As for morality crimes... do you want hookers turning tricks in your front yard? I suspect not. Do you want to live next to a dope house? If you're an addict, it's convenient...
And it's this deep level of ignorance and idiocy demonstrated by your post which is keeping our country well and truly fucked.
Look, you fucking moron, *legal* hookers will not be in your front yard. *legal* drugs will be sold in a fucking store like everything else.
All of the "problems" you listed are caused *entirely* by these criminal laws, not by drugs or prostitution.
Please pull your head out of your ass and look around just for a second for once in your god damned life. If you are truly stupid enough to believe that idiotic nonsense you spewed out (clearly without having ever given it one second's thought) then you really are a tremendous liability to everybody around you. Your utter failure to understand simple cause and effect is doing nothing positive and is only providing support for the single biggest cause of violent crime and police state government we've ever had.
Please try to think in the future. Even a little bit would help.
I'm sure my view won't be popular, but if it is so easy to be a police officer in a high crime area where the criminals have guns and have no problem shooting a cop, why isn't there a line of people waiting for that job.
Because your job would be primarily to enforce unconstitutional laws with no basis or justification. Duh. You aren't going to find decent people willing to forsake all decency to take such a disgusting job. Maybe it's simply all the evil pricks already have jobs as cops and so there are no more available?
The victims hate the cops as much as the criminals.
No shit. They are quite familiar with the fucking pigs and their criminal jobs. That is a good thing. It demonstrates that they are sane.
After the criminals have killed each other off, then the survivors might decide they want police.
Or simply eliminate the insane drug laws that are the primary cause of violent crime in this country.
Seriously, pull your head out. People are not going to like the fuckers who are *causing* the massive increase in violent crime and the destruction of their neighborhoods. Of course, you don't offer any useful suggestions. Just punish the victims even more. What a fantastic fucking attitude.
It's ok for the crook to hit the cop, but the cop can't hit back.
You're a liar, a fool, or probably both.
Cops regularly beat the fuck out of innocent people and if the cop hurts his foot kicking you in the head then you will be charged with assault. I know that for a fact since it happened to me.
So, you attitude is probably unpopular because it is stupid and deeply ignorant of reality. You clearly do not know a fucking thing about what goes on with the police in this country. Since you are so blatantly and incredibly ignorant, kindly shut the fuck up about it. All you're doing is proving yourself to be an ignorant fool.
Absolutely! Except for those things caused by George Bush, of course.
Riiiight...
Except, you forgot the part above where Shrub caused global warming. So he's included automatically as a cause for things that he's caused have caused;-)
It's totally unclear to me why we Americans are often the focus of such hatred abroad. We're such good neighbors.
Heh, true enough. The honesty of the comment was quite refreshing. I wish our politicians had the integrity to speak honestly like that. It would completely destroy the "moral" douchebags though as everything they support is slimy as hell. The Orwellian language the politicians use allow those folks to hide behind lies and claim the moral high ground. Heck, if we could get them to be honest about this, then we can go for calling farm subsidies "socialism", which they are, and completely destroy the world view of those cowardly leeches.
It's very ironic that my post has been moderated flaimbait when it is obviously not, as I don't believe in free speech but the moderator probably thinks that he himself does but is trying to (unjustly) deny me that 'speech'.
It's not in the least ironic. You set up a strawman argument about the moderator and whined like the little bitch you are over getting downmodded. The fact that you don't believe in free speech removes your right to whine about it. You're getting exactly what you're asking for. Oh wait, you're asking to be the only one allowed to decide what speech others are allowed and nobody is allowed to restrict yours. That isn't irony, it's justice.
The only choice here is whether or not to be free. Your definition of freedom leads straight to slavery. In sexual terms: a slavery to your body.
You are such a fucking idiotic nitwit.
None of the bullshit you're spewing has anything to do with freedom.
All you're doing is claiming that by everyone else giving up what they enjoy to live according to your moronic standards they'll be free. That is pure ignorant crap. All that will do is make them slaves to *your* ideas rather than free to follow their own.
Like all fascist assholes you want to control others and offer nothing except ignorance, hatred and delusion.
Further a liberal's idea of freedom is being able to persue one's desires. However most cultures and religions define freedom as over-coming one's own desires, rather than being a slave to them, and also the pressures of the world around you.
