Republicans vote for "Conservatives" like Jan Brewer when they promise things like "less intrusive government". Then the "Conservatives" get power and force the government's clutches right into your digestive tract.
No, you don't realize that all it takes to defund a programme is for the House to refuse to fund it. FTFA:
The White House requested $35 million for the e-government fund in 2011. The House allocated only $2 million in its bill, H.R. 1. The Senate, meanwhile, would provide $20 million for the e-government fund.
You should notice that the House Republicans are busy shutting down the government, again, by refusing to govern.
The House Republicans who defunded these sites didn't run on "hope" or "change", in fact they ridiculed it. They have kept their promises to bring back the Bush/Cheney dark ages.
On top of a lot of other things Obama has accomplished for which he'll be remembered, his Detroit bailout saved the US auto industry from total collapse, and over 1 million jobs with it. If he'd done what Republicans tried to force him to do, and what Bush/Cheney left him holding, he'd be remembered for the destruction of America's industrial economy.
Obama's failed to fight for plenty of important things, and has indeed fought for some bad things that continue the evil that Bush/Cheney launched us into. But to fail to recognize what he did fight to get is dishonest.
Your family's small rural stations depended on rural advertisers. Whose economy was totally subsidized by the Federal and state (in turn subsidized by the Federal) governments. Even the electricity powering the stations and the homes receiving them was ensured by public subsidies, not to mention program content like the weather and more.
You grew up on the proceeds of a public sector jobs program.
Social Security isn't being robbed. The money the Federal government borrows from SS is repaid, plus about 50% extra, because it's immediately invested in Federal bonds. That's how the Federal government borrows money. SS is invested in the lowest risk investment possible.
It's no ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme doesn't return any gain on the investment. It only uses new money to pay out some return to earlier investments. Social Security is a legitimate investment.
Of course the taxpayers pay it back. The money borrowed is invested in the US economy, both directly and in managing it properly. The problem is that too much is invested in bad projects, like the killing, destruction and plain waste that is the "Defense" Department and the "intelligence" agencies. And the constant cutback in tax collection from those who benefit most from the public investments: corporations and the rich people who own them.
The scam is quite different from the one you say it is. The scam you describe is the product of the very same corporations, rich people, and "Conservative" politicians who are getting fat from the real scam.
No, we should eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes that are currently at about $100K. People who make over $100K a year have more to spare than people making less - the cap is exactly backwards to sanity. Once the cap is gone, there'll be plenty of money for everyone to ensure nobody starves to death when we stop working at 65. Keep in mind that lots of us used to starve to death before SS. Lots of us used to starve to death.
You're simply in denial. The church's admission of many (but far from all) cases of rape, many of which resulted in priests sent elsewhere to cover it up rather than reporting them to the police, is proof for anyone but the deluded. The deluded often believe that the "scandal" is the antichrist, not people's actual moral actions in light of the church covering up baby rapists it helped rape babies.
The church's actual position on baby rape is to cover it up and put the rapists among some other children to rape them instead. These are the facts. The church's published words are just corporate CYA that it does not actually practice.
Enough with your handwaving about other failures elsewhere. It's time you accepted that the church is no different from other criminal organizations: they're just a bunch of people making their living off what people believe they're doing and why, regardless of the truth. The church covers up its baby rapists, and regardless of what the mass media is incompetent to do, it's managed to eventually report a little on the church's baby rape and its coverup. Your alignment with the church to attack the messenger despite the facts makes you a part of the coverup. You should see a doctor, not a priest, about your sickness. The priest will just tell you you're among the blessed, and leave you sick, as he has done the rest of his corporation, all the way up through the pope.
If you "choose to follow god", you go to heaven. If you choose otherwise, you go to hell. You might like to call that something else, but it's obviously a test, with pass=heaven and fail=hell.
Being a geek means you know how things really work, facts and logic in thorough detail. Your fallacies and word games are contrary to being a geek. If you were a geek about religion, you'd understand that it's superstition and power games.
