fauxlaw

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" [Matt 7: 12, KJV] This single phrase is duplicated in thought and purpose in at least 20 separate and distinct religions, even by dissimilar use of words in whatever language. Christianity as a whole, not separated into its numerous factions, is but one of them and uses a standard that expresses this exact thought. It is a truth recognized around the world in numerous cultures of separate roots. People just want to get long with themselves, and numerous versions of this phrase exemplify that basic desire. To claim it is not true is to deny so many separate cultures, you end up standing alone in your conviction, but for the few who actually agree with you. It is true by any repeatable and reproducible empiric test you wish to apply.

That so many cultural religions share this concept is evidence that the claim of nothing truthful about religion is defeated out of hand. In fact, it is so true, it does not depend on religion to prop it up. It does not even mention religion, nor God in its construct. It stands as ethical, lawful truth, without any consideration of religion behind it. It does not mess with semantics. It is the very basis of civilization. It is the first step on the path of trust in one another. We can say with certainty, "Because this concept exists, civilization exists."

Oh, good. time is irrelevant, and has been since I retired. Thankfully, no one gave me a watch. I don't wear one anymore, anyway. Besides, time is merely a human invention to score how log its been since I could trust a fart. Maybe you could do a piece launching from Time Bandits.

Should have had a double feature with Bonfire of the Vanities. Oh, right, Books and movies don't double feature. Oh, well. Wag the Dog.

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

Additional to 1: Born and raised, and have resided for a minimum of 4 years in 4 States from west coast to east coast. Further, my ancestry in America dates to 1625 of European [French, Scot] stock.

Additional to 2: I have been in 31 countries for a minimum stay of 4 days, and in 13 for durations of minimum 90 days, consecutive.

Just? 56 dangerously at risk men had a different idea of rights. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

We do not by "opinion" establish any right. Nor do we, by simple opinion, amend, nor should ignore, these documents. You do realize, I trust, that the Constitution has been amended but 27 times in its 230-year history, and is amended only by approval of 3/4 of Congress, and then ratified by 3/4 of the States. The attempt to amend the Constitution is made by Congress about 200 times in each of, at present, 116 congressional session of Congress. Do the math. It is a painfully difficult, not a "can be" prospect, as if we wave a wand and change it. Have a care to appreciate what we have been given, at the risk, and payment in blood, to have these documents, and the rights they ensure. But, not every whim is a right. Try to understand the difference between right and privilege. You do not have rthe right to have a driver's license. It is a paid privilege. Like the outcome, and not merely the access, to healthcare.

How is this a good start? Teachers penalized by students for students' misbehavior? I can see argument to dismiss a teacher for the teacher's misbehavior, but even at that, student's should serve as witnesses, but not as judge and jury. Not to mention that minors are, by law, not capable of making adult decisions, which is why, in sexual abuse cases, for example, minors are not allowed to claim consensual behavior. Nor in contract negotiations, by which teachers hold their positions, minors cannot make or break contracts.

I'll note, first, the Brown v. Board of Education [1954] was a unanimous 9-0 decision by the Warren Court and, second, that 9-0 decisions number as the most plurality decision of the Court over the last 150 years since a 9-justiceCourt was established in 1869. No other ratio of decisions has a greater plurality. In fact, in the last 50 years, the Court has settled cases with unanimous decisions 59% of the time; a clear majority. So much for the political bias argument the Court is often accused of having, regardless of subject matter.  

Brown v Board of Education was chiefly an argument over the established "separate but equal" condition that found precedent in Plessy v Furguson [1896], in which Plessy, a person who was 7/8 white, and therefore deemed black [go figure!], sat in a white trolley car, marked as such, when the law demanded that he sit in a car marked for blacks. Being 7/8 white, what do you think Plessy looked like? Google him; there's a photo of the man. You decide. The argument was that each car was equal in every respect relative to its facilities, thus meeting "separate but equal" conditions. That argument died with Furguson by the simple argument that the designating signs, themselves declared inequality. Brown v. Board of Education was not at all wrong. The entire decision-making process was made, not by legal mumbo-jumbo argument, but argument of common sense so the people would understand it more fully.

