The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I saw a poll from an ABC station this morning where over 65% of the people think the country is going in the wrong direction. The funny or odd part to me is of those 65% I wonder how many reasons are the exact opposite of the others who voted the same way. For instance ... I may say "yes we are heading in the wrong direction" because God is being forced out of society and we are losing our morals while someone else may say "yes we are heading in the wrong direction" because of all the conservatives forcing religion and conservatism down our throats.

In general, do you think things in the United States are moving in the right or wrong direction and why?

Not a big fan of "in general" questions when there really isn't an "in general" situation to apply it to. We're moving in the right direction in some things, not so much in others.

If the "in general" answer you're after is specifically for the religious quandary you noted in the second part of that statement, then no, I don't think the country is heading in the right direction, for the same "someone else" reason you noted. Most of the religious conservatives that I meet, I want to backhand on "general" principle.  Keep your fictitious deity out of my laws and out of my world...

Has nothing to do with religion ... that was just an example. It could just as easily have been I think it's getting better because we have more flavors of ice cream or it's getting worse because more dogs are using my yard as a toilet. That's the point I was saying. Almost 65% think it's getting worse and 25% think it's getting better according tot he poll.  I am curious as to the reasons why people think either. I don't think it's for the same reasons.

^^^ Then my "We're moving in the right direction in some things, not so much in others" response is spot on... Not happy with religious direction, but more than pleased with the number of ice cream flavors. Not so pleased with the media over-hyping everything, but believe that TV production is at an all-time level of awesomeness. Believe that political gridlocking is one of the major banes of our society, but think that technology is moving along just fine.

My answer will probably sound disjointed since I'm one of those rare "fiscally conservative, socially liberal, atheist" types.   ;D    But I'd say we are moving in the wrong direction fiscally as govt spending continues to grow out of control, the wrong direction with foreign policy as we continue to appease our enemies and crap on the few true allies that we have, and in the wrong direction in regards to the Constitutionally provided individual liberties of our citizens.  But on the positive side, we are moving in the right direction in that the religious nuts are becoming more and more irrelevant in national politics.  And as a devout capitalist, me and my 401K both like the fact that even though the libs in charge pay a lot of lip service about the "evils" of big business, but they aren't really doing anything to stop Wall Street from making me good money.  

^ I don't think you're all that rare -- you're just called libertarians.

I would say that overall, we're going in the right direction.  We're better off overall now than 10 years ago.  And better 10 than 25.  And better 25 than 50.

Maybe if you look at one indicator at any one time, like economic growth or peace or whatever, perhaps we're not.  But all things considered, when looking at a few year cluster, I'd rather be alive now that in before.

I think that part of this question just comes with getting older.  People think that they grew up in the good old days.  But you were probably just naive.  The good old days is a fallacy.

Funny that you should say that because I was just telling a buddy the other day that if not for the fact that I'm "hawkish" on foreign policy and still resisting the "legalize drugs" topics, I'd be a full blown Libertarian. 

The poll just says "65% of people are unhappy about something"

Not earth-shattering news, really.

I think CF was dead on with the nature of the opposition point.  If "60%" of people are opposed to Obamacare, but 30% think it goes too far and 30% think it doesn't go far enough, what are you supposed to do to fix that?

Secondly, while I am generally inclined to agree with Dave's statement that we are better off today than in the past, it's tough for me to honestly say that the nation is better off today than it was in the '90s.  However, a significant part of that is my personal bias; if I were a homosexual, I might not be so quick to say that the country was better off in the '90s, just as a white person might be much more inclined to say the country was better off in the '50s than I would.

It is not a simple yes or no question. I think we are doing fine in some areas, and bad in others. If you asked this same question at various times in our history, I am sure you would receive similar or higher numbers.
It is all cyclical.

The country is most certainly moving in the wrong direction. All empires fall and we have already peaked and are on the downward path on the right side of the graph.

Generally wrong way. Socially, it's checkered. We're still in the throes of our love of the sexual revolution, which will end horribly - but, whatever. We seem to be waking up to the horrors of abortion.

