asmidsk

George Washing once stated that he feared a two party system because it might infringe on the unity of America. But as the years have dragged on and political parties have come and gone, only two today have any prominence. Also, as the years have passed our problems and issues have become more complex. Making it more and more difficult for even a moderately informed voter to have a sound gasp of the "issues." Thus making voters fall back on their emotions when it comes to voting for candidates and propositions. In turn, that causes a lot polarization (as emotions can never be right or wrong), tensions rise and politicians have to play to peoples irrationalities rather than their logic. But emotions can be powerful and often hit the nail on the head as it were, think of all the times you followed your gut and situation was resolved in your favor. Since its clear that neither party has the magic bullets to slay our monster problems, do you believe that polarization and emotion played politics will destroy us? Or will they be our salvation?

A lot of tea party members carry a copy of the Constitution as a symbol of what they believe in. They also often claim that the current administration, led by Obama, is trampling on their rights and is in conflict with the Constitution. And that document is probably the most potent evidence that anyone can bring up in American politics, it's truly the embodiment of the rule of law over the rule of man. My question is mostly directed at Tea Party Members: WHAT specifically is Obama/Congress doing that is unconstitutional?

Note Bene: The act of creating and raising taxes is constitutional: Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

One could argue the Founding Father's intentions, the meaning of "general Welfare" and so on.

The expansion of the Federal government can also be argued as Constitutional: Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

If you disagree what do you think is the purpose of this clause?

I've ask this question before (on in this site and else where ) and the health care bill comes up a lot, what specifically about it violates the Constitution?

I know there is a lot stuff here but I tried to present some of the examples that I have come across most often. But if you bear with it I think we can have a very fruitful discussion.

A lot of tea party members carry a copy of the Constitution as a symbol of what they believe in. They also often claim that the current administration, led by Obama, is trampling on their rights and is in conflict with the Constitution. And that document is probably the most potent evidence that anyone can bring up in American politics, it's truly the embodiment of the rule of law over the rule of man. My question is mostly directed at Tea Party Members: WHAT specifically is Obama/Congress doing that is unconstitutional?

Note Bene: The act of creating and raising taxes is constitutional: Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

One could argue the Founding Father's intentions.

The expansion of the Federal government can also be argued as Constitutional: Article 1 Section 8 Clause 18: "The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

If you disagree what do you think is the purpose of this clause?

I know there is a lot stuff here but I tried to present some of the examples that I have come across most often. But if you bear with it I think we can have a very fruitful discussion.

Let's say patient A is recovering from a serious illness for several weeks, and his/her prognosis is in great uncertainty. Patient A has received no visitors, cards or any other tokens of well-wishing. Patient A also has a neutral personality, not particularity memorable in any way. How do you think, on average, this will effect how nurses and other care takers treat him/her?

Perhaps they will treat Patient A with more care because the care taker takes pity.

Or receives less care because either sub-consciously or consciously the nurse feels that Patient A is of less worth because he/she cannot foster relationships that would care enough to visit him/her in hospital.

Maybe there would be no effect either way. What do you think? What would you think if you were the care taker?

Please keep answers civilized, at least a little bit.

I recently asked a question about the most common psychological problems people are encountering. As for myself I put down for people who are between the ages of 13-17 are having social and issues with confidence/self esteem. I attributed the major common cause as puberty and the minor cause as excessive praise. But the more I thought about it the more it seemed that the way young people feel these days about the entitlement to feel good about themselves is doing more harm than helping. In terms of social problems (most of them ask how to make more friends): Feeling good about yourself is a reward for doing good things. If you are taught to feel good about yourself then there is no need to do good things. Without doing good deeds than how do expect to attract good people the basis of good friends.

For the self esteem/confidence problem: If you are constantly praised by your parents and teachers. "Good job for picking up the spoon." "Every bodies a winner!" kind of talk then doesn't the cause praise inflation? It creates a self esteem bubble in which the center is hollow. It's it time we tell our kids that they were a loser today. Bring back dodge ball, you know the game with one person left standing and give that person a thumbs up?

