It was very late when I came up with this LAME! idea (pun intended).

What Other LAME SUPERPOWER would YOU choose?

Don`t say ALMOST cure...

I tried to edit Winning stock picks to 10 seconds - but couldn`t (1 minute is a lot of time).

"Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time!"

  I`m thinkin` if I could see 30 minutes ahead, I`d save myself ALL kinds of trouble! LOL!! Plus, that way I could look at the stock market 30 minutes into the future, and solve two problems with one stone. (Kill to birds with one bush?)

Craig,

 I knew someone was going to spot that rightaway.  RATS! I should have said, 30 minutes into the future (kinda fuzzy). I can`t edit it?

ok..now see? I chose be invisible.  As a single mom with 5 kids and 3 dogs... I would give just about anything to just not be SEEN here sometimes.  I try hiding out in the bathroom, but inevitably they find me.. and then the beat on the door till I come out.  Even the dogs are usually sitting there waiting for me.

 

Id like to be invisible. ;c)

Eh, I`m just going to fly.

Because, at least that would be entertaining.

I`ll bet Superman would`ve had to register with the FAA these days. Have some big number on his cape, like AF24-302 or something. Woudl he have to file a flight plan every time he jumped too high?

Yeah! Right right after the strip search. That`s just wrong...I don`t want to talk about that ANYMORE!  Poor Superman. He`s the only guy to count to Infinity - TWICE!

I picked invisible. But I`m just being devious.

Joel you are always being devious! I picked invisible too...and for much the same reasons as Yvette (although a few less of the kids and dogs...but add a husband)!  

Couple of questions about my new found power though:

How long can I stay invisible for...and would it allow me to be invisible while sleeping!?

The bigger question would be if you were invisible when crossing a busy street!

No! I`m not ANTI-Free Speech. But I do believe in CONSEQUENCES. After all, there ARE CONSEQUENCES to having our least sophisticated population/demographic listening to these WHACKO`S (potential voters). Hint: The Morning and afternoon television demographic.

Example: My Sister-in-law (an extremely Busy Homemaker with 4 very young children) doesn`t know the name of our Vice-President? But she does know who was on OPRAH and the VIEW for the past month? No! It`s NOT SEXIST - It`s REALITY!  I have nothing against OPRAH (she`s a good person). It`s the abuse of ALL SIMPLETON VENUES that I oppose (Day & Night Programming).

What if the signals from these shows reach other civilized Planets? Do you want them to think there is NO Intelligent Life On EARTH?  Let`s Save EARTH from the embarrassment.

PS Don`t Vote ANONYMOUSLY!  Be BRAVE!...Be AMERICAN!

The older I get, the more I just let it go and let people do their own thing.

Everyone has their own views, their own little world.

I read something about a celebrity once ... I want to say it was Bruce Willis maybe? He said that he just stopped reading the news. And he said it made him feel a lot less stressed. (And sorry to him if I`m totally thinking of the wrong person.) I have to say I agree with him - the more news I watch, the more stressful it seems.

 Nikole, I agree to an extent.  However, it `s not about those whom do not watch, but rather, those who do. And it is unfortunate that the "little" information they do choose to digest - is dangerous (in many ways). Information is vital to survival, both individually and collectively. Therefore, when our future as a Nation is overrun with baseless and "emotively-activated-degenerates" - That`s a problem.

I see nothing wrong with asking people to pass a VERY simple test of maybe three questions, in English, prior to their being registered as a voter.

It would be something like:

1. Name someone in government, and their title, other than the President and Vice President of the United States.
2. Circle the United States on this map of the world.
3. Which document helps make the laws of the country: The Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution?

Back when the country was starting up, I believe you could only vote if you actually owned property in the country. The theory being that in order to vote rationally you should have a vested interest in the country and what you were voting for.

I don`t think we should restrict people on the basis of owning land. It`s too expensive, and we have a very different economy nowadays. However, I also don`t think anyone at all should be able to vote. If they have no interest in the outcome of that vote, why wouldn`t they just sell their vote to the highest bidder?

Of course that`s exactly what`s happening today. It`s even dumber in that they`re not actually selling their vote for something tangible, only for promises of pie in the sky.

What I want to say . . .
If we had a VP (or President) worth recognizing, perhaps your sis-in-law would know his name.  Instead, we have someone who spends more time in the hospital or accidentally shooting his buddies, because his idiot boss is too dumb to know how to get out of the mess he`s made since taking office.

However, the more politically correct thing to say would be . . .
Your sis-in-law chooses to listen to Oprah while she works (and children are a huge, full-time job -- God Bless her for doing it!).  Who are you to judge?
jillybeans

Along with free speech, we have to accept widespread foolishness. We make a distinction in the US between speaking something and acting upon that speech.

We also have certain laws prohibiting some forms of speech. So, for example, you can be arrested for shouting "Fire!" in a crowded room (when there`s no fire).

I don`t know the legal point at which speech crosses over into subversive action, but it rests on the term "action." In other words, you`re free to plan and speak about the overthrow of the US government. But if you begin to act on that speech, maybe by purchasing explosives for that purpose, you cross a line.

We also have laws on the books relative to inciting a riot. Inflammatory speech in particular contexts and situations isn`t "free speech" either. So, for example, an important court case disallowed a Nazi rally in the middle of a Jewish celebration, here in the Chicago area.

The concept of free speech goes hand in hand with critical analysis by the listener. That goes to the issue of childhood education. Human beings do NOT come with built-in critical analysis. It`s a learned skill.

