At 12/8/09 08:07 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/7/09 06:52 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Good point.

I think the kind of solution you want is the kind where you round all the people up, then put them on a train so you can concentrate them all in some sort of camp somewhere.

Free kool-aid?

At 12/7/09 07:17 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/7/09 06:35 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: If one understands how civility works they can use it to manipulate others.

Some would argue that manipulating people isn't civil, though that would append a condition to your original quote.

Civility stemmed from acquiring sufficient and stable food sources. Natural law has held claim for far longer periods of time. The manipulation that comes with progressive civilization is standard, being a part of natural law. Those who can, will, those who can't, die off in one way or another.

Now, would it ever be considered "civil" to regulate the human population in any way, shape or form?

At 12/4/09 02:06 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 12/4/09 01:54 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: because increased government involvement in, well, ANYTHING has worked before??

Great Depression, Scientific research funds......

The depression was deepened with more government involvement. "Scientific research" might as well be "military research".

Fuck, confiscating gold in the 30's probably set the stage for the massive bailouts we have today.

"too big to fail"

lol

At 12/1/09 02:24 PM, Drakim wrote: I'm not quite sure anymore. I used to have the idea that atheism was my religion because so many people were insisting that not believing in a supernatural intelligence that transcends the universe is a religion in itself.

Why are you asking us what your religion is, if your beliefs are static? Would our interpretations of your ideas change you? Would you like to become part of us? What are your goals, in life and this thread?

But then it started getting kinda vague when I found accusations of liberalism and evolution being religions too. I accept the theory of evolution and I have several liberal opinions on public matters. Is it possible to have three religions at once? I've never heard of something like that before.

Institutions come in many forms.

But then came the real brainbuster. In the same day, I was told my religion was abortion because I do not oppose it, and Global Warming was my religion since I accept mainstream science.

Oh.. how quaint.

Dear people,
Please stop being retards and at least make your nonsensical insults be internally consistent. I can't imagine that it's that hard to make up shit that actually fits with itself. Don't call people dumbsmart or insist that they are walking in all directions at once, and stop saying that every single thing you oppose is a religion.

Chill out? Don't tell me what to do? Don't define me? Wahh?

I mean, seriously. Why do people still do this? It should be as embarrassing as saying that your polical opponent Hitler bedmate. There should be internet laws like Poe or Godwin's law that decries this enormous stupid accusation.

What that supposed to be a "does not follow"?

So, since nobody else is for the moment, I'm hereby declaring that anybody who does this is a complete asshole. And if you disagree to this post then you are only doing it because disagreeing with me is your religion.

I only posted because mods posted.

The seperation I envision in the mental/physical relationship is the time it takes to filter through the processes of the mind. From the point of conception to the culmination, data and impulses are exchanged from thoughts of the mind to the actions and requirements of the body.

Imagine starting with a singular thought, or desire, "I want cookies in my belly" perhaps. Simply thinking about cookies in your gut won't make it happen, but could you put cookies there without first desiring them? Depending on how long you've been deprived of cookies, or how much you want them, you'll go through escalating measures to makes your thoughts reality. The hardware of your body suggests sustinance, preferably cookies, where you then interpret the signals and devise a way to achieve the goal.

As far as programless computers and meatsacks go, I would think a computer without any programming is not a computer at all, by definition at least. Even a simply calculator takes input and spits out a desired result. Pulsing vegetable people are considered dead when brain activity reaches a certain point, though even the most morally deprived, soulless cretins have done at the very least ONE iota of soul-enriching activity. Even if that one thing is merely self-preservation.

But when you point out that the mind and body are inextricably linked, I'd have to agree.. one without the other makes the whole incomplete. Computers without programs? Mentally devoid people (not so far fetched)? There is always a moment of transition from the initial onset of an idea and it's culmination.

At 10/27/09 04:21 PM, Elfer wrote: My point was that the conceivability argument doesn't make sense. Just because I can conceive of two things as separate entities doesn't mean they are separate entities, since a program is inherently inseparable from some sort of hardware for it to run on.