Agree or disagree?

(Don't worry there's no wrong answer lol)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Al5Hr... <==Question referred to in the text.

To those who answer questions in the Psychology section I am interested in seeing what topics that you see (but not necessarily answer) most in this section? And do you say contributes to this common problem?

For me I'd say for the ages of 15-18 it's self-esteem/confidence issues in order to make more friends/widen their social circle. And I think about 10% of these teen are part of generation of excess praise. The entitlement having good feelings about themselves handed to them by their teachers and parents, have left them unable to build their own "self". As for the rest of the 90% puberty have always made teen awkward, they are still awkward and awkward they shall remain. As nature intended.

For the 18+ its a tie between relationships,unable to obtain peace of mind and name that disorder.

The last time I asked this question there everything from psychosis to social skills.

What do you think?

To those who answer questions in the Psychology section I am interested in seeing what topics that you see (but not necessarily answer) most in this section? And do you say contributes to this common problem?

For me I'd say for the ages of 15-18 it's self-esteem/confidence issues in order to make more friends/widen their social circle. And I think about 10% of these teen are part of generation of excess praise. The entitlement having good feelings about themselves handed to them by their teachers and parents, have left them unable to build their own "self". As for the rest of the 90% puberty have always made teen awkward, they are still awkward and awkward they shall remain. As nature intended.

For the 18+ its a tie between relationships,unable to obtain peace of mind and name that disorder.

What do you think?

I saw a picture of man wearing a gun on his hip and carrying a sign that said "It's time to water the tree of liberty" (according to Thomas Jefferson the tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants) at one of Obama's town hall meetings. So what type message is this sending? A threat of violence of the exercising of rights?

Though I am sure that no one will actually start shooting is the symbolism of violence which according to John Locke is justified against tyranny a good thing I suppose. Or is it an archaic notion that has no place in a society based on the rule of law, open debate and free elections. What do you think?

Has just appeared on our radar (US). It appears to be made of technology claimed to have been stolen from our allies and not so friendly nations (including Russia and China). Our missile shields have been expended but have been unable to shoot it down. We have scrambled all of our fighters but the missile can evade us by casting radar shadows. However all hope is not lost. It is a dawn of a new age of quantum computers, capable of calculating off atoms, these super machines are millions of times faster than the generation before. However until recently, we believed that we were the only ones with the working quantum technology which is installed at NORAD, this technology has not been divulged to the public. At 2:31 AM mountain time all of our backup tactical systems came under cyber attack. Communication and power grids are being disrupted what few systems we have functioning indicate that chaos and panic is ensuing across the nation. This could only have done by a hostile quantum computer. We do have some good news though, the computers at NORAD (because of our only working quantum computer is still working but we do not know for how long) have manage to take control of the targeting system aboard the missile. However we don't have the time to override all its systems but we can change its target to those that are already pre-set in the missile's computer.

They are as follows: The original target is Washington D.C. Congress is in session and several very large PAC are in town. The metro population is 5.3 million. Although we can get you to safety the majority of our government will perish. And our capital will be destroyed along with millions of civilians.

Another target is Kansas city Missouri population 475,000. A low population however due to the flat terrain the radioactive fallout will be spread far and wide. The area affected contains most of our crop lands. The land will but unworkable for decades if not centuries to come. Without it we may not be able to feed ourselves and there are many countries that depend on US food aid. Though food production may be able to be increased in other areas to compensate.

Next Target: Mexico City with a metro population of 19 million. It is the second largest city population wise in the Northern Hemisphere. The city is surrounded by high mountains that will funnel the blast inward. The projected causality numbers are 10 million+. Because Mexico City is built on porous ground it's likely that radioactive ash will leech into the ground water. The number of people this will affect throughout Mexico is currently unknown. Our enemy may be trying to force out hand. If we send the missile to Mexico our allies maybe reluctant to help us and the not-so-friendly nations may have the pretext to turn outright hostile. Because we don't know who launched the missile we cannot be sure what their intentions are.