Bullshit. Buddhism says that, but none of the other major religions do. No cultures define it as anything of the sort. Slavery is much closer to the word you're looking for and that is what Judaism, Christianity and Islam are dedicated to. It's not a question of overcoming desires it's solely a matter of control and always has been. Deluding yourself otherwise is the act of a coward.
Who is stronger : the one who gives in to desire and loses their virginity or the one who resists and waits for the arrival of the beloved?
This is a no brainer. The one who loses their virginity is stronger. They overcame delusional cowardly hate based religious nonsense in order to do what is normal, healthy, and good.
Holding out because some evil cowards pushed their hatreds into a made up fairy tale in order to control you is cowardice and weakness. Rejecting something so gross and disgusting yet endemic takes strength.
God never encourages or approves murder/genocide/etc. God simply punishes people for their extremely sinful ways.
Dude, try actually reading the fucking thing. How did the Hebrews gain control of Palestine? Genocide at "god's" command. Look at the other responses to your extremely ignorant and deluded lies for dozens of other examples.
You obviously read the book, but you did not understand anything.
I understand it just fine. You obviously don't understand anything most likely because you long ago begged the question, assuming that it must be true and then desperately cling to insane delusional interpretations in order to convince yourself that your faulty assumption is correct. If you don't magically decide beforehand that the bible must be true, then it's pretty easy to understand it. There is nothing magical about it.
There is nothing wrong with any of that. If you presume the non-existence of God then fine, there's a problem, but that would not be to take the Bible on its own terms, in which case the reader has a bias.
Where do you get this crazy shit?!?
On it's own terms, the Bible is a book. That's it.
Now, assuming that all the batshit insane shit in it is true, well that's just plain crazy. You don't have to "presume" the non existence of god since that is the default position and the only sane one. Think that's untrue? Provide evidence for the existence of god. Don't have any? Then believing it is batshit insane.
But it is unfair to say, at this time, that the bible mandates unjust violence since no one has yet found a way to prove the non-existence of God. And logically it looks to be impossible (ie. a lack of evidence doesn't actually prove that he doesn't exist).
Bullshit. The existence or nonexistence of god is irrelevant to the fact that the bible is a book dedicated to glorifying atrocities. The only bearing god's existence or lack thereof has to do with the topic at all is that if he does exist then he's a vile monster lower on the moral scale than any person ever. If he doesn't exist (only rational view possible) then only the asshats who keep pimping that biblical bullshit are monsters and god merely their delusion.
It doesn't admit logical proof one way or the other, but then neither does it admit any reasons at all to believe in anything so patently ridiculous and with such massive internal contradictions.
So, whether or not there is a god is an open question although one of no real value. The existence of the god in the bible, on the other hand, is absolutely false though and easily proven so in many ways. The contradictions alone give us that.
There is no text in the Bible that promotes rape and stoning. I am against religion as much as possible, but we atheists must be truthful. The Bible refers to rape and stoning as sinful acts that must be avoided.
Dude, you're a fucking idiot.
Stoning is the God approved punishment for a large variety of silly "crimes" in the Bible. Including shit as meaningless as saying god's name or telling your wife that this whole god thing is idiotic and we should bail on it. Hell, Jesus even stated directly and absolutely that every single word of God's laws are still in effect and that he is not removing a single word from them, so you can't even try the old "but that was the old testament" nonsense.
Seriously, God regularly encouraged murder, genocide and engaged in the same on moronic whims over nothing.
You've obviously never read the book, so why waste your time telling idiotic lies?
She does keep getting worse, doesn't she? I thought she was so damn cool during Bill's first term, now she seems like a completely different person: one who will do or say anything to pander for votes.
Yeah, I was in college when Bill was running and she came and spoke at my university. She was much more about positives and the like back then than she is now. I thought she seemed fairly decent for a politician (scum, but not scummy enough to rise to the top) but now she's on the religious extremist nutjob bandwagon and on the "durrr save the childrens" bandwagon so she can go fuck herself. Does she honestly think that any of those whackjobs will be voting for her regardless of what silly lies she tells? Amazing.
I voted for W in 2000 because I thought Gore was an empty suit being handled by a slick campaign. I knew better by 2004 but it was too late.
OK, but have you done anything to inform yourself as to how it was possible for you to make such a huge fucking mistake which was obvious to anybody with any sense? I mean, not voting for the son of a president is good and all, but what have you done to prevent yourself from fucking up so bad on something so simple again?
