this clip is insulting to republicans as well as linux users. it says that red staters would rather watch the x-men than learn about actual events in the world.
I don't know about the X Men specifically, but it's pretty freaking obvious that, in general, red staters would rather do *anything* than learn about actual events in the world. It's not an insult, it's a simple statement of fact. How else do you explain their support for setting up torture and murder camps all over the world while bleating moronic lies about how much they love freedom?
No, you didn't. It was already preassumed in your previous points. That's why it's a *culture* of entitlement. Reread the places where I brought that up, and what statements you made that led to that.
I pay my taxes like everyone else (and bust my ass to do so), and it gets spent on people who often times don't deserve it.
As you live in Wisconsin, which is not a welfare state ( i.e. a net tax sink) there probably is some truth to that. As you live in a rural area, you do receive more than I do from federal income taxes.
I would have to look into the numbers, but it just seems like utility subsidies are not that big of an issue when compared to the bulk of the 30% or so in taxes that the government redistributes in my name.
Check the link I posted previously. Those are the numbers. Like I said, Wisconson (like Illinois where I live) is a net tax supplier to the welfare states. Utility subsidies are only part of the problem. Farm subsidies are another huge part of it. Pork barrel spending is most of the rest (sure there's other stuff, but take away those huge worthless drains and then there's some breathing room to address the rest).
But once again, my issue isn't the fact of subsidies, it's the culture of entitlement that it creates.
Obviously I didnt express it adequately in my previous posts, but I do understand where you are coming from. I just take issue with your rather broad generalizations.
Fair enough. I was making a broad generalization. I never tried to pretend that I wasn't. The fact is that as a generalization, it is true. It's a simple matter of volume and materials cost (long range electrical transmission is tricky too, and various other complicated stuff, but even without that).
Not everyone in rural areas is a "leach" except by your very narrow definition of utilities infrastructure.
Well, my slightly less narrow definition is actually federal tax dollars, and that's how (I think) I consistently used the word. By that definition, they pretty much all are. I'm not saying it's all Cletus and Bubba hanging out, leaning up against a pole.
You also seem to have a misconceived notion about rural areas, but contrary to your beliefs, the majority of welfare families are in urban environments (and I'll be damned, but some of that money actually comes out of my pocket), hence my objection to singling out rural dwellers as leaches
That's only by the narrow definition of "receives General Assistance checks" Try it with the same definition I used above.
Then the welfare states, in which *everybody* is on welfare, are those that receive more federal tax dollars than they send in. Check the link I gave earlier with the numbers. You'll find that they're pretty much all rural states. I nfact, if you look at the election map from 2000, it's pretty much the "Red states". That's pretty funny actually since they're the ones electing all the "free market rah rah rah" spouting politicians, yet they really are basically "Reds" at heart. Well... as long as there's still enough of an economy in the rest of the states to keep them afloat.
I am not going to just give money away to the utility companies, and I am certainly not going to take the time to advocate for something that does not negatively affect me
Fair enough, I probably wouldn't either. That's why it's so insidious.
There are too many things that do that I feel warrant more immediate attention. And that is what it comes down to, utilities subsidation is just not that big of a deal in terms of the money that is taken from your pocket every day.
Well, my point was bigger than just utilities subsidization. I was how the various subsidies and such create a warped world view.
Anyhow, I don't mean to be a dick (it just comes naturally;-)
Not at all, actually. If you were to say that it costs less in infrastructure expenditure to support city-dwelling people versus country-dwelling people, I would agree with you. When you go out of your way to say it's four times more expensive, I want to see numbers.
"4 times" was one of the 72% of statistics that are made up on the spot. What's your best guess, or an actual figure? Take into account the fact that there are tremendous lengths of cable required, high cost of long distance power transmission and all the rest. It's obviously much more expensive *per household*.
Do you really think that all of the cost of delivering power lies in the cable run from the line to the house? That's what it sounds like to me. Plus, I don't think there's a whole lot of money being put into running a cable to my house for cell phone service.
No, I don't really think that's all. There are the costs of power generation. On average, lower per household in urban areas. Smaller house on average, lower electricity, gas, etc. There is cost of transmission and loss over long distance lines. More dense population == cheaper. etc. etc.etc. It all works out the same without trying to cover every detail at which point somebody here who actually runs a power generation plant will point out twelve things I missed.
By the way, the word you were looking for there was 'quantitative'
When trying to be a smart ass, the first rule is "Don't be a dumb ass". I used the word I wanted to because the costs per user of power, phones, cell service, etc. share the same *quality* of being less in urban areas due to greater population density. The costs of each utility are different as, likely, are the percent differences between the areas, so while they are similar in form or quality, the quantities are unknown and largely irrelevant.
I see where you're trying to go there, but your quoted source doesn't exactly support your argument.... So, at this point, I can't say that I see causality between population density and tax burden. Sorry.
So, apparently you didn't at all see where I was going. I was making a correlation. Yes, I know that you heard somewhare that correlation doesn't indicate causation, which is true. Correlations by themselves are still a correlation. I'm not talking about the cause.
Just so you're aware, I wasn't defending farm subsidies - just pointing out that they don't fit into your argument.
Just so you're aware, you missed the argument;-)
Here you make the mistaken assumption that peoples' votes actually count for something today.
In large groups, they do. When you get a huge portion of the population living off of the rest and yet believing that the ones paying their bills are evil heathens and such, you create such a tremendous cognitive dissonance that you can just scream crazy shit at them and they'll buy into it. That explains the current state of our country pretty well.
To close this up, you'll find the kind of people you are complaining about, the 'rabid, self-important whiny bitches,' in both rural and urban settings. Of course, in my experience - having lived in both settings - you'll find many many more of them living in cities than out in the country. Living out in the sticks teaches you to relax and enjoy things. This is something you would probably do well to learn.
Well, your anecdotal evidence is pretty silly looking at reality for a second.
It's the 'rabid, self-important whiny bitches,' in the rural areas who are currently trying to change the constitution for the first time in history for the purpose of discrimination right now. They're the ones who elected the most corrupt administration and Congress in our history. Try and get a little perspective.
There's a fundamental *qualitative* difference between somebody bitching in a bar or whatever, and a group of people actively working to destroy the basis of this country in order to shove their bastardized interpretation of a religion into it. Those loons exist in the cities too, but don't pretend it isn't primarilly a rural problem.
What you were implying was that you as an urban dweller are making it possible for me the rural dweller to live in comfort because your share of the distributed cost of utilities is higher in relation to the actual utilities you consume.
True enough, right?
I then pointed out (albeit poorly) that the only reason you can even BE an urban dweller is because of the resources generated by the rural dwellers.
True to a point, but it stops short of actually dealing with the issue.
I *pay* for my food multiple times. First in subsidies to the farmers again in the artificially jacked up prices, and again by putting my money down and walking away with the food.
I also pay for your utilities.
There is a very deep fundamental difference there that you are totally ignoring.
I am not accepting charity of food donations from the people who grow it.
It is YOUR choice to live in the city and absorb the extra utility costs, so quit bitching about it.
Oh, I see, since you people are in power in this country I'm no longer able to even express my opinion.
It is my choice to live in the city. That does not mean that I can't work to change some of the incredible inequities which were put in place by lobbying of the rural folk who couldn't make an honest living. I'll quit bitching as soon as you take responsibility for yourself and pay your own fucking bills.
