1957 vs 2007

Topic: 1957 vs 2007 (Read 6538 times) previous topic - next topic

Reply #45 – July 23, 2008, 06:03:36 PM

This Thread Is Awesome!

*edit*

So this begs the question, is there a reason so many of us who may and do have ADD own fox BirdCats? I know mine does random shiznit, all the time!

1957 vs 2007

Reply #46 – July 23, 2008, 06:21:08 PM

Quote

Sorry guys...I might have been a little strong there. But sheesh, don't feel that you have to placate me just because this thread touched a nerve on my end. Feel free to tell me to piss off at any time.

Well, see, it's like this... you rarely get pissed off, so when it happens...I tend to take a step back! lol

BTW since you are psychic, can ya hand over some lottery numbers to me... cuz, ya know...I love ya man! :D

As for being add/adhd well, let's just say that I think women have the main handle on that. Our minds are always working, and we can go from one subject to the next in our thinking and tie it all together.

There's a book out called Men Are Like Waffles--Women Are Like Spaghetti . It explains how men think and how women think.

Men tend to think in little boxes and none of the things touch each other.
women on the other hand, tend to think like spaghetti. We start to think of one thing, which makes us think of another thing and so on...it all intertwines like spaghetti noodles, all touching each other.

Talk about ADD! Do you realize how hard it is to stay on subject when your mind combines many things all together? lol

1957 vs 2007

Reply #47 – July 23, 2008, 06:43:49 PM

Quote

then got into the discussion about ADHD as it's common for those who don't have to deal with it to assume it must not exist.

OK. I've kept MY mouth shut (fingers tied?) long enough....
Just because some of us do not have ADD/ADHD does not mean we do not know it exists.

My wife teaches children with special needs in Jamaica, Queens currently and has taught both special needs classes and mainstream classes before this too. I put her through college, helped when I could with papers and have had to take classes and attend training seminars for learning disabilities and emotional instabilities for my own career.

While many people who have this "disease/syndrome/epidemic/sickness/whatever word you wanna call it" slide through the cracks, just as many who do not have it use it as a tool.

It is unbelievable the amount of parents that manipulate the system into getting aid for their child ( in the form of a 1 to 1 aid, extra time on exams and in extreme cases a person whose job it is to write down the child’s work for them).

What's even worse is the amount of parents in denial. the words "Not my child" are damaging words to that child's future. The child suffers for years while earlier on the issue could have been dealt with in a proper manner and the child could have benefited greatly from a proper diagnosis that the parents recognized and accepted.

As far as being off topic......
This thing touches a hell of a lot of bases....

Quote

However, hearing people talk about their handguns, as something to carry with them day to day, scares the shiznit out of me. One is made to take down a deer. A handgun was only made to do one thing.

3 actually.
I assume the one you speak of is killing. In the wrong hands it will.
You must also remember defend and deter.

Quote

If people don't like todays society here, you can always go live in a third-world country

I've been all over and there are worse. Right now there are some that are on par with and dare I say it -- better.

Retirement outside of the US is not out of the realm of possibilities for me.

1957 vs 2007

Reply #48 – July 23, 2008, 08:20:00 PM

Quote from: V8Demon;228715

OK. I've kept MY mouth shut (fingers tied?) long enough....
Just because some of us do not have ADD/ADHD does not mean we do not know it exists.

That's an interestingly defensive way to not disagree with me as I said it was "common" for people to deny it's existence. I didn't say that all people who have doubts about some of the manipulators didn't believe that some people are indeed ADHD. OTOH, many people in my life express similar sentiments to the "beat the child 'till they conform" mentality expressed by even some in this post.

Quote

My wife teaches children with special needs in Jamaica, Queens currently and has taught both special needs classes and mainstream classes before this too. I put her through college, helped when I could with papers and have had to take classes and attend training seminars for learning disabilities and emotional instabilities for my own career.

While many people who have this "disease/syndrome/epidemic/sickness/whatever word you wanna call it" slide through the cracks, just as many who do not have it use it as a tool.

It is unbelievable the amount of parents that manipulate the system into getting aid for their child ( in the form of a 1 to 1 aid, extra time on exams and in extreme cases a person whose job it is to write down the child’s work for them).

What's even worse is the amount of parents in denial. the words "Not my child" are damaging words to that child's future. The child suffers for years while earlier on the issue could have been dealt with in a proper manner and the child could have benefited greatly from a proper diagnosis that the parents recognized and accepted.

