Ted Kennedy has passed

[Neon_Chaos]

Be glad you Americans actually have separate political idealogies to choose from.

I live in a country where every candidate runs on the same platform.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Be glad you Americans actually have separate political idealogies to choose from.

I live in a country where every candidate runs on the same platform.

It could be argued that we're not too far off here, we just magnify our differences.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

And as far as thinking everyone should donate 10% of their income to charity as a model, and having private charities direct compassionate giving - you then run into problems like "well there isn't a private charity within 200 miles that is willing/able to assume a compassionate role, but there are people in Town X who need help." So should those people just be left without help simply because it's not geographically available? Or because the local charity already did all of their giving for the year to another organization?

The rationale behind government-directed social programs or aid or whatever you want to call it, is that the private sector, the free market, is not always in every case going to be the most efficient allocator of resources in these instances. Maybe somebody lives too far from a charitable organization. Or maybe somebody has a kid with a chronic illness and the only charity available to pay medical bills is Christian Scientist and they refuse to on religious grounds. Or maybe the private charity decides to give all their money to one cause, thus leaving others out to dry. As an organization whose reach and budget is much larger, the government is capable of seeing the "big picture" much better than local charities (although i concur that they do have an important role to play).

Those are well-thought out and reasonable arguments for those economic philosophies. An entirely different approach than preaching that your way is just more moral and compassionate, which happens here all the time, including in the last couple of pages of this thread. That's the only thing I was ranting about.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Schmidy quoting MBBF

I'm always amazed when a grown adult lacks the self control to ignore a post they don't agree with and had to rely on a message board function to achieve that purpose. Seriously?

Not really a question of self-control. It's just a convenience factor, really. Instead of having to completely skip your blocks of pointless text, the ignore function makes them completely disappear.

I seriously think there is something wrong with you and I don't want to read what you have to say.

And Schmidty, honestly, you feed food to animals with your mouth so your opinion has no bearing in these matters.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Those are well-thought out and reasonable arguments for those economic philosophies. An entirely different approach than preaching that your way is just more moral and compassionate, which happens here all the time, including in the last couple of pages of this thread. That's the only thing I was ranting about.

fair enough

[DaddyTorgo]

i can see where maybe your earlier post that molson might have come off as a little "preachy" though Steve. precisely because it was missing examples and logical discussion.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by molson

That's the shtick that Democrats often use to win elections, but that's all it is, shtick.

Liberal philosophies allow people to believe they're good people without getting off their ass and actually helping anyone.

...Can I feel like I'm some kind of moral superstar, or should I actually have to give the money myself?

Democrats are not the more "moral" party because they think other people, (not themselves), should help the less fortunate.

I've snipped this down to a few points you made here that you're being a bit obtuse about.

You seem to have the opinion that since the "government" is doing these things that no one "personally" is doing it. You seem to forget that the money the government uses for this is ours, its tax money. So every single tax payer is contributing to these compassionate ideas and projects. Its not a matter of "we're not willing to do it ourselves" Because we ARE doing it ourselves through our taxable income.

The general idea behind these policies is that a standardized system for qualifying people for and distributing these charitable benefits is best handled by the government.

Generally the Republicans rant about how Dems are throwing money away on these programs and dems say we need more of these types of social programs. This is where the compassionate view comes from.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Generally the Republicans rant about how Dems are throwing money away on these programs and dems say we need more of these types of social programs. This is where the compassionate view comes from.

But I think people can find each other more and respect each other more if they can acknowledge the other side's sincerity.

To a fiscal conservative, paying taxes feels like giving money to a charity that is irresponsible, disorganized, steals a big chunk of the money, handles the money poorly, and doesn't ultimately help people as much as they claim to. I don't like being considered non-compassionate if I don't want to give as much money to that particular charity, and would rather give it to one I have more confidence in.

I understand that for that particular charity, we HAVE to give some money, so there's clearly a difference. But the fact that one person thinks its a great charity, and I think its shady, doesn't make them compassionate and me not.

