The college radio stations would even play The Ballad of Jerry Curlan
Ahhh, I love that song. I was like 12 when I first heard it. "Sleeps with midgets, drives a Ferrari and sucks assholes" You gotta love the Angry Samoans;-)
And no, I didn't click the link. No flash on the computer I'm on.
Dude, why didn't you just say Ohio in the first place. Everybody in Ohio is living off of welfare on my dime. That's one of the Welfare states. Rural or urban or anywhere in between doesn't even matter. Just say Ohio, and we'll all know "welfare state".
Heck, take a few minutes out of your life and look where the tax dollars go. They go from provider states to the welfare states like Ohio...and Alaska, the queen of the welfare states where McCain's bridge to nowhere, or "Moose Fucker" as I like to call that insult to women everywhere is from.
Were there a chance that I would be the one deciding between the lesser of 2 evils, then certainly I'd vote for Obama. I've never voted for a major party candidate for president, because that is a wasted vote IMO. I voted for Obama for the Senate and he spent most of his time campaigning rather than representing me. When he voted for the treason immunity bill, he declared himself a traitor. How can you take somebody seriously running for an office whose oath he's already willfully and with malice aforethought violated while running for it?
McCain did the same though. McCain is also Bush's lapdog and Bush is the worst traitor in American history
The Republican party went whole hog into Fascism with the election of Reagan, so there's no chance in hell I would ever vote for anybody sleazy enough to put on their mantle.
So, yes, I wouldn't think differently but I would act differently which is what I think you're asking. The Republicans have just widened the evil gap so far that it's no contest for a sane person anymore.
Where in that incident did we attack our own ships?
Mea Culpa.
We didn't do that. We did basically make up the second attack claiming it was absolutely certainly an attack knowing full well that that was bullshit as the recently released SIGINT proves. The radar operator might have made an error, but the lie by the government about it afterwards was just like Bush's lies to get us into Iraq, again, solely for profit at the expense of the American people. Given that we were only over there after having set up the domino for the purpose of starting a war, though, it's still a far sleazier action.
I pay a lot of attention to history. Maybe you should pay some attention to your typing and/or spelling?
Ah, the old "you made a typo". I guess you really nailed me now.
When someone asks ME to define Libertarian, I point to our President Thomas Jefferson as a prime example. Some of his ideas were almost Anarchist in nature, except that he recognized the need for a government to provide peace & to protect the individual's basic rights.
No. He was a Liberal. That's why Liberalism is the basis of America. He was the prime architect and would have called himself Liberal.
Libertarian means Jefferson (Liberal) plus Randroid baggage.
I'll never understand why we sent 4,000 of our sons and daughters to their graves in Mesopotamia but opted not to deploy them in significant numbers when we actually had a chance to capture/kill OBL. WTF?
Wow, you have an extremely low opinion of yourself if you think you'll never understand something so trivially simple.
They were sent to their deaths because it was profitable to the President and his friends. That's it. The absolute and 100% accurate answer. It's not at all difficult to see. Why such low self esteem so you think you couldn't have figured out something that's been *really* obvious for thousands of years?
That type of ignorance is why we keep ending up in these wars for the sake of profiting off of war. Try thinking next time rather than declaring yourself an idiot and incapable of understanding simple ancient truths.
Say what you will about the United States but we've never blown up ships in the harbors of our Allies.
No, but we did attack *our own fucking ships* in a foreign harbor as an excuse to knock over a domino we ourselves set up which is pretty obviously much worse.
That was called the Vietnam War if you pay as little attention to history as seems clear frrm your post.
Your plan simply changes the owner of the drug business. But, in essence, the goal is not achieved. People will continue to use drugs, no matter what.
Where do you get the idea that the goal is getting nobody doing drugs? The goal is to reduce the crime associated with drugs. Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of the problems generally associated with drugs are caused by drug laws rather than drugs themselves it does solve the problem.
If you really think it's the government's business to try and stop everyone from doing what they want to with no harm to you merely becasue you disapprove, then perhaps you should move somewhere like China where that sort of attitude is normal rather than remaining in a free country when you obviously don't like freedom.
No, I explicitly meant to *not* use Libertarianism because that's somewhere around Liberalism mixed with a dose of Randroidism which would make it a circular definition.