Economically, wrong way. Wall street is back on top, which is fine, as far as it goes; but, the middle class is still struggling, the old jobs aren't coming back, and Lord knows what will happen when Obamacare comes.

When I awaken each day, I think of this:

 Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;
    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

    The darkness drops again but now I know
    That twenty centuries of stony sleep
    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Until you can provide proof of unerring clairvoyance, I'll just assume you actually have no idea how the sexual revolution is going to end. Since you're a card-carrying member of the religious right, I do understand that any sex outside of the missionary position...with your spouse...in the interests of procreation is abhorrent to you. 

Frankly, I think two hours with a couple of experienced escorts and a gallon of industrial lubricant would cure most of your ills.

And thanks for the Yeats action... When I awaken each day, I think of this:

"We Want Some Pussy"
by 2 Live Crew

You see, me and my homies like to play this game
We call it Amtrak but some call it the train
We all would line up in a single-file line
And take our turns at waxing girls' behinds
But every time it came to me, I was shit out of luck
Because I'd stick my dick in, and it would get stuck
The girls would say "Stop!" I'd say "I'm not!
That's enough, I quit, 'cause y'all are bustin' me out!"
I say, girls, don't hide it, just divide it
And please don't knock it until you've tried it
So to all of you bitches and all you hoes
Let's have group sex and do the Rambo!

I'm the Peter Piper of the 1980's
Got a long hard dick for all of the ladies
I don't care if you got three babies
You can work the stick in my Mercedes
If you wanna blow, just let me know
We can go backstage at the end of the show
I'll look at you, and you will look at me
With my dick in my hands as you fall to your knees
You know what to do, 'cause I won't say please
Just nibble on my dick like a rat does cheese!

Wall St is back on top only because of the Fed policy that is hurting everyone else. No one has paid for the fraud and greed that caused the recession, except for the people who lost their asses.

Proof positive we are going in the wrong direction. Reality shows like Keeping Up with the Kardashians, Jersey Shore and Honey boo Boo would never have made it beyond a week if they were on 30 years ago. They are not only train wrecks but people have turned them into idols and aren't ashamed to admit it.

You have some really bad Hollywood misconceptions of Christians. The Bible not only encourages sex it doesn't allow spouses to withhold sex from their partner. "each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ...

Fixed

I want to hear more about this awful sexual revolution.

Me too...preferably with pictures.

The god squad wants to go back to those fine biblical principles.  You know, stoning misbehaving chidlren to death, slavery, women as fourth class citizens, etc.  The "good old days".  Stupid sexual revolution.  Next thing you know they'll be letting gays vote. 

Yes. I'm afraid I am doing it wrong.


Small minded men with even smaller penises want to keep women in check by keeping them barefoot and pregnant. Sign me up!

One of the less-celebrated signs of the apocalypse:

"There will appear many new television shows, and some will be of poor quality!"

P.S. Game of Thrones wouldn't have made it a week if it was on 30 years ago, either.

Yes, I remember various laws stating that "marital rape" was literally impossible because the marriage contract allows for free access to sex.  Man, those were the good days!

It's hard to complain about "Hollywood misconceptions of Christians" literally one sentence before you tacitly endorse forced sex against one's will.

Nor would the NFL draft.  Back when you had 4-5 networks it was much more difficult to secure a spot than it is now that we have 200. 

I'm going to agree with the earlier sentiment that it depends on what you're asking about specifically...

I feel...That are country is getting worse in a lot of ways,and better in other ways...I think we need to realize that problems,views,and culture of our country changes with times.I feel small groups are trying to bring back the good ole days,that weren't really that good,rather than focus on solving problems,and finding solutions to new problems that arise with the changes in our country.

These knuckle dragger arguments aren't going to solve anything...I think our country has become Black,and White....No room for compromise,and nothing gets done...

forced sex against one's will? Dude, you need some help.