With this talk of programs and hardware, souls and bodies, imagination and existence.... I can't help but comment that you couldn't have any one of those without the other. The relationships seem utterly dependent on eachother, even interchangable in some instances.

The conceivability argument that he posted basically amounts to "Anything I can imagine must be true"

In some sense, it is. Whether merely thinking about something forces it across planes of existance into realms of physical truth is a whole different matter. That something would need a vehicle to process it and make it happen. That could be programming, hardware, effort, thoughtful manipulation or any other number of possible ways to create.

For instance, a doting mother tells her offspring tales of magical happenings and other interpretations of the unknown or physically untruthful. These untrue captivations hold in the kid, say, and as they learn and live and process more and more, that seed of a story could bear physical fruit long down the road. Quite possibly having little to do with the original magic of the story, but fruitful and tangible nonetheless. The idea didn't transcend from imagination by itself, but was processed and interpretted and then brought into being through a body.

I hope I'm not rambling as incoherently as I probably sound.. there's more to elaborate on, but I think that's the jist of linking imagination to physical existance. Mutation via time, the more the greater.

In defense of a good purging, the republicans in the house are doing A+ work today.

The way I look at it is, the less involvement that is required on government's behalf, the better. Fox helps represent that particular slant, and I think their ratings reflect that. As far as Olberman/O'Reilly go, they play watchdogs to their target audience, barking at this or that, more often than not correct in their observations.

I think Republicans will band together more, not so much out of shared ideology but shared political philosophy; united is stronger than divided. Compromising the party should come before compromising ideals.

At 10/28/09 09:36 AM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Yes, they [republicans] are stepping away from conservatism, and yes, thank whatever gods the people of NG pray to that the whole mess is finally getting some sense to it.

Could you be more specific? You seem to be saying that Republicans who sympathize with liberal ideals such as socialized healthcare and government protectionism are the ones bringing sense to the chaos of an otherwise polarized political argument.

If this is true, what makes it so appealing, it being the escape from the conservative base?

There's just something wrong with a government that DOESN'T want to help the people under it.

The only way government can help a person is by hurting another or the whole. Government work is not volunteer work, in case you were in the dark on the matter.

Printing more money for the sake of printing money devalues the dollar in the present and future tenses. Blowing it on bailing out companies "too big to fail" is not what government is about, regardless of the people it helps. The foresight of the liberal ideal some republicans (including former president BUsh II) is unappealing to me. What makes this type of thinking appealing to you, that you're thanking NG's respective gods for the appeasing republicans who've abandoned the ideals that made the party worth supporting?

Do you believe in "government competition"?

Your mothers were all raped and murdered in 1990.

by glenn beck

Ace.

At 10/21/09 05:40 PM, IETFB wrote: Would you get your cat to pull a plough?
How about using a gerbil to herd sheep?

Or better yet, would a big cat NOT eat you given the chance? Evolution favors the strong.

It's the same reason why I don't eat dogs: they're better of doing other jobs. You know, the ones we've bred them for. Just like we've bred cows and pigs for their meat.

There's nothing wrong with eating a dog, it's just a waste of talent.

Just fucking ace. I love you, man.

At 10/21/09 04:45 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 10/21/09 03:41 PM, TheMason wrote: Therefore since their display does not mandate a religion nor oppress free exercise of differing religions...it does not go against what the Constitution says.

The first commandment is essentially "Worship one god" That specifically mandates religions of a monotheistic faith

Where do you get the mandate from, gum?

Is it codified into law such a display be obeyed, else penalties ensue? Or are the display of the commandments, with their origins in religious scripture, automatically disqualified from public display simply for their origins and/or implicit endorsement?

I understand the principles behind religious neutrality in government facilities. I also understand an individual has the right to express themselves religiously during employment in government positions. Would simply bearing witness to religious expression from an individual be akin to taking notice of other religiously-affiliated paraphernalia on publis property?