Definitions have changed, but the problem with the way the changes have progressed is that once upon a time we had Liberalism. This was then corrupted around about FDR taking that word as a mantle which was the Left co-opting the word. That led the Right to adopt it as an epithet which progressed (waves hands, omits details) to the present situation. Now, obviously I'm not breaking any news here, as there were plenty of people watching it happen. That's where Libertarianism came from. The "liberals" went left, the Liberals who had been somewhat mixed between the parties but more towards the Republican side as they were more Liberal than the once relevant American Left (at the time). Post WW2, as the Republicans went Fascist, the Libertarian party was born. The main difference between a Liberal and a Libertarian is that a Liberal has actually read The Wealth of Nations whereas a Libertarian likes to pretend they have while quoting a few passages context free.
Their problem is that they think a free market is actually real whereas it's only an abstraction like the frictionless planes and pendulums from high school physics. An unregulated market will *always* quickly deteriorate to a few people owning everyone. An over regulated market will quickly fuck off in any of a variety of ways, none of which you want to live through. So that's where the LP really fails. If they could get over that religious belief in a free market and deal with asymptotic approximation, then they could actually move forward instead of pissing on Harry Browne's grave with Bob Barr.
I think you meant "Objectivism is just Libertarianism..."?
Perhaps you just don't know what "Liberalism" means? Yes, that's much more likely. I'll give you a hint. Go read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those are the crowning achievements of Liberalism. If somebody in the US describes themselves as a liberal, then most likely they do not subscribe to the philosophy of Liberalism.
I spent 3 years after college living on $18-20k a year washing dishes. I didn't collect a dime of welfare or use any form of government support, or receive support from family members. Lets make this perfectly clear.
Did you, or did you not live in a rural area? Then you *were* on welfare. That is perfectly clear. Just because you didn't sign up for general assistance doesn't mean you're not on welfare. Did you have a phone? Electricity? Utilities? Then you were on fucking welfare paid for by me and the rest of the urban dwellers.
The point that I'm really trying to get accost here is that it's very possible to live off $20k in 90% of the US. The people that have problems, are having problems due to their own stupidity.
The point that I'm trying to get across is that if you live in a rural area then you can not even accurately assess that without taking into account all of the welfare payments you receive if you live in a rural area. If you don't count those, then you're lying plain and simple. You can not live on the same amount if you're paying the bills for the welfare states/areas. That's a plain and simple fact.
However, once G. W. Bush came along and new Republican leadership emerged in Congress, the party transformed to become as fiscally liberal, if not more so, than the Democrats. The only thing conservative about their fiscal policy was the choice of recipients of federal spending. Reagan had a similar fiscal policy, and the liberal Democratic Congress at the time went along with his approach of cutting taxes without adjusting spending patterns.
No, the party was exactly the same under Reagan as under Bush. Same policies same results. The only meaningful difference between Reagan and Bush is that Reagan was an actor and hence a very good liar where Bush is obviously lying most of the time. The Republican party had long since abandoned its old platform at that point and they had a chance to save it but they heartily rejected the old school Republican Barry Goldwater in favor of the fascist Ronald Reagan.
Please put down the crack pipe and realize that it was only very recently the Bush beat the record for growth of the federal government set by Reagan's unprecedented *growth of the federal government* due to his crazed spending, complete lack of fiscal responsibility and willingness to mortgage all of our futures for the benefit of arms dealers and the thieves of the S&L scandal. *That's* the debt we're being killed by now. Reagan's mad spending of borrowed money.
You have to go all the way back to FDR to find the guy whose recored Reagan broke. That's how bad of a fiscally responsible nutter he was. That doesn't even count the money he got from cocaine dealing which he used to arm fund and train the very fucking terrorists we're at "war" with currently.
Seriously if you're still in this day and age a member of the Reagan death cult, do us all a favor and kill yourself now. You were duped and you're too fucking stupid to have figured it out in almost 30 years. That's apocalypticly stupid.
Sure they do. McCain is catering to the religious extremists and the right wing fringe. That's what a typical Republican does. You seem to have them confused with the Libertarian party. They're the ones who believe in small government and fiscal responsibility. It's been that way for decades, so you really have no excuse for not being aware of that.
They have a Democrat nominee and a Socialist on the "opposing" side.
