You, sir, have just presented the best possible argument against what we call Obamacare.
Since every unhealthy activity that you engage in has an effect on the rest of society, society can recoup the cost via taxes. What if I want to opt out of the system that I'm burdening by my unhealthy activity? Oh NOES! That can't be, we need everyone in the system to make it work.
Do you seriously believe that either of two Bush's opponents could have possibly fucked the country up any more than he did?
Especially for Bush's second term. I mean, so you voted against a candidate who "made your skin crawl", and for the guy who has already been anally raping you without lube for 4 years. Very smart.
First point. I don't believe that Bush fucked the country up. Second point. I believe that both Al Gore and John Kerry would have.
Third point. I'm completely happy with Bush's Presidency. I made more money during Bush's last year in office than I had at any other point in my life. I make more money now than I did then. Why? Because I have more influence over my prosperity than any politician does.
I'd take the tea party more seriously if they'd drop the "moral" social conservative bullshit and just stick to financial conservative planks in their platform. Pretending that "moral decay" is the cause of our financial woes does nothing but distract from the actual problem and the things that can be done to fix it.
You are arguing against a point of view that the tea party has not adopted. What "social conservative bullshit", and I do mean specific, verifiable examples, are you referring to?
The Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party is not about social issues. While individual members may have axes to grind on social issues, the movement itself isn't about them.
There have been some efforts, with differing levels of success, to co-opt the tea party and refocus it on establishment Republican goals but without question the tea party was and is a real movement.
I'm not from Texas. I'm a highly educated Yankee and I voted for George W. Bush twice. Like I was really going to vote for Al Gore or John Kerry. It would be nice if the Democrats would put up a candidate that doesn't make my skin crawl.
LK
Too bad you didn't go to Iraq to die for YOUR President's fuck up, like so many poor bastards did. You sound like you're proud of GWBush, the draft dodger, who couldn't hold a candle to Gore or Kerry.
He couldn't hold a candle to them... Except on election day, right?
I, a lifelong conservative Republican, will not be voting for Romney either. I can't, in good conscience, vote for either of the two major candidates. I will either be voting third party of casting a protest vote by writing in Ron Paul or Rick Santorum.
Vote for Obama if that's what your conscience tells to yo do, but don't pretend that he's any better than Bush. Romney is no better either, that's why I don't care which of them wins.
Obama has continued every of the shitty programs that Bush started, and took some even further. Bush wasn't known for intentionally killing American citizens. Obama is. Obama's administration has even argues about why they have the right to target American citizens for assassination. Slice it however you want, that's worse than Bush's stance. Not that I think Romney is better. Romney is just as bad. I won't vote for anyone who belonged to a church that taught black people were cursed by God.
And I could say you guys gave us GWB, but then "someone" voted for him... twice.
I'm not from Texas. I'm a highly educated Yankee and I voted for George W. Bush twice. Like I was really going to vote for Al Gore or John Kerry. It would be nice if the Democrats would put up a candidate that doesn't make my skin crawl.
Considering the types of arms the government has, compared to the types of arms an average citizen would have, no, I don't think they are.
It's difficult to get soldiers to fire on their countrymen. It's one thing to demonize the Krauts, Japs, Nips, Gooks and Russkis. Soldiers dehumanize their enemies with these kinds of epithets. If the person at the end of your rifle is from one town over from you, it's hard to think of them as anything other than your countrymen.
Besides, Iraqi and Afghan insurgents are not as well armed at the average American but they're giving the US war machine a hell of a difficult time.
They're not LaPierre's, they're John Lott's. John Lott came to the debate as a Northeastern Liberal-type who wanted to prove how gun control made people safer. To his credit, when the numbers didn't confirm his suspected result, he changed his view.
Women do make up a minority in IT, but the ones who are in the field are usually pretty damned good. They cared enough about the line of work to deal with the anti-social fucks that make up most of its ranks. I like that. The ones who stick around longer than a year or two are usually really smart, cool chicks who can kick ass in their chosen career. Let's not dilute that with a bunch of girly-girl bullshit.
But it seems to me that since he waited until after he was a billionaire to marry her, she can't claim that his fortune is a marital asset because he earned it before they tied the knot.
I understand it perfectly, and this has absolutely nothing to do with Second Amendment, as "being armed" is mentioned as a fact of life, not a necessary condition for any purpose.
So then you're only pretending to be ignorant. Since you are not stupid, it only stands to reason that you hope enough other people are to enact laws that are in clear contravention of the US Constitution.
It's asininity to argue that the same men who wrote about the importance of an armed populace, later went on to write into the supreme law of the land a guarantee of the preservation of that right but that these two events are... coincidental.