It's not fair to invalidate the sincerity of people with different opinions, and label oneself as "compassionate". It's like when some Republicans claim that Democrats don't care about national security. Of course they do. They just feel it can be better accomplished in different ways. To claim that the difference of opinion is about who wants America to be safe is insulting, just as I find it insulting when Democrats try to make the debate about compassion v. non-compassion.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

To a fiscal conservative, paying taxes feels like giving money to a charity that is irresponsible, disorganized, steals a big chunk of the money, handles the money poorly, and doesn't ultimately help people as much as they claim to. I don't like being considered non-compassionate if I don't want to give as much money to that particular charity.

check out some of those charity-tracker websites - you'd be amazed at how most of the charities spend the money you give them - how little actually makes it to the people in need. As always there are exceptions, great charities to donate too, but most of them are shite and are as irresponsible and disorganized as the government, and spend a shit-ton on overhead. think about it too - why replicate thousands of times over redundant organizations. every charity needs a treasurer who gets paid? why? every charity needs an IT guy? every charity needs so many staffers?

why not lump them all together under the auspices of government and have less redundancy, and thus be able to give more help to people who need it?

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

check out some of those charity-tracker websites - you'd be amazed at how most of the charities spend the money you give them - how little actually makes it to the people in need. As always there are exceptions, great charities to donate too, but most of them are shite and are as irresponsible and disorganized as the government, and spend a shit-ton on overhead. think about it too - why replicate thousands of times over redundant organizations. every charity needs a treasurer who gets paid? why? every charity needs an IT guy? every charity needs so many staffers?

You're absolutely right - thank god we have those trackers and a real choice about which charity to donate to. We don't have that kind of choice in government. At best, we have two choices, so neither have to particularly good at what they do. And that's not even an individual choice, it's really more abstract. My one vote doesn't give me very much say about where my money goes once the government gets it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Subby

Not really a question of self-control. It's just a convenience factor, really. Instead of having to completely skip your blocks of pointless text, the ignore function makes them completely disappear.

I seriously think there is something wrong with you and I don't want to read what you have to say.

Nearly as amusing is a person who levels personal attacks while refusing to read the response.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I haven't run into too many devout vegans who had a third-generation cattle farmer as the best man at their wedding & the godparent to their children.

Good example, as I'm a third-generation cattle farmer and one of my best friends is absolutely opposed to the way I farm. He's not a vegan, but he definitely leans heavily in that direction. And it's not like we avoid the topic, either. We'll discuss it and mostly disagree before we move on to more important things, like baseball.

On the other hand, while I'm pretty darned liberal in most of my views, I have a friend from South Carolina that makes you look like a liberal, Jon. He's not a Klansman but he may as well be. But he's also one of the kindest hearted men I've ever met as odd as that would seem. And he always says how a crazy Yankee like myself makes a Rebel like him proud.

The point being, politics aren't everything to me. They may be to you, and I'm certainly not trying to change your views on that as it's an exercise in futility. But to me, there is so much more to life than politics and I'd be missing out on some good friendships if I allowed politics to determine who I associated with.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

You're absolutely right - thank god we have those trackers and a real choice about which charity to donate to. We don't have that kind of choice in government. At best, we have two choices, so neither have to particularly good at what they do. And that's not even an individual choice.

but isn't the fact that we have a choice also a problem? because it can lead to situations where charities in one area are underfunded (either because they're inefficient or because nobody realizes they are there, or because people choose to donate to charities with other purposes)?

believe me, i'm not advocating for getting rid of private charities altogether. i think some of them are great and play hugely important roles. but it has to be balanced with government social programs/aid because otherwise certain classes of people, or people with certain issues, or in certain geographic areas are going to fall through the cracks.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

why not lump them all together under the auspices of government and have less redundancy, and thus be able to give more help to people who need it?

