Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Recession Hits | TO THE Next »
what the parent doesn’t realize is that the phrase “now Tommy share with your brother” is never going to work ever again.
(Children of teabaggers)
Picture by: dunno source. Caption by: werwolf via Advanced Lol Builder
 | MsWormwood on Poor Eating Practices |
 | Geary on 90s Jokes |
| Geary on And Then There Was One |
| Geary on Undercover Loss |
 | Bob the eternally un… on Undercover Loss |
 | Gutt on 90s Jokes |
 | Wyt on 90s Jokes |
 | Doveswing on Seems Legit |
 | Whatever on And Then There Was One |
 | Byt on Aww, Nicknames! |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Animal Videos - Cute and Hilarious Animal Videos
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode. 
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz 
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
This sucks
…because of it’s truthiness?
I think it hit the nail right on the head.
The signs, yes. The caption, no.
Unless the kids and/or parents in this picture are too stupid to know the difference between confiscation and redistribution and generosity and sharing, much like the creator of this caption was…
My guess is that the parents connected to the kids in this picture are too stupid to know a lot of things.
So much fail…. So little time….
and you can base this on… what, the idea that they don’t necessarily agree with socialist ideals?
I base this on the idea that a surprisingly large number of idiots seem to have no idea what taxes actually do, and what Western society would become without them.
Do you know where your taxes actually go?
Linkey.
Oh, and DO click the + signs next to the folders.
It’s enlightening how little goes to “Transportation” as compared to “Health,” “Medicare,” and/or “Social Security.”
I’m surprised how often my votes are in line with the general populace!
ok, we need taxes to function. but when the government is spending itself into oblivion… why should we cover their stupidity?
Right well first of all one of the ACTUAL reasons for this economic crisis is Reagan’s fantastic plan to OUTSPEND THE SOVIET UNION. And then Bush’s war, and there was a system in place to keep the government from spending too much, but that got removed. They’re reinstating that. Fixing such a huge problem takes time, people. Just because its been 9 months doesn’t mean everything should be fixed.
Second of all, without the government, you are nothing. Who would take over, if the government were gone? Nothing would be managed. There would be no FREAKING HOSPITALS or the like. The government is necessary, if you don’t like this one, then move to another country.
Welcome to society. It’s like a restaurant: if you don’t like the price the food is offered at, eat somewhere else. Don’t eat the food and then refuse to pay because you think the price is too high. Without society, we wouldn’t have money or property. Your money and your property only mean something because society is there to back them up.
Protest all you want, but don’t be surprised when the rest of us look at you as a small child who refuses to share his legos.
Obviously you are ignorant. B/c the protest was about the stimulous package, the bill passed with the most ear marks in history. These same people were protesting the bail outs b4 and now Obama is adding more. Y’al don’t get it. Why should I pay for my health insurance and someone else’s? Shouldn’t that be my choice? Should I have to pay to teach Chinese hookers to drink? Should I have to pay to save a jobs that didn’t get saved! That’s what people protested, just like y’al protested the war. Funny how it’s freedom of speech and patriotic then, but ridiculed now! 1st amendment my ars!!!
Taxed Enough Already is not just about the stimulus package. It is a celebration of selfishness.
I already said, you can protest all you want. Tell you what, I’ll give you the same amount of respect I got from the right wing when I protested the war: none.
Now who’s being selfish and childish!!!! Dang you hurt your liberal cause b/c of the blatant hypocrisy.
{sarcasm}How selfish of you to not just blindly trust our officials to spend your money better than you. Shame, shame on you.{/sarcasm}
Funny how when they complained about anything Bush did (I wasn’t crazy about him either), they were patriots, but when we complain about Obama, we’re selfish, racist, ignorant, partisan, or whatever else suits their fancy that day…
You make such a great point-when people protest government policy who liberals agree with they “courageous”, and are applauded for continuing what America cam from-protesting an unfair government and it’s policies; yet when people dare to protest any of the recent Libersaints, they suddenly are “stupid” and “ignorant”. I can’t imagine why anyone would think that it would be wrong to protest giving money to companies who have already squandered millions with very few parameters and no repercussions-look at AIG and Chrsyler. I don’t vote by party, and I am pretty liberal, but this hypocrisy makes me crazy-it drives me to “the other side”-you have a group of people who talk copiously and endlessly about how liberal and accepting they are, yet they are some of the most one-sided, judgmental people that I have ever met. They rail against big business, yet they mock those who protested giving the greedy bastards free tax money; I think of Bill Ayers when I see stuff like this-protested the wealthy establishment, bombed the police, still is unrepentant (“I wish that we would have done more”), yet he lives in a gated, wealthy neighbor with police to protect him from the press-that speaks volumes about this type of mentality. BTW I don’t think that republicans are saints, either-a politician is a politician; that’s why Jimmy Carter was a crap president; he’s a really decent human being.