You then stated a bunch of bullshit that "people living in rural areas *are* leaches. They are the primary example of the culture of entitlement and utter contempt for personal responsibility.
It's clearly not bullshit as you continue to demonstrate.
If I'm not happy about paying for your lifestyle then I should just quit bitching?!? Seriously, dude WTF. You proved my point with that one.
It doesn't all come down to the utility bill when tallying someone up as a leach, and frankly I consider alot of the leaching that goes on in the city to be far worse.
I'm not talking about an individual case by case basis. I am talking overall and therefore generalizing. The fact is that the rural areas as a whole absolutely do leach off of the rural areas to a huge degree. This does not go the other way because you do not pay one single cent in taxes that ends up benefitting me. It goes the other way. So sorry, but there is no leaching in the cities from you. There is no net leaching at all in almost all urban areas. So while you're free to keep bitching about that, you have no basis for your bitching whatsoever since it's not your money being pissed away on it.
. Furthermore the only evidence that you offer is the aforementioned utilities problem and farming subsidies, which hardly supports the whole "culture of entitlement and utter contempt for personal responsibility" claim (hardly an unbiased statement).
Maybe you should actually read what I said instead of picking out a word here and there and pretending that you aren't ignoring the point.
Those are several examples of the fact (which you certainly don't seem to be bothering trying to dispute) that the rural areas do not pay their own way and they do live through forced welfare from the urban areas. You're welcome to not like the way I put that, but you obviously can't deny that it is a fact. But you come back and in spite of that fact claim that I should quit bitching and that you have no guilt for sponging off of me.
That is what makes you a card carrying member of the culture of entitlement as I clearly stated above.
You feel that you are entitled to have me pay your bills. You offer nothing in exchange and you offer no reasoning for your feeling of entitlement to my money. That is what makes you a card carrying member of the culture of entitlement as I clearly stated above. It's not the fact that you take my money, it's the fact that you are *still* arguing that you deserve it without providing any reasoning for that.
Sounds great but I would point out that urban environments would collapse without the rural areas providing resources. You didnt think all that food was grown in the store did you?
Of course I didn't think that as I pointed out above. The fact that the prices of this food is massively inflated *and* subsidized is the problem, not the fact that food isn't a magically appearing item.
You also fail to factor in the economics of the situation. I can live BETTER (by my standards) for CHEAPER outside of the city. I can own a house and grow my wealth instead of renting from month to month (or purchasing imo a crappier house for the same money).
I don't fail to see that at all. What you fail to see is that you are taking advantage of what you see as a benefit (living "better", scenery, whatever your reasons are) and expecting *me* to pay for you to have that benefit. That is the issue as I stated quite clearly already. Please don't pretend that I said a bunch of nonsense in order to pretend you have a point.
I'm sorry you feel slighted by government regulations that force utilities costs to be distributed over the whole population, but that doesn't mean that I need to feel guilty, nor should I have to live somewhere I DON'T LIKE just because you feel that it will make the world better (which is very much debateable).
Again with this ridiculous made up nonsense. I didn't say any of that and you know it.
I'm pissed by the fact that I am forced to pay for a bunch of people to live a modern lifestyle when they aren't willing to pay for it themselves. Where the fuck did I say anything about it making the world better if you moved to the city?!? I didn't. When you continually have to make up shiyt and claim I said it, it's a sure sign that your argument is valueless. It's also a fair indicator that you're fairly delusional if that's where you automatically head when presented with simple facts.
I have no problem with you living whereever the hell you want. All I expect is that you will pay for it yourself. You see a benefit in living where you do? Fine. Pay for it yourself.
but that doesn't mean that I need to feel guilty,
No, of course not. Heaven forbid you shouldn't get every dollar of *mine* to which you consider yourself entitled with no feelings of guilt for ripping it off without providing me a damn thing for it. That's exactly the root problem with the whole culture of entitlement of which you are clearly a card carrying member.
And don't even get me started on the whole "productive members of society" bullshit. I have seen lazy people in cities and out, and I have seen people that bust their asses on farms, in the suburbs and in the middle of the city. These accusations are baseless and biased.
I've seen that too, and it's irrelevant to my point which is neither biased nor is it baseless. Surely if it were either you could have come up with an actual example of how it is rather than making up shit and claiming that I said it?!?
Just becasue somebody works hard doesn't mean that they're productive. I could work 12 hours a day digging holes in my backyard. Are you seriously saying that I'm a productive member of society and should be rewarded out of *your* paycheck for it?!?
You claim then, that the folks in Milwaukee and Chicago are subsidizing my utilities? Give me an unbiased source - not a vitriolic rant like you've just shown us, but something with real, unspun facts.You claim then, that the folks in Milwaukee and Chicago are subsidizing my utilities? Give me an unbiased source - not a vitriolic rant like you've just shown us, but something with real, unspun facts.
Come on, Dude. These are basic simple blatantly obvious facts that a half second of thought would have enabled you to prove to yourself. It's not rocket science. It's not even unclear, difficult or anything of the sort.
I just bought a condo in Chicago. To deliver electrical service to my place, the power company strings a wire from the line to my building (40 feet from the power line tops.) By stringing this one line they have provided service to *4* households. To get the next building with 2-4 households, it's another drop from the power line. Same thing all up and down the entire neighborhood. Now compare that to what is involved with getting power to you and the closest 3 households to you.
Pretty freaking simple, isn't it? Substitute, Phone lines, cell phone service, etc. etc. etc. and you get the exact same qualitative results.
If you were to pay what it costs to deliver your power, then most likely *you wouldn't even have power because you couldn't afford it*. Now, the federal government has mandated that you shall get power and phone service and it shall be paid for by taxes, which people in rural areas don't even pay since they almost always get more back in tax dollars than they put out.
By the way - farming subsidies? How does that factor into your argument (regarding the cost of people living away from cities) at all? Are the farmers supposed to move to the big city and grow the food in the middle of your concrete jungle? Or are we all just supposed to eat pigeons and wall mold?
It figures in because it's the same hypocritical socialist crap. If you want to be a socialist, then stand up, be a man, and admit it. The utterly morally bankrupt folks who swill at the trough while claiming to be gung ho capitalists are creating an incredible cognitive dissonance that is largely responsible for how fucked up this country is right now.
No, they aren't supposed to move into the city to grow food. They can grow it where they are and sell it at a fair market value which is far less than it's sold for now.
The common argument is that this would eliminate the family farm. Too fucking bad, I say. Factory farms already receive the bulk of these "family farm subsidies" because they're the ones who bought the laws.
Our country is going bankrupt largely due to these leaches and their completely retarded voting choices, so we can't really afford to coddle them and pretend that what they do isn't already done far more efficiently without them.
If they still want to live in the middle of nowhere, fine, but they can live at a level they can afford without picking my pocket in order to live above their means.
I'm not one of these radical free market rah rah rah types (Actually a lot of them tend to be the very leaches we're talking about). I think that having some sort of a safety net is good, but these types of subsidies do nothing but allow deluded people to continue living in their fantasy world of "self sufficiency" when they are nothing but welfare leaches. Let them get a taste of the real world that they created and fucked over and maybe they'll be capable of pulling their heads far enough out of their asses to get a breath of fresh air and start acting like sane decent human beings instead of the rabid faggot hating blame everybody for their problems except themselves type of whiny bitch which they have demonstrated themselves to be in recent years as the results of *their* choices are now starting to affect them.