My mention of the baby raper cult and its evil protector pope is not sarcasm. The Catholic Church's baby rape is special, because the only reason the Church has its riches and power is because it pretends it opposes baby rape rather than protecting it.
I devote my energy against coverups of baby rape when I see them. Post a story that Slashdot publishes about baby rape in schools and I might devote some energy to it. But your suggestion is that I ignore the Church's baby rape and coverup simply because the Church isn't the only one doing it. You are part of the coverup. You are going to hell.
Crying "dumbass" is classic Yankee whining, though it's really from Dixie. But thanks for that universally BS logic, that one American oil criminal makes another British one nonexistent.
Anonymous fool Coward, the issue here is they said the Tesla got only 55 miles on a charge rather than its claimed 200+, based on their "calculations", which are BS. I never said they hadn't reviewed cars. But I've watched the show, where they obviously don't like diesels because they aren't as zoomy as gasoline cars. Which you obviously don't like either, for the same reason. Yet the Tesla is zoomy, and they don't like it either. Though it can't really be because of "55 miles on a charge", because they're not stupid enough to believe their own "calculations" are the reality. It's not because it's a rich boy's toy in the middle of a global recession", because they love plenty of those, so long as they're gasoline powered.
Where did they "take the piss out of BP's mess"?
The reality is that you and they are oil worshippers. At least they have the courage of their convictions to put their names to their prejudice, unlike you Anonymous Coward.
The Top Gear presenters hate diesel, for example, because it doesn't have as much zooming power as gasoline. They are car guys. They love big, noisy engines more than they love the weather. Since they're in England I can understand their preference for climate change, no matter that they're rolling the dice on it.
FWIW, I see no sign that Top Gear ever mentioned BP ("British Petroleum") in connection with its poisoning the Gulf of "Mexico" last year, but plenty of evidence of BP's ongoing sponsorship of that show. Teslas compete with BP's product line.
The 50s greasers loved their hot rods, and hated the hippies who started Earth Day.
It's well documented that priests rape babies. It's also well documented in this story and elsewhere that the church blames satan/antichrist instead of the priests for the baby rape, for which the church prescribes exorcism. If you're interested in exorcism, you can get firsthand knowledge of it right in the church.
Citations aren't needed. Basic logic is all that's required.
WTF is right. Your post doesn't make much sense, except the part you got about obeying the church's teachings would mean avoiding the cesspool of hypocrisy that is the actual church.
Separation of church and state means separating the disease from the patient. In case you don't understand me, I mean that the church is the disease.
Which is why there's not many exorcisms, as these priests admit. If they weren't so "busy" (like the time many spend doing politics instead of working for the poor), they'd have more time to cook up more exorcisms.
Your ramble entirely misses the obvious point. Priests aren't qualified to determine whether people are crazy. Psychologists and psychiatrists are. You've got them working in the wrong order. Putting the mice in charge of deciding what's cheese; putting priests in charge of deciding what's possession.
If it were non-priest (and especially non devout Catholics, or devout anything) psychologists doing the weeding out, then that process might be credible.
Having Catholic priests decide who is "actually possessed" is like having the mice decide what is "actually cheese". Peanut butter qualifies when "satan" is behind it.
In fact his job heading the Inquisition gave him primary responsibility for covering up the church's baby rapers, shuffling them around the world where they could rape again in secrecy.
That should tell you a thing or three. Like the pope and his church is a fraud.
Amorth is the guy in the article quoted blaming the current pope's "sex scandals" (widespread baby rape the pope covered up in his job before pope) on "the antichrist". Not on the pope, not on the baby raping priests, not on their local churches and silent congregation of witnesses, and certainly not on "Jesus".
If anyone is interested in exorcism, become a priest and rape a baby. You'll get an exorcism on demand, and the special attention of the pope - and go right to heaven!