And neither do you. We all have inklings. Not claiming inerrancy here, just saying, I think it'll end badly. That's the point of the question: how do you think the country's going... isn't it?

Anyway, for your records, here's how the sexual revolution looks, from my perspective.

Since 1973: 54.5 million abortions, approximately, based on the Guttmacher Institute's records. http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf

Of these abortions, only 1% due to rape/incest. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html (Admittedly an old article - but still.)

Single-parent/mom-only homes triple from 1960 - 2012. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/25/fathers-disappear-from-households-across-america/?page=all

Rise in STDs: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/STI-Estimates-Fact-Sheet-Feb-2013.pdf

I could go further. But to me, this is some fairly impressive evidence that our permissiveness has not been good for us.


Not true.


Not true.


I generally agree. That's why I included the caveat: "as far as that goes." I don't think it's a generally good thing unless it has generally good effects. Wall St's resurrection has yet to cause a good ripple.


Fair point. I don't disagree, as long as you're using the present progressive, and not the past, tense.


Plz see above in my response to 'stroke.


This is completely ignorant. However, I can understand why you say it. It's so much easier to caricature people who believe differently from you than it is to actually think and engage w/ them.

In addition, "biblical principles" as a term used to justify beliefs is... to the best of my memory, something I've never said. While it's a nice red herring, it's somewhat pointless to bring up here. If you actually care to know what I think, I believe in the natural law. I would suggest you read some of the classics in this area, like Boethius, Augustine, Aquinas, Locke, etc, to see where people like myself come from.


Wow, you sound so enlightened!


This, at best, is a strained interpretation of what he said, and you know it.

I predict that within 20 years conventional abortions and abortion clinics will be a thing of the past, with the next generation of drugs similar to "Plan B" being effective thru the first trimester, making availability simple and protests and blocking impossible. 

you say this like it's a bad thing .. this just shows how much in demand abortions are .. 54.5 million customers just demonstrates the actual need for easy and legal abortions

^^^ Stop applying logic to the problem... ;)

In some ways we are, but we need other steps to be taken.

What irks me is the abuse of some government programs because they take away from the truly needy.

Sex is awesome, but too many people are doing it irresponsibly and having kids they can't afford.

Rules need to be changed to make people accountable for their behavior

One rule I would like to see happen is:

Medicaid should NOT cover anything to do with childbirth or pregnancy.  If you need Medicaid, you shouldn't be having kids because you aren't financially able to take care of them

I got others, I can't think of them right now.

I would say the market has spoken.

OK, you got me.  When CF said that the Bible "doesn't allow spouses to withhold sex from their partner," I only meant forced in the sense that:

a) according to the Bible, you go to Hell and suffer eternal torture for disregarding the laws contained therein
b) in any ancient jurisdiction that adopted the Biblical interpretation of that law (e.g. the United States, pre-1975), one's spouse was specifically excluded from the definition of rape (i.e. "A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if:")

But that's probably a totally unfair Hollywood mischaracterization of what "not allowed to withhold sex" means.  Maybe one of you could clear it up for me, particularly what it would mean in a jurisdiction under the Christian equivalent of Sharia law.  Or, alternatively, the United States 40 years ago (before we started going in the wrong direction?).

Your joking right?  So if someone who is poor get pregnant, they give birth at home and the baby receives no prenatal or postnatal care.  No childhood vaccinations, etc.  

But we continue to bail out wall street firms that trade risky dirivitie.

This doesn't really make any sense.

1) you are primarily hurting the unborn child by denying prenatal care
2) once the child is born, we're still going to be on the hook for all the expensive medical treatment that could have been avoided with proper prenatal care

That is, unless you're willing to deny healthcare coverage to Innocent Children (gasp!).

Some people believe that there should be 54.5 million more unwanted children in America.

Unfortunately, most of these same people believe that taxes that redistribute wealth to the poor are immoral.

Conservatives have been extremely effective at blocking access to Plan B.  The battlefield will simply switch from abortion clinics to pharmacies.