How in the world does living in the suburbs mean leaching off of you?
Man your logic is seriously fucked up.
So you ask a question whose answer is pretty clear and simple were you at all interested in actually learning the answer and then claim that my logic is "seriously fucked up". Bravo, Sparky. You're a real prize.
"Suburbs" are a relatively small part of the problem. The rural areas are the worst. How it means leaching is simple. If you live in a rural area, look at your phone bill. Now quadruple that amount. That's what your service costs. You only pay a quarter of it and I pay the rest. How is that not leaching?
Then just look at the whole farming thing. Not only do the farmers get paid direct subsidies i.e. welfare, but the prices of the food they sell is artificially inflated for an entire other welfare payment.
That is the worst kind of Socialism, and the rural areas of the country have been living under that system for a hundred years. Add in the fact that the people there are so dangerously delusional and out of touch with reality that they think that they're capitalists even though every thing they keep whining about ("moral decay", "gays", etc.) are the direct, inevitable result of the global hyper capitalism that they keep voting for.
So, yes, people living in rural areas *are* leaches. They are the primary example of the culture of entitlement and utter contempt for personal responsibility.
The fact that they keep bitching about exactly what they are while pretending that the people working their asses off to pay their bills for them are the problem is completely insane. Their militant death grip on their ignorance of such simple basic matters is the primary reason our country is rotting in the core. A little honesty and a little integrity on the part of these leaches would go a long way to allowing us to start fixing the problems that they have created.
Don't bet on it though. They will continue to leach off of the productive members of society until it collapses and then blame anyone but themselves.
That and the morons running the foreign policy, they could screw the pooch and really bork stuff out in the middle east, better to get rural where life is more sustainable for the long haul and you can actually develop "neighbors" and local ties. Big cities can go to pure hell in one day as soon as anything gets turned off, electricty, water, food deliveries, etc. We got a well, a garden, and a generator and a firewood lot, screw it, let that other stuff back in town rot.
You do realise that it's the ignorant douchebags in these rural areas that are the ones supporting the "morons running the foreign policy", don't you. So great, move there and when it all does go to hell *because* of the ignorance and cowardice of the people you've surrounded yourself with you can all sit around and blame the "evil urban dwellers" who are the ones who were paying the subsidies that allowed you to live in the middle of nowhere and maintain a modern lifestyle. . Great plan.
The quality of life than many Americans does not require public transportation. In fact I would be a good number actually see public transportation as a sign of where NOT to live.
Sure, but then you're put in the position of leaching off of me and the rest of the urban dwellers to pay your bills. I have too much integrity to live my life sponging off of others, but hey, different strokes and all right?
Here's a simple test. Would you be willing to have every single one of your bills, phone, gas, electric, cell phone etc. etc. etc. quadrupled to live where you do? If so, fine, start paying your own way in the world. If not, then you are a leach and your existence is entirely dependent upon the welfare provided to you by me and others like me.
How about a little respect for those who pay your bills for you?
I'm even moving further out simply because where I bought has changed so much in 9 years that its no longer the area I desired to live in. Lots of good people are here but the little businesses have creeped down the road to where its no longer "open".
That's fine, but if you're going to move to the middle of nowhere, then you had damn well better pay to have all of the utility lines brought out there rather than expecting *me* to pay for it for you.
(Also note, that I don't necessarily think that socialism is bad... it's just not the society _I_ want to live in... and there are plenty of socialist societies to go around... so stop messing with my capitilistic society!)
Well, that's really the heart of the problem right there. We do not live in a capitalistic society. We live in a fascist corporate-welfare state.Until you can realise that simple basic fact, you won't really be able to address the issue rationally.
This doesn't mean that minumum wage laws and the like are the answer, but it does mean that until that fact is addressed in an effective manner that the problems that corporate welfare creates will continue and increase.
Seriously though, it' s trade-off. We could have this sort of thing in parts of North America, but it would require consumers and gov't to stop moaning and griping about where telecos and cablecos pick to choose their deployments. Cherry-picking, if you will.
It would require the welfare state leaches to grow a shred of integrity and actually live up to their free market rah rah rah bullshit rather than leaching off the urban dwellers expecting to have their entire lifestyle subsidised, while being too corrupt and dishonest to pull their own weight for once.
Expecting the rural Republicans to act with integrity is like expecting to jump to the moon under your own power. It just ain't gonna happen. They are far too cowardly and far too lacking in any type of morality or honor.
Now point to where I called you that. Go on...I'm waiting.
Oh that's right. I didn't.
I characterised your one statement that only a "vindictive Democrat" would actually refuse to pardon Bush for his many crimes as extremist and partisan which it is. That's a far different thing than calling you an extremist.
would never dismiss voting for an entire party out-of-hand, as an extremist might.
Well, just keep pretending that voting for the lesser of two evils will work out. How exactly is recognizing it as the mug's game it is extremist?
And I would never call Bush, who is just another in a long line of mediocre presidents, one of the worst traitors in our nations history - like an extremist might.
Your ability to ingore reality is truly amazing. Setting up torture camps all over the world, outting covert agents, making up crap and lying to the public to start a war.... Yeah, all just everyday things. The implicit support you are giving for these actions are far more extremist than my simple recognition of the facts of our current world.
I couldn't disagree more. Power corrupts completely, and the left elite fancy themselves as much as the right elite. Classes will always exist, and the rich will always get richer. While the left trys to portray itself as Robinhood in a social sense, new taxes that "benefit the poor" rarely tax the top of the tax bracket in any fashion.
Well, in practice it always seems to work out that way. Just look at the USSR and the special stores for the party elite etc.
That was a leftist country though. The Democrats in America are somewhat moderate right wing whereas the Republicans are extremist right wing, so talking about the "left" in discussing America is just silly.
thank you.. i think youre the first right wing non-hyppocrite i've met.
Then you haven't been paying attention. There are a LOT of us.
No, there really aren't. If you agree with the principles that the other poster put forward which the parent above was expressing surprise with, then you are *not* at all right wing.
He misspoke, but you went along with it. If you believe in individual liberty, small government, free markets or anything of the sort, then you are what the right wing is directly and absolutely opposed to. You are also what the left is directly and absolutely opposed to.
Don't kid yourself, and don't allow yourself to be put into a box that directly opposes what you believe in.
The right stands for corporate welfare and big oppressive government by its very definition. The left also stands for big oppressive government though, so don't kid yourself that I'm trying to promote that.
Liberalism (in the classic sense) is the word you're looking for to describe your views, although obviously that word has been redefined by both the left and the right as Liberalism, the idea of *individual liberty* is the thing that both the left and the right are violently opposed to.
So, unless they come out and say that they believe in using big government to oppress unpopular groups and rip off the people to make the rich richer, anybody who calls themself "right wing" is either a hippocrite or doesn't even know what the term means.
If you honestly believe in the principles of individual liberty, small government and the like then you are a Classical Liberal, or perhaps a libertarian (note small 'l'). The Republican party has never really stood for any of these things. They just pay lip service to them in order to fool people like you into voting for them. Ever since Reagan was elected, they gave up any pretense of actually believing in these things in a mad dash to fascism.