I suppose if everyone at a particular government institution was of a single faith, through some weird demographic or statistical improbability, and all were allowed to make their religious expressions on government (and hence, public) time.... would that be the moral equivalent of displaying religiously-influenced objects?

At 10/9/09 08:47 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 10/9/09 08:41 AM, AapoJoki wrote: By the way, the worst Nobel Peace Prize laureate ever was not Yasser Arafat or Henry Kissinger. The worst one by far was Mother Teresa.

Just curious to know your line of thinking on that one. :/

Sarcasm, most likely.

If not, maybe Mother Teresa had Mossad and/or Republican connections.

You say society wasn't wronged.

I say the rape affects more than just the girl.

Finally, a coherent post. If I may....

At 10/3/09 11:51 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Personally , after 30 years the most important part of any of this...& this is just my opinion...
but whatever Samantha Geimer wants, is what should take precedence over anything else .
She wants the California Justice system, in particular those driving this case to drop it ! ! !

Do you think this case should be an example of justice served if the victim wishes charges dropped? Do you see a parallel, perhaps, in a spouse forgiving their mate of abuse after summoning the criminal justice system?

I'm curious if you believe, like many vocal thespians Hollywood, Roman Polanski should be treated equally under the law or given an exception.... based on either the victim's token forgiveness (futility, anyone?) or the rapist's status as a pop-icon.... or maybe even both? Should the system relax it's clammy grip on child rapist's, or simply make a better effort at incarceration sooner to the conception of the crime?

Where's the straw that's breaks the proverbial camel's back for you in cases of child rape?

She wants them to fuck off...I say they should have to respect her wishes.
She's an adult with 3 children & doesn't want this shit plastered in the media & I believe everyone should respect her wishes.

Everyone, including the courts? That's fucked up for reasons I shouldn't have to spell out, but I will point of the ovbious avenues of abuse such a mindset has the potential to incur. However, if you view this case as the exception and not the rule, then you'd have more wiggle room. Why should he be special though, especially after snubbing the system with his original flight?

Don't you think folding with the best hand would hurt the justice system more than aide it and the victim's of reprehensible crime?

Without her testimony, they really don't have a case.

It was already judged. The case was made. He won't be tried for it again, merely sentenced.

the original judge is dead, all this is doing is wrecking Samantha's life... & how is that goin gto accomplish anything good for her ?

The system is not built to cater to her. It sought to realign justice through time served, and failed when the fucking crook jumped ship and created a second injustice. Now the wind has left his wings and justice has not been served.

Again, is Polanski the exception or do you advocate non-punishment for criminals like him, provided they commandeer forgiveness from their victims and hide long enough? Do you think Roman ever raped other children after successfully fleeing justice?

Why wouldn't he?

She's already been given a settlement, even if she hasn't collected all of it, if/when he dies her lawyers will be able to get it from the estate .... my 2 cents.

What do you propose Roman pays to society? Do you feel he owes society anything for violating the legal and cultural mores of the time?

At 9/30/09 05:16 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote:

At 9/30/09 03:42 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote: First. Can you show me proof that he did anything? If not, shut up.

The whole fleeing the country a week before trial thing might hurt his case.

I thought we was tried, found guilty, had spent 45 days or so in lock-up and fled before sentencing.

Had he not fled, I'm sure he'd have been released a decade ago.

Given his flight, should he be rewarded with more injustice?

In my mind, Polanski fled to avoid death in prison, which is both understandable and morally acceptable (IF can still be granted moral righteousness). Seeing as how he is now captured, I hold he should be incarcerated for the remainder of his natural life. This would rectify his second insult to the law after he drugged, raped and sodomized a young child on US soil.

I would also support the prompt execution of Roman Polanski, preferably televised and documented for all the world to see and admire, to enjoy and reflect.... but that's just me.

At 9/26/09 08:27 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/25/09 11:27 PM, Elfer wrote: It's supposed to be an allegory for the way I view my own life, but yeah, if you think that's funny, then okay.