Better yet, Madison was proven wrong by Civil War, when Federal government, supported by the North, crushed the South and deprived it of at least two democratically made decisions -- to preserve slavery and to form the Confederacy. And everyone is glad that this happened because one of those decisions was the worst decision made in the whole history of US, and the other was just stupid.
The Federal position is that no state or group of states may secede from the Union without a 2/3 majority, just like the way they got in. This wasn't just "We don't like you leaving, so we're going to make you stay". There was a legitimate and arguable legal foundation for the North's position.
Slavery was of secondary importance to the Union. This is evidenced by the fact that not all of the slave states attempted to leave. And in the slave states that did not rebel, Lincoln didn't free the slaves. Why? Because that was less important. It was later handled with a Constitutional amendment, and that had a 2/3 majority vote. It's economic reality that when slavery exists, it has to expand or it will collapse under its own weight. That's why all the north had to do was prevent any other states from becoming slave states and bide their time.
I have a license to carry firearms and have for the past 15 years. If you see me en route to pretty much any place other than work or a bar, I'm carrying. The only thing I loathe more than the cop groupies(I use that term too) are the cops themselves. I know there are people like you describe who take their gun and walk around just waiting or a situation to use it presents itself. I don't much see the point of going into specific details, but I'm rather proactive about vacating the premises when I get the feeling that something is about to happen.
I take the opposite approach. I do not want restrictive gun laws. I do want background checks and long prison terms for gun smugglers and criminals who use guns. If I had to give the cliff's notes version of my position it would be harsh enforcement of the US's gun laws as they stood in 1969. My NRA membership is up for renewal this month. I'll probably renew it. I find myself trapped in between people who I believe are looking to eliminate civilian gun ownership entirely and those who are pushing for no restrictions. In that situation, I feel that my only choice is to side with the anti-ban people.
Besides, the Constitution was amended to permit the levying of an income tax.
Which was exactly my point! The constitution was amended during the 20th century, long after the founders were dead and gone.
The founding fathers never expressed an opinion about whether or not the USA should be engaged in space flight. Same reason, they were dead before we considered it.
Pay your goddamned taxes.
Everyone should pay every penny that they legally owe and not one penny more.
I hunt with a rifle and a handgun. I carry the second gun because it's possible that my first shot won't kill the game. If that's the case, I'd like to be able to finish it quickly with a follow up shot from my revolver. There's nothing sociopathic about that.
After the release of the birth certificates AND newspaper announcements of the birth? Yeah, we can actually blame the birthers and their sophist apologists for being the racist hacks they are....
I blame the birthers for falling into an obvious trap. The released documents were obvious forgeries, but not for the reason that the birthers claim. The birth certificate that they released was laser printed. It's clearly not Obama's original. The digital image that was given to the press was obviously manipulated. It was a bad job of faking a document, they wanted the birthers to look like morons because no matter where Obama was born, his mother was a citizen. If she's a citizen, he's a citizen at birth. No questions about it.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
If you can not or will not understand what Madison was saying, that's not my problem.
At some point you'll realize that your 'party' has no affect on anything, anywhere.. And that the cold reality is that conservatives are weak willed and will roll for the establishment GOP when it comes election time. Mit is your candidate, and none of you want him.. But you'll vote for him.
I disagree. I'm a conservative Republican and have been for all of my adult life. I'm not voting for Mitt and I'm hearing similar talk from other conservatives.
There are people who just HATE Obama and they'll hold their noses and vote for Mitt. There are a lot of us who will not cross that line in the sand. I'd rather see 4 more years of Obama than 8 of Romney.
Obama is going to humiliate Mitt in November. I predict a blowout likes of which we haven't seen since the 1980s. Obama's base still adores him. They will turn out and vote for him. Nobody is excited about Mitt. Some people will vote out of obligation or a sense of duty, but very very few people will have any passion about it. Intensity beats extensity, every time.
This is, of course, predicated on the economy not becoming appreciably worse between now and then.
Slashdot Mirror
Since "European" scientists are in board, maybe the Obama administration will agree to it.
LK
You, sir, have just presented the best possible argument against what we call Obamacare.
Since every unhealthy activity that you engage in has an effect on the rest of society, society can recoup the cost via taxes. What if I want to opt out of the system that I'm burdening by my unhealthy activity? Oh NOES! That can't be, we need everyone in the system to make it work.
LK
First point. I don't believe that Bush fucked the country up.
Ah, so you're part of the problem that the OP was talking about, then. Glad we straitened that out.
Those of us who aren't susceptible to bullshit propaganda are a problem for many people.
I'm completely happy with Bush's Presidency. I made more money during Bush's last year in office than I had at any other point in my life.