You act like you don't know my thoughts on the humanity of the fetus. I get that we disagree - but that wasn't the point.


"The Market" spoke for a long time on the slavery of native american and african peoples. Until we legislated it away. I suppose the market morally justified that practice as well? I suppose legislation into that area was some sort of interference?

So that you understand: NO, I am not comparing slavery and abortion. I'm saying that market demand does not create a moral justification out of thin air.


My friend, you could not be more wrong. What CF is referring to is in the NT:

1 Corinthians 7:2-5

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

The author of this text is not thinking about rape within or without marriage, but rather of sexual temptation caused by excessive withholding of marital sex. I think that's fairly clear from the text itself, but, it becomes even more clear when one reads this passage in conjunction with verses 1 and 6-8.

Ok, so, with that cleared up, we turn to marital rape. Where did the exemption for a married man come from in law? It comes from common law, which was essentially a mass of decisions from influential english jurists over the years - then transported here - and then modified slowly by statute.

So, where does this ridiculous exemption come from? Well, mostly from Lord Matthew Hale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hale_(jurist)

Lord Hale's theory was that marriage was a contract, wherein the woman had given blanket consent to sexual intimacy, and said consent could only be revoked by dissolution of the relationship. Sadly, Lord Hale's influence lasted into the 20th century. Click here for a link (http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1484&context=californialawreview&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dmarital%2520rape%2520law%2520history%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26ved%3D0CDoQFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.berkeley.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1484%2526context%253Dcalifornialawreview%26ei%3DbTgEUreHOPSh4AP224CYBQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGgNLIcag0_RfvBIigW21YYVuSuQw#search=%22marital%20rape%20law%20history%22) (see footnote 9)

Now the problem w/ all this is that contract law was very severe back in the day. For example, a renter who was driven out of his leasehold was still required to pay rent, despite not having quiet enjoyment of the property. So, a ridiculous statement like this didn't seem out of place if you thought that marriage was a contract.

Anyway, the point is, the bible never indicates (and neither did CF) that somehow a woman had no-self possession, and that marital rape was therefore allowable. Indeed, I would argue that the following passage makes it very clear that acting in such a way is exceptionally sinful for a Christian:

In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. Eph 5:28


Indeed - some people do not subscribe to the theory: "every child a wanted child; every unwanted child a piece of butchered meat in a dumpster somewhere."

- edited to fix screen distorting URL - fau

^^^ Wow, that mile-long link totally butchers the page formatting. Maybe consider using bit.ly when you have links containing over 100,000 characters. ;)

No, you garnish her wages to pay for the pregnancy and stuff.  Then, you tell her to put it up for adoption because she shouldn't be having kids if she can't afford to take care of them.

I talked to a girl online.  She has two kids.  I asked her what she did for work.  She said she didn't.  I asked how she supported herself.  She said, Section 8, food stamps, and child support.

I told her she made me sick.  She's just going to sleep around and make other people pay for it.  This is not right.  I asked her how lived with herself and slept at night. 

I fully support section 8, ssi, food stamps, medicaid, and other assistance programs.  I just think they should be for people who really need them, not for people who are just irresponsible or who have the mindset of, "Oh, I can do whatever I want to because everybody else will bail me out"

My bad.

Shows such as Archie Bunker and movies such as Blazing Saddles would not make it today.

If she wasn't online at the time, would you have hugged her before or after that comment?

Funny, because CF interpreted that text as, "The Bible not only encourages sex it doesn't allow spouses to withhold sex from their partner."  (I know, two people interpret a holy text differently, stop the presses!)  So if you are required to have sex with your spouse, even if you may not want to (on the basis that such withholding may drive them to temptation), what is the proper term for when someone who doesn't want to have sex is made to anyway?

I appreciate the history lesson, but it's about as relevant to the discussion as a history of slavery in defense of Biblical slavery.  Our flawed, fallible Laws Of Men corrected the error of presuming that a spouse is required to provide sex, while the concept remains pristinely intact in the Bible and will continue as such forever (just like the Biblical law that forces a rapist to marry his victim as punishment).