No, they have a right wing extremist in McCain and a moderate right winger in Obama. Pull your head out of your butt and learn what these words mean before spouting lies you're too ignorant to know are lies.
Neither of these candidates are preaching the conservative Republican view point. McCain has always been middle of the road.
Nonsense. McCain is preaching exactly the Republican view. You don't seem to have the foggiest idea what that is though. I think you have them confused with the Libertarians who broke off from the Republican party when the Republicans went fascist a long time ago. McCain isn't anywhere near middle of the road. Obama is far closer, but even he is on the right side of the middle.
So seriously, you probably shouldnt talk about things when your information is t least 30 years out of date. It makes you look really fucking crazy....Hmmm maybe you do fit in with the Republicans.
The GOP's sin was not rebelling against Bush earlier.
Hardly. Bush followed Reagan's policies which were just as disastrous and fascist (no shit, they were the same policies). Their "sins" go back far beyond Bush. Hell, that's why the Libertarian party was formed in the 50's because the Republicans were already going off the deep end into big fascist police state nonsense.
The primary "sin' of the Republican party is slagging Bush and canonizing Reagan when they had the same policies with the same results. Now that is about 7 different kinds of stupid.
I hate to say it but The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (like Battlefield Earth, the Mission: Earth series, and other books that inspired fringe cults) are just not that good... and not something I'd use as a base for a religio-political outlook.
Objectivism is just Liberalism dressed up as a religion instead of a philosophy with an unhealthy dose of sociopathy thrown on top.
A single person can live off $20k a year in many many rural areas in the country.
But only due to the fact that they are massively subsidized by the urban dwellers. That doesn't count as living off of their income. They live off of their income plus the welfare payments they extract from people like myself. Try and maintain at least a basic level of sanity in the future ok? Living off of subsidies (welfare) is not living off of your income is your lesson in sanity for today. Please try and learn from it so you don't repeat such idiotic nonsense.
(2) I consider corporate welfare to be a worse evil than individual welfare.
Wow, and you're a registered Republican? You are, of course therefore, a fucking moron. Apart from extremist religious loons vying for a theocracy and corporate welfare the Republican party has nothing at all to offer. That is the entirety of their platform and has been for at least the last 30 years.
So either you *do* love corporate welfare or you're a fucking moron. QED
You might consider thinking for once in your life about that fact. Had you ever spent 5 minutes out of your life informing yourself about the *actions* of the Republican party then you would know that hence you've obviously never even taken that 5 minutes before signing on to the party of biggest most oppressive government.
It's exactly this type of pig headed ignorance and delusion that is destroying this country.
You vote for the fascist party because you hate corporate welfare?!? Then you are quite literally dumber than a bag of rocks.
Please spend 5 minutes thinking for once in your fucking life. Your abject failure as a citizen has real affects on everyone around you and it is your responsibility. Of course, you're a Republican and therefore me know that personal responsibility is like kryptonite to you sickening fascist fucks.
people who definitely believed in the existence of Hell (e.g. many popes during the Renaissance) continued to lie, cheat, and steal.
If you honestly believe that religious leaders are ever stupid enough to believe the nonsense they're peddling to the rubes, then you are seriously naive.
Claiming that McCain and Obama are *equally* bad is ridiculous and puts you squarely in the "part of the problem" category.
Of course Obama will have to raise taxes. That's what happens when the Republicans go on one of their crazy drunken spending sprees.
Bush is just following along in Reagan's footsteps. Bush I was forced *by Reagan's disastrous voodoo economics* to raise taxes to pay the bills Reagan ran up on credit.
Bush followed pretty much identical policies as Reagan across the board with the same results.
Raising taxes isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Spending at levels requiring it is a bad thing. Obama will spend less than Bush did if history is any guide. Democrats spend a lot and tax to pay for it. Republican spend *a lot more* and put it on the credit card at interest. So raising taxes to cover the current Republican spending spree is just standard MO.
I suppose you think Reagan and Bush's bills will be paid with fairy dust and unicorn farts?
McCain has nothing to offer except for having been Bush's lapdog over the last 8 years after having lost to Bush after Bush sold him as a coward (this coming from a deserter even) who had a black baby.