Last Target: NORAD. Population 3000. We suspect that the missile contains technology stolen from the Chinese that will allow it to burrow into the mountain that contains this base, creating in essence a shape charge. Although it may not totally destroy the base the EM pulse released from the blast will disrupt our systems. Our only working quantum computer resides here. We will require these systems to organize our forces should there be another strike or to retaliate should you wish.

What are your orders? How will you explain your choice to the American people?

Has just appeared on our radar (US). It appears to be made of technology claimed to have been stolen from our allies and not so friendly nations (including Russia and China). Our missile shields have been expended but have been unable to shoot it down. We have scrambled all of our fighters but the missile can evade us by casting radar shadows. However all hope is not lost. The computers at NORAD have manage to take control of the targeting system aboard the missile. However we don't have the time to override all its systems but we can change its target to those that are already pre-set in the missile's computer.

They are as follows: The original target is Washington D.C. Congress is in session and several very large PAC are in town. The metro population is 5.3 million. Although we can get you to safety the majority of our government will perish. And our capital will be destroyed along with millions of civilians.

Another target is Kansas city Missouri population 475,000. A low population however due to the flat terrain the radioactive fallout will be spread far and wide. The area affected contains most of our crop lands. The land will but unworkable for decades if not centuries to come. Without it we may not be able to feed ourselves and there are many countries that depend on US food aid.

Next Target: Mexico City with a metro population of 19 million. It is the largest city population wise in the Northern Hemisphere. The city is surrounded by high mountains that will funnel the blast inward. The projected causality numbers are 10 million+.

Last Target: NORAD. Population 3000. We suspect that the missile contains technology stolen from the Chinese that will allow it to burrow into the mountain that contains this base, creating in essence a shape charge. Although it may not totally destroy the base the EM pulse released from the blast will disrupt our systems. We will require these systems to organize our forces should there be another strike or should you wish to retaliate.

What are your orders?

As opposed to something like life insurance. I have flood insurance in my house but I've never had flood. That is to say that insurance is supposed to cover what-if scenarios. Some of us will get sick but not all of us will need expensive treatments. What about life insurance since we ARE all going to die someday (Maybe we should call it death assurance) and after life expenses can be very high. Without taking sides why are we so rallied up about heath insurance?

In the United States we live in political atmosphere in which all issues seem to be divided and labeled along liberal and conservative lines (both sides of the same coin). But as our problems become more complicated the need for "good ideas" become paramount over a liberal solution vs a conservative solution. So the question is which side is more willing to accept concepts posed by the other side?

For the sake civility no name calling please.

P.S Conservative doesn't equal close minded. And Liberal doesn't mean brainless/bleeding heart.

P.P.S I am an independent.

When dog A is placed on an electrified floor it searches for a place there isn't a shock. On the floor its placed on only half the floor has a current. A similar dog, dog B is place on floor where the entire area has a current. Now the dogs switch places. Dog A searches for a place where there is not current. Even though the floor has no spot which dog A won't get a shock he never gives up. Dog B on the other hand when placed in the room with only half the floor electrified. Dog B simply lies on the floor not even attempting to find a place with no current. Dog B has learned helplessness. Do you think the results of this experiment can be applied to people? Can people learn helplessness? In the same sense can people learn pro-activeness like Dog A? And if so can helplessness be untaught, that is to say can Dog B learn to become like Dog A?

OR does this not apply to humans? Do the majority of people challenge hopeless situations? And I am not talking about single situations per se I am talking about overall in life.

Virtues have changed from time to time. Our values can be fickle but our continuous existence is not. Through the centuries and perhaps the millennium we will always have a how but do we have a why? Is this even a question worth asking? What do you think?