As anyone who has worked in a bureaucracy can tell you, the larger the bureaucracy the easier it is for waste. Even in this economic environment the bureaucracy I work in is terribly inefficient. What you gain in eliminating redundancy I believe you would lose many times over in inefficiencies like these or salaries for people to try to reduce these inefficiencies.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

but isn't the fact that we have a choice also a problem? because it can lead to situations where charities in one area are underfunded (either because they're inefficient or because nobody realizes they are there, or because people choose to donate to charities with other purposes)?

But if it isn't the people who decide which charities/causes should be funded, who should it be? Why should the few decide the causes the many must fund?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by lungs

Good example, as I'm a third-generation cattle farmer and one of my best friends is absolutely opposed to the way I farm. He's not a vegan, but he definitely leans heavily in that direction. And it's not like we avoid the topic, either. We'll discuss it and mostly disagree before we move on to more important things, like baseball.

On the other hand, while I'm pretty darned liberal in most of my views, I have a friend from South Carolina that makes you look like a liberal, Jon. He's not a Klansman but he may as well be. But he's also one of the kindest hearted men I've ever met as odd as that would seem. And he always says how a crazy Yankee like myself makes a Rebel like him proud.

The point being, politics aren't everything to me. They may be to you, and I'm certainly not trying to change your views on that as it's an exercise in futility. But to me, there is so much more to life than politics and I'd be missing out on some good friendships if I allowed politics to determine who I associated with.

You said it probably better than i could have. Although i think i'd take your last sentence and remove the words "politics" and replace them with "most single issues" (of course leaving wiggle room because i presume most of us would self-select not to associate with say serial killers).

Although I do have a more contentious example maybe. I have a best friend...guy I've known since 3rd grade. He's profoundly religious. Both of his parents are ordained deacons (of what denomination I'm not sure...one that lets them be married for sure). They started their own church, they've preached at other churches, etc.

NB: My parents are also very religious. My father has been a lector at Church as long as I can remember and teaches Sunday school even though he has no kids going anymore due to age. My mother is a Eucharistic Minister and makes sandwiches for a soup kitchen every week and delivers all of the parishes sandwiches.

Now me? I'm maybe one of the biggest athiests around. Dyed-in-the-wool as it were. But I haven't self-selected not to socialize with my good friend (or my family) over that. Hell, we'll even still all discuss it openly. It just involves being respectful of people's differences of opinion and beliefs.

Now me? I'm one of the biggest athiests around.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

But if it isn't the people who decide which charities/causes should be funded, who should it be? Why should the few decide the causes the many must fund?

because the few don't have the complete picture (okay neither does the government so let's change that - the few do not have enough of the picture to be able to make a fully-informed decision)

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

because the few don't have the complete picture (okay neither does the government so let's change that - the few do not have enough of the picture to be able to make a fully-informed decision)

Well the last administration thought that the "bigger picture" needed to involve spending billions in Iraq. That's where your money went - you had no choice.

Obviously it's a balance. I understand that the government has to exist and you understand they can't control everything.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

there is so much more to life than politics

I think that phrase is really the key to the distinction I draw, or it's a heck of a jumping off point for it, or something.

Politics determines very little for me in terms of who I enjoy associating with. That's where it does come back down to philosophies or core values or however you'd like to describe it.

Party affiliation, party platform positions, etc. determines jack shit for me (witness my 180 stance with the GOP & abortion for example). It's my own beliefs that determine my politics, not the other way around (not saying yours is any different, just trying to emphasize my own process here)

I've previously described in some detail the one example I can really think of that provides the exception to the rule, but generally speaking there simply isn't enough common ground between me & someone with a for us to enjoy each other's company for any prolonged period. If we're reaching vastly different conclusions consistently, there's no reason for me to believe that we've got enough common ground anywhere else to be able to go hang out happily, the conflict is simply inevitable at that point unless we both work extremely hard to avoid it, just sharing the need to consume oxygen simply isn't enough to justify each other's company for me.

One example might be how sure I am that there are some Georgia Tech fans who land on the opposite side of me on dozens of topics consistently. In the context of happening to sit next to them cheering the Jackets neither of us has much control over that and we're both likely to be content sharing that same common interest. But that isn't enough basis for me to want to go to dinner with them either.