Why decide to liquidate? Transfer, maybe, but why liquidate to cash? You've just decided that your portfolio represents that companies have taken a hit in market value, whereas those companies may have a maintained book value that could actually increase. Move to protect your portfolio value against loss, but liquidation is simply a bet that your cash will maintain value. 

You may so argue until the Sun extinguishes, but I have the ultimate qualifier of the English language, the OED, in my corner, which states otherwise. Should you choose to engage another definition, that is your right, but I suggest it becomes a lonely existence.

As for your argument that individual strengths/weaknesses can override alleged rights, which is true, and is generally known as tyranny, we do have a congressionally approved, and States' ratification of the Constitution of the Untied States which first declares: "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That declaration is a public trust that we will not severe that trust for individual gain, while allowing our freedom to gain whatever else we may choose to acquire as long as we agree to maintain that public trust, and all that follows to the end of the greater document.

That document further declares that, although there are additional rights the People embrace, they need not be enumerated in the Constitution, but, those rights must still stand by equitable access to all, without restriction of some. Healthcare, as I've explained, does not meet that criterion.

According to the OED [II, 9, b]: A legal, equitable, or moral entitlement to (also rarely †for) something. Healthcare does not qualify by this definition because not all people have equitable access to outcomes of healthcare, such as my suggestion of patients needing transplant organs. That access outcome is NOT equitably available, is it, simply because there are no warehouses of organs needed. Simple access to healthcare may be possible, but not to an equitable outcome. And what is the point of declaring healthcare a right if we cannot deliver an equitable outcome?

 

Roosevelt could have done something for Israel, like predict a US Embassy located in Jerusalem, but he did nothing. He did not even raise alarm about the Nazi death camps.
Truman could have dealt with NoKo directly, and he could have done what Roosevelt didn’t, but he didn't.
Kennedy could have made the largest tax cut in history, and could have done what Roosevelt and Truman didn’t, but he didn't.
Johnson could have have lowered black unemployment, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy didn’t, but he didn't.
Carter could have told Iran where to get off, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson didn’t, but he didn't.
Clinton could have made a better deal with NoKo, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , and Carter didn’t, but he didn't.
Obama could have recovered our economy, and he could have done what Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson , Carter, and Clinton didn’t, but he didn't.
All seven could have dealt with China, but they didn't.
The last seven Democrat presidents could have done these things, but none did. 
Trump did. Inside 3 years. Does he deserve 5 more, or what?

We don't "make" healthcare a right. It either is, or is not. I suggest it is not, regardless of what is done. My transplant proposal is, at best, a present impossibility. I don't think that will last, because we may be capable of making almost every organ needed artificially, perhaps the brain excepted.

No, what makes healthcare a right is that it would be available to all without the necessity of legislating it, it is available to all without condition, and it cannot be modified, nor dismissed by but tyranny Healthcare is a personal responsibility as firmly as is the right to freedom of speech.

Tell me what is Green, New, and a Deal about the Green New Deal.

It is not green. Every single "green energy" turbine in existence uses petroleum as a lubricant, and as raw material to fabricate plastic parts. The same goes for solar panels and electric cars.

It is not new. We've been hearing about the same old complaints about man's inhumanity to the planet since the invention of plastic, peak oil, the population explosion, global warming, water bottles, and the wall.

It is no deal. $100 trillion. That's a deal?

As you say

My stuff; my prerogative to reveal what it is, isn't it?

Believe it, or not, that is how tech works. Basically, it's a failure analysis exercise. Failure, because, at present, we have not cracked the gravity-defeating aspects of levitation, other than within a vacuum, or by superconductors, neither of which are economic, and can only break it now by controlled thrust.