Why does it have to be what he has to hide? Why isn't it about what he's trying to accomplish by protecting the American people from another terrorist act?
Because this is the real world and not your delusional fairy land.
Since this is his claim, and it's a reasonable claim, why are you so suspicious to think the President is lying about it?
No, it isn't even remotely a reasonable claim. Just because you're a boot licking coward who wants to piss away the rights and freedoms my forefathers fought for does not make a ridiculous claim that flies in the face of every fact and against every action Bush has taken so far "reasonable". He's lied about so many things so far that the only reasonable assumption to make about anytrhing he says is that it's a lie. You really are a naive little kid.
Do you think he implemented such a program for other reasons? Or do you accept his explaination and question his methods? If the former, then you're more concerned with bashing him than actually getting answers. If the latter, then you can not say he's hiding anything, but simply trying to protect the information that gives sensitive details about a program used to protect Americans (and probably others in the world).
What utter crap.
If the former, then you have demonstrated basic simple common sense.
What an insane, dishonest, and utterly repugnant argument.
"Durrrrr if you think he had other reasons then obviously you only think that because you want to bash him."
That's a circular argument, Sparky.
Susoecting that he has other reasons than the ridiculous ones given is just simple basic common sense at this point. Trusting *any* politician of *any* party in *any* government to this extent is an act of utter insanity. Doing so for one who has demonstrated his contempt for our laws and our constitution so blatantly on so many occasions is delusional and cowardly beyond redemption.
The game could change if a vindictive Democrat becomes the next president.
No, the game could change if a person with a scrap of integrity got elected. It doesn't take a "vindictive Democrat" to not give one of if not the worst traitors in our nation's history a get out of jail free card. All it takes is an honest person. Now, the odds of getting that are pretty slim, but your extremist partisan view that only a "vindictive" Democrat" would give a shit about honesty, integrity, decency, or any of the list of supposed "American Values" is really pretty sickening to people like myself who have too much integrity to have ever voted for one of the major party candidates.
Bush and his yes men have moved the right further left than it has ever been. Right and left have reversed roles in the 20 years since Regan. It's almost impossible to grasp the sheer size, power, secrecy, and surveilance of citizens of and by the federal government at this point in time.
The rest of your points were good, but this is just idiotic beyond belief and it is truly typical of the extreme ignorance of the most basic political definitions typical of the vast majority of Americans.
The Right has not been moving left. The entire fucking country has been moving farther and farther to the right since WW2. Reagan's presidency was when we had a massive acceleration of this headlong race to fascism.
Let me guess, you think that because the Repugs are spending like drunken sailors that they're "left"?!? Seriously, wake up. The right and the left *both* stand for big oppressive government and always have by definition. The only difference is what they want to use the power of government against the people in order to accomplish.
The right believes that the wealthy elite are inherently better than the rest of the people and the power of government should be used against the people to keep them down. The left believes that all people are equal and wants to use the power of government against people to enforce this "equality".
Nowhere in the makeup of either the left or the right does freedom, liberty, small government fiscal responsibility or anything of the sort even exist. Those are the things that they are *both* absolutely opposed to.
If the Republicans were far "left", then there wouldn't be massive widening in the gap between the rich and the poor and a slide of the middle class into poverty as we're seeing. We would just all be equally poor.
First time I've read a sig line which automatically qualifies a person for a lifetime's reserved bed in Gitmo.
I'm not sure if your music's too loud, or if the whole being dead for tax reasons thing is screwing up the communication, but I don't know if you're approving, disapproving, or just commenting;-)
See, what's surprising about this is, like I mentioned, I do write professionally.
No, what's surprising is that rather than act like a person with integrity and just admit that you were absolutely wrong to type "could of" when you meant "could have", you keep trying to pretend that your appeal to made up authority has any meaning. Suck it up, admit you made a stupid mistake, or just STFU.
"Could of" is a reasonable written way of depicting how many people (myself included although I'd typically say it closer to "coulda") would say that, but to actually write it indicates a deep lack of understanding of what it is that you're actually trying to communicate.
I'll bet that you also write things like:
"For all intensive purposes"
Seriously, Sparky. You fucked up. That's no big deal. Going to ridiculous (as in "worthy of ridicule") lengths to pretend that you didn't when it's both a basic fact and a matter of public record that you did fuck up just makes you a laughingstock.
It's been proven (taking any one of the above at their word) for x=1 Getting from assuming it true for x=n to *proving* it therefore true for x=n+1 is almost always the hard part of induction.
There is the deepseated fundamental flaw in your entire "point".
As soon as you have to throw in, "and the magic faeries came and make everything wonderful" which is exactly equivalent to your statement, your entire argument becomes completely worthless.
I find it hilarious that people think we could have faked the moon landings. I mean, we were in an international space *race*; probably the biggest rivalry in the history of the world. If there were any way in hell those men weren't actually on the moon, the Soviets would have been all over it and shamed us forever.
And you really think that proves anything?!? What makes you think we didn't just make up Russia too?
Have you ever been there? If not, then hah! If so, then you're clearly part of the conspiracy.
See? Easy as shooting fish through the bottom of your lifeboat;-)
I had a top secret clearance in the air force in the seventies; there were SR-71s and other stuff I still can't talk about for fear of going to prison.
Bah! I have no clearance at all, and I have a picture of myself sitting on the wing of an SR-71. Well, ok I was like a year old at the time;-)
If a religion, a church, is denied the ability to marry two homosexuals, allowed in their doctrine, or perhaps perform polygamy, that really says a lot about what the government thinks about the 1st Amendment.
Well, there's some truth to that. I don't think that Churches are denied the right to marry anyone or thing that they want to. It's just that that marriage won't be legally recognized by the state.
That's the thing that these anti-gay marriage wackos are so off base about. "Marriage" means at least two entirely differnt things. There is the religious aspect (to some people) which is determined by the particular church and can mean just about anything or nothing depending. Then there is the legal institution which really only relates to things like hospital visitation rights, inheritance, and things like that.
So AFAIK (and I could be wrong on this) a church could marry a dog to a cow, a chair, and a person all at the same time and the state wouldn't care. It's just that the state wouldn't recognize the marriage in terms of granting the benefits normally associated with it.
The anti-gay marriage zealots keep trying to confuse the 2 things by on the one hand talking aobut "preserving the sanctity" of the institution and other such idiotic nonsense while ignoring the fact that in the eyes of the law it is only a legal contract. "Sanctity" and other such crap aren't legal terms and have no meaning in the law. At the same time, they're trying to change the constitution to destroy the whole seperation of church and state idea which is the only thing preventing the government from forcing them to perform gay marriages in those places where it is legal.
Slashdot Mirror
this clip is insulting to republicans as well as linux users. it says that red staters would rather watch the x-men than learn about actual events in the world.
I don't know about the X Men specifically, but it's pretty freaking obvious that, in general, red staters would rather do *anything* than learn about actual events in the world. It's not an insult, it's a simple statement of fact. How else do you explain their support for setting up torture and murder camps all over the world while bleating moronic lies about how much they love freedom?
I never said I was entitled to anything.
No, you didn't. It was already preassumed in your previous points. That's why it's a *culture* of entitlement. Reread the places where I brought that up, and what statements you made that led to that.