If we all looked hard enough, I imagine I could find at least one tiny scrap of common ground for me to share with Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid, for the sake of discussion let's just imagine that we're all three in favor of spaying/neutering domestic animals to help manage their population. We could all three end up volunteering two hours together at a free animal clinic somewhere on spay/neuter day, and that'd probably be fine with all three of us with no problems coming up. But it seems like a pretty lousy idea for us to all go to Olive Garden together afterwards unless we're going to strictly focus on planning for the next event and that's really business not pleasure.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If we all looked hard enough, I imagine I could find at least one tiny scrap of common ground for me to share with Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid, for the sake of discussion let's just imagine that we're all three in favor of spaying/neutering domestic animals to help manage their population. We could all three end up volunteering two hours together at a free animal clinic somewhere on spay/neuter day, and that'd probably be fine with all three of us with no problems coming up. But it seems like a pretty lousy idea for us to all go to Olive Garden together afterwards unless we're going to strictly focus on planning for the next event and that's really business not pleasure.

The flaw I see in this is the assumption that the only common ground you have is the free animal clinic.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If we all looked hard enough, I imagine I could find at least one tiny scrap of common ground for me to share with Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid, for the sake of discussion let's just imagine that we're all three in favor of spaying/neutering domestic animals to help manage their population. We could all three end up volunteering two hours together at a free animal clinic somewhere on spay/neuter day, and that'd probably be fine with all three of us with no problems coming up. But it seems like a pretty lousy idea for us to all go to Olive Garden together afterwards unless we're going to strictly focus on planning for the next event and that's really business not pleasure.

Or talking trash about other volunteers? Or discussing your kids? Or talking about sports or your thoughts on a movie you've all seen, or a tv show you all enjoy, or a vacation that somebody took, or any of a thousand other topics.

Or hell, trying to have a civil conversation to uncover why they so passionately believe the way they do, to see if maybe some of their insights might lead you to change your mind, or even to better understand their positions for the purposes of trying to tear them down (although not tear-them-down to their faces).

Although I do often have my times where I'm like you and I find it hard to sit there and discuss those seemingly inane topics at the expense of doing something I'd rather be doing (at home playing video games or reading a book for example), so I understand where you're coming from.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

The flaw I see in this is the assumption that the only common ground you have is the free animal clinic.

And the value of that assumption is that, given the substantial differences already established, the common ground so extremely rarely approaches any reasonable balance as to not be worth the time/energy/angst invested in exploring it. That's based on 42 years of experience & the only change in direction that it's taken is become less & less likely over the past decade+.

Realistically, I'm past the halfway point of my life, I'm not real keen on wasting the time I've got left chasing that sort of miracle, I'm simply not that possessed by the strong urge to add a stray person or two to any circle beyond acquaintance.

edit to add: screw the dola post, I'll just double up here.

from DT

Or hell, trying to have a civil conversation to uncover why they so passionately believe the way they do, to see if maybe some of their insights might lead you to change your mind, or even to better understand their positions for the purposes of trying to tear them down

Several problems there really. Probably first & foremost, I've got little interest in being civil to someone I lack reason to respect, nor am I all that interested in figuring out why someone is dead f'n wrong about subject X. The state of being is considerably more important to me than the reason they got that way. Further, how many subjects do you really think I'm hard & fast about (as opposed to simply having a lean) that I haven't already considered in significant detail? Ever noticed the varied timestamps on my posts, it's not as though I sleep a lot

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Realistically, I'm past the halfway point of my life, I'm not real keen on wasting the time I've got left chasing that sort of miracle, I'm simply not that possessed by the strong urge to add a stray person or two to any circle beyond acquaintance.

Ironically, this is where Jon & I have common ground. Except that I don't quite think I'm at the halfway point of my life yet.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Realistically, I'm past the halfway point of my life, I'm not real keen on wasting the time I've got left chasing that sort of miracle, I'm simply not that possessed by the strong urge to add a stray person or two to any circle beyond acquaintance.