Show me exactly where in 1A, 3A, 5A, 9A, and especially 14A [all of which except 14A lack the term "privacy" in any variation of the word, and all of which were used to support Roe v. Wade], where a woman's specific privacy, at the exclusion of a man's, is stipulated. Not to mention that, in the 14A, "secure in their persons" does not imply "privacy." One can be private and secure in a crowd, but insecure while private in their own home.
Don't bother looking; your answer s not in the Constitution However, don't let me convince you. Look.
Not to mention that the tissue inclusive of the fetus, umbilical, amniotic sac, and placenta, do not share DNA or blood with the mother; it is a completely separate and distinct entity. Not one whit of it is part of her body.

The proof: when a woman opens her mouth, her tongue does not fall out.

I just have to ask, knowing that no story truly ends, what happens when the farmer, needing a new, bigger house, because all the kids came back home with their families because they didn't understand the tree, either, and now the farmer needs a bigger house, and that big tree looks like a mighty fine resource of raw material? How quickly can this tree evolve legs?

An illustrated joke I saw in Playboy in the mid-60s featured a little boy and girl, playing doctor. Suddenly the boy says, pointing to hers while proudly displaying his, "What good is that?"

She replied, wisely, "With this, I can get all of those I want."

A tongue without a frenulum is a particularly cunning linguist

If healthcare is a right, why do people die waiting for organ transplants? If healthcare is a right, why haven’t we cured the common cold? If healthcare is a right, why do I need to have a license to practice medicine? If healthcare is a right, why shouldn’t you play in traffic? If healthcare is a right, why don’t you have ready answers for my questions? Because, if healthcare is not a right, why should it be free?

I knew a windmill, lovely in its bones,
When small birds sighed, it would sigh back at them;   
Ah, when it moved, it moved more ways than one:   
The shapes a bright container can contain!
Of its choice virtues only gods should speak,
Or English poets who grew up on Greek
(I’d have them sing in chorus, cheek to cheek).

I’d like to hear a Democrat who has a brain between their ears to explain this Green New Deal from the perspective that, somehow, petroleum is NOT a renewable energy source. It’s source is totally organic, and as long as the earth continues to produce natural organisms, plant and animal, it will continue to naturally produce petroleum. It’s been doing it for billions of years, and it isn’t going to stop. That’s called renewable in my book. Sure, solar, wind, etc, are also natural sources, so add them to the mix. But when petrol products first began its sudden rise in use in 1947, following WWII, the FACT is, it took another 40 years before we saw the sudden rise in global temperatures. The phenomenon that occurred coincident with that condition was not a petroleum-based issue, but solar activity. You say climate change science is "in." Astronomy, geology, physics are much, much older sciences, and they don’t say that, because they know there’s more to know.

When we land on Mars, we will discover the ancient ruins of a once intelligent civilization that became obsessed with a concept they called climate change. We will witness the vast wasteland resulting from their solution: net zero emissions. To accomplish it, they eliminated all sources of GHG emissions, meaning they eliminated all lifeforms that lived, died, and decomposed to an organic petroleum crude. Thus, the achievement of net zero. However, as we learned from Jurassic Park, life finds a way, and the cycle begins again. Net, plus. Congratulations.

Holy cow, did you ever hit a hot button on my heads-up display.

I'll add King Huubard's 1950s "Peak Oil;" the direct nemesis of the manufactured oil crisis of the 1970s. When Hubbard was preaching a decline in oil reserves, a decline he predicted to occur mid-70s, what do you know? A crisis! A crisis being repeated today by the Green New Deal proposition and it's 12-year [now 10-year] doomsday. And yet, every single bloody "green energy" turbine today [hydro, tidal, geo-thermal, and even nuclear] use... what? AlGoreGooeyJuice for lubrication? No, they se petroleum. And they also use it to make all the plastic parts in turbines, in solar panels, and use petrol for both purposes in electric cars. Meanwhile, AlGore is inventing his juice, right? Nope.

