public servants. I'm sure we could all add to the list of those who deserve to be defeated.

bhodilee wrote:Bachmann on the hot seat? Come on Minnesota!

Next up, Pelosi! Then maybe we can start weeding out some of these other crazies.

I realize I just named two women, I'm not implying women do a bad job in Congress, just that these two in particular are HORRIBLE at life. Wait til Deb Fischer gets there, she's a real treat.

I know! It's so embarrassing!

Alan Grayson , what a tool

I haven't been getting any phone calls, maybe because I don't have a land line and my cell is still a VA number. I have had four visits from Obama people, verifying my address, asking if I'm early voting, etc. Two came yesterday. That's what I get for registering Democrat, I guess. I wonder how it would be if I'd registered Independent...maybe I'd be getting visits from both sides! *shudder*

It reminds me, this election is almost over! What are we going to talk about after the election, when we all emerge with either our privacy or our wallets, but certainly not both? (unless you're a gov't employee and Romney wins...then you lose privacy and wallet) I must admit I'm very excited to see how it all comes out.

ERMD wrote:Alan Grayson , what a tool

General toolishness, or something in particular?

chemvictim wrote:I know! It's so embarrassing!

Not as embarrassing as being in CA, and sending Pelosi and Laura Richardson (one of CREW's most corrupt members of Congress) to the House, and Boxer & Feinstein in the Senate.

And then there's Rep. Maxine Waters too. Not charged, but they want to make changes to prevent it in the future.


CREW's Dishonorable Mentions from CA: Reps Darrell Issa (R) & Buck McKeon (R)


Although I'm surprised Waters didn't make it on either list.

Still not as embarrassing as being from AZ with Jan Brewer as Governor, and Sheriff Joe here in Maricopa County.

Imagine4vr wrote:Still not as embarrassing as being from AZ with Jan Brewer as Governor, and Sheriff Joe here in Maricopa County.

I'll Trade You!!! Those two are no where close to the corruption involved with the ones I mentioned.

MarkDaSpark wrote:I'll Trade You!!! Those two are no where close to the corruption involved with the ones I mentioned.

Yeah... Pelosi is a nut job.

kylemittskus wrote:Yeah... Pelosi is a nut job.

Number one wish she was gone for me. I CANNOT stand her. She looks entirely too lost and has entirely too much clout.

ERMD wrote:Alan Grayson , what a tool

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco

ERMD wrote:www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco

I'm sorry, but that guy is funnier than hell. Will the gentleman yield...no

I lol'd

He's a giant pain in the ass to be sure, and I had to make sure he wasn't really John C. Reilly, but I like him.

rpm wrote:I don't love Romney, but I detest Obama. As for Ryan, keep him focused on the budget and spending and he'll do the country some good - there's certainly enough to do between that and rolling back ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, that there's no need to worry much about "social conservative" legislation. Nobody's gonna steal your lady parts.

I think, if elected, Romney will disappoint even those conservatives with the lowest of expectations.

Don't want to excessively stir the fraud aspect, but this should be of concern to all, on both sides.

rjquillin wrote:Don't want to excessively stir the fraud aspect, but this should be of concern to all, on both sides.

What party? [rhetorical question....]

rpm wrote:What party? [rhetorical question....]

Or how about these guys?

Not that it's going to matter here in CA, but I'm voting Gary Johnson. The rest of you whose votes actually matter, it seems to me you're choosing between picking a guy who'll give your money to the rich or a guy who'll give your money to the poor (assuming that you're middle class, which I think is a fair assumption).

rjquillin wrote:Don't want to excessively stir the fraud aspect, but this should be of concern to all, on both sides.

At least this one is relevant to the issue of photo ID. Photo ID would stop this kind of thing. Of course, this one was fake, but if it had been real photo ID laws would have thwarted him.

kylemittskus wrote:Not that it's going to matter here in CA, but I'm voting Gary Johnson. The rest of you whose votes actually matter, it seems to me you're choosing between picking a guy who'll give your money to the rich or a guy who'll give your money to the poor (assuming that you're middle class, which I think is a fair assumption).

LOL yeah I think you've got it about right.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/10/why-kids-should-grade-teachers/309088/#

This is a breath of fresh air wrt teacher evaluation.

Voting complete! Now I don't have to think about it anymore. I did not have to show ID, only the voter registration card. Voting was done in the produce section, among the fruits and nuts and 3-4 "observers." What a boring task that must be, observing voters.

Anybody have thoughts about early voting, for/against? I never even knew it was a thing until this year. If some last-minute bombshell info comes out about one of the candidates, it will be too late.

Now for something completely different but arguably political...just not governmental.

What do people think of Disney buying Lucasfilms?

I am personally a fan. I think disney has a huge amount of resources that it plans to put behind a new set of Star Wars films. Will they be classics? Unlikely. Will they be entertaining? Probably. I believe they will learn from the jarjar debacle and make this set good. Perhaps Joss Whedon could take the directing reigns?

cmaldoon wrote:Now for something completely different but arguably political...just not governmental.

What do people think of Disney buying Lucasfilms?

I am personally a fan. I think disney has a huge amount of resources that it plans to put behind a new set of Star Wars films. Will they be classics? Unlikely. Will they be entertaining? Probably. I believe they will learn from the jarjar debacle and make this set good. Perhaps Joss Whedon could take the directing reigns?

I think it's going to be fun to watch, and nothing to get all up in arms over.

cmaldoon wrote:Perhaps Joss Whedon could take the directing reigns?

+1 on Joss. Firefly never really made it, don't understand that, and Serenity, great finale.

I don't have an opinion about the Disney thing.

I was wondering though...will the storm damage on the east coast affect voting? I was really looking forward to this election being over...hoping there are no delays.

chemvictim wrote:I don't have an opinion about the Disney thing.

I was wondering though...will the storm damage on the east coast affect voting? I was really looking forward to this election being over...hoping there are no delays.

there will be no delays. They can't postpone voting unless Congress approves it and I don't think that's ever happened. Plus they'd have to move it for the entire country.

The more interesting question, since this will absolutely affect voter turnout, is who does this advantage? I'd say probably Romney.

Next interesting question, will this lead to vociferous sour grapes by the losing party. "We woulda won if the hurricane didn't impede peoples right to vote"

Maybe Disney can remake Episodes 1-3 and make them worth more than the landfill fodder that they were.

I think Romney is going to win this election. Will any of you Anti-Obamites be throwing parties to celebrate if he does? Or if Obama wins, are you going into mourning, moving to Canada, etc.?

cmaldoon wrote:Now for something completely different but arguably political...just not governmental.

What do people think of Disney buying Lucasfilms?

I am personally a fan. I think disney has a huge amount of resources that it plans to put behind a new set of Star Wars films. Will they be classics? Unlikely. Will they be entertaining? Probably. I believe they will learn from the jarjar debacle and make this set good. Perhaps Joss Whedon could take the directing reigns?

Well, as someone put it, Disney movies usually have the mother dying and dysfunctional families ... so this is a perfect fit.

chemvictim wrote:I think Romney is going to win this election. Will any of you Anti-Obamites be throwing parties to celebrate if he does? Or if Obama wins, are you going into mourning, moving to Canada, etc.?

I suppose I will open a nice bottle of wine if he wins to 'celebrate' and a not-that-great bottle if he loses to drown my sorrows. I won't be moving to Canada either way (thankfully, the left continues to have a monopoly on celebrities who threaten to expatriate themselves should their preferred candidate lose, and then sadly never actually do).