[Gabriele Amorth] (the "president for life" of the International Association of Exorcists [wikipedia.org]) claimed that the sex abuse scandals which have engulfed the Church in the US, Ireland, Germany and other countries, were proof that the anti-Christ was waging a war against the Holy See. He said Pope Benedict XVI believed "wholeheartedly" in the practice of exorcism.
That is precisely where the church scapegoats the Internet for the church's own hideous sins. The Internet responsible for the increase in possessions, which is why these exorcists have so many more possessions to exorcise: it's the antichrist's war against the church. The church isn't the cult of baby rape and its coverup, it's the victim of a war by the antichrist.
The church embraces the scapegoat as a fundamental practice. Why shouldn't it use it to blame someone else for its own sins, someone who doesn't exist except in the church's own propaganda?
The Slashdot reaction isn't "knee-jerk", a reflex. It's a learned behavior to see through the church's lies and nonsense to find the church's own designed benefit and escape from blame. What's knee-jerk is to ignore proof of the church's guilt even when it's shoved in your face. Not quite a reflex, but a gut reaction trained into us early. The boogeyman doesn't exist, but the church and its crimes do.
Just the kind of gibberish I expect from a Creationist, especially one crying out the name of the biblical story the church gets most completely wrong. The story of a guy who'd have been tempted most by the Internet if the story happened today, but in which story the Internet would be the tool of god, not "satan".
You should help yourself to depend more on reason than on the medieval superstitions the church requires you to believe. Then maybe you'll be better equipped to cope with the Internet and other sources of behavior you'd prefer to avoid than to rely on a cult of baby rapers who insist their worldwide rapes and coverups are proof that the antichrist is warring against them, rather than proof of their own bottomless evil.
That bible and its church you respect so much has destroyed the moral character of many generations, giving them a "satan" to blame the breeding ground for evil on instead of taking the blame for its own sins in time to stop them.
Rather than "fear the Vatican", use your "techie blessings" to free yourself from superstition and understand the simply human reasons people do each other wrong. The more people do that, the faster we can turn from the millennia of religion's legacy of moral and physical destruction.
The Vatican's Catholic Church tells everyone (and I mean everyone) that the entire reason for life is to be tempted to sin, but instead to have faith in Jesus and avoid sin. Life is a test, they say, where god tests our faith in Jesus. Pass and go to heaven; fail and go to hell.
Even if this self-pitying myth about "Satan's war on the church" were actual truth, the Church should embrace it. Because it's "god's plan" to offer us temptation for us to refuse. The Internet is doing god's work.
But really it's just more hopeless BS PR from the Vatican to avoid blame for its own sins. Specifically its rampant baby rape:
[Gabriele Amorth] (the "president for life" of the International Association of Exorcists) claimed that the sex abuse scandals which have engulfed the Church in the US, Ireland, Germany and other countries, were proof that the anti-Christ was waging a war against the Holy See. He said Pope Benedict XVI believed "wholeheartedly" in the practice of exorcism.
See? It's not a cult of baby rapers, headed by an evil pope who protected (and protects) them worldwide. It's just Satan and the antichrist making these people rape babies. People who are our only prayer to escape the clutches of Satan - and his goddamn Internet. The Church will save you, not rape your babies. Amen.
FWIW, the fortune at the bottom of the page in which I'm posting says "To err is human. To blame someone else for your mistakes is even more human." Brought to you by the Internet. I suppose that's proof that my computer is possessed by Satan. I should bring it to church, which starts in 15 minutes here as it has for literally millennia. Maybe someone will exorcise it, since the church's huge success in the world has been based on such proof of its power to protect us from Satan all these years.
I know plenty of people who used, even abused, meth, coke and heroin without becoming addicted. Of course I also know plenty who did become addicted. Most of those who took them at all already had poorly adjusted personalities. They were self-destructive for some reason predating their drug use, and used those drugs to play out their self-destructive desires. Both because of the chances of addiction and the other health problems from abuse.