I pay my taxes like everyone else (and bust my ass to do so), and it gets spent on people who often times don't deserve it.
As you live in Wisconsin, which is not a welfare state ( i.e. a net tax sink) there probably is some truth to that. As you live in a rural area, you do receive more than I do from federal income taxes.
I would have to look into the numbers, but it just seems like utility subsidies are not that big of an issue when compared to the bulk of the 30% or so in taxes that the government redistributes in my name.
Check the link I posted previously. Those are the numbers.
Like I said, Wisconson (like Illinois where I live) is a net tax supplier to the welfare states. Utility subsidies are only part of the problem. Farm subsidies are another huge part of it.
Pork barrel spending is most of the rest (sure there's other stuff, but take away those huge worthless drains and then there's some breathing room to address the rest).
But once again, my issue isn't the fact of subsidies, it's the culture of entitlement that it creates.
Obviously I didnt express it adequately in my previous posts, but I do understand where you are coming from. I just take issue with your rather broad generalizations.
Fair enough. I was making a broad generalization. I never tried to pretend that I wasn't. The fact is that as a generalization, it is true. It's a simple matter of volume and materials cost (long range electrical transmission is tricky too, and various other complicated stuff, but even without that).
Not everyone in rural areas is a "leach" except by your very narrow definition of utilities infrastructure.
Well, my slightly less narrow definition is actually federal tax dollars, and that's how (I think) I consistently used the word.
By that definition, they pretty much all are. I'm not saying it's all Cletus and Bubba hanging out, leaning up against a pole.
You also seem to have a misconceived notion about rural areas, but contrary to your beliefs, the majority of welfare families are in urban environments (and I'll be damned, but some of that money actually comes out of my pocket), hence my objection to singling out rural dwellers as leaches
That's only by the narrow definition of "receives General Assistance checks"
Try it with the same definition I used above.
Then the welfare states, in which *everybody* is on welfare, are those that receive more federal tax dollars than they send in.
Check the link I gave earlier with the numbers. You'll find that they're pretty much all rural states. I nfact, if you look at the election map from 2000, it's pretty much the "Red states". That's pretty funny actually since they're the ones electing all the "free market rah rah rah" spouting politicians, yet they really are basically "Reds" at heart. Well... as long as there's still enough of an economy in the rest of the states to keep them afloat.
I am not going to just give money away to the utility companies, and I am certainly not going to take the time to advocate for something that does not negatively affect me
Fair enough, I probably wouldn't either. That's why it's so insidious.
There are too many things that do that I feel warrant more immediate attention. And that is what it comes down to, utilities subsidation is just not that big of a deal in terms of the money that is taken from your pocket every day.
Well, my point was bigger than just utilities subsidization. I was how the various subsidies and such create a warped world view.
Anyhow, I don't mean to be a dick (it just comes naturally
Not at all, actually. If you were to say that it costs less in infrastructure expenditure to support city-dwelling people versus country-dwelling people, I would agree with you. When you go out of your way to say it's four times more expensive, I want to see numbers.
...
;-)
"4 times" was one of the 72% of statistics that are made up on the spot. What's your best guess, or an actual figure? Take into account the fact that there are tremendous lengths of cable required, high cost of long distance power transmission and all the rest. It's obviously much more expensive *per household*.
Do you really think that all of the cost of delivering power lies in the cable run from the line to the house? That's what it sounds like to me. Plus, I don't think there's a whole lot of money being put into running a cable to my house for cell phone service.
No, I don't really think that's all. There are the costs of power generation. On average, lower per household in urban areas. Smaller house on average, lower electricity, gas, etc. There is cost of transmission and loss over long distance lines. More dense population == cheaper. etc. etc.etc. It all works out the same without trying to cover every detail at which point somebody here who actually runs a power generation plant will point out twelve things I missed.
By the way, the word you were looking for there was 'quantitative'
When trying to be a smart ass, the first rule is "Don't be a dumb ass".
I used the word I wanted to because the costs per user of power, phones, cell service, etc. share the same *quality* of being less in urban areas due to greater population density.
The costs of each utility are different as, likely, are the percent differences between the areas, so while they are similar in form or quality, the quantities are unknown and largely irrelevant.
I see where you're trying to go there, but your quoted source doesn't exactly support your argument.
So, at this point, I can't say that I see causality between population density and tax burden. Sorry.
So, apparently you didn't at all see where I was going.
I was making a correlation.
Yes, I know that you heard somewhare that correlation doesn't indicate causation, which is true.
Correlations by themselves are still a correlation.
I'm not talking about the cause.
Just so you're aware, I wasn't defending farm subsidies - just pointing out that they don't fit into your argument.
Just so you're aware, you missed the argument
Here you make the mistaken assumption that peoples' votes actually count for something today.
In large groups, they do. When you get a huge portion of the population living off of the rest and yet believing that the ones paying their bills are evil heathens and such, you create such a tremendous cognitive dissonance that you can just scream crazy shit at them and they'll buy into it. That explains the current state of our country pretty well.
To close this up, you'll find the kind of people you are complaining about, the 'rabid, self-important whiny bitches,' in both rural and urban settings. Of course, in my experience - having lived in both settings - you'll find many many more of them living in cities than out in the country. Living out in the sticks teaches you to relax and enjoy things. This is something you would probably do well to learn.
Well, your anecdotal evidence is pretty silly looking at reality for a second.
It's the 'rabid, self-important whiny bitches,' in the rural areas who are currently trying to change the constitution for the first time in history for the purpose of discrimination right now. They're the ones who elected the most corrupt administration and Congress in our history.
Try and get a little perspective.
There's a fundamental *qualitative* difference between somebody bitching in a bar or whatever, and a group of people actively working to destroy the basis of this country in order to shove their bastardized interpretation of a religion into it. Those loons exist in the cities too, but don't pretend it isn't primarilly a rural problem.
What you were implying was that you as an urban dweller are making it possible for me the rural dweller to live in comfort because your share of the distributed cost of utilities is higher in relation to the actual utilities you consume.
True enough, right?
I then pointed out (albeit poorly) that the only reason you can even BE an urban dweller is because of the resources generated by the rural dwellers.
True to a point, but it stops short of actually dealing with the issue.
I *pay* for my food multiple times. First in subsidies to the farmers again in the artificially jacked up prices, and again by putting my money down and walking away with the food.
I also pay for your utilities.
There is a very deep fundamental difference there that you are totally ignoring.
I am not accepting charity of food donations from the people who grow it.
It is YOUR choice to live in the city and absorb the extra utility costs, so quit bitching about it.
Oh, I see, since you people are in power in this country I'm no longer able to even express my opinion.
It is my choice to live in the city. That does not mean that I can't work to change some of the incredible inequities which were put in place by lobbying of the rural folk who couldn't make an honest living.
I'll quit bitching as soon as you take responsibility for yourself and pay your own fucking bills.
You then stated a bunch of bullshit that "people living in rural areas *are* leaches. They are the primary example of the culture of entitlement and utter contempt for personal responsibility.
It's clearly not bullshit as you continue to demonstrate.
If I'm not happy about paying for your lifestyle then I should just quit bitching?!? Seriously, dude WTF. You proved my point with that one.