No, it just specifies that she is not permitted to withhold sex from her husband (and vice versa).  And laws that followed the same standard literally and explicitly eliminated the possibility of marital rape (which is functionally the same thing as allowing it).

Well, liberals and conservatives seem to have a difference of opinion on what constitutes an "unborn child" and what constitutes a "lump of fertilized cells with no sentience or rights."

The difference is that after the child is born (when everyone agrees they are, in fact, independent humans with individual rights), conservatives immediately cease caring.

Good try, but again, not at all close. The text says, (using a different translation here to make it a little more clear) in Verse 5,

"Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer."

That word "except" is fairly interesting. It appears as though you can say no to your spouse for certain reasons. I don't know that Paul gives an exhaustive list here - doesn't say it explicitly, and there's nothing I read that implicitly indicates that it is exhaustive. So, I would say this is, as I said at first, a very strained interpretation of what the bible teaches on this matter.

Now, if you want proof that this interpretation was present prior to modern days, look to the Summa Theologica, which was written in the 1260s and 1270s. In the section dealing with the "marital debt" Thomas indicates the following:

And therefore, since the wife has power over her husband only in relation to the generative power and not in relation to things directed to the preservation of the individual, the husband is bound to pay the debt to his wife, in matters pertaining to the begetting of children, with due regard however to his own welfare.

While Thomas is thinking of a woman demanding sex from a man here, it certainly applies in the reverse, given the surrounding sections. Note that Thomas says that spouses don't have power over one another in relation to personal welfare or preservation of the individual. In short, while a person can demand sex from their spouse, if self-preservation or self-welfare requires or makes it beneficial to not have sex, then one can refuse...


I just don't think the Bible says what you think it says. The concept of some sort of undeniable sex-contract between husband and wife is not something that's in the Bible.

Regarding a rapist marrying his victim - that is a red herring to this discussion.


Again, nope: this conclusion follows from incorrect or untrue premises. Were I at home w/ my library, I would also get you some Augustine references, but I'm without that ability presently.


I would argue they haven't "stopped caring" but would rather charity flowed from the private citizens, rather than from boondoggle gov't programs that could very well go bust and take us all with them... (social security anyone? http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/)

However, as I am a proponent of the welfare state to some regard, I don't deny that prominent conservatives could urge more charity and giving and willingness to aid the poor on their people.

You say that as if your interpretation of a holy text is provable.

You interpret one thing, CF interprets another, religion gonna religion.

"Mutual consent."  So if the spouse does not consent to abstinence, still sounds like it's going to be forced sex against your will.

If you want to argue that, instead of a man coercing his wife with the threat of a beating if she doesn't submit (i.e. plain old everyday rape), the church is only coercing her with the threat of eternal torture of her soul, I guess I can agree to that?

Based on that verse, the given reason is if your spouse consents to it.  That's not much of an "exception."

Not going to get back into the history of marital rape as I've already addressed it: laws of men previously permitted it, we came to our senses and addressed them, meanwhile the Bible remains divinely unchanged as always.

I mean, maybe they do still care, in some way that doesn't involve any actual action or resources on their part. 

The difference is that when it comes to living people out of the womb, conservatives insist that all charity must come from convincing the hearts and minds of private citizens... yet when it comes to the decision as to whether or not to end a pregnancy, suddenly the time for convincing hearts and minds is over and the party of "small government" insists that the government step in and force women to take pregnancies to term.

So did you get a date?

^^^^

I couldn't date somebody like that who is irresponsible and leeching off others.

Modified to add, I did have an awesome date on Wednesday night with somebody else, but that's another story.

Back to my original point, I hate how people get away with irresponsibility, especially when it comes to pregnancy and children.

IF YOU CAN"T AFFORD TO RAISE CHILDREN, DON'T HAVE THEM!!!  What is so hard to understand about that?

Are you saying that if you can't afford contraception, you shouldn't be having sex?  Just clarifying.