I would prefer, first, a serious, unbiased audit of what is currently spent, and for what.To just blindly invest more in education without assessing what is beneficial, and needed, vs what is wasteful and not needed, is the classic fool and his money. We may just find that education is a money pit as currently construed. Marshall McCluhan, a professor of communications in the 60s proposed that children had access to information by radio and television from all over the earth, yet their formal education was restricted to the 19th century classroom. That is not the case today, relative to how information is received, but McCluhan's 60s comment was prescient, because even today, our formal elementary education, at least, and significantly further on, is still in that 19th century classroom. Is that the most efficient means we can devise today? An audit might tell us we're still driving education while staring into the rearview mirror. Observe the success of the internet shop vs. the brick and mortar.

All religions have a measure of truth; some more than others. It is a wide spectrum, even if, relative to TRUTH, there is but TRuth in them. Your premise as quoted does not allow for that spectrum. Religion, as defined by man relative to deity, is not an all-or-nothing proposition, just as, for example, pink is still a percentage of red even if not 100%. Looked at another way, even pink has in it a small measure of 100% red, and a greater degree of less than 100%, and white as well. Politics is no different. Nor, for that matter, is Science.

"In the beginning" is a phrase that is distinct to Earth, as is later clarified, as well as the Sun. It was not descriptive of the entire galaxy, or the universe beyond. And, to my way of thinking, the "singularity of awesome power" had a singularity of awesome power before it, and so on into the infinite past, and into the infinite future. Eternity as a singular point with a line proceeding from it into eternity in one direction is not a correct description of a mathematic construct. The line is infinite in both directions with no point at all, but ones we establish merely to makes sense of the expanse.

I've never heard of the Chinese Room before your mention of it. The distinction to me, of biological v. artificial intelligence, is not explained via a Q&A format as Searle proposed, and demonstrated in the video in your link. It is, rather, whether AI can be as naturally creative as can BI [biological intelligence]. Could the Chinese Room experiment change the conditions of the test were AI in the room instead of BI, such as by Star Trek's Kobayashi Moru? Could AI, presented with the phrase in Chinese characters, "Do you speak Chinese?" reply, also in Chinese characters, "Among the languages I speak are English, French, Japanese, and Arabic." Such is the conundrum of a creative artist, or writer, or musician. There is an answer, and it does communicate clearly, but it is not the expected reply to a yes/no question, does not acknowledge Chinese as one of the languages [although it could be, and just was not mentioned], and it is clearly not rote, as one may expect, so far, from AI. I don't think "disprove" is proper interpretation. On its own, I think a true AI/BI match will not occur on the effort of AI. With the assist of BI, it is possible to come very close to equality of ability, because I place no limit on the ability of BI expansion into infinity. However, the variables involved in the linkage in one man's mind to see pattern recognition, such as Picasso's representation of a bicycle handle bar to a bull's horns, and further to link both images as representative of parts of greater wholes as a transportation devices, or as potential racing rivals, is going to be a challenge for AI.

I used it on the above paragraph and had three suggested edits, two of which I employed. The first was a word choice with three options and the second was a spelling error I overlooked in my own review. It's not that I'm a terrible speller, but I never learned to type in high school. All the girls were in auto shop, so I dropped out of that one and taught myself. Terrible student; pathetic teacher. My method of typing is search-and-destroy.

Being a new member, I was wondering how the quote tool functioned; it makes for much easier reference. Now I see! Thanks. I'll try to offer suggestion in what you're really wanting to see in this thread.   

Your #4: 

"They" never know.

Did you stop to think if you really needed butter, or merely wanted it? There's a difference, my friend. Prayer should be thought out beforehand, analyzed, and reach a conclusion whether the supplication is a need or a want. The scriptures tell us that God already knows what we need, and some interpret that as telling us we need not bother to pray, because we will be given what we need. That's a bit too Bernie Sanders for me. Yes, God already knows all things. It is possible He's waiting for us to recognize the difference between what is wanted [everything, yeah?] and what is truly needed. Without our ability to assess our needs, and how best to fill them, God serves no better purpose than what Bernie Sanders proposes, and we become lemmings.