I mean, seriously, Gore an empty suit handled by a slick campaign? More or less, but Bush was quite obviously that times 10. So that couldn't possibly have had a damn thing to do with your decision. Why do you still have to lie about it even when you're admitting your mistake?
Also, have you bothered to do anything about your responsibilities as a citizen as far as figuring out how you could have been so fucking blind? I mean a vote for Bush in 2000 was a vote to make up a bunch of bullshit as an excuse to invade Iraq and that was *blatantly fucking obvious* prior to the 2000 election.
So, it's good that you recognize what a fucking disaster you helped cause for those of us who actually are citizens rather than subjects, but as an actual citizen, I want to know what you have changed in order to prevent yourself from being used once again as a weapon in a savage assault on America. Have you really learned *anything* meaningful from your gross dereliction of your duties?
Sure he sucks. Most Conservatives consider him to be a "liberal".
That's only because "conservatives" are too fucking stupid to know what either of those words actually mean. Bush is a pure Republican through and through.
The entire Government is corrupt. Why do you nutjobs focus on BUSH so much?
Because he is the scum that has risen to the top. Because his incompetence allowed 9/11, and then he premeditatively used that attack as an excuse to invade Iraq based on lies.
Because we're so fucking sick of *still* hearing about how Clinton this Clinton that in response to *every* *legitimate* criticism of this fucking scumbag.
So, plenty of reasons. When he gets out of office, pardons all of the fucking traitors who compose his administration and they go right back into power, then we'll be criticizing whatever fucking douche so despises integrity as to give those fuckers jobs ever again.
"You know, I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Ronald Reagan." If I'd said that in 1999 my parents probably would have disowned me. In 2004, they just nodded sagely.
Meh. The only difference is time. Bush is just the next step in the Reagan revolution. Were Bush elected in Reagan's time and Reagan in Bush's there'd be pretty much no difference at all. Hell, the people running the administrations have hardly changed. In fact, Reagan now would have been even worse. He was such a good liar, being an actor, that he'd have much higher approval ratings from the fools who approve of such things than Bush. At least there are some fools waking up to their insanity given how idiotic and obviously dishonest Bush is.
The tax cuts and deregulation are largely a joke. Even independent of the war, Bush has been a bigger liberal than some of the liberals, running wild with the government Visa card.
Totally redundant and content free. He's a Republican. That means he believes in bigger, more oppressive government than any liberal. Do you not even have the foggiest understanding of what the Republican party stands for? If you say anything about small government, fiscal responsibility or anything even remotely requiring integrity then you clearly don't.
The tax cuts are good, I'll admit, but our tax burden is still higher than it was under the Clinton administration; they are not a substitute for sound fiscal policy. So, economically the conservatives are no better than the liberals now.
I think you might be so overboard on your "liberal" hatred that your view is so slanted as to be incapable of dealing with reality.
"Tax cuts" in isolation might be good, but lets look at the reality by way of an example:
I'll send you $5.00 and then you give me your credit card with no balance and say a $5000 limit. I'll spend all of your $5000 on worthless shit which I will then go light on fire. Then you're stuck paying my $5000 plus interest You made out on that deal, huh?
Now, are you happy about that? Willing to give it a shot?
No? Then quit talking about tax cuts. That's exactly the deal you got with the tax cuts. i.e. it was no sort of a cut. I got no checks from the government and my taxes have gone up, so I don't even have the ignorant delusion that there was anything good about them.
So, as long as people keep repeating the tax cut bullshit when the only thing that happened is that Bush took out massive high interest loans from China in your name, we'll continue to have a debate totally unrelated to reality.
but our tax burden is still higher than it was under the Clinton administration;
And 100% guaranteed to get *much* worse as soon as we actually have to start paying for Bush's massive increases in government power and spending.
So, economically the conservatives are no better than the liberals now
Now?!?! What the fuck kind of rock have you been living under for the last couplke of decades? No, economically, the "conservatives" have been *far* *far* worse than the "liberals" since 1980 when the Republicans single handedly took the title of party of biggest government. The Democrats haven't been in the same league as the Republicans for corruption, theft, massive spending and increases in government for several decades.
Clinton I had the advantage of a real Republican congress (as opposed to the welfare-statist "compassionate conservatives" that have taken control of the party since 2000)
They took complete control of the Republican party back in 1980 with Reagan's first term. You're 20 years off on that one. You might want to take a little time and actually look at Reagan's record. He was one of if not the worst presidents we've ever had. Reagan led the *largest* increase in the size of the federal government ever. You don't get more big government nanny state bullshit than Reagan.