I have neighbors who cried when Obama was elected; they gripe about oil use; they think that everything should be socialized-yet they have 3 cars and two trucks with only two drivers-the husband lets the truck run for 4m to 1hr “to charge the battery”; They both teach at an elite private school, where their kids attend of course; the woman is frantically trying to start a private high school so her daughter won’t have to attend public school (her words, not mine)-even though the public high school here is one of the best in the state; they pay extra for a higher level of private health insurance (mentioned in passing); They have joined a religion-even though they decry organized religion-that is a recognized conscientious objector one-They moved here so that they “could help all the poor people in the town”-because apparently, if you are blue collar, that equals poor and ignorant. One of our other neighbors is proudly republican; when these people discovered that he could discuss art, music and current events without one “giterdone” they expressed something close to shock and awe. I know that this is long, but seriously, don’t claim to be open. liberal and accepting if you think that that means that you can pick and choose who “deserves” your acceptance based on how hip and cool they seem to you.
Oh, I accept them, I just don’t agree with them. See the difference? Everyone gets my respect the same way: by earning it. Nobody starts out with my respect, they start out with tolerance. I tolerated you and your opinion, I don’t agree with you.
Seth, if I’m wrong, I apologize in advance, but I believe I’ve seen you refer to conservatives in general and Republicans in particular as if they were barely capable of finding their way home on their own. I believe it’s that type of attitude dr is referring to?
Right, AFTER they have LOST my respect by being stupid (not backing up their arguments with citations, using logical fallacies, repeating disproven nonsense, refusing to answer questions, and/or holding two positions that are mutually contradictory.)
I call it like I see it. If you don’t want me to point out that you are being stupid, don’t be stupid.
I don’t mean referring to people individually, I mean making blanket statements about a group of people.
Yeah, I need to watch that. Sorry.
*hugs*
Lego Mai EGGO!
*fail*
Oh, no, dissent is patriotic. I’m being a patriot by dissenting with your dissent. Just like you were being patriotic when you called us unpatriotic for dissenting against the war. So, who is the real hypocrite?
Actually it’s not unpatriotic to protest the war. It’s unpatriotic to blame soldiers, burn the flag, and cheer on the enemy! Protesting is healthy in a modern society, from both sides. I just don’t understand the attitude that if you don’t like the way someone treated you during a protest you’d turn and treat someone that same way. That’s a sign of a hypocrit!
Who blamed the soldiers, burnt the flag, and cheered on our enemies? As I recall, conservatives are the ones hoping our country fails nowadays.
I love how conservatives view free speech. To them, free speech means they can say anything, but we can’t criticize what they say. Guess what? My criticism of you is also free speech. Get used to it.
Whoa. Hasty generalization fallacy, much? Just because Rush said something about the country failing doesn’t mean every conservative feels that way.
I demand you apologize to non-Limzombian conservatives.
Funny! We tried that arguement before and we get sued and villified for it. The convenience of the 1st amendment is beyond your understanding! Best poster ever is of the Vietnam memorial and it says “they died for the freedom to protest the war”. I bet that’s lost on you.
Sorry to all the non Limzombian conservatives. Not that it is only Rush that wants the country to fail. I’ve heard a LOT of conservatives say that recently.
You’re a gentleman and a scholar, Seth.
Who got sued for what now? I call BS.
I support our troops, I just don’t support sending them to do stupid, useless, dangerous things that harm our security.
…and I actually haven’t heard anyone vocalize that sentiment. Here in Normalville the villagers keep their pitchforks in their barns, and hope like hell we can get our a@@e@ back on track…
And as most of those around here will tell you, I didn’t vote for Obama, I didn’t want him as the next president, yet when he won I was hoping that he would get the country back on track. I still hope it happens because the one thing I was brought up with was love of country. I haven’t always agreed or supported decisions that were made by the government, but I would never hope for massive failure. I now live in a country that is ‘meh’ on patriotism, unless it’s the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games. Otherwise, it’s just another place to live.
-
I believe it’s the diversity of opinions that makes America great. The problem is, those who aren’t American will never understand our mindset. If we protest things that are happening, people in other countries take it as wanting the country to fail. When in fact, it’s the exact opposite, we want a better America.