Now after disgracing himself by kissing the ass of such a scumbag McCain wants to keep leading us on down the same path that the sane people knew was a disaster when Reagan was pulling the same fucking scam.
There's no fucking way Obama could be as bad even if he wanted to. He doesn't have the sycophantic lockstep goosestepping among his party that's come to define the Republican party.
The Republican party believes in big fascist government and theocracy and that's it given the evidence of the last 30 years. We fought that shit in WW2, and not only did we elect the son and a grandson of man who betrayed America to the Nazis in WW2, but we're continuing even farther down that right wing path.
A vote for McCain is a piss in the face of everybody who fought the Nazis. Just like voting Reagan Bush or Bush was.
So, considering the bailout package was created by the Democrat Congress, who are you blaming exactly?
Now now, the Republicans didn't like it because it wasn't big and wasteful enough for them. Once another 100 Billion or so of utterly useless crap was thrown in they were happy to vote for it.
Keep in mind that while the Democrats are the big government party, the Republicans are the even bigger government party (and have been for 30 years) so this is totally consistent with their 'values'.
I agree, now, the question is, how do you think the markets are responding with the prospect of a left wing dictatorship of at least 2 years in the offing?
What laughable ignorance of basic political terminology.
The best case scenario realistically possible in this election is the overthrow of an extremist right wing (big government fascism) "dictatorship" and its replacement with a moderate right wing "dictatorship". There's no prayer of even getting back to the center which is the basis of America, let alone hitting even the middle of the left wing.
Perhaps you should learn what words mean before you use them? Perhaps you should pull your head out of your ass and take a look around at the world once in a while? You might not come across as an insane drooling nutter who can't think and can only repeat the idiotic propaganda the media feeds you.
Slashdot Mirror
To me, sex is way more natural than murder.
Now now, they're equally natural. Just one is moral, ethical and wonderful and one is immoral, unethical and disgusting.
The problem is that there are too many lunatics around who can't figure out which is which.
The college radio stations would even play The Ballad of Jerry Curlan
Ahhh, I love that song. I was like 12 when I first heard it. "Sleeps with midgets, drives a Ferrari and sucks assholes" ;-)
You gotta love the Angry Samoans
And no, I didn't click the link. No flash on the computer I'm on.
Dude, why didn't you just say Ohio in the first place.
Everybody in Ohio is living off of welfare on my dime. That's one of the Welfare states. Rural or urban or anywhere in between doesn't even matter. Just say Ohio, and we'll all know "welfare state".
Heck, take a few minutes out of your life and look where the tax dollars go. They go from provider states to the welfare states like Ohio...and Alaska, the queen of the welfare states where McCain's bridge to nowhere, or "Moose Fucker" as I like to call that insult to women everywhere is from.
Were there a chance that I would be the one deciding between the lesser of 2 evils, then certainly I'd vote for Obama. I've never voted for a major party candidate for president, because that is a wasted vote IMO. I voted for Obama for the Senate and he spent most of his time campaigning rather than representing me.
When he voted for the treason immunity bill, he declared himself a traitor. How can you take somebody seriously running for an office whose oath he's already willfully and with malice aforethought violated while running for it?
McCain did the same though. McCain is also Bush's lapdog and Bush is the worst traitor in American history
The Republican party went whole hog into Fascism with the election of Reagan, so there's no chance in hell I would ever vote for anybody sleazy enough to put on their mantle.
So, yes, I wouldn't think differently but I would act differently which is what I think you're asking.
The Republicans have just widened the evil gap so far that it's no contest for a sane person anymore.
Where in that incident did we attack our own ships?
Mea Culpa.
We didn't do that. We did basically make up the second attack claiming it was absolutely certainly an attack knowing full well that that was bullshit as the recently released SIGINT proves. The radar operator might have made an error, but the lie by the government about it afterwards was just like Bush's lies to get us into Iraq, again, solely for profit at the expense of the American people. Given that we were only over there after having set up the domino for the purpose of starting a war, though, it's still a far sleazier action.
I pay a lot of attention to history. Maybe you should pay some attention to your typing and/or spelling?
Ah, the old "you made a typo". I guess you really nailed me now.
When someone asks ME to define Libertarian, I point to our President Thomas Jefferson as a prime example. Some of his ideas were almost Anarchist in nature, except that he recognized the need for a government to provide peace & to protect the individual's basic rights.