As for foreign policy, he didn't notice the terrorism threat, but then again, neither did Carter, Reagan, or Bush I.
Sure they did. Reagan more or less invented the terrorist "threat". Bush just made up a bunch of nonsense to sell it as some huge thing when it still isn't a meaningful threat.
I'll vote for Hillary in 2008 if that is what it takes to keep the theocrats from pushing their agenda, but I have no illusions about what she'll do to this country in the long run if unchecked.
So you haven't noticed Hillary's recent sucking up to the very theocrats you propose voting for her to avoid?!?!?
Wow, just wow.
And you probably actually consider yourself more informed than average and you're this bad. This country is well and truly fucked.
I'd say Clinton was a right-winger with centrist tendencies, and Hillary is a centrist.
And I'd say Bill was a moderate right winger and Hillary is a left-fascist with right wing tendencies. She keeps getting worse too what with the "eval video gamez" and the "more Christian than thou" bullshit she's started in on recently.
She's definitely not a centrist though unless you're using that to mean she exhibits the worst tendencies of both sides.
I live up around this area. There seems to be this romantic notion amongst those living in the lower 48 that these "Eskimos" still live in igloos, travel by dogsled and wear seal skin parkas.
I think you might have misinterpreted our romantic notion. It's not "Eskimos" who live in igloos, travel by dogsled and wear seal skin parkas. That would be the "Canadians".
I guess this is where our sense of morals differ: while you consider my point of view "idiotic in the extreme", I consider that saying in absolute terms that anyone who would break in to your house should be killed on sight extremely disturbing.
I didn't say that they should be killed on sight. I said that to assume that they are not a threat to you after they have already broken into your house is idiotic in the extreme which you have said nothing to address. The default assumption for another person you meet on the street should be positive or at the least neutral. That is entirely irrelevant to the default assumption regarding a person who has already crossed way over the line to the point that if they're thinking at all rationally they *will* hurt you and your family if it means avoiding the consequences of actions that they have already taken.
Even if they get caught after doing all that, then they are most likely *better* off for having assaulted you since they have more charges to play around with in court and will do less time than if they didn't assault you. That is the reality of our court system.
So, yes, your point of view is idiotic in the extreme because it is not even remotely based on reality. Heck, you obviously know that since you couldn't come up with anything to defend your position except some mindless nonsense about "morality" and a complete misrepresentation of my position.
What I don't understand is how can USPS be as stupid as to realize that the master keys were stolen, and to not change the locks? I mean, who the hell doesn't change his/her locks when the keys are stolen? Keys are stolen for a specific purpose (theft), as far as I know...
This sort of shit is an epidemic. Take the INS for example. My wife is from England, we got married, applied for her green card and were approved. After not receiving it, we called up and they said they mailed it. Well, we live in Chicago which has the worst postal service in the country. Our particular post office is the worst in Chicago. So somebody (possibly with the help of some post office employee, who knows?) stole a green card out of our mail. We went to get a replacement and begged to be allowed to pay to have it shipped FedEX, registered mail, *anything* but the postal service to our house. No dice. The INS's answer? I pay another $200 for a replacement which was likewise stolen before we ever saw it.
Only after threatening them with a lawsuit would they agree to mail it to our lawyer's office and even then they were all about how "this is highly irregular" etc.
So, that's the state of our current immigration system: Make the people doing it honestly pay for multiple green cards for illegals before finally doing the right thing after being threatened.
If they are buying pot that they didn't grow, they contributed to the larger drug problem because they are tied together.
That's a crap argument. There is no "larger drug problem". All of those problems are caused entirely by drug *laws* not by drugs.
So, the OPs point is absolutely "entirely true". Pot smokers cause zero problems for society. Drug laws directly cause massive amounts of violent crime and are tremendously damaging to society.
Yes, it should be legalized.
Absolutely. Both because the drug laws are far and away the single biggest cause of violent crime that exist and because the government has no right whatsoever to restrict them in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
As for morality crimes... do you want hookers turning tricks in your front yard? I suspect not. Do you want to live next to a dope house? If you're an addict, it's convenient...
And it's this deep level of ignorance and idiocy demonstrated by your post which is keeping our country well and truly fucked.
Look, you fucking moron, *legal* hookers will not be in your front yard. *legal* drugs will be sold in a fucking store like everything else.