You view your life as a dark and dank bog, through which you are forced to do research on insignificant things, and are saddled with an overbearing intellect which won't allow you to do otherwise?

That's depressing, dude.

On a similar note, have you published yet, elfer? That blurb held me as tightly as the last decent novel I'd read had. Good stuff.

At 9/25/09 10:24 AM, Elfer wrote: BOGBOT

Enthralling.

What's in a word? A rose is a rose by any other name, and if "monkey" seems to be the new offensive banter begging to be reigned in, I suggest we revert back to the good ol' racebaitin' slang of the early '60's.

1860's.

Word to the lounge thread.

needs less cocks, more penis. Stat.

At 9/24/09 09:08 AM, Elfer wrote: How do you think those people are going to treat suspected terrorists?

I think that's a question NOT worth finding out, though the inescapability of the matter is probably at hand.

Where else can you find such ready agitators of society, enemies of the state, and generally pissed off Americans but in the US prison system? The mode middle eastern terrorists use to plant cells would likely find the dark, damp holes of prison an opportune habitat in prison. Suddenly acquiring potential agents could be both good and bad, depending on the actual inmate population surrounding the former Gitmo detainees. I'm sure the law could work it so the only contact that they'd recieve would be from law enforcement, but I'm also sure that Islamic prison cliques would find a way to carry out whatever wishes the suspected jihadist could dream up (or even simply trying to impress them by exhibiting unruly behavior).

I'm just speculating, but I'd rather leave the bodies of my enemies where they were first captured and deprive them the chance to ferment on US soil.

Once they are into the prison system, genpop could destroy them, but don't you think they'd be granted some legal precedent for having a lawyer and appealing to better their position? If isolation could be considered "better", I'd just as soon release them outright to Cuba or execute them based on whatever evidence they blundered on initial capture. Either they are an enemy or they aren't. If it takes this long to decide, then WTF, something is indeed wrong.

At 9/24/09 08:19 AM, awkward-silence wrote:

At 9/23/09 08:57 PM, Korriken wrote: those are not tactical assault rifles, they just look like them.

The civilian model AR-15 is quite similar to the military grade M-16. Its semi-auto and a simple modifaction away from full-auto.

So "close-enough" is acceptable to you? Doesn't the person behind the trigger scare you more than whatever firearm he happens to be carrying at the time? I'd feel more secure, knowing enforcement allowed upstanding citizens to exercise their rights as vigorously as humanly possible... but that's just how I think. I also view the carrying of firearms in such a scenario as an equally protected first amendment right to freedom of expression, akin to flag burning and draft ticket destruction.

They can still kill someone, much like the rifles these guys are carrying. but people who can afford such a thing will most likely not turn it on anyone. you don't spend $1500+ on a rifle to kill someone. you spend $200 on a handgun, which are far more lethal.

They are bringing those too!!!

Don't be a pussy.

But to effectively use a handgun you need to get close. For Rifle you only need to be across the street from a town hall meeting.

AND YOU MUST HAVE THE INTENT TO KILL. Again, the person behind the trigger should inflict more fear than the tool he carries... or the one's he chooses not to carry. If you are going to be paranoid, go for the win, not just the four-card flush. Show your fear of the human mind as well, it's much more dangerous.

The Unincorporated Man

Nominated for the Prometheus, this book outlines and divulges some of the key components of both freedom and liberty, measured from an individual as a corporate entity. Who owns the value and worth, and who sets the worth?

Highly recommend for any reader, doubly so for the OP. I think you'd enjoy The Unincorporated Man greatly.

Yea C-span is great it lets me watch the childish ploys of democrats in congress.

At 9/4/09 10:47 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 9/4/09 10:28 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: You don't have to peel off your Obama bumper sticker yet, if that's what you meant about taking it seriously.... you could always take it as it is, if it's not too hard.