Legalizing these addictive drugs will make helping those people easier. Fewer will take the drugs, because it's not "outlaw" behavior. And instead of treating them as criminals, we'll be letting them exercise their freedom (their right, even to destroy themselves) and then actually helping them when they burn out their freedom because they couldn't handle it.
And in the meantime crank way down the gangs, the police states, the corruption, and the vast damage to everything it touches that prohibition brings.
Slashdot Mirror
Republicans vote for "Conservatives" like Jan Brewer when they promise things like "less intrusive government". Then the "Conservatives" get power and force the government's clutches right into your digestive tract.
No, you don't realize that all it takes to defund a programme is for the House to refuse to fund it.
FTFA:
You should notice that the House Republicans are busy shutting down the government, again, by refusing to govern.
The House Republicans who defunded these sites didn't run on "hope" or "change", in fact they ridiculed it. They have kept their promises to bring back the Bush/Cheney dark ages.
On top of a lot of other things Obama has accomplished for which he'll be remembered, his Detroit bailout saved the US auto industry from total collapse, and over 1 million jobs with it. If he'd done what Republicans tried to force him to do, and what Bush/Cheney left him holding, he'd be remembered for the destruction of America's industrial economy.
Obama's failed to fight for plenty of important things, and has indeed fought for some bad things that continue the evil that Bush/Cheney launched us into. But to fail to recognize what he did fight to get is dishonest.
Your family's small rural stations depended on rural advertisers. Whose economy was totally subsidized by the Federal and state (in turn subsidized by the Federal) governments. Even the electricity powering the stations and the homes receiving them was ensured by public subsidies, not to mention program content like the weather and more.
You grew up on the proceeds of a public sector jobs program.
Somehow you don't seem to realize that it's the House Republicans who defunded the Open Government websites.
Because you're a Republican.
Social Security isn't being robbed. The money the Federal government borrows from SS is repaid, plus about 50% extra, because it's immediately invested in Federal bonds. That's how the Federal government borrows money. SS is invested in the lowest risk investment possible.
It's no ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme doesn't return any gain on the investment. It only uses new money to pay out some return to earlier investments. Social Security is a legitimate investment.
Of course the taxpayers pay it back. The money borrowed is invested in the US economy, both directly and in managing it properly. The problem is that too much is invested in bad projects, like the killing, destruction and plain waste that is the "Defense" Department and the "intelligence" agencies. And the constant cutback in tax collection from those who benefit most from the public investments: corporations and the rich people who own them.
The scam is quite different from the one you say it is. The scam you describe is the product of the very same corporations, rich people, and "Conservative" politicians who are getting fat from the real scam.
No, we should eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes that are currently at about $100K. People who make over $100K a year have more to spare than people making less - the cap is exactly backwards to sanity. Once the cap is gone, there'll be plenty of money for everyone to ensure nobody starves to death when we stop working at 65. Keep in mind that lots of us used to starve to death before SS. Lots of us used to starve to death.
If you clicked the link I helpfully included you'd see plenty of sponsorship of Top Gear along the lines you mention.
You're simply in denial. The church's admission of many (but far from all) cases of rape, many of which resulted in priests sent elsewhere to cover it up rather than reporting them to the police, is proof for anyone but the deluded. The deluded often believe that the "scandal" is the antichrist, not people's actual moral actions in light of the church covering up baby rapists it helped rape babies.
The church's actual position on baby rape is to cover it up and put the rapists among some other children to rape them instead. These are the facts. The church's published words are just corporate CYA that it does not actually practice.
Enough with your handwaving about other failures elsewhere. It's time you accepted that the church is no different from other criminal organizations: they're just a bunch of people making their living off what people believe they're doing and why, regardless of the truth. The church covers up its baby rapists, and regardless of what the mass media is incompetent to do, it's managed to eventually report a little on the church's baby rape and its coverup. Your alignment with the church to attack the messenger despite the facts makes you a part of the coverup. You should see a doctor, not a priest, about your sickness. The priest will just tell you you're among the blessed, and leave you sick, as he has done the rest of his corporation, all the way up through the pope.