Having no 24-hour cable news, and multiple channels of it of it, we might be exposed to just about what the subject deserves. Once a void is filled, there is no guarantee what fills it is beneficial, let alone wanted.

Usually, when a system is created, it is done such that all operates as designed, but it degrades over time by corruption [natural, by intent, or by fooling with it when it needed no such unintended consequence]. Systems fail. We see it happening daily. A badly designed system will begin to fail out of the chute. Is bad design the equivalent of evil? Or is good design the equivalent of religion? Neither is correct. There are bad designers with good intent, and there are good designers who make mistakes. And there are middle-of-the-road designers who who make fair-to middle results. The variables are too great to be able to compartmentalize any system.

But you changed your paradigm at the beginning to describe a paradigm more like the one I've described by adding "stupidly." Stupid is not necessarily evil, and most stupid people are not evil.  And none of your paradigm is absolutely correct. Good and evil have always existed. One did not begin before the other, and it is necessary because there must be opposition in all things, and in all times and places.

It appears you and I have intersections. I call it creational evolution. I've heard others call it evolutionary creation, though that reversal of terms seems contrary to a natural order. I entirely concur with the language Darwin used in his last paragraph of On the Origin of Species, editions 2 - 6, mentioning that the Creator breathed life into one form, or into many. He did not acknowledge this in his first edition, having already suffered a crisis to what faith he had at the beginning, which wasn't much. Clearly, he held this added phrase in the rest of his editions for a reason, and IO don't buy that it was just to satisfy his wife's family, as charged by many, including the celebrated Richard Dawkins, who many here admire [worship?].

I believe creation continues to this day, via evolution. In this respect, I don't see science and religion as different coins, and not even as two asides of the same coin. I consider them as on the same side of one coin, and the other side are all those who deny one, but not the other.

At their respective best, yes, poetry is better than prose, but only under that condition. Reason: poetry must employ polysemy, and meter. Yeah, I've seen poetry that has neither, but, then, what distinguishes it from poetry? Neither is really required of prose, though it can. There is bad poetry, and bad prose. Lord, I know that well enough. If rejection notices were dollars, hell, this would be an easy and profitable profession. It is, anyway, for me, but, my "win" percentage isn't what it could be. You won't necessarily see it in my writing here, which I consider more conversational than art, and it is a different voice employed.

I am an angel of armageddon, with weapons you never see, and more effective than guns, or any other armament you would normally think about. The 1A does not specify "guns," does it? We've been prepping since Adam, yeah? It's called "ready."

"other supplies."

specifics unnecessary. I'm prepared.

I use an entirely different tactic that allows me to sit back and watch the panic. I live on 10 acres at 7500 feet in the rocky mountains, with a 29 panel array of solars on my 4K sq ft stone house. I have a 2k gal cistern of fresh water, 2.5 years of freeze dried food storage [which, in many cases, tastes better than fresh because the flavor is concentrated, and about one year of toilet paper and other supplies. By buying a little at a time, there's no panic, and I don't have to participate in that madness. I rotate the food and water so none is too old, although freeze-dried is good to go for 25 years. I grow enough fruit and vegetables to accommodate an entire year, plus enough to either freeze dry or vacuum seal and freeze - totally avoids freezer burn. What I don't have: a boat, a  jet ski, a snowmobile, a trailer... All can be rented when needed without loans al over the place. Oh, the only debt I would normally carry is my car, but it's paid off, as is the house. I highly recommend this tactic.

Your original premise asks for two different causes and effects. Yet you ask to be proven wrong. That, art aside, is an enigma wrapped in a paradox. Nevertheless, in the end, art is either the best free expression of man, or it is anything you can get away with for a buck, and anything in between. It is sacred, and it is profane. Each of us must either ignore it altogether, and it is obvious many posters here take that approach and walk away, or we must embrace the sacred and shun the profane, or vice versa, for that matter, and do so with each article of art we encounter and pause to evaluate. I've proven nothing but to affirm that art is conundrum, and no one is right or wrong.