No. He was a Liberal. That's why Liberalism is the basis of America. He was the prime architect and would have called himself Liberal.
Libertarian means Jefferson (Liberal) plus Randroid baggage.
There I've done it, I've become a "lesser of two evililest" something I never thought I would do, sigh.
Ha Ha, not me sucker!
Oh wait.. I live in Chicago so I'm not actually risking anything by still voting third party ;-)
I'll never understand why we sent 4,000 of our sons and daughters to their graves in Mesopotamia but opted not to deploy them in significant numbers when we actually had a chance to capture/kill OBL. WTF?
Wow, you have an extremely low opinion of yourself if you think you'll never understand something so trivially simple.
They were sent to their deaths because it was profitable to the President and his friends.
That's it. The absolute and 100% accurate answer. It's not at all difficult to see. Why such low self esteem so you think you couldn't have figured out something that's been *really* obvious for thousands of years?
That type of ignorance is why we keep ending up in these wars for the sake of profiting off of war. Try thinking next time rather than declaring yourself an idiot and incapable of understanding simple ancient truths.
Say what you will about the United States but we've never blown up ships in the harbors of our Allies.
No, but we did attack *our own fucking ships* in a foreign harbor as an excuse to knock over a domino we ourselves set up which is pretty obviously much worse.
That was called the Vietnam War if you pay as little attention to history as seems clear frrm your post.
Your plan simply changes the owner of the drug business. But, in essence, the goal is not achieved. People will continue to use drugs, no matter what.
Where do you get the idea that the goal is getting nobody doing drugs? The goal is to reduce the crime associated with drugs. Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of the problems generally associated with drugs are caused by drug laws rather than drugs themselves it does solve the problem.
If you really think it's the government's business to try and stop everyone from doing what they want to with no harm to you merely becasue you disapprove, then perhaps you should move somewhere like China where that sort of attitude is normal rather than remaining in a free country when you obviously don't like freedom.
No, I explicitly meant to *not* use Libertarianism because that's somewhere around Liberalism mixed with a dose of Randroidism which would make it a circular definition.
Definitions have changed, but the problem with the way the changes have progressed is that once upon a time we had Liberalism. This was then corrupted around about FDR taking that word as a mantle which was the Left co-opting the word. That led the Right to adopt it as an epithet which progressed (waves hands, omits details) to the present situation. Now, obviously I'm not breaking any news here, as there were plenty of people watching it happen. That's where Libertarianism came from. The "liberals" went left, the Liberals who had been somewhat mixed between the parties but more towards the Republican side as they were more Liberal than the once relevant American Left (at the time).
Post WW2, as the Republicans went Fascist, the Libertarian party was born.
The main difference between a Liberal and a Libertarian is that a Liberal has actually read The Wealth of Nations whereas a Libertarian likes to pretend they have while quoting a few passages context free.
Their problem is that they think a free market is actually real whereas it's only an abstraction like the frictionless planes and pendulums from high school physics. An unregulated market will *always* quickly deteriorate to a few people owning everyone. An over regulated market will quickly fuck off in any of a variety of ways, none of which you want to live through. So that's where the LP really fails. If they could get over that religious belief in a free market and deal with asymptotic approximation, then they could actually move forward instead of pissing on Harry Browne's grave with Bob Barr.
I think you meant "Objectivism is just Libertarianism..."?
Perhaps you just don't know what "Liberalism" means?
Yes, that's much more likely. I'll give you a hint. Go read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those are the crowning achievements of Liberalism. If somebody in the US describes themselves as a liberal, then most likely they do not subscribe to the philosophy of Liberalism.
I spent 3 years after college living on $18-20k a year washing dishes. I didn't collect a dime of welfare or use any form of government support, or receive support from family members. Lets make this perfectly clear.
Did you, or did you not live in a rural area? Then you *were* on welfare. That is perfectly clear. Just because you didn't sign up for general assistance doesn't mean you're not on welfare. Did you have a phone? Electricity? Utilities? Then you were on fucking welfare paid for by me and the rest of the urban dwellers.
The point that I'm really trying to get accost here is that it's very possible to live off $20k in 90% of the US. The people that have problems, are having problems due to their own stupidity.