So what? I didn't say "blind faith", you did.
If you "choose to follow god", you go to heaven. If you choose otherwise, you go to hell. You might like to call that something else, but it's obviously a test, with pass=heaven and fail=hell.
Being a geek means you know how things really work, facts and logic in thorough detail. Your fallacies and word games are contrary to being a geek. If you were a geek about religion, you'd understand that it's superstition and power games.
My mention of the baby raper cult and its evil protector pope is not sarcasm. The Catholic Church's baby rape is special, because the only reason the Church has its riches and power is because it pretends it opposes baby rape rather than protecting it.
I devote my energy against coverups of baby rape when I see them. Post a story that Slashdot publishes about baby rape in schools and I might devote some energy to it. But your suggestion is that I ignore the Church's baby rape and coverup simply because the Church isn't the only one doing it. You are part of the coverup. You are going to hell.
Crying "dumbass" is classic Yankee whining, though it's really from Dixie. But thanks for that universally BS logic, that one American oil criminal makes another British one nonexistent.
Anonymous fool Coward, the issue here is they said the Tesla got only 55 miles on a charge rather than its claimed 200+, based on their "calculations", which are BS. I never said they hadn't reviewed cars. But I've watched the show, where they obviously don't like diesels because they aren't as zoomy as gasoline cars. Which you obviously don't like either, for the same reason. Yet the Tesla is zoomy, and they don't like it either. Though it can't really be because of "55 miles on a charge", because they're not stupid enough to believe their own "calculations" are the reality. It's not because it's
a rich boy's toy in the middle of a global recession", because they love plenty of those, so long as they're gasoline powered.
Where did they "take the piss out of BP's mess"?
The reality is that you and they are oil worshippers. At least they have the courage of their convictions to put their names to their prejudice, unlike you Anonymous Coward.
The Top Gear presenters hate diesel, for example, because it doesn't have as much zooming power as gasoline. They are car guys. They love big, noisy engines more than they love the weather. Since they're in England I can understand their preference for climate change, no matter that they're rolling the dice on it.
FWIW, I see no sign that Top Gear ever mentioned BP ("British Petroleum") in connection with its poisoning the Gulf of "Mexico" last year, but plenty of evidence of BP's ongoing sponsorship of that show. Teslas compete with BP's product line.
The 50s greasers loved their hot rods, and hated the hippies who started Earth Day.
It's well documented that priests rape babies. It's also well documented in this story and elsewhere that the church blames satan/antichrist instead of the priests for the baby rape, for which the church prescribes exorcism. If you're interested in exorcism, you can get firsthand knowledge of it right in the church.
Citations aren't needed. Basic logic is all that's required.
WTF is right. Your post doesn't make much sense, except the part you got about obeying the church's teachings would mean avoiding the cesspool of hypocrisy that is the actual church.
Separation of church and state means separating the disease from the patient. In case you don't understand me, I mean that the church is the disease.
Which is why there's not many exorcisms, as these priests admit. If they weren't so "busy" (like the time many spend doing politics instead of working for the poor), they'd have more time to cook up more exorcisms.
Your ramble entirely misses the obvious point. Priests aren't qualified to determine whether people are crazy. Psychologists and psychiatrists are. You've got them working in the wrong order. Putting the mice in charge of deciding what's cheese; putting priests in charge of deciding what's possession.
If it were non-priest (and especially non devout Catholics, or devout anything) psychologists doing the weeding out, then that process might be credible.
Having Catholic priests decide who is "actually possessed" is like having the mice decide what is "actually cheese". Peanut butter qualifies when "satan" is behind it.
In fact his job heading the Inquisition gave him primary responsibility for covering up the church's baby rapers, shuffling them around the world where they could rape again in secrecy.
That should tell you a thing or three. Like the pope and his church is a fraud.
Amorth is the guy in the article quoted blaming the current pope's "sex scandals" (widespread baby rape the pope covered up in his job before pope) on "the antichrist". Not on the pope, not on the baby raping priests, not on their local churches and silent congregation of witnesses, and certainly not on "Jesus".