That the ability to make tools is evolutionary, specific types of tools for specific uses is not evolutionary; it's revolutionary.

That said, the construct of the type of tools used in this string does not matter if they are evo-, or revo-; they are, in the end, a morality tale. Rather, ethical, perhaps. 

In either instance, these tools represent a counterfeit of the fulfillment of human sexual activity, whether it is strictly for entertainment value, or something more personal, more satisfying, and more intimate: an expression of love for one another. Can a person have entertainment from a tool? Yes. There are a plethora of tools we use daily for entertainment, and they function very well as far as the desire to be entertained goes. In fact, it is difficult to take the entertainment value out of these tools; we even can invent new uses for these tools not intended by the original designer's intent.

However, can a person experience shared love with such tools? For that matter, a shared emotion of any description? That we can invent, and produce tools that offer a simulation of emotional attachment, the "emotion" is generated by a series of code, and not by the honest, fresh, and naturally occurring inventive root of a living, natural being. Yeah, I'm even talking about the attachment that we can form with other animals [although that is out of the realm of the subject at hand, I contend: sexual fulfillment].

Does prayer work? I contend that by observing the language of the Lord's Prayer [Matt. 6: 9-13], we can evaluate the relative success of prayer.

  9 "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed by thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11 Give us this day our daily bread.

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen."

Note that Jesus introduced the exercise by saying "After this manner." He did not say, "Only use these words in this order" He desired that we compose our own prayers, not to repeat his prayer. Although as prayers go, this one is very good, and its offering with sincere intent will have beneficial results. "In its manner," Jesus said. What manner is that? It's positive in every respect. It does not say "Might thy kingdom come. Might thy will be done. Maybe give us daily bread. These are the payers of a skeptic. Jesus taught us to pray with conviction. If we pray that God might give us daily bread, He MIGHT give it. Then again, He MIGHT not. God did not make us to be limp biscuits. He made us to be of forthright conviction.

Is that religious mumbo-jumbo? Is that asking for magic in our lives? No, it is exemplary of a positive, honesty prayer of seeking. Anyone can do that, even an Atheist. So, an Atheist may not address God as a personal, loving being, but the expression of forthright, positive words does serve to uplift, inspire, and validate.

Yes, prayer can be effective. Often, it is not, and it is we who are at fault in such instances; not God.

I have read your statements in every post in this string. I have yet to see one iota of evidence amid the continuous claim that people who believe in God are deluded. You offered percentages of people who do not attend church, who actually claim to not believe in God while claiming their religions do have such a belief, percentages of people who are apparently lower percentages than of people who, like yourself, disclaim God. I note not one single reference to any survey declaring these results; not that it would help, because surveys are, after all, merely data of opinions. I am a certified Six Sigma Black Belt. You cannot lecture me on the statistical accuracy of opinions in which the sample size is typically insufficient, the margin of error is too liberal, there is a skewed majority of sub-group sampling of people who agree with the agenda of the poll, there are too many questions, and the questions are biased in favor of a desired result. The plethora of surveys with these flaws are numerous. Cite yours, and I will show you their flaws.  

I note one video reference of a debate, which I watched, with Richard Dawkins from 2008 in which he declares, repeatedly, that believers in God are hallucinatory, but he merely makes the claim, without reference to any scholarly work to support the claim. To do so, in an alleged debate that is supposed to be, itself, a scholarly exercise, is, itself a hallucination.

Are you really telling us that all these claims rise to the level of evidence? You manage to define "delusion" from the OED. Go ahead, offer the definition of "hallucination" from the same source. But defining words, and then linking them to a claim is only evidence that you can research dictionaries. However, there is a major problem with dictionaries: While they define words, and indicate a proper spelling of same, not a single one of them, in any language, truly offers a description of the root of language by which we communicate. Any language. The root? Culture. Culture defines words in context; not the other way around. And without understand a culture, its language fails to translate to another fully or accurately. Actually, the OED [unabridged] comes closest, in English, to approaching the cultural root of the language by its exhaustive etymology, but even it falls short of fully defining its culture in the process. 