But the mistake you may make is closing yourself to the possibility. You don't have to chase it down why close the door completely?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by lungs

The point being, politics aren't everything to me... there is so much more to life than politics and I'd be missing out on some good friendships if I allowed politics to determine who I associated with.

This is why, I try to stay out of the political threads, some people just get too worked up and take things too personal. The way some of the people act about a politician who has died you'd think that the said politician had kidnapped them and their family members, and raped them all repeatedly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lungs

But the mistake you may make is closing yourself to the possibility. You don't have to chase it down why close the door completely?

Hey, I'm open to a miracle if it wanders through my door, I'm just not inclined to invest my limited resources in facilitating it.

FWIW, afaic this is a pretty reasonable discussion of something that's I think is quite relevant to the way most socio-political threads here go. I just happen to be a fairly outspoken example of a fairly common way of approaching those things* & so I get to speak as a representative of the subset. Ain't gonna change anything for anybody in particular I don't imagine but I don't see any harm in the conversation just for the sake of stray intellectual curiosity. Hopefully nobody got too torqued by the lengthy sidebar.

* Actually had an interesting real-life example of this yesterday, with the painting contractor who was repairing what Charter Cable screwed up at my mother-in-law's new house. Just chit-chatting with the guy while he was getting set up & figuring out what he was going to do & he threw out three consecutive increasingly loaded comments on various things as he tried to get a read on me.

That's not something I really do, in fact I consciously avoid doing it in order to have an opportunity to remain neutral on someone unless they choose to reveal themselves in that way, but it was so transparent that I couldn't help but think about it during this topic. Once I had answered to his relative satisfaction then the conversation moved on to local restaurants, kids/schools, and other stuff but only after the bigger stuff was covered. And that's not at all uncommon for me to run into, just notable because it was so recent.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by Subby

Not really a question of self-control. It's just a convenience factor, really. Instead of having to completely skip your blocks of pointless text, the ignore function makes them completely disappear.

I seriously think there is something wrong with you and I don't want to read what you have to say.

Agree on all counts. I enjoy my time at FOFC better with certain posters on ignore.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Agree on all counts. I enjoy my time at FOFC better with certain posters on ignore.

I think this comment could easily be applied to the nation as a whole. There's two polarized parties who often put the other people on 'ignore' rather than listening to what they have to say. It's really the exact opposite of what should happen, but it will remain that way as long as that mentality exists.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think this comment could easily be applied to the nation as a whole. There's two polarized parties who often put the other people on 'ignore' rather than listening to what they have to say. It's really the exact opposite of what should happen, but it will remain that way as long as that mentality exists.

I would imagine most of the "ignorings" aren't done because they disagree, but because they think the person is an idiot.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I would imagine most of the "ignorings" aren't done because they disagree, but because they think the person is an idiot.

I think most people feel like it's more important to be right than to listen to others on occasion. Both sides politically are so busy blowing their own horn that they're not even interested in what the other has to say. It's honestly pretty annoying.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Ok, but I'm not sure what that has to do with people not caring to hear what YOU have to say.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Subby

And Schmidty, honestly, you feed food to animals with your mouth so your opinion has no bearing in these matters.

I only do that after having a little absinthe with my dogs.

I'll let the grown-ups talk now.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I'll let the grown-ups talk now.

Words to live by...

[OldGiants]

Hmm, I guess the vast bulk of you are too young to remember when the Tedster was on the come back trail and looking to bounce Carter. Then he encountered Roger Mudd of CBS. From Wiki:

Mudd is perhaps best remembered for an interview he conducted with Senator Edward M. Kennedy for a November 4, 1979 CBS special, Teddy, aired three days before Kennedy officially announced his challenge of President Jimmy Carter for the 1980 Democratic Presidential nomination. In addition to questioning Kennedy about the Chappaquiddick incident, Mudd asked, "Senator, why do you want to be president?" Kennedy's "incoherent and repetitive"^[16] or "vague, unprepared"^[17] answer raised questions about his motivation in seeking the office, and marked the beginning of the sharp decline in Kennedy's impressive poll numbers.^[16] Carter defeated Kennedy 50% to 38% in the Democratic primary vote. Although the Kennedy family refused any further interviews with Mudd, the interview helped strengthen Mudd's reputation as a leading political reporter. Broadcaster and blogger Hugh Hewitt and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson have used the term "Roger Mudd moment" to describe a self-inflicted disastrous encounter with the press by a presidential candidate.^[17