It doesn't all come down to the utility bill when tallying someone up as a leach, and frankly I consider alot of the leaching that goes on in the city to be far worse.
I'm not talking about an individual case by case basis. I am talking overall and therefore generalizing.
The fact is that the rural areas as a whole absolutely do leach off of the rural areas to a huge degree.
This does not go the other way because you do not pay one single cent in taxes that ends up benefitting me. It goes the other way. So sorry, but there is no leaching in the cities from you.
There is no net leaching at all in almost all urban areas. So while you're free to keep bitching about that, you have no basis for your bitching whatsoever since it's not your money being pissed away on it.
. Furthermore the only evidence that you offer is the aforementioned utilities problem and farming subsidies, which hardly supports the whole "culture of entitlement and utter contempt for personal responsibility" claim (hardly an unbiased statement).
Maybe you should actually read what I said instead of picking out a word here and there and pretending that you aren't ignoring the point.
Those are several examples of the fact (which you certainly don't seem to be bothering trying to dispute) that the rural areas do not pay their own way and they do live through forced welfare from the urban areas.
You're welcome to not like the way I put that, but you obviously can't deny that it is a fact.
But you come back and in spite of that fact claim that I should quit bitching and that you have no guilt for sponging off of me.
That is what makes you a card carrying member of the culture of entitlement as I clearly stated above.
You feel that you are entitled to have me pay your bills. You offer nothing in exchange and you offer no reasoning for your feeling of entitlement to my money. That is what makes you a card carrying member of the culture of entitlement as I clearly stated above. It's not the fact that you take my money, it's the fact that you are *still* arguing that you deserve it without providing any reasoning for that.
You couldn't be much
Sounds great but I would point out that urban environments would collapse without the rural areas providing resources. You didnt think all that food was grown in the store did you?
Of course I didn't think that as I pointed out above.
The fact that the prices of this food is massively inflated *and* subsidized is the problem, not the fact that food isn't a magically appearing item.
You also fail to factor in the economics of the situation. I can live BETTER (by my standards) for CHEAPER outside of the city. I can own a house and grow my wealth instead of renting from month to month (or purchasing imo a crappier house for the same money).
I don't fail to see that at all. What you fail to see is that you are taking advantage of what you see as a benefit (living "better", scenery, whatever your reasons are) and expecting *me* to pay for you to have that benefit. That is the issue as I stated quite clearly already. Please don't pretend that I said a bunch of nonsense in order to pretend you have a point.
I'm sorry you feel slighted by government regulations that force utilities costs to be distributed over the whole population, but that doesn't mean that I need to feel guilty, nor should I have to live somewhere I DON'T LIKE just because you feel that it will make the world better (which is very much debateable).
Again with this ridiculous made up nonsense. I didn't say any of that and you know it.
I'm pissed by the fact that I am forced to pay for a bunch of people to live a modern lifestyle when they aren't willing to pay for it themselves.
Where the fuck did I say anything about it making the world better if you moved to the city?!?
I didn't.
When you continually have to make up shiyt and claim I said it, it's a sure sign that your argument is valueless. It's also a fair indicator that you're fairly delusional if that's where you automatically head when presented with simple facts.
I have no problem with you living whereever the hell you want. All I expect is that you will pay for it yourself.
You see a benefit in living where you do? Fine. Pay for it yourself.
but that doesn't mean that I need to feel guilty,
No, of course not. Heaven forbid you shouldn't get every dollar of *mine* to which you consider yourself entitled with no feelings of guilt for ripping it off without providing me a damn thing for it.
That's exactly the root problem with the whole culture of entitlement of which you are clearly a card carrying member.
And don't even get me started on the whole "productive members of society" bullshit. I have seen lazy people in cities and out, and I have seen people that bust their asses on farms, in the suburbs and in the middle of the city. These accusations are baseless and biased.
I've seen that too, and it's irrelevant to my point which is neither biased nor is it baseless. Surely if it were either you could have come up with an actual example of how it is rather than making up shit and claiming that I said it?!?
Just becasue somebody works hard doesn't mean that they're productive. I could work 12 hours a day digging holes in my backyard. Are you seriously saying that I'm a productive member of society and should be rewarded out of *your* paycheck for it?!?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
You claim then, that the folks in Milwaukee and Chicago are subsidizing my utilities? Give me an unbiased source - not a vitriolic rant like you've just shown us, but something with real, unspun facts.You claim then, that the folks in Milwaukee and Chicago are subsidizing my utilities? Give me an unbiased source - not a vitriolic rant like you've just shown us, but something with real, unspun facts.
Come on, Dude. These are basic simple blatantly obvious facts that a half second of thought would have enabled you to prove to yourself. It's not rocket science. It's not even unclear, difficult or anything of the sort.
I just bought a condo in Chicago. To deliver electrical service to my place, the power company strings a wire from the line to my building (40 feet from the power line tops.) By stringing this one line they have provided service to *4* households.
To get the next building with 2-4 households, it's another drop from the power line. Same thing all up and down the entire neighborhood.
Now compare that to what is involved with getting power to you and the closest 3 households to you.
Pretty freaking simple, isn't it? Substitute, Phone lines, cell phone service, etc. etc. etc. and you get the exact same qualitative results.
If you were to pay what it costs to deliver your power, then most likely *you wouldn't even have power because you couldn't afford it*. Now, the federal government has mandated that you shall get power and phone service and it shall be paid for by taxes, which people in rural areas don't even pay since they almost always get more back in tax dollars than they put out.
Here is that data, which isn't trivially obvious like the utility issue.
By the way - farming subsidies? How does that factor into your argument (regarding the cost of people living away from cities) at all? Are the farmers supposed to move to the big city and grow the food in the middle of your concrete jungle? Or are we all just supposed to eat pigeons and wall mold?
It figures in because it's the same hypocritical socialist crap. If you want to be a socialist, then stand up, be a man, and admit it. The utterly morally bankrupt folks who swill at the trough while claiming to be gung ho capitalists are creating an incredible cognitive dissonance that is largely responsible for how fucked up this country is right now.
No, they aren't supposed to move into the city to grow food. They can grow it where they are and sell it at a fair market value which is far less than it's sold for now.
The common argument is that this would eliminate the family farm. Too fucking bad, I say. Factory farms already receive the bulk of these "family farm subsidies" because they're the ones who bought the laws.
Our country is going bankrupt largely due to these leaches and their completely retarded voting choices, so we can't really afford to coddle them and pretend that what they do isn't already done far more efficiently without them.
If they still want to live in the middle of nowhere, fine, but they can live at a level they can afford without picking my pocket in order to live above their means.
I'm not one of these radical free market rah rah rah types (Actually a lot of them tend to be the very leaches we're talking about). I think that having some sort of a safety net is good, but these types of subsidies do nothing but allow deluded people to continue living in their fantasy world of "self sufficiency" when they are nothing but welfare leaches. Let them get a taste of the real world that they created and fucked over and maybe they'll be capable of pulling their heads far enough out of their asses to get a breath of fresh air and start acting like sane decent human beings instead of the rabid faggot hating blame everybody for their problems except themselves type of whiny bitch which they have demonstrated themselves to be in recent years as the results of *their* choices are now starting to affect them.
How in the world does living in the suburbs mean leaching off of you?
Man your logic is seriously fucked up.