The point that I'm trying to get across is that if you live in a rural area then you can not even accurately assess that without taking into account all of the welfare payments you receive if you live in a rural area. If you don't count those, then you're lying plain and simple. You can not live on the same amount if you're paying the bills for the welfare states/areas. That's a plain and simple fact.
However, once G. W. Bush came along and new Republican leadership emerged in Congress, the party transformed to become as fiscally liberal, if not more so, than the Democrats. The only thing conservative about their fiscal policy was the choice of recipients of federal spending. Reagan had a similar fiscal policy, and the liberal Democratic Congress at the time went along with his approach of cutting taxes without adjusting spending patterns.
No, the party was exactly the same under Reagan as under Bush. Same policies same results. The only meaningful difference between Reagan and Bush is that Reagan was an actor and hence a very good liar where Bush is obviously lying most of the time.
The Republican party had long since abandoned its old platform at that point and they had a chance to save it but they heartily rejected the old school Republican Barry Goldwater in favor of the fascist Ronald Reagan.
Please put down the crack pipe and realize that it was only very recently the Bush beat the record for growth of the federal government set by Reagan's unprecedented *growth of the federal government* due to his crazed spending, complete lack of fiscal responsibility and willingness to mortgage all of our futures for the benefit of arms dealers and the thieves of the S&L scandal. *That's* the debt we're being killed by now. Reagan's mad spending of borrowed money.
You have to go all the way back to FDR to find the guy whose recored Reagan broke. That's how bad of a fiscally responsible nutter he was. That doesn't even count the money he got from cocaine dealing which he used to arm fund and train the very fucking terrorists we're at "war" with currently.
Seriously if you're still in this day and age a member of the Reagan death cult, do us all a favor and kill yourself now. You were duped and you're too fucking stupid to have figured it out in almost 30 years. That's apocalypticly stupid.
Wow, you are a deeply ignorant fool.
The Republicans have no one to vote for.
Sure they do. McCain is catering to the religious extremists and the right wing fringe. That's what a typical Republican does. You seem to have them confused with the Libertarian party. They're the ones who believe in small government and fiscal responsibility. It's been that way for decades, so you really have no excuse for not being aware of that.
They have a Democrat nominee and a Socialist on the "opposing" side.
No, they have a right wing extremist in McCain and a moderate right winger in Obama. Pull your head out of your butt and learn what these words mean before spouting lies you're too ignorant to know are lies.
Neither of these candidates are preaching the conservative Republican view point. McCain has always been middle of the road.
Nonsense. McCain is preaching exactly the Republican view. You don't seem to have the foggiest idea what that is though. I think you have them confused with the Libertarians who broke off from the Republican party when the Republicans went fascist a long time ago.
McCain isn't anywhere near middle of the road. Obama is far closer, but even he is on the right side of the middle.
So seriously, you probably shouldnt talk about things when your information is t least 30 years out of date. It makes you look really fucking crazy....Hmmm maybe you do fit in with the Republicans.
Never heard of making the word math plural?!?!?
It's a Brit thing (my wife's one of them, ;-)
mathematics
So it makes logical sense, but it still sounds stupid ;-)
The GOP's sin was not rebelling against Bush earlier.
Hardly. Bush followed Reagan's policies which were just as disastrous and fascist (no shit, they were the same policies). Their "sins" go back far beyond Bush. Hell, that's why the Libertarian party was formed in the 50's because the Republicans were already going off the deep end into big fascist police state nonsense.
The primary "sin' of the Republican party is slagging Bush and canonizing Reagan when they had the same policies with the same results. Now that is about 7 different kinds of stupid.
Fuck that. I'm still paying student loans from college, and so is my mom. Where are the people to lift US up??
Those would be the people who made the money available for your and your mom's loans in the first place. i.e. The American public.
I hate to say it but The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (like Battlefield Earth, the Mission: Earth series, and other books that inspired fringe cults) are just not that good... and not something I'd use as a base for a religio-political outlook.
Objectivism is just Liberalism dressed up as a religion instead of a philosophy with an unhealthy dose of sociopathy thrown on top.
A single person can live off $20k a year in many many rural areas in the country.