I'll let y'all Google the TV interview.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think most people feel like it's more important to be right than to listen to others on occasion. Both sides politically are so busy blowing their own horn that they're not even interested in what the other has to say. It's honestly pretty annoying.

amazingly this is coming from a poster that rarely if ever admits to being wrong.

[molson]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

Hmm, I guess the vast bulk of you are too young to remember when the Tedster was on the come back trail and looking to bounce Carter. Then he encountered Roger Mudd of CBS. From Wiki:

Mudd is perhaps best remembered for an interview he conducted with Senator Edward M. Kennedy for a November 4, 1979 CBS special, Teddy, aired three days before Kennedy officially announced his challenge of President Jimmy Carter for the 1980 Democratic Presidential nomination. In addition to questioning Kennedy about the Chappaquiddick incident, Mudd asked, "Senator, why do you want to be president?" Kennedy's "incoherent and repetitive"^[16] or "vague, unprepared"^[17] answer raised questions about his motivation in seeking the office, and marked the beginning of the sharp decline in Kennedy's impressive poll numbers.^[16] Carter defeated Kennedy 50% to 38% in the Democratic primary vote. Although the Kennedy family refused any further interviews with Mudd, the interview helped strengthen Mudd's reputation as a leading political reporter. Broadcaster and blogger Hugh Hewitt and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson have used the term "Roger Mudd moment" to describe a self-inflicted disastrous encounter with the press by a presidential candidate.^[17


I'll let y'all Google the TV interview.

Ya, even in 1980, before youtube, one could harm his candidacy with a Palin-esque moment:

MUDD: Why do you want to be President?

EDWARD KENNEDY: Well, I’m – were I to make the announcement to run, the reasons that I would run is because I have a great belief in this country that it is – has more natural resources than any nation of the world, has the greatest educated population in the world, the greatest technology of any country in the world, the greatest capacity for innovation in the world and the greatest political system in the world. And yet I see at the current time that most of the industrial nations of the world are exceeding us in terms of productivity or doing better than us in terms of meeting the problems of inflation, that they’re dealing with their problems of energy and their problems of unemployment. It just seems to me that this nation can cope and deal with its problems in a way that it has in the past. We’re facing complex issues and problems in this nation at this time, but we have faced similar challenges at other times and the energies and the resourcefulness of this nation, I think, should be focused on these problems in a way that brings a sense of restoration in this country by its people to – in dealing with the problems that we face, primarily the issues on the economy, the problems of inflation and the problems of energy and I would basically feel that it’s imperative for this country either move forward, but it can’t stand still or otherwise it moves backward.
.

I was too young to have a sense of whether this did in him, or if it was chappaquiddick, or if we should just really think of him doing exceptionally well against an incumbent president from the same party. But, he was WAY ahead prior to this interview, so I guess that has to get the credit.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

amazingly this is coming from a poster that rarely if ever admits to being wrong.

Pot meet kettle...

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

This is why, I try to stay out of the political threads, some people just get too worked up and take things too personal. The way some of the people act about a politician who has died you'd think that the said politician had kidnapped them and their family members, and raped them all repeatedly.

I think political discussions are great, but I'm one of those who now try to stay out of them. The raise in my blood pressure just isn't worth it.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by duckman

Pot meet kettle...

i was most recently wrong just a few days ago (outside of the multidude of times im wrong in my daily life, many many times) in assuming divorce rates go up during a recession. Not only wrong but found out I was wrong myself when others began pointing out a differing opinion! Im wrong and admit it a lot and have no problem saying so. Pot? Whatever. Duckman cometh.