What is it? A man was told he couldn't protest on school property by a police officer action on his own and this is somehow representative of everything wrong with the Obama administration even though we've already acknowledged the Obama administration had nothing to do with it and he acted alone. WHAT?

That a cop should feel coerced to espouse such wrongheaded actions on behalf of his superiors is telling. It's to be taken as is. So if you can't read deeper than "lol its a conundrum" fine. Just say it that way instead of acting as though the author was using it as anything more than anecdotal. I consider such instances with a grain of salt, but I give them consideration nonetheless. The problem itself is not he administration, but the effect the administration is having on everyday people.

It's not that complicated, and the point isn't too tough to detect. It is what it is, no more, no less.

You did not see the collective "fuck you" to the republicans and Bush in '08? If "moving on" without them is not a collective "fuck you", what is it, other than a weak-minded euphemism?

Its an attempt to reform the country, make it more profitable, make it a healthier place to live, and give people an actual chance at living the lifestyle they want to for as long as possible by making healthcare not a bane to society.

You mention profit and health as seperate benefits. You also mention people living the lifestyle they want (assumedly at he expense of others through single-payer legislation). I'm sure you're familiar with the business model describing three relative aspects: service, price and quality. It's possible to raise the potentcy of one or two, but always at the expense of the third.

How does your claim of better Any- and Everything Public Option fit into this model?

You seem to think there is a bane, what exactly is it?

If it were a fuck you to the republican party, there wouldn't be attempts at bipartisanship right now.

Attempts at bipartisanship are laughable. You either are or you aren't. The trick isn't throwing enough pork to sway one or two votes, it's actually making a compromise both parties can sleep with at night knowing they did the right thing. That's why there is partisanship now, republicans wouldn't be able to live with themselves supporting such a callously overwrought bill.

That's how it looks from where I'm sitting. What do you see?

But there is, so its not a fuck you. I'm sure it will be if the Republicans continue to do nothing but oppose every option supplied, but at the moment its not and that was not ever and never would be the main motivation for these policies. The fuck you would be entirely derivative of the inaction Republicans support. Believing that policy would be pushed through in order to insult one party is asinine.

The house speaker has alluded to as much, so I'm not sure why you feel insulted or asinine.

The republicans as an opposition party fits their generally recognized vein of conservatism, especially when you consider the sweeping legislative changes they oppose. For you to so quickly disregard unity and debate is telling of the percieved hostility the democrat party is becoming known for.

What debate? Republicans so far have lied about what they were supposedly debating. They said that the legislation would take away your right to choose a health care system and try to kill your grandparents. When in actuality it would be providing more options through a system where you can get any private plan regardless of you covered you. If the public option existed all it would do is keep private insurance companies prices down because they would actually have to compete.

WHo can compete with the government of the United States? Russia? China? What kind of competition are you shooting for? Service, price and quality. All three can't rise together simply because Big Government healthcare says competition is rooted in an unfair financing system designed to ensnare, insure and allocate yet another market's share of the economy.

Is the proposed legislation a grab of power in your mind? If no, why not?

Meh. He says a lot of things, and many times those things manifest quite different from what he says. Seriously, do you think the president isn't bothered when guns are around?

When has he done anything to stop them from being around? And if he is bothered he has every right to be.

I'm not arguing he doesn't. I'm arguing your outward disgust with the absurdity of your assertions doesn't follow the obvious assertions that any president should rightly be bothered when guns are around. It's like a form of hysteria, your disbelief in the obvious.

Why would you bring an instrument whose sole purpose is the destruction of other objects to a protest?

Because you are more empowered to protect yourself and your belongings with a method historically proven effective. How many unarmed protestors have you seen whooped over the years? How many had firearms? I rest my case.

TARP.

An extension of bills passed by Bush. In order to finish off what Bush had started TARP had to be passed to keep the entire thing from falling apart and the first half being wasted.

"Wasted", okay.

Is government only stepping into the auto industry and healthcare a waste if they do not provide competition in all facets of life?