I think it's fair to say that many of the people in question don't want to have children, but because the religious right has successfully (and unnecessarily) enforced a moral link between sex and pregnancy*, the expectation seems to be that the poor should be abstinent.

*This is not the 18th-century; we have readily available medical technology to allow people to have unlimited sex without a single parent being created.  Certain groups oppose the availability of these products/procedures on moral/religious grounds.

Several Points

1) Birth control isn't that expensive.  My friend has a really good kind that is really cheap

2) There are ways to have sex without risking pregnancy, I should know given my performance troubles

3) Condoms aren't that expensive either

4) If you have sex, YOU deal with the consequences.  If you can't afford to raise the child, put it up for adoption to somebody who can.

And this is coming from a liberal

There has been a couple of studies that have looked at the number of abortions and the correlation to the reduced crime rate starting the mid 90's.
If you look at the 16-24 age group, which commits the most crime, you will see that by the mid 90's that group was significantly smaller, as they were the first to come of age after abortion became legal.
Crime has been heading down.
Also just think how much worse our schools and prisons would be. Statistics show that the majority of poor students and criminals come from single parent households.
So by allowing these women to make the choice to terminate their pregnancy, we have prevented even more social problems.
Of course most evangelicals and conservatives I have ever discussed this topic with, do ot even consider the ramifications of making all pregnancies come to term.

You bring up a great point.
So, let's say we force women to have babies they didn't want. Most people say, "Just give them up for adoption."

First of all, many minority children are the last to be adopted. Then you add in the ones that maybe were kept, but mom and dad didn't give a shit about them. In both scenarios these children are left in the system or with completely inattentive parents that are not equipped to handle being parents.

What future do these children hold? Are they our next responsible citizens or our future criminals?

It is an interesting theory. Has abortion reduced what our crime rate would have been had all these pregnancies been forced to term?

on my point, what a message we send to girls in today's society:

To support yourself, just make babies and leech off the government.

Awesome stuff, really

We gotta hold people responsible for their actions.

Boy it just makes me so angry that she's living the good life in luxury all on my tax dollars because she decided to sleep around.

dolphins4life, ultimately it boils down to this: do we, as a society, want to provide children with the best possible opportunity to grow up and become productive, contributing citizens?  If so, then we have to make sure that children have food, clothing, shelter, and education.  Now, we can do this one of several ways:

- require people to provide proof of financial stability in order to have children
- forcibly remove children from the homes of parents incapable of financially supporting them without assistance
- provide cheap, easy access to contraception/abortion
- provide financial assistance to poor parents

All of these solutions have their own drawbacks.

So, do you think our nation is better off or worse off by providing food/clothing/shelter/education for children?  Is it worth the cost?

Can I ask what you consider the good life? Because I really doubt that a woman that completely relies on government assistance is living the "good life".

^^^^

Not having to work and having all your needs met is the good life for me

This girl purposely didn't use birth control because she didn't believe in it.

Birth control isn't that expensive.  My date last night told me hers was $34 a month.

Next subject for me to vent on is employers.

Nothing has been done to address this paradox.

Employers say, "We won't hire you without experience in their ads and on interviews"

But if nobody will hire you, how can you get experience?

Also, people say, "You have to have money to make money," but how can you make money if you don't have money?  And if you already have money, why would you need to make it?

PARADOX

^^^^

Are you liberal or conservative?

^^^ Is that irrelevant or inconsequential?

^^^^

Both.  It's just a fun game I like to play, guessing somebody's political party by their posts.

^^^ Based on that alone, I've concluded that the United States is moving in the wrong direction...

^^^^

How does a harmless game I like to play to amuse myself during the boredom of the offseason mean the US is moving in the wrong direction?

^^^ Your keen ability to recognize sarcasm is nothing short of staggering...

I didn't win the assclown award for nothing.

Did you get a nice shiny pair of clown shoes as a reward?

Anyway, I think I might adopt kids so I can live a life of ease luxury like that girl.

It's odd that it bothers me so much, but I get up to work every day and her so many people live the good life.