I guess war is good for business.
Hello. Welcome to Econ 101. Do you think it's coincidence that the great depression ended with WWII?
LK
Do you seriously believe that either of two Bush's opponents could have possibly fucked the country up any more than he did?
Especially for Bush's second term. I mean, so you voted against a candidate who "made your skin crawl", and for the guy who has already been anally raping you without lube for 4 years. Very smart.
First point. I don't believe that Bush fucked the country up.
Second point. I believe that both Al Gore and John Kerry would have.
Third point. I'm completely happy with Bush's Presidency. I made more money during Bush's last year in office than I had at any other point in my life. I make more money now than I did then. Why? Because I have more influence over my prosperity than any politician does.
LK
I'd take the tea party more seriously if they'd drop the "moral" social conservative bullshit and just stick to financial conservative planks in their platform. Pretending that "moral decay" is the cause of our financial woes does nothing but distract from the actual problem and the things that can be done to fix it.
You are arguing against a point of view that the tea party has not adopted. What "social conservative bullshit", and I do mean specific, verifiable examples, are you referring to?
The Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party is not about social issues. While individual members may have axes to grind on social issues, the movement itself isn't about them.
LK
tea party is a scam.
seriously? you think that was a real movement?
Was and is.
There have been some efforts, with differing levels of success, to co-opt the tea party and refocus it on establishment Republican goals but without question the tea party was and is a real movement.
LK
LOL. You know what this is? Dogma.
You're no different than the ones you hate.
LK
I'm not from Texas. I'm a highly educated Yankee and I voted for George W. Bush twice. Like I was really going to vote for Al Gore or John Kerry. It would be nice if the Democrats would put up a candidate that doesn't make my skin crawl.
LK
Too bad you didn't go to Iraq to die for YOUR President's fuck up, like so many poor bastards did. You sound like you're proud of GWBush, the draft dodger, who couldn't hold a candle to Gore or Kerry.
He couldn't hold a candle to them... Except on election day, right?
LK
Being highly educated does not mean that you are intelligent. Just that your parents had money.
It *could* mean that my parents had money, but I financed my own education. I have a high IQ, that mean's that I'm intelligent.
LK
I, a lifelong conservative Republican, will not be voting for Romney either. I can't, in good conscience, vote for either of the two major candidates. I will either be voting third party of casting a protest vote by writing in Ron Paul or Rick Santorum.
Vote for Obama if that's what your conscience tells to yo do, but don't pretend that he's any better than Bush. Romney is no better either, that's why I don't care which of them wins.
Obama has continued every of the shitty programs that Bush started, and took some even further. Bush wasn't known for intentionally killing American citizens. Obama is. Obama's administration has even argues about why they have the right to target American citizens for assassination. Slice it however you want, that's worse than Bush's stance. Not that I think Romney is better. Romney is just as bad. I won't vote for anyone who belonged to a church that taught black people were cursed by God.
LK
ID Envy.
What would Freud have made of this...
And I could say you guys gave us GWB, but then "someone" voted for him... twice.
I'm not from Texas. I'm a highly educated Yankee and I voted for George W. Bush twice. Like I was really going to vote for Al Gore or John Kerry. It would be nice if the Democrats would put up a candidate that doesn't make my skin crawl.
LK
Considering the types of arms the government has, compared to the types of arms an average citizen would have, no, I don't think they are.
It's difficult to get soldiers to fire on their countrymen. It's one thing to demonize the Krauts, Japs, Nips, Gooks and Russkis. Soldiers dehumanize their enemies with these kinds of epithets. If the person at the end of your rifle is from one town over from you, it's hard to think of them as anything other than your countrymen.
Besides, Iraqi and Afghan insurgents are not as well armed at the average American but they're giving the US war machine a hell of a difficult time.
LK
Here, when a home owner kills an intruder, we call that a Happy Ending.
Only a sick, sick fuck would think that.
No. Not only a sick, sick fuck. Also, someone who's sick of seeing criminals rob, rape and murder with no consequence.
LK
They're not LaPierre's, they're John Lott's. John Lott came to the debate as a Northeastern Liberal-type who wanted to prove how gun control made people safer. To his credit, when the numbers didn't confirm his suspected result, he changed his view.
LK
FFS, we still have rotary telephones!
LK
Women do make up a minority in IT, but the ones who are in the field are usually pretty damned good. They cared enough about the line of work to deal with the anti-social fucks that make up most of its ranks. I like that. The ones who stick around longer than a year or two are usually really smart, cool chicks who can kick ass in their chosen career. Let's not dilute that with a bunch of girly-girl bullshit.