How did the bailouts pass? Don't you agree people were tactically frightened with the consequences of inaction? Where in the charter does it say companies "too big to fail" may be bought and sold with government moneys?

But there's merit behind those arguments. We've actually SEEN what happens when banks fail and these banks were ready to fail. I haven't seen anyone actually refute that the banks failing wouldn't have shot us into a depression.

It's hard to refute something that may or may not have happened. That's like saying Hitler probably wouldn't have exterminated anybody had other nations accepted his nation's unworthy citizens. It's a notion worthy of ruminating over, but to actually attempt to refute such a claim is an abject waste, is it not? It was done, and many factors contributed. The crux is in the argument for the actions that DID occur.

Tort reform, campaign finance reform and a worldwide accord on climate change wouldn't fix the problem that democrats have initiated with the house version of the healthcare bill.

What is wrong with the bill?

It's too big and tries to do too much. I believe the problem within the problem is campaign finances. Do you believe the level of involvement between healthcare providers who stand to profit from the proposed bill is not compromised with elements of corruption? The scale of the bill makes it unmanageable in the application. The intent may be to do X, but the language may be legally dissected as meaning X, Y and some small components of Z, hinging on the whims of an unelected czar.

I don't believe our Congress has exemplified the competent oversight required by such a monumentally large healthcare overhaul bill. I'm a believer in baby steps, not blindfolded leaps into the unknown (or known, is the case of socialized medicine).

If you want to continue to listen to pundits, please keep it to yourself because flaunting it around as truth because SHE SAID SO in an article is just, well, I don't have a word for it. And I need one.

Hate monger.

What do I hate? Lies and deceit? Yes. Ok, I agree with you.

Free thought is your bane. Why do you suggest, on a forum, for someone to keep a main vein of thought to themselves?

The truth is that the healthcare bill will clog and bloat the system before it ever relieves any pressures OR heals our sick system.

Believe it.

At 9/4/09 10:36 AM, Elfer wrote: Sorry, did you just claim that Obama was fully responsible for TARP? As in, the one signed into law by Bush?

The president doesn't pass legislation, but he has been known to propose it. The question asked what legislation was passed that changed the country:

"The TARP will operate as a "revolving purchase facility." The Treasury will have a set spending limit, $250 billion at the start of the program, with which it will purchase the assets and then either sell them or hold the assets and collect the 'coupons'. The money received from sales and coupons will go back into the pool, facilitating the purchase of more assets."

Seems like a good idea, right?

The initial $250 billion can be increased to $350 billion upon the President's certification to Congress that such an increase is necessary.[3]

Discretionary spending, directly traceable to the president. The involvement is there.

The remaining $350 billion may be released to the Treasury upon a written report to Congress from the Treasury with details of its plan for the money.

Like tracking it, maybe? I dunno, maybe shadow money is more transparent... I'm just a dumb kid.

Congress then has 15 days to vote to disapprove the increase before the money will be automatically released.[2]. The first $350 billion was released on October 3, 2008, and Congress voted to approve the release of the second $350 billion on January 15, 2009. One way that TARP money is being spent is to support the "Making Homes Affordable" plan, which was implemented on March 4, 2009, using TARP money by the Department of Treasury.

I don't personally allocate 100% blame to either party, but the entity of government as a whole. Lame duck Bush and crew likewise should not recieve full credit for equipping the democrats with tools necessary for ramming unpopular legislation and financial boondoggles down America's throat. The shades of the old administration match the shades of the new, with more government expansions and less oversight, forever growing bolder in their quest to right the wrongs of civilization through legislation and moral socialism.

One last bit from the wiki article:

Because "at risk" mortgages are defined as "troubled assets" under TARP, the Treasury has the power to implement the plan. Generally, it provides refinancing for mortgages held by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Privately held mortgages will be eligible for other incentives, including a favorable loan modification for five years.[4]"

Do you think such favoritism will be shown in the healthcare industry after a public option is duly inititiated and protected from competitive measures with new legislation... legislation without roots in Bush-era expansionism?