There is literally a 40 page paper on this and has been talked about on Freakonomics for quite awhile. See the paper below.

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

It's moving in the wrong direction.  We as a nation appear to have a case of "have it both ways" disease and until that gets cured, we're going to continue to struggle.

Not necessarily in this thread, but I see people complain a lot about "Honey Boo Boo" or "The Kardashians" and point to the downfall of society.  But what I don't get is that these things are easily avoidable and unless you seek them out, can have literally no impact on your life at all.  Yes, there is a ton of mindless, garbage to be consumed, but there is a lot of really good stuff as well.  The arts and sciences are giving us great things, should you choose them instead of psuedo-science and drivel -- the choice is yours.

Dave I think that's exactly the point. I couldn't care less that these things exist except that society in general looks to them as role models. Society does have a direct affect on both me and my family and I can't turn society off.

I don't think society see them as role models any more than the society in the 1920's saw the bearded lady at circus as role models.  They are watched cause we like freak shows. 

I think Kim Kardashian (and Paris Hilton) are "role models" in the sense that they took what would normally be negative events (sex tape released) and instead used them as a springboard to build legitimate businesses.  Unlike many other entitled children of the obscenely rich that are content to simply leech their parents' money, they actually went out and made their own.  Good for them.

But anyone that looks at Honey Boo Boo as a role model would be just as dumb if her TV show didn't exist.

The only reason Kim has a "business" is because of her notoriety. As son as her star fades, so will her "business". She is not a role model for a successful women for young girls to follow. She is the spitting image of her mother, who was a trophy wife, and cheated on her husband, and conceived a child by that affair.

Maybe you're right.  But at this point, her notoriety is no longer primarily from the sex tape, but from her TV show and her various products.  No, I don't think she's going to be the next Ralph Lauren or Estee Lauder... but she's shown a lot more individual drive to create a business and brand than many of her peers.  Credit where credit is due.

As far as a role model... many successful businesspeople live utterly deplorable personal lives, so that's nothing new.  What Kim and Paris have done (purely from a business standpoint) is, I think, a good example for many young women out there.  (Of course, the fact that they were already extremely rich didn't hurt.)  However, I wouldn't recommend that a young person copy their personal lives any more than I would recommend they copy, say, Steve Jobs'.

LOL, that's funny. No, she's a no talent whore that some of the brain dead zombie citizens of the country idolize for some reason.

She did not create a brand. She is famous for nothing more than going to clubs, being Paris's friend, and a sex tape. Because of her notoriety, her mother got a reality t.v. show made, which pushed the whole clans notoriety to a wider audience. Only after all this, did she start trying to make a brand. Oh yeah, let me not forget the multiple high viability relationships with professional athletes and musicians, and one sham marriage.
She has not created a "brand". She was created by the media and the brand came later, after investors hired consultants to create products for Kim to put her name on. She is now a model of success for both men and women. Her ilk represent what is wrong with this country...trying to get rich through notoriety as opposed to achieving actual success through hard work and innovation.

These are all things she shares in common with many people who did not leverage their fame/infamy into making a business.  How many celebrity sex tapes are out there?

So we both agree that she made a brand, then.

Lots of people get famous off of BS nonsense.  Most of them do not make a successful business out of it.  That is my point.

Actually her mother made the Kardashian brand after their reality show started in 2007...right after the sex tape. She shares the "brand" with her sisters.
So I will hold my opinion that she has created nothing...her mother did, and she shares the "brand" with her whole family...under their mother's watchful eye.

Awfully convenient timing for "her mother" to secretly create the brand with the daughters' initials right after Kim started doing endorsements.  Also funny how the mother is not the one promoting the brand, has none-to-very-little public exposure as a designer for the brand, etc.  I also don't understand why she waited for Kim to make a sex tape to get started with all this.

I guess you're giving all the credit to Kris Jenner, then?  Is she the Tywin Lannister of the clan?  Does Conrad Hilton also get all the credit for Paris?