All of the "problems" you listed are caused *entirely* by these criminal laws, not by drugs or prostitution.
Please pull your head out of your ass and look around just for a second for once in your god damned life.
If you are truly stupid enough to believe that idiotic nonsense you spewed out (clearly without having ever given it one second's thought) then you really are a tremendous liability to everybody around you.
Your utter failure to understand simple cause and effect is doing nothing positive and is only providing support for the single biggest cause of violent crime and police state government we've ever had.
Please try to think in the future. Even a little bit would help.
I'm sure my view won't be popular, but if it is so easy to be a police officer in a high crime area where the criminals have guns and have no problem shooting a cop, why isn't there a line of people waiting for that job.
Because your job would be primarily to enforce unconstitutional laws with no basis or justification. Duh. You aren't going to find decent people willing to forsake all decency to take such a disgusting job. Maybe it's simply all the evil pricks already have jobs as cops and so there are no more available?
The victims hate the cops as much as the criminals.
No shit. They are quite familiar with the fucking pigs and their criminal jobs. That is a good thing. It demonstrates that they are sane.
After the criminals have killed each other off, then the survivors might decide they want police.
Or simply eliminate the insane drug laws that are the primary cause of violent crime in this country.
Seriously, pull your head out. People are not going to like the fuckers who are *causing* the massive increase in violent crime and the destruction of their neighborhoods. Of course, you don't offer any useful suggestions. Just punish the victims even more. What a fantastic fucking attitude.
It's ok for the crook to hit the cop, but the cop can't hit back.
You're a liar, a fool, or probably both.
Cops regularly beat the fuck out of innocent people and if the cop hurts his foot kicking you in the head then you will be charged with assault.
I know that for a fact since it happened to me.
So, you attitude is probably unpopular because it is stupid and deeply ignorant of reality. You clearly do not know a fucking thing about what goes on with the police in this country.
Since you are so blatantly and incredibly ignorant, kindly shut the fuck up about it. All you're doing is proving yourself to be an ignorant fool.
Absolutely! Except for those things caused by George Bush, of course.
;-)
Riiiight...
Except, you forgot the part above where Shrub caused global warming. So he's included automatically as a cause for things that he's caused have caused
Isn't copyright infringement illegal?
Both that and the question of what constitutes copyright infringement are matters of jurisdiction.
In any case, I fail to see how The Pirate Bay hosting my images suddenly makes them uncensorable.
Uncensored.
Big difference. The first is impossible, the second is near equivalent to "boobies".
Oh, and cool sig ;-)
It's totally unclear to me why we Americans are often the focus of such hatred abroad. We're such good neighbors.
Heh, true enough. The honesty of the comment was quite refreshing. I wish our politicians had the integrity to speak honestly like that. It would completely destroy the "moral" douchebags though as everything they support is slimy as hell. The Orwellian language the politicians use allow those folks to hide behind lies and claim the moral high ground.
Heck, if we could get them to be honest about this, then we can go for calling farm subsidies "socialism", which they are, and completely destroy the world view of those cowardly leeches.
It's very ironic that my post has been moderated flaimbait when it is obviously not, as I don't believe in free speech but the moderator probably thinks that he himself does but is trying to (unjustly) deny me that 'speech'.
It's not in the least ironic.
You set up a strawman argument about the moderator and whined like the little bitch you are over getting downmodded. The fact that you don't believe in free speech removes your right to whine about it. You're getting exactly what you're asking for. Oh wait, you're asking to be the only one allowed to decide what speech others are allowed and nobody is allowed to restrict yours.
That isn't irony, it's justice.
Now go suck it you whiny cowardly little bitch.
The only choice here is whether or not to be free. Your definition of freedom leads straight to slavery. In sexual terms: a slavery to your body.
You are such a fucking idiotic nitwit.
None of the bullshit you're spewing has anything to do with freedom.
All you're doing is claiming that by everyone else giving up what they enjoy to live according to your moronic standards they'll be free.
That is pure ignorant crap. All that will do is make them slaves to *your* ideas rather than free to follow their own.
Like all fascist assholes you want to control others and offer nothing except ignorance, hatred and delusion.
Further a liberal's idea of freedom is being able to persue one's desires. However most cultures and religions define freedom as over-coming one's own desires, rather than being a slave to them, and also the pressures of the world around you.
Bullshit.
Buddhism says that, but none of the other major religions do. No cultures define it as anything of the sort.