So you ask a question whose answer is pretty clear and simple were you at all interested in actually learning the answer and then claim that my logic is "seriously fucked up". Bravo, Sparky. You're a real prize.
"Suburbs" are a relatively small part of the problem. The rural areas are the worst.
How it means leaching is simple.
If you live in a rural area, look at your phone bill. Now quadruple that amount. That's what your service costs. You only pay a quarter of it and I pay the rest. How is that not leaching?
Then just look at the whole farming thing. Not only do the farmers get paid direct subsidies i.e. welfare, but the prices of the food they sell is artificially inflated for an entire other welfare payment.
That is the worst kind of Socialism, and the rural areas of the country have been living under that system for a hundred years.
Add in the fact that the people there are so dangerously delusional and out of touch with reality that they think that they're capitalists even though every thing they keep whining about ("moral decay", "gays", etc.) are the direct, inevitable result of the global hyper capitalism that they keep voting for.
So, yes, people living in rural areas *are* leaches. They are the primary example of the culture of entitlement and utter contempt for personal responsibility.
The fact that they keep bitching about exactly what they are while pretending that the people working their asses off to pay their bills for them are the problem is completely insane. Their militant death grip on their ignorance of such simple basic matters is the primary reason our country is rotting in the core.
A little honesty and a little integrity on the part of these leaches would go a long way to allowing us to start fixing the problems that they have created.
Don't bet on it though. They will continue to leach off of the productive members of society until it collapses and then blame anyone but themselves.
That and the morons running the foreign policy, they could screw the pooch and really bork stuff out in the middle east, better to get rural where life is more sustainable for the long haul and you can actually develop "neighbors" and local ties. Big cities can go to pure hell in one day as soon as anything gets turned off, electricty, water, food deliveries, etc. We got a well, a garden, and a generator and a firewood lot, screw it, let that other stuff back in town rot.
You do realise that it's the ignorant douchebags in these rural areas that are the ones supporting the "morons running the foreign policy", don't you.
So great, move there and when it all does go to hell *because* of the ignorance and cowardice of the people you've surrounded yourself with you can all sit around and blame the "evil urban dwellers" who are the ones who were paying the subsidies that allowed you to live in the middle of nowhere and maintain a modern lifestyle.
.
Great plan.
The quality of life than many Americans does not require public transportation. In fact I would be a good number actually see public transportation as a sign of where NOT to live.
Sure, but then you're put in the position of leaching off of me and the rest of the urban dwellers to pay your bills.
I have too much integrity to live my life sponging off of others, but hey, different strokes and all right?
Here's a simple test. Would you be willing to have every single one of your bills, phone, gas, electric, cell phone etc. etc. etc. quadrupled to live where you do?
If so, fine, start paying your own way in the world.
If not, then you are a leach and your existence is entirely dependent upon the welfare provided to you by me and others like me.
How about a little respect for those who pay your bills for you?
I'm even moving further out simply because where I bought has changed so much in 9 years that its no longer the area I desired to live in. Lots of good people are here but the little businesses have creeped down the road to where its no longer "open".
That's fine, but if you're going to move to the middle of nowhere, then you had damn well better pay to have all of the utility lines brought out there rather than expecting *me* to pay for it for you.
(Also note, that I don't necessarily think that socialism is bad... it's just not the society _I_ want to live in... and there are plenty of socialist societies to go around... so stop messing with my capitilistic society!)
Well, that's really the heart of the problem right there.
We do not live in a capitalistic society. We live in a fascist corporate-welfare state.Until you can realise that simple basic fact, you won't really be able to address the issue rationally.
This doesn't mean that minumum wage laws and the like are the answer, but it does mean that until that fact is addressed in an effective manner that the problems that corporate welfare creates will continue and increase.
Seriously though, it' s trade-off. We could have this sort of thing in parts of North America, but it would require consumers and gov't to stop moaning and griping about where telecos and cablecos pick to choose their deployments. Cherry-picking, if you will.
It would require the welfare state leaches to grow a shred of integrity and actually live up to their free market rah rah rah bullshit rather than leaching off the urban dwellers expecting to have their entire lifestyle subsidised, while being too corrupt and dishonest to pull their own weight for once.
Expecting the rural Republicans to act with integrity is like expecting to jump to the moon under your own power.
It just ain't gonna happen. They are far too cowardly and far too lacking in any type of morality or honor.
LOL. I'm the extremist...
Now point to where I called you that. Go on...I'm waiting.
Oh that's right. I didn't.
I characterised your one statement that only a "vindictive Democrat" would actually refuse to pardon Bush for his many crimes as extremist and partisan which it is.
That's a far different thing than calling you an extremist.
would never dismiss voting for an entire party out-of-hand, as an extremist might.
Well, just keep pretending that voting for the lesser of two evils will work out. How exactly is recognizing it as the mug's game it is extremist?
And I would never call Bush, who is just another in a long line of mediocre presidents, one of the worst traitors in our nations history - like an extremist might.
Your ability to ingore reality is truly amazing. Setting up torture camps all over the world, outting covert agents, making up crap and lying to the public to start a war.... Yeah, all just everyday things.
The implicit support you are giving for these actions are far more extremist than my simple recognition of the facts of our current world.
I couldn't disagree more. Power corrupts completely, and the left elite fancy themselves as much as the right elite. Classes will always exist, and the rich will always get richer. While the left trys to portray itself as Robinhood in a social sense, new taxes that "benefit the poor" rarely tax the top of the tax bracket in any fashion.
Well, in practice it always seems to work out that way. Just look at the USSR and the special stores for the party elite etc.
That was a leftist country though. The Democrats in America are somewhat moderate right wing whereas the Republicans are extremist right wing, so talking about the "left" in discussing America is just silly.
thank you.. i think youre the first right wing non-hyppocrite i've met.
Then you haven't been paying attention. There are a LOT of us.
No, there really aren't.
If you agree with the principles that the other poster put forward which the parent above was expressing surprise with, then you are *not* at all right wing.
He misspoke, but you went along with it. If you believe in individual liberty, small government, free markets or anything of the sort, then you are what the right wing is directly and absolutely opposed to.
You are also what the left is directly and absolutely opposed to.
Don't kid yourself, and don't allow yourself to be put into a box that directly opposes what you believe in.
The right stands for corporate welfare and big oppressive government by its very definition.
The left also stands for big oppressive government though, so don't kid yourself that I'm trying to promote that.
Liberalism (in the classic sense) is the word you're looking for to describe your views, although obviously that word has been redefined by both the left and the right as Liberalism, the idea of *individual liberty* is the thing that both the left and the right are violently opposed to.
So, unless they come out and say that they believe in using big government to oppress unpopular groups and rip off the people to make the rich richer, anybody who calls themself "right wing" is either a hippocrite or doesn't even know what the term means.
If you honestly believe in the principles of individual liberty, small government and the like then you are a Classical Liberal, or perhaps a libertarian (note small 'l'). The Republican party has never really stood for any of these things. They just pay lip service to them in order to fool people like you into voting for them.
Ever since Reagan was elected, they gave up any pretense of actually believing in these things in a mad dash to fascism.
Why does it have to be what he has to hide? Why isn't it about what he's trying to accomplish by protecting the American people from another terrorist act?
Because this is the real world and not your delusional fairy land.