But only due to the fact that they are massively subsidized by the urban dwellers. That doesn't count as living off of their income. They live off of their income plus the welfare payments they extract from people like myself. Try and maintain at least a basic level of sanity in the future ok? Living off of subsidies (welfare) is not living off of your income is your lesson in sanity for today. Please try and learn from it so you don't repeat such idiotic nonsense.
(2) I consider corporate welfare to be a worse evil than individual welfare.
Wow, and you're a registered Republican?
You are, of course therefore, a fucking moron. Apart from extremist religious loons vying for a theocracy and corporate welfare the Republican party has nothing at all to offer. That is the entirety of their platform and has been for at least the last 30 years.
So either you *do* love corporate welfare or you're a fucking moron. QED
You might consider thinking for once in your life about that fact. Had you ever spent 5 minutes out of your life informing yourself about the *actions* of the Republican party then you would know that hence you've obviously never even taken that 5 minutes before signing on to the party of biggest most oppressive government.
It's exactly this type of pig headed ignorance and delusion that is destroying this country.
You vote for the fascist party because you hate corporate welfare?!?
Then you are quite literally dumber than a bag of rocks.
Please spend 5 minutes thinking for once in your fucking life. Your abject failure as a citizen has real affects on everyone around you and it is your responsibility. Of course, you're a Republican and therefore me know that personal responsibility is like kryptonite to you sickening fascist fucks.
people who definitely believed in the existence of Hell (e.g. many popes during the Renaissance) continued to lie, cheat, and steal.
If you honestly believe that religious leaders are ever stupid enough to believe the nonsense they're peddling to the rubes, then you are seriously naive.
Claiming that McCain and Obama are *equally* bad is ridiculous and puts you squarely in the "part of the problem" category.
Of course Obama will have to raise taxes. That's what happens when the Republicans go on one of their crazy drunken spending sprees.
Bush is just following along in Reagan's footsteps. Bush I was forced *by Reagan's disastrous voodoo economics* to raise taxes to pay the bills Reagan ran up on credit.
Bush followed pretty much identical policies as Reagan across the board with the same results.
Raising taxes isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Spending at levels requiring it is a bad thing. Obama will spend less than Bush did if history is any guide. Democrats spend a lot and tax to pay for it. Republican spend *a lot more* and put it on the credit card at interest.
So raising taxes to cover the current Republican spending spree is just standard MO.
I suppose you think Reagan and Bush's bills will be paid with fairy dust and unicorn farts?
McCain has nothing to offer except for having been Bush's lapdog over the last 8 years after having lost to Bush after Bush sold him as a coward (this coming from a deserter even) who had a black baby.
Now after disgracing himself by kissing the ass of such a scumbag McCain wants to keep leading us on down the same path that the sane people knew was a disaster when Reagan was pulling the same fucking scam.
There's no fucking way Obama could be as bad even if he wanted to. He doesn't have the sycophantic lockstep goosestepping among his party that's come to define the Republican party.
The Republican party believes in big fascist government and theocracy and that's it given the evidence of the last 30 years. We fought that shit in WW2, and not only did we elect the son and a grandson of man who betrayed America to the Nazis in WW2, but we're continuing even farther down that right wing path.
A vote for McCain is a piss in the face of everybody who fought the Nazis. Just like voting Reagan Bush or Bush was.
So, considering the bailout package was created by the Democrat Congress, who are you blaming exactly?
Now now, the Republicans didn't like it because it wasn't big and wasteful enough for them. Once another 100 Billion or so of utterly useless crap was thrown in they were happy to vote for it.
Keep in mind that while the Democrats are the big government party, the Republicans are the even bigger government party (and have been for 30 years) so this is totally consistent with their 'values'.
I agree, now, the question is, how do you think the markets are responding with the prospect of a left wing dictatorship of at least 2 years in the offing?
What laughable ignorance of basic political terminology.
The best case scenario realistically possible in this election is the overthrow of an extremist right wing (big government fascism) "dictatorship" and its replacement with a moderate right wing "dictatorship".
There's no prayer of even getting back to the center which is the basis of America, let alone hitting even the middle of the left wing.
Perhaps you should learn what words mean before you use them?
Perhaps you should pull your head out of your ass and take a look around at the world once in a while? You might not come across as an insane drooling nutter who can't think and can only repeat the idiotic propaganda the media feeds you.