Slavery is much closer to the word you're looking for and that is what Judaism, Christianity and Islam are dedicated to. It's not a question of overcoming desires it's solely a matter of control and always has been. Deluding yourself otherwise is the act of a coward.
Who is stronger : the one who gives in to desire and loses their virginity or the one who resists and waits for the arrival of the beloved?
This is a no brainer. The one who loses their virginity is stronger. They overcame delusional cowardly hate based religious nonsense in order to do what is normal, healthy, and good.
Holding out because some evil cowards pushed their hatreds into a made up fairy tale in order to control you is cowardice and weakness. Rejecting something so gross and disgusting yet endemic takes strength.
God never encourages or approves murder/genocide/etc. God simply punishes people for their extremely sinful ways.
Dude, try actually reading the fucking thing. How did the Hebrews gain control of Palestine? Genocide at "god's" command.
Look at the other responses to your extremely ignorant and deluded lies for dozens of other examples.
You obviously read the book, but you did not understand anything.
I understand it just fine. You obviously don't understand anything most likely because you long ago begged the question, assuming that it must be true and then desperately cling to insane delusional interpretations in order to convince yourself that your faulty assumption is correct.
If you don't magically decide beforehand that the bible must be true, then it's pretty easy to understand it. There is nothing magical about it.
Who's the idiot?
That is quite obviously you.
There is nothing wrong with any of that. If you presume the non-existence of God then fine, there's a problem, but that would not be to take the Bible on its own terms, in which case the reader has a bias.
Where do you get this crazy shit?!?
On it's own terms, the Bible is a book. That's it.
Now, assuming that all the batshit insane shit in it is true, well that's just plain crazy.
You don't have to "presume" the non existence of god since that is the default position and the only sane one. Think that's untrue? Provide evidence for the existence of god. Don't have any? Then believing it is batshit insane.
But it is unfair to say, at this time, that the bible mandates unjust violence since no one has yet found a way to prove the non-existence of God. And logically it looks to be impossible (ie. a lack of evidence doesn't actually prove that he doesn't exist).
Bullshit. The existence or nonexistence of god is irrelevant to the fact that the bible is a book dedicated to glorifying atrocities.
The only bearing god's existence or lack thereof has to do with the topic at all is that if he does exist then he's a vile monster lower on the moral scale than any person ever. If he doesn't exist (only rational view possible) then only the asshats who keep pimping that biblical bullshit are monsters and god merely their delusion.
It doesn't admit logical proof one way or the other, but then neither does it admit any reasons at all to believe in anything so patently ridiculous and with such massive internal contradictions.
So, whether or not there is a god is an open question although one of no real value.
The existence of the god in the bible, on the other hand, is absolutely false though and easily proven so in many ways. The contradictions alone give us that.
There is no text in the Bible that promotes rape and stoning. I am against religion as much as possible, but we atheists must be truthful. The Bible refers to rape and stoning as sinful acts that must be avoided.
Dude, you're a fucking idiot.
Stoning is the God approved punishment for a large variety of silly "crimes" in the Bible. Including shit as meaningless as saying god's name or telling your wife that this whole god thing is idiotic and we should bail on it. Hell, Jesus even stated directly and absolutely that every single word of God's laws are still in effect and that he is not removing a single word from them, so you can't even try the old "but that was the old testament" nonsense.
Seriously, God regularly encouraged murder, genocide and engaged in the same on moronic whims over nothing.
You've obviously never read the book, so why waste your time telling idiotic lies?
She does keep getting worse, doesn't she? I thought she was so damn cool during Bill's first term, now she seems like a completely different person: one who will do or say anything to pander for votes.
Yeah, I was in college when Bill was running and she came and spoke at my university. She was much more about positives and the like back then than she is now. I thought she seemed fairly decent for a politician (scum, but not scummy enough to rise to the top) but now she's on the religious extremist nutjob bandwagon and on the "durrr save the childrens" bandwagon so she can go fuck herself. Does she honestly think that any of those whackjobs will be voting for her regardless of what silly lies she tells? Amazing.
I voted for W in 2000 because I thought Gore was an empty suit being handled by a slick campaign. I knew better by 2004 but it was too late.
OK, but have you done anything to inform yourself as to how it was possible for you to make such a huge fucking mistake which was obvious to anybody with any sense? I mean, not voting for the son of a president is good and all, but what have you done to prevent yourself from fucking up so bad on something so simple again?