So the problem isn`t what can or can`t be done about people who say things we don`t like. Instead, it`s a far deeper issue of understanding why people choose ignorance over truth, information, wisdom, and so forth.

Jillybeans.

There are Two distinct types of mental dominance in the world (not always to the extreme of either end). The human mind should ideally be a 50/50 balance.

1. There are those that respond to: Mood Music, Overviews (synopsis), Sensual stimulation, Superstition/metaphysical aspects (spirituality), Poetry, etc. Usually these types "create things": Music (raw), Art (all Art forms), and other sensate and imaginatively themed manifestations. All of which enriches and binds our lives through cultural diversity and wonder. This gives us LIFE!

2. There are those whom respond to: Puzzles, Logic, Details, Order. Usually these types create things like: Music theory (so that we can write and share music), Literary thesis (A more complete story), Astronomy (visual verification), Math & Science (empirical manifestations), and Law.  This gives us RATIONAL CIVILIZATION! 

What is being perpetuated by "the Rosie O`Donnells" of the world (and  Anti-West cultures) is a modern Day Witch Hunt. All of which were based upon FEAR and IGNORANCE.

I`ve developed a catchy little ditty that helps me keep track of the two types of basic systems:

• Feelings-based values -- people who form their basic values entirely on the basis of how they feel on any given day.
  
• Values-based feelings -- people who form their values through reason and logic, and subjugate their feelings to those values.

Take someone who breaks a window in a school. The feelings-based values person will justify that action by saying they were mad at being treated unfairly during a recent test. They`ve been bullied, made fun of, and nobody likes them. They felt very angry, and therefore, broke the window as a form of free speech.

The values-based feelings person wouldn`t break the window, unless there was someone in danger in the building and had to be rescued. They too would have failed a test, been made fun of, been bullied, and so forth, all producing anger and feelings. However, their value of property rights, community property, the laws of the area, and so forth would *override* those feelings.

All of you above have some good thoughts some with evidence.  My belief is the morning and afternoon TV watchers are necessary, just as the inventors who do the puzzles and calculations.  We all balance each other out.  and i`m not a news follower at all, i would rather Salsa dance til 2 a.m. then go to the gym in the early morning, work, and take a short nap then make something yummy to eat.  and of course keeping my customers happy and working on my projects.  i`m like the crisis type self management that is well oiled, consistent and dependable.

The funny thing is i struggled to get through H.S. and engineering school, but i know for a fact I have my $#!^ together and i enjoy everything i do.

My result on most people is they won`t change and they will do everything to get noticed, but i don`t care i do what i want and run circles around them.  enough on myself

Touchy subject, but I can`t help but to jump in...

CraigL is right, back when the Constitution was first drafted (a government revision after the Articles of Confederation were dropped) only landowners were permitted to vote. There was some merit to that, having a vested interest in the affairs of the state.

Voting today has evolved into a guessing game for most who do it. If you were to have an entry poll asking who was running and for what, I think we would get a huge shock. Granted, I wouldn`t change the system because I sincerely believe it is the best one possible (not perfect).

Regardless of your views on the current administration or past administrations, we get the government we deserve. If "your guy/girl" didn`t win, campaign harder next time. That is why it is called a representative democracy or a republican democracy. You do your best to send someone who represents you, but in the end, they represent the majority of the voters in the district. If it doesn`t jive with your views, don`t whine, go out and get active.

The part I get tired of is the rampant whining by the losers (on both sides) and the scape-goat of free speech. "I can make any outlandish remark and it is covered by free speech!" Umm, no. CraigL pointed out a good example. People will say their rights were taken away by the Patriot Act or some other rubbish. The Patriot Act did not invoke a single new law, but organized and slightly expanded on existing ones. Unless you`re planning activities you shouldn`t be, there was no change in your daily life.

If people spent $1.25 in library late fees and read some important pieces like the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Congressional debate on the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and applied some basic thinking - we would have far less messes in our country.

As for the Anti-American whackos... well, if their American citizens, they can be as whacko as they want to be. If they`re not legal, American citizens, their opinion doesn`t really matter now does it?

With freedom comes responsibility. Give up on the responsibility means you give up the freedom.

Question to ponder:
Does the Constitution delineate our rights as citizens or are we free and the Constitution exists to limit government on imposing on those freedoms?

We`re coming up on 2008 and another Presidential election. What I find fascinating is that for perhaps the first time in history, or at least a long time, The Stupid are going to control American politics.

Consider: Right now we have a nearly 50-50 split, right down the middle, between so-called conservatives and liberals. The split is so divisive it will never compromise or reconcile. I won`t argue either ideology, but I`m pointing out that there is this massive and total split.

So generally speaking, for each conservative vote, there will likely be a cancelling liberal vote, and vice versa. End result---net zero.

The ONLY people left are the undecided, middle-of-the-road voters. Those are where all the candidates want to concentrate, as long as they don`t alienate their base.

Given that a huge number of voters know pretty much what they want, what they believe, and so on, AND that they`ll cancel each other out, it`s reasonable to assume that the "undecided" voters are those who have no clue what they want, and are waiting. Waiting for the last minute to decide whose hair looks better, whose shoes are nicer, and who sounds as if they know something.

So our future will be decided by the ignorant, indecisive, and whimsical.

Isn`t THAT a fine commentary on the results of no-holds-barred, zero compromise partisanship!