At 9/4/09 09:22 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I feel like laughing, or crying or I don't know what, but ... I'm supposed to take this seriously???

You don't have to peel off your Obama bumper sticker yet, if that's what you meant about taking it seriously.... you could always take it as it is, if it's not too hard.

At one point you talk about how the cop acted independently and then you start blaming Obama regardless. I mean, really? LOL?

meh. It is what it is.

No one is saying fuck you to the Republican party, we're just moving on with out the republican party. Who needs them? What do they stand for? What do they really stand against?

I don't think you could answer that question with out bringing the democrats into the equation which means your party stands for nothing but opposition.

You did not see the collective "fuck you" to the republicans and Bush in '08? If "moving on" without them is not a collective "fuck you", what is it, other than a weak-minded euphemism?

The republicans as an opposition party fits their generally recognized vein of conservatism, especially when you consider the sweeping legislative changes they oppose. For you to so quickly disregard unity and debate is telling of the percieved hostility the democrat party is becoming known for.

The administration of transparency? Ha. Your faith is no more prescient than your oppositions.

I have never seen anywhere anyone calling for the reduction of writes of protest for any person ever. My god, Obama SAID that he wasn't bothered by protesters carrying guns where it was legal for them to do so. He said it was their right.

Meh. He says a lot of things, and many times those things manifest quite different from what he says. Seriously, do you think the president isn't bothered when guns are around?

How has this country become anything it wasn't before in 8 months? HOW? WHAT LEGISLATION WAS PASSED IN THE LAST 8 MONTHS THAT WAS BEGUN IN THE FOUR MONTHS PRIOR? What rights have you lost? What legislation has been proposed to take away those rights?

TARP.

LUNACY FEAR MONGERING

I call your fear mongering and raise you one propagandist press release.

Republicans are far closer to totalitarianism sentiments than the democrats. You are scared shitless over nothing, which scares the shit out of me because we all know what happens when a political party bases their entire podium on scaring people.

How did the bailouts pass? Don't you agree people were tactically frightened with the consequences of inaction? Where in the charter does it say companies "too big to fail" may be bought and sold with government moneys?

Is there any argument you have that isn't based on anecdotes?

These are the messages we constantly hear, and not any of it has anything to do with the economy, how to fix it, how to redirect it, how to address climate change, how to fix health care, etc.

Tort reform, campaign finance reform and a worldwide accord on climate change wouldn't fix the problem that democrats have initiated with the house version of the healthcare bill. If it did, the goals of each would never reach fruition. Doubt it all you want, when China starts curbing consumption in favor of the environment, politicians quit taking shadowy donations and doctors are afforded adequate protection, will NOT be the day the democrats ram through their socialized agendas.

If you want to continue to listen to pundits, please keep it to yourself because flaunting it around as truth because SHE SAID SO in an article is just, well, I don't have a word for it. And I need one.

Hate monger.

Boy, he sure was a great campaigner!

And keeping Biden & Pelosi around as numbers two and three? Brilliant.

Once he signs away US sovereignty to either the UN or newly founded North American Union (Amero anyone?) his quest for change will be complete. One world, one people. Sieg heil.

Does post-traumatic stress excuse the letter of law? I'm fairly certain military code recommends the death penalty, but I can't seem to find the exact passage..

If his only justification is "I was sad" then he, rightfully, should face a nice firing squad.

I think times have changed enough so that we can make our decisions not based on 250 year old documents... I mean come on.

Didn't little Jimmy use that logical landmine on the gangbanging Crips and Bloods in South Park, on television?

In all seriousness though, how do you build a monument to human achievement by ignoring the foundations that allowed such a hegemony to exist at all?

Do you not believe the US owes it's successes to the founding legal text that made it all possible?

At 5/7/09 04:11 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/7/09 03:46 PM, SonicSheep wrote: You mean Cronus, Zeus's Dad

I don't believe in that part of the mythology. I think Cronus is just a metaphor.

i lol'd