I mean, seriously, Gore an empty suit handled by a slick campaign? More or less, but Bush was quite obviously that times 10. So that couldn't possibly have had a damn thing to do with your decision. Why do you still have to lie about it even when you're admitting your mistake?
Also, have you bothered to do anything about your responsibilities as a citizen as far as figuring out how you could have been so fucking blind? I mean a vote for Bush in 2000 was a vote to make up a bunch of bullshit as an excuse to invade Iraq and that was *blatantly fucking obvious* prior to the 2000 election.
So, it's good that you recognize what a fucking disaster you helped cause for those of us who actually are citizens rather than subjects, but as an actual citizen, I want to know what you have changed in order to prevent yourself from being used once again as a weapon in a savage assault on America.
Have you really learned *anything* meaningful from your gross dereliction of your duties?
Sure he sucks. Most Conservatives consider him to be a "liberal".
That's only because "conservatives" are too fucking stupid to know what either of those words actually mean. Bush is a pure Republican through and through.
The entire Government is corrupt. Why do you nutjobs focus on BUSH so much?
Because he is the scum that has risen to the top.
Because his incompetence allowed 9/11, and then he premeditatively used that attack as an excuse to invade Iraq based on lies.
Because we're so fucking sick of *still* hearing about how Clinton this Clinton that in response to *every* *legitimate* criticism of this fucking scumbag.
So, plenty of reasons. When he gets out of office, pardons all of the fucking traitors who compose his administration and they go right back into power, then we'll be criticizing whatever fucking douche so despises integrity as to give those fuckers jobs ever again.
"You know, I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Ronald Reagan." If I'd said that in 1999 my parents probably would have disowned me. In 2004, they just nodded sagely.
Meh. The only difference is time. Bush is just the next step in the Reagan revolution. Were Bush elected in Reagan's time and Reagan in Bush's there'd be pretty much no difference at all. Hell, the people running the administrations have hardly changed.
In fact, Reagan now would have been even worse. He was such a good liar, being an actor, that he'd have much higher approval ratings from the fools who approve of such things than Bush. At least there are some fools waking up to their insanity given how idiotic and obviously dishonest Bush is.
The tax cuts and deregulation are largely a joke. Even independent of the war, Bush has been a bigger liberal than some of the liberals, running wild with the government Visa card.
Totally redundant and content free. He's a Republican. That means he believes in bigger, more oppressive government than any liberal. Do you not even have the foggiest understanding of what the Republican party stands for? If you say anything about small government, fiscal responsibility or anything even remotely requiring integrity then you clearly don't.
The tax cuts are good, I'll admit, but our tax burden is still higher than it was under the Clinton administration; they are not a substitute for sound fiscal policy. So, economically the conservatives are no better than the liberals now.
I think you might be so overboard on your "liberal" hatred that your view is so slanted as to be incapable of dealing with reality.
"Tax cuts" in isolation might be good, but lets look at the reality by way of an example:
I'll send you $5.00 and then you give me your credit card with no balance and say a $5000 limit. I'll spend all of your $5000 on worthless shit which I will then go light on fire. Then you're stuck paying my $5000 plus interest You made out on that deal, huh?
Now, are you happy about that? Willing to give it a shot?
No? Then quit talking about tax cuts. That's exactly the deal you got with the tax cuts. i.e. it was no sort of a cut. I got no checks from the government and my taxes have gone up, so I don't even have the ignorant delusion that there was anything good about them.
So, as long as people keep repeating the tax cut bullshit when the only thing that happened is that Bush took out massive high interest loans from China in your name, we'll continue to have a debate totally unrelated to reality.
but our tax burden is still higher than it was under the Clinton administration;
And 100% guaranteed to get *much* worse as soon as we actually have to start paying for
Bush's massive increases in government power and spending.
So, economically the conservatives are no better than the liberals now
Now?!?! What the fuck kind of rock have you been living under for the last couplke of decades? No, economically, the "conservatives" have been *far* *far* worse than the "liberals" since 1980 when the Republicans single handedly took the title of party of biggest government.
The Democrats haven't been in the same league as the Republicans for corruption, theft, massive spending and increases in government for several decades.
Clinton I had the advantage of a real Republican congress (as opposed to the welfare-statist "compassionate conservatives" that have taken control of the party since 2000)
They took complete control of the Republican party back in 1980 with Reagan's first term. You're 20 years off on that one. You might want to take a little time and actually look at Reagan's record. He was one of if not the worst presidents we've ever had. Reagan led the *largest* increase in the size of the federal government ever. You don't get more big government nanny state bullshit than Reagan.