LK
But it seems to me that since he waited until after he was a billionaire to marry her, she can't claim that his fortune is a marital asset because he earned it before they tied the knot.
LK
I understand it perfectly, and this has absolutely nothing to do with Second Amendment, as "being armed" is mentioned as a fact of life, not a necessary condition for any purpose.
So then you're only pretending to be ignorant. Since you are not stupid, it only stands to reason that you hope enough other people are to enact laws that are in clear contravention of the US Constitution.
It's asininity to argue that the same men who wrote about the importance of an armed populace, later went on to write into the supreme law of the land a guarantee of the preservation of that right but that these two events are... coincidental.
Better yet, Madison was proven wrong by Civil War, when Federal government, supported by the North, crushed the South and deprived it of at least two democratically made decisions -- to preserve slavery and to form the Confederacy. And everyone is glad that this happened because one of those decisions was the worst decision made in the whole history of US, and the other was just stupid.
The Federal position is that no state or group of states may secede from the Union without a 2/3 majority, just like the way they got in. This wasn't just "We don't like you leaving, so we're going to make you stay". There was a legitimate and arguable legal foundation for the North's position.
Slavery was of secondary importance to the Union. This is evidenced by the fact that not all of the slave states attempted to leave. And in the slave states that did not rebel, Lincoln didn't free the slaves. Why? Because that was less important. It was later handled with a Constitutional amendment, and that had a 2/3 majority vote. It's economic reality that when slavery exists, it has to expand or it will collapse under its own weight. That's why all the north had to do was prevent any other states from becoming slave states and bide their time.
LK
I have a license to carry firearms and have for the past 15 years. If you see me en route to pretty much any place other than work or a bar, I'm carrying. The only thing I loathe more than the cop groupies(I use that term too) are the cops themselves. I know there are people like you describe who take their gun and walk around just waiting or a situation to use it presents itself. I don't much see the point of going into specific details, but I'm rather proactive about vacating the premises when I get the feeling that something is about to happen.
I take the opposite approach. I do not want restrictive gun laws. I do want background checks and long prison terms for gun smugglers and criminals who use guns. If I had to give the cliff's notes version of my position it would be harsh enforcement of the US's gun laws as they stood in 1969. My NRA membership is up for renewal this month. I'll probably renew it. I find myself trapped in between people who I believe are looking to eliminate civilian gun ownership entirely and those who are pushing for no restrictions. In that situation, I feel that my only choice is to side with the anti-ban people.
LK
Besides, the Constitution was amended to permit the levying of an income tax.
Which was exactly my point! The constitution was amended during the 20th century, long after the founders were dead and gone.
The founding fathers never expressed an opinion about whether or not the USA should be engaged in space flight. Same reason, they were dead before we considered it.
Pay your goddamned taxes.
Everyone should pay every penny that they legally owe and not one penny more.
LK
I hunt with a rifle and a handgun. I carry the second gun because it's possible that my first shot won't kill the game. If that's the case, I'd like to be able to finish it quickly with a follow up shot from my revolver. There's nothing sociopathic about that.
LK
After the release of the birth certificates AND newspaper announcements of the birth? Yeah, we can actually blame the birthers and their sophist apologists for being the racist hacks they are....
I blame the birthers for falling into an obvious trap. The released documents were obvious forgeries, but not for the reason that the birthers claim. The birth certificate that they released was laser printed. It's clearly not Obama's original. The digital image that was given to the press was obviously manipulated. It was a bad job of faking a document, they wanted the birthers to look like morons because no matter where Obama was born, his mother was a citizen. If she's a citizen, he's a citizen at birth. No questions about it.
LK
Federalist 46.
If you can not or will not understand what Madison was saying, that's not my problem.
LK
At some point you'll realize that your 'party' has no affect on anything, anywhere.. And that the cold reality is that conservatives are weak willed and will roll for the establishment GOP when it comes election time. Mit is your candidate, and none of you want him.. But you'll vote for him.
I disagree. I'm a conservative Republican and have been for all of my adult life. I'm not voting for Mitt and I'm hearing similar talk from other conservatives.
There are people who just HATE Obama and they'll hold their noses and vote for Mitt. There are a lot of us who will not cross that line in the sand. I'd rather see 4 more years of Obama than 8 of Romney.
Obama is going to humiliate Mitt in November. I predict a blowout likes of which we haven't seen since the 1980s. Obama's base still adores him. They will turn out and vote for him. Nobody is excited about Mitt. Some people will vote out of obligation or a sense of duty, but very very few people will have any passion about it. Intensity beats extensity, every time.
This is, of course, predicated on the economy not becoming appreciably worse between now and then.
LK