-
I’m still a bit skeptical about Obama, but in my heart I could never believe that he wants the country to fail nor would he put into motion a plan that would cause it to fail.
If it makes you feel any better, Obama has had me a bit skeptical as well but I am keeping my bile down and waiting for a big screw up. I don’t pretend to know economics well enough to present a solution so I do my best (with notable failures of course) to let things ride to see where we are going before I have my freak out.
However, that said, I have to agree that Obama is doing his best. He doesn’t want America to fail, especially in his first term. That’s bad for reelection. Unfortunately, I am afraid that any reelection efforts by him will be crippled by the fact that people are expecting miracle cures and will hold that against him, even if his policies work.
Seth, a word of clarification: Rush didn’t say he wanted the country to fail, quite the contrary. He said he wanted *Obama* to fail, mainly because in Rush’s opinion Obama’s policies will cause the country to fail.
-
It’s in the same vein as the Liberal Dems wanting Bush to fail all through his presidency, then when he did fail, making hay out of it.
-
FTR, I specifically dont’ want the country to fail, but I don’t think Obama knows the right way out of this mess.
Froo–I can respect the way you said it more than the way Rush said. Rush has a way of making things sound even more ridiculous than they already are (and IMHO he says a LOT of ridiculous things). I guess it doesn’t make for interesting radio if he just says “I think Obama’s policies are bad so I think the country will actually do better if they don’t work out.”
DWM–Despite my general support of Obama, the fact that he has already flip flopped a little makes me nervous. Hell, just actually being president makes me distrust him more. It’s still too early to pass judgment for me, but I’m not as gung ho as I was last fall.
I’m tellin’ ya all, Obama is a barely left of center corporatist. His new Supreme Court appointment backs that up; she’s voted in favor of large corporations against people they’ve wounded more often than not. She may still be a great choice, but not a perfect one.
Limbaugh said no such thing. And I think, I’m pretty sure, you KNOW this.
PM, you hit the nail on the head, Obama is a barely left of center corporatist. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, but I’m not liking what I’m seeing either.
Who do you think Annie is complaining to? Kind of hard to refute her if I don’t know exactly what she’s complaining about!
“It’s unpatriotic to blame soldiers, burn the flag, and cheer on the enemy!”
I disagree with you about the flag, but other than that your comment is full of win!
Taxed enough already Seth is not about selfishness, you mistake the idea behind the parties. People aren’t complaining that tax dollars are building roads or even funding our troops, people are complaining because our tax dollars are funding stupid things. No one wants to a pay roughly 23% withholding to support the bills passed by rich people who are able to find loopholes and get away with not paying their taxes. Just like no one likes to be forced to pay money for the drug dealer collecting a welfare check and getting free housing, yet they still make more money than us. The idea behind the tea parties is that we have lost “representation” from our politicians in Washington, instead of listening to us they listen to the rich lobbyists who help them with campaigns. That goes for BOTH sides of the aisle. It has nothing to do with Americans not wanting to help each other out, but when you make government the middle man for charity then the system gets abused. Ideally this country needs to move from income withholding to a national retail sales tax like the FairTax plan, which makes everyone pay their fair share, and no one escapes it.
It is exactly that mentality that makes Taxed enough look selfish. Until you can prove that every person on welfare is like the above example then you are only dealing in hearsay, stereotypes, and paranoia.
Can you prove that everyone on welfare isn’t?
Don’t be ridiculous. As with any social program there are supposed to be checks and balances that ensure the right people are receiving the benefits. I will admit that there are ways around the process and people can, and do, find a way to take advantage of it. However, the statement I was referring to is an example of how we demonize those less fortunate than ourselves as a way to justify eliminating social programs. The onus isn’t on me to prove that the system doesn’t work because I’m not the one thinking it should be abolished.
Goosef didn’t generalize or say “all” — he/she said:
Just like no one likes to be forced to pay money for the drug dealer collecting a welfare check and getting free housing, yet they still make more money than us.
I don’t want to pay for that person. Do you?
So you adnmit the government can not inact their checks and balances accurately, yet you want these same people in charge of our health caren banks, and auto industry. God help us all. Oops sorry used the “G” word I must be a radical christian.
Yeah, I didn’t take it as “everybody on welfare’s stealing from me” so much as “there are some people who abuse the system, and paying for them pi$$es me off.” It especially makes sense paired with the complaint about the higher income people who also abuse