That's a good synopsis. I honor what your wife does as I also couldn't imagine how my aunt (who passed recently) could deal with the special needs children she taught day after day. These kids were profoundly handicapped and had little hope for any self-reliant future. Just thinking about the seeming futility of what these teachers nobly do day after day is admirable to me. I couldn't do it. Some people do take advantage of the system, and some parents can't deal with the fact that someone in their family may be less than "perfect" - my mother-in-law for instance. I think that all of these situations are normal and to be expected in any society where we expect all of our children to be perfect. We no longer have 4 - 8 children so families are not so likely to just write off a kid by saying "oh, (s)he is just the black sheep of the family". This was how you would have heard them describe my father in the 1950's. In fact, according to my father, the 50's were a time when people were uptight and generally conformists. Women knew their place. Blacks knew their place. Hispanics knew thier place. Gays knew their place. People were discouraged from "standing out". A conservatives paradise - white males ruled the roost and nobody questioned anything. I would say that it was a time where people wanted stability in their lives after the incredible upheaval of WWII. This "optimism" clearly could not last and hoping for such an unsustainable "burying of one's head in the sand" is to not believe in the greatness of the USA and our ability to remain great despite the shifting sands beneath our feet. You couldn't pay me enough to go back in time - I do not believe in the "grass is always greener" horse. We are here and now and we're only as good as we think we are. I tend to have a positive outlook - even after 7 years of having an impulsive reactionary in the White House that has indeed made other countries seem like a better alternative. It's not true. We will find greatness again in spite of the setbacks.

1957 vs 2007

Reply #49 – July 23, 2008, 08:35:07 PM

Bush is a tool, no doubt.

Quote

We will find greatness again in spite of the setbacks

It will be WELL after these next 2 candidates if at all.
My view of this country started long before the Bush administration.

1957 vs 2007

Reply #50 – July 23, 2008, 09:40:44 PM

Quote from: EricCoolCats;228694

Feel free to tell me to piss off at any time.

Piss off!

1957 vs 2007

Reply #51 – July 23, 2008, 09:51:31 PM

Quote from: Cougar5.0;228683

Just for reference, this "the 50's were so great" thing has been around since the '70's when I was a teen.

Didn't have to worry about giardiasis while hiking in the 50s. There's something to be said about that! :D

1957 vs 2007

Reply #52 – July 23, 2008, 09:57:03 PM

Quote

Giardiasis — popularly known as beaver fever or backpacker's diarrhea

Did they mean to say "stoolsamplers diarrhea" ?

OK, that was just wrong of me

1957 vs 2007

Reply #53 – July 23, 2008, 10:05:47 PM

Quote from: oldraven;228643

A handgun was only made to do one thing.

Pardon me for being blunt but this has to be one one THE most narrow-minded, ignorant, statements I have ever heard/read.

Same as ANY firearm, a handgun is made to fire a deadly projectile at high velocity. What you aim that firearm at and why is what defines its purpose.

Your statement got me thinking about what I have handguns for. I have a couple that I use for hunting and I have taken more deer with a handgun (5) than I have with any other weapon, (Crossbow-2, recurve bow-3, Compund bow-2, other firearms-0 )

I have also taken wild boar, elk, moose and javalina with handguns. My handguns have put a lot of good food on the table.

Number of times I have pointed a handgun at another human being: 0, ZERO, Nada, never. And I have no desire or intention to.

Number of round fired at paper, steel or wooden (bowling pin) targets: Lost count but it must be well over 100,000 by now.

I was awarded the Navy Pistol Expert medal and I am an NRA certified pistol instructor. I have taught dozens of women how to properly handle and fire handguns specifically for self defense and I feel I have probably saved a few of their lives for it.

Yes, handguns can and do kill people. That does not in itself make them a bad thing. Remember, cars kill people too.

1957 vs 2007

Reply #54 – July 23, 2008, 10:19:34 PM

The only reason I want a handgun is so I can use it for what gunpowder weapons were invented in China for - to kill an invader.

1957 vs 2007

Reply #55 – July 24, 2008, 06:32:34 AM

Quote from: V8Demon;228726

Bush is a tool, no doubt.