If anyone is interested in exorcism, become a priest and rape a baby. You'll get an exorcism on demand, and the special attention of the pope - and go right to heaven!
That is precisely where the church scapegoats the Internet for the church's own hideous sins. The Internet responsible for the increase in possessions, which is why these exorcists have so many more possessions to exorcise: it's the antichrist's war against the church. The church isn't the cult of baby rape and its coverup, it's the victim of a war by the antichrist.
The church embraces the scapegoat as a fundamental practice. Why shouldn't it use it to blame someone else for its own sins, someone who doesn't exist except in the church's own propaganda?
The Slashdot reaction isn't "knee-jerk", a reflex. It's a learned behavior to see through the church's lies and nonsense to find the church's own designed benefit and escape from blame. What's knee-jerk is to ignore proof of the church's guilt even when it's shoved in your face. Not quite a reflex, but a gut reaction trained into us early. The boogeyman doesn't exist, but the church and its crimes do.
Just the kind of gibberish I expect from a Creationist, especially one crying out the name of the biblical story the church gets most completely wrong. The story of a guy who'd have been tempted most by the Internet if the story happened today, but in which story the Internet would be the tool of god, not "satan".
You should help yourself to depend more on reason than on the medieval superstitions the church requires you to believe. Then maybe you'll be better equipped to cope with the Internet and other sources of behavior you'd prefer to avoid than to rely on a cult of baby rapers who insist their worldwide rapes and coverups are proof that the antichrist is warring against them, rather than proof of their own bottomless evil.
That bible and its church you respect so much has destroyed the moral character of many generations, giving them a "satan" to blame the breeding ground for evil on instead of taking the blame for its own sins in time to stop them.
Rather than "fear the Vatican", use your "techie blessings" to free yourself from superstition and understand the simply human reasons people do each other wrong. The more people do that, the faster we can turn from the millennia of religion's legacy of moral and physical destruction.
The Vatican's Catholic Church tells everyone (and I mean everyone) that the entire reason for life is to be tempted to sin, but instead to have faith in Jesus and avoid sin. Life is a test, they say, where god tests our faith in Jesus. Pass and go to heaven; fail and go to hell.
Even if this self-pitying myth about "Satan's war on the church" were actual truth, the Church should embrace it. Because it's "god's plan" to offer us temptation for us to refuse. The Internet is doing god's work.
But really it's just more hopeless BS PR from the Vatican to avoid blame for its own sins. Specifically its rampant baby rape:
See? It's not a cult of baby rapers, headed by an evil pope who protected (and protects) them worldwide. It's just Satan and the antichrist making these people rape babies. People who are our only prayer to escape the clutches of Satan - and his goddamn Internet. The Church will save you, not rape your babies. Amen.
FWIW, the fortune at the bottom of the page in which I'm posting says "To err is human. To blame someone else for your mistakes is even more human." Brought to you by the Internet. I suppose that's proof that my computer is possessed by Satan. I should bring it to church, which starts in 15 minutes here as it has for literally millennia. Maybe someone will exorcise it, since the church's huge success in the world has been based on such proof of its power to protect us from Satan all these years.
I know plenty of people who used, even abused, meth, coke and heroin without becoming addicted. Of course I also know plenty who did become addicted. Most of those who took them at all already had poorly adjusted personalities. They were self-destructive for some reason predating their drug use, and used those drugs to play out their self-destructive desires. Both because of the chances of addiction and the other health problems from abuse.
Legalizing these addictive drugs will make helping those people easier. Fewer will take the drugs, because it's not "outlaw" behavior. And instead of treating them as criminals, we'll be letting them exercise their freedom (their right, even to destroy themselves) and then actually helping them when they burn out their freedom because they couldn't handle it.
And in the meantime crank way down the gangs, the police states, the corruption, and the vast damage to everything it touches that prohibition brings.