I digress. Statements made, claims made, of any nature, not just the relative belief in the existence of any god, and I note Dawkins referred to several, without back-up of repeatable and reproducible, peer-reviewed substantiation, is not evidence. Period. That there may be more people who hold your view of the non-existence of any god, than who do believe is utterly inconsequential. A majority of us once believed the earth was flat. A majority of us once believed the earth was the center of the universe. A majority of us once believed that the sun was the universal center. All those beliefs have been disproven by repeatable and reproducible evidence.

Offer some evidence, my friend, or ma gavte la nata.

To me, poetry is the ultimate expression of language. Some languages have greater ability with poetry than others, chiefly because they are inherently adept with meter. English is blessed in this regard. Poetry must be musical, otherwise it is simply prose with lined structure. I deplore what has become vulgar poetry these days. Vulgar, not because of the words or images conveyed, but vulgar because it is merely prose.

You tell me which has greater poetic appeal:

Awake, awake, in wake

Of my shroud terror

Pray this night while I take,

Breaking on my cross,

Your hated ghosts 

Abated by my blood,

O, grated souls,

So grateful of my blood.

Beneath the gray-hot sundown sky,

Cry, cry, the sundown,

Shriek the night!

or

After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled saith, I thirst.

Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

The latter is from my own poetry; the latter quotes John 19: 28 - 30. The former was intended to be poetry, the latter was not, though they cover the same incident in the same timing. I make no claim that my composition is better writing, just that it is poetry, and exemplary of a poetic form, alliteration, while the other is simple, descriptive prose.

My previous post, #6, was entirely tongue in cheek. Of course, by constitutional standards, they qualify. However, their understanding of the Constitution, other than that point, is so far out of left field, they are no longer in the field. They are not outstanding, nor out standing in any field.

Nope. Ovaries ≠ qualification. Gender is not a constitutional presidential qualifier [Article II, section 1, clause 5]. Citizenship is, along with two other quals. But, you do not get to play the game, or the reversal of the game, the Supreme Court played from 1791 to 1922; 2 years following the ratification of the 19A.

I concur, though there are the attributes of much greater concern. Neither Hillaryous Balloon Girl or Pocawannapotus qualify.

There's an easier gage of the kinds of people: Those who make things happen, those who watch what happens, and those who wonder what happened.

The makers are those who can create wealth for themselves and for others so some others, those who have a paradigm shift, can shift from watchers to makers. This is possible because what Oba'a told us, "There comes a time when you have made enough money," which implies that there is a stagnant money supply. He was completely wrong. The free-market capitalist system says there is no limit to the money supply, nor to those who know how to seek its increase. Does the result of such a system create an imbalance of relative wealth? Of course it does, because makers will make, regardless. Watchers may remain watchers, and may still benefit from makers, and potentially can become makers, themselves. But wonderers must change their paradigm before they will ever have the skills to become watchers, and only by that skill, elevate to become makers. 

You will notice one blatantly obvious lack of mention in the above: entitlement. Wealth entitlement is just my term for redistribution of wealth, which is nothing but entitlement. Giving a man a fish will feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, he feeds himself for a lifetime. Education. Acquisition of skills. Learning to do more than just work for money; learn to put money to work for one's self, and others.

So, it is not a measure of how much a person can earn at minimum wage. Why do Democrats push such a low goal? Because they want to keep you as a wonderer or a watcher. They want to be the only makers. That's not a capitalist system; that's what socialism is. It is a measure of whether you perceive a limit to the money supply, or an unlimited vista. Again, Democrats would have you perceive the limit as the only goal available.

Wonderers rule nothing. Watchers can at least see their are beneficial rules. Makers make the rules. So, be a maker, stop complaining that they exist, and become one. Yes, there are limitations, and some argue for them constantly. Familiarity breeds contempt; it all depends on what we do with our mirrors, which only sees what is behind us, plus us. We can't go through life driving while looking in the rearview mirror. That's why the windshield is always bigger.