It will be WELL after these next 2 candidates if at all.
My view of this country started long before the Bush administration.

and agenda logic prevails even after your said candidates,,,,,,, Can you say "48 billion dollars to africa" for ,,,so called,,,,,,Aids research. This one topic leads me to believe that even my past impresion of our delaware senator has faults beyond my wildest dreams.

I sure hope your wrong though, I really need to feel there are patriots out there with honest hearts for the good of balanced capitalizm.

1957 vs 2007

Reply #56 – July 24, 2008, 08:05:04 AM

Well, Mayhem, we've all got our views on that. What you see as narrow minded, I see as sensible. There will be no common ground on this topic, as history has proven. Best to just say where we stand and give up trying to change anyone's mind. When I said a handgun (which I've used before, and thought was cool, but still frightened me as far as its purpose) was only meant for one thing, I meant it. If you're using it for its initial purpose, you point a pistol at a human. Fact. That's what they were 'designed' for. Rifles were designed for combat and hunting, and the two types are easy to tell apart. My father does carry his revolver when he's logging in the woods or spraying the fields. The way the Coyotes are getting, and Bears at that, I don't blame him. But that's still not what the tool was meant to do. In fact, most of the posts here about handguns (all but yours) talked about using them to defend against people, not put food on the table. I wasn't out of line and I wasn't ignorant. Ignorant means you come to a conclusion without knowing anything on the topic.

And I didn't say I had a problem with handguns. What freaks me out is the fact that so many people are fine with carrying one around with them every day, just in case they might have to point it at someone some day. In my mind that's a recipe for disaster.

That's where I stand. You don't have to agree, man. I know many people don't. Besides, I don't think you're in the minority here. And I respect that you're a responsible firearm owner. Just don't expect that to change how I feel about people packing heat.

I now leave the floor open for you to tear this post apart and make it look like I want to take away all your guns.

1957 vs 2007

Reply #57 – July 24, 2008, 11:40:14 AM

Quote from: jcassity;228792

and agenda logic prevails even after your said candidates,,,,,,, Can you say "48 billion dollars to africa" for ,,,so called,,,,,,Aids research.

Yeah, Bush supported money for Aids in Africa - do you have an issue with that ... and why?

1957 vs 2007

Reply #58 – July 26, 2008, 01:31:03 AM

Quote from: Cougar5.0;228823

Yeah, Bush supported money for Aids in Africa - do you have an issue with that ... and why?

yes i do and you would to if you look into it and its outcome for whom. Its a dirty deed and a last minute ditch effort to line the drug companies pockets just in time for his exit.

dont start anything with me on this because im just bringing yet another ughly truth. I dont want any trouble and you would be surprised what you find out if you look into it.

It caught my attention the moment i heard the amount and looked up the historical trend. Now ask yourself why are we suddenly:

A- why are we suddenlywanting to give so much $ attention to this

and

B- who will gain

On the surface it sounds like a good deed.

Oldraven
You are the type that would take away / limit all guns if you could and had the power to do so. Everything to me sounded fine from what you said until your close and then you lost me.

1957 vs 2007

Reply #59 – July 26, 2008, 08:32:38 AM

Quote from: jcassity;229123

yes i do and you would to if you look into it and its outcome for whom. Its a dirty deed and a last minute ditch effort to line the drug companies pockets just in time for his exit.

dont start anything with me on this because im just bringing yet another ughly truth. I dont want any trouble and you would be surprised what you find out if you look into it.

It caught my attention the moment i heard the amount and looked up the historical trend. Now ask yourself why are we suddenly:

A- why are we suddenlywanting to give so much $ attention to this

and

B- who will gain

On the surface it sounds like a good deed.

No, I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear about waste and graft in any program that is involved with trying to help people in 3rd world countries. I've heard of much corruption in this program, though it doesn't surprse me and the program still does a lot of good. Of course the drug companies gain as drug coctails to help treat the 22 million people in Africa with aids are the main reason aid is needed. What I don't understand is why you single out this issue that Bush talked about like, what, 6 years ago? I've been shocked that he's actually interested in this and that he's actually doing something that doesn't involve murdering people directly. It doesn't surprise me at all that big pharma would stand to gain under the expansion of this program that has been in place for the past 5 years. But the so called media reports this as one of his greatest accomplishments. I would call it his only accomplishment. I am looking forward to your critique - I am interested why this of all issues is on your hit list.