As for foreign policy, he didn't notice the terrorism threat, but then again, neither did Carter, Reagan, or Bush I.
Sure they did. Reagan more or less invented the terrorist "threat". Bush just made up a bunch of nonsense to sell it as some huge thing when it still isn't a meaningful threat.
I'll vote for Hillary in 2008 if that is what it takes to keep the theocrats from pushing their agenda, but I have no illusions about what she'll do to this country in the long run if unchecked.
So you haven't noticed Hillary's recent sucking up to the very theocrats you propose voting for her to avoid?!?!?
Wow, just wow.
And you probably actually consider yourself more informed than average and you're this bad.
This country is well and truly fucked.
I'd say Clinton was a right-winger with centrist tendencies, and Hillary is a centrist.
And I'd say Bill was a moderate right winger and Hillary is a left-fascist with right wing tendencies.
She keeps getting worse too what with the "eval video gamez" and the "more Christian than thou" bullshit she's started in on recently.
She's definitely not a centrist though unless you're using that to mean she exhibits the worst tendencies of both sides.
I live up around this area. There seems to be this romantic notion amongst those living in the lower 48 that these "Eskimos" still live in igloos, travel by dogsled and wear seal skin parkas.
I think you might have misinterpreted our romantic notion. It's not "Eskimos" who live in igloos, travel by dogsled and wear seal skin parkas. That would be the "Canadians".
Should we start killing off the sharks and squids because they might attack whales?
;-)
If you like. I prefer killing them because they taste so darn good, but to each his pwn
There is no salmon fishery in the far north.
;-)
Depends on how you define "far".
Bristol Bay is way far north of San Diego
I guess this is where our sense of morals differ: while you consider my point of view "idiotic in the extreme", I consider that saying in absolute terms that anyone who would break in to your house should be killed on sight extremely disturbing.
I didn't say that they should be killed on sight.
I said that to assume that they are not a threat to you after they have already broken into your house is idiotic in the extreme which you have said nothing to address.
The default assumption for another person you meet on the street should be positive or at the least neutral. That is entirely irrelevant to the default assumption regarding a person who has already crossed way over the line to the point that if they're thinking at all rationally they *will* hurt you and your family if it means avoiding the consequences of actions that they have already taken.
Even if they get caught after doing all that, then they are most likely *better* off for having assaulted you since they have more charges to play around with in court and will do less time than if they didn't assault you. That is the reality of our court system.
So, yes, your point of view is idiotic in the extreme because it is not even remotely based on reality. Heck, you obviously know that since you couldn't come up with anything to defend your position except some mindless nonsense about "morality" and a complete misrepresentation of my position.
What I don't understand is how can USPS be as stupid as to realize that the master keys were stolen, and to not change the locks? I mean, who the hell doesn't change his/her locks when the keys are stolen? Keys are stolen for a specific purpose (theft), as far as I know...
This sort of shit is an epidemic.
Take the INS for example. My wife is from England, we got married, applied for her green card and were approved. After not receiving it, we called up and they said they mailed it. Well, we live in Chicago which has the worst postal service in the country. Our particular post office is the worst in Chicago. So somebody (possibly with the help of some post office employee, who knows?) stole a green card out of our mail. We went to get a replacement and begged to be allowed to pay to have it shipped FedEX, registered mail, *anything* but the postal service to our house. No dice. The INS's answer? I pay another $200 for a replacement which was likewise stolen before we ever saw it.
Only after threatening them with a lawsuit would they agree to mail it to our lawyer's office and even then they were all about how "this is highly irregular" etc.
So, that's the state of our current immigration system: Make the people doing it honestly pay for multiple green cards for illegals before finally doing the right thing after being threatened.
Examples like that are everywhere.
If they are buying pot that they didn't grow, they contributed to the larger drug problem because they are tied together.
That's a crap argument.
There is no "larger drug problem". All of those problems are caused entirely by drug *laws* not by drugs.
So, the OPs point is absolutely "entirely true". Pot smokers cause zero problems for society. Drug laws directly cause massive amounts of violent crime and are tremendously damaging to society.
Yes, it should be legalized.
Absolutely. Both because the drug laws are far and away the single biggest cause of violent crime that exist and because the government has no right whatsoever to restrict them in the first place.