Since this is his claim, and it's a reasonable claim, why are you so suspicious to think the President is lying about it?
No, it isn't even remotely a reasonable claim. Just because you're a boot licking coward who wants to piss away the rights and freedoms my forefathers fought for does not make a ridiculous claim that flies in the face of every fact and against every action Bush has taken so far "reasonable".
He's lied about so many things so far that the only reasonable assumption to make about anytrhing he says is that it's a lie.
You really are a naive little kid.
Do you think he implemented such a program for other reasons? Or do you accept his explaination and question his methods? If the former, then you're more concerned with bashing him than actually getting answers. If the latter, then you can not say he's hiding anything, but simply trying to protect the information that gives sensitive details about a program used to protect Americans (and probably others in the world).
What utter crap.
If the former, then you have demonstrated basic simple common sense.
What an insane, dishonest, and utterly repugnant argument.
"Durrrrr if you think he had other reasons then obviously you only think that because you want to bash him."
That's a circular argument, Sparky.
Susoecting that he has other reasons than the ridiculous ones given is just simple basic common sense at this point.
Trusting *any* politician of *any* party in *any* government to this extent is an act of utter insanity.
Doing so for one who has demonstrated his contempt for our laws and our constitution so blatantly on so many occasions is delusional and cowardly beyond redemption.
The game could change if a vindictive Democrat becomes the next president.
No, the game could change if a person with a scrap of integrity got elected.
It doesn't take a "vindictive Democrat" to not give one of if not the worst traitors in our nation's history a get out of jail free card.
All it takes is an honest person.
Now, the odds of getting that are pretty slim, but your extremist partisan view that only a "vindictive" Democrat" would give a shit about honesty, integrity, decency, or any of the list of supposed "American Values" is really pretty sickening to people like myself who have too much integrity to have ever voted for one of the major party candidates.
Bush and his yes men have moved the right further left than it has ever been. Right and left have reversed roles in the 20 years since Regan. It's almost impossible to grasp the sheer size, power, secrecy, and surveilance of citizens of and by the federal government at this point in time.
The rest of your points were good, but this is just idiotic beyond belief and it is truly typical of the extreme ignorance of the most basic political definitions typical of the vast majority of Americans.
The Right has not been moving left. The entire fucking country has been moving farther and farther to the right since WW2. Reagan's presidency was when we had a massive acceleration of this headlong race to fascism.
Let me guess, you think that because the Repugs are spending like drunken sailors that they're "left"?!?
Seriously, wake up.
The right and the left *both* stand for big oppressive government and always have by definition. The only difference is what they want to use the power of government against the people in order to accomplish.
The right believes that the wealthy elite are inherently better than the rest of the people and the power of government should be used against the people to keep them down.
The left believes that all people are equal and wants to use the power of government against people to enforce this "equality".
Nowhere in the makeup of either the left or the right does freedom, liberty, small government fiscal responsibility or anything of the sort even exist. Those are the things that they are *both* absolutely opposed to.
Here is an article that lays it out very clearly.
If the Republicans were far "left", then there wouldn't be massive widening in the gap between the rich and the poor and a slide of the middle class into poverty as we're seeing. We would just all be equally poor.
First time I've read a sig line which automatically qualifies a person for a lifetime's reserved bed in Gitmo.
;-)
I'm not sure if your music's too loud, or if the whole being dead for tax reasons thing is screwing up the communication, but I don't know if you're approving, disapproving, or just commenting
See, what's surprising about this is, like I mentioned, I do write professionally.
No, what's surprising is that rather than act like a person with integrity and just admit that you were absolutely wrong to type "could of" when you meant "could have", you keep trying to pretend that your appeal to made up authority has any meaning.
Suck it up, admit you made a stupid mistake, or just STFU.
"Could of" is a reasonable written way of depicting how many people (myself included although I'd typically say it closer to "coulda") would say that, but to actually write it indicates a deep lack of understanding of what it is that you're actually trying to communicate.
I'll bet that you also write things like:
"For all intensive purposes"
Seriously, Sparky. You fucked up.
That's no big deal.
Going to ridiculous (as in "worthy of ridicule") lengths to pretend that you didn't when it's both a basic fact and a matter of public record that you did fuck up just makes you a laughingstock.
Be a man, just take the hit.
this is an example of inductive argument anyone?
Not at all.
It's been proven (taking any one of the above at their word) for x=1
Getting from assuming it true for x=n to *proving* it therefore true for x=n+1 is almost always the hard part of induction.
I really, really hope that consequences are fully thought out by our congress and senate before they agree to this power-grab.
Oh good god, the naivety of people is really driving me fucking nuts these days.
Of course they thought it through. That's *why* they're fucking doing it, you simpleton.
Grow up, pull off the rose colored glasses and deal with the reality you're in, not the delusional fantasy world you wish you were in.
Are you that out of touch with reality that you actually believe they'll fuck it up by accident?!?
The consequences you are worried about *are* their fucking goal.
For ample proof of what I'm saying, just look at the whole entirety of human history.
Why? Because if done right,
There is the deepseated fundamental flaw in your entire "point".
As soon as you have to throw in, "and the magic faeries came and make everything wonderful" which is exactly equivalent to your statement, your entire argument becomes completely worthless.
Think it *all* the way through next time.
I find it hilarious that people think we could have faked the moon landings. I mean, we were in an international space *race*; probably the biggest rivalry in the history of the world. If there were any way in hell those men weren't actually on the moon, the Soviets would have been all over it and shamed us forever.
;-)
And you really think that proves anything?!?
What makes you think we didn't just make up Russia too?
Have you ever been there? If not, then hah! If so, then you're clearly part of the conspiracy.
See? Easy as shooting fish through the bottom of your lifeboat
I had a top secret clearance in the air force in the seventies; there were SR-71s and other stuff I still can't talk about for fear of going to prison.
;-)
Bah! I have no clearance at all, and I have a picture of myself sitting on the wing of an SR-71.
Well, ok I was like a year old at the time
If a religion, a church, is denied the ability to marry two homosexuals, allowed in their doctrine, or perhaps perform polygamy, that really says a lot about what the government thinks about the 1st Amendment.
Well, there's some truth to that. I don't think that Churches are denied the right to marry anyone or thing that they want to. It's just that that marriage won't be legally recognized by the state.
That's the thing that these anti-gay marriage wackos are so off base about. "Marriage" means at least two entirely differnt things. There is the religious aspect (to some people) which is determined by the particular church and can mean just about anything or nothing depending.
Then there is the legal institution which really only relates to things like hospital visitation rights, inheritance, and things like that.
So AFAIK (and I could be wrong on this) a church could marry a dog to a cow, a chair, and a person all at the same time and the state wouldn't care. It's just that the state wouldn't recognize the marriage in terms of granting the benefits normally associated with it.
The anti-gay marriage zealots keep trying to confuse the 2 things by on the one hand talking aobut "preserving the sanctity" of the institution and other such idiotic nonsense while ignoring the fact that in the eyes of the law it is only a legal contract. "Sanctity" and other such crap aren't legal terms and have no meaning in the law. At the same time, they're trying to change the constitution to destroy the whole seperation of church and state idea which is the only thing preventing the government from forcing them to perform gay marriages in those places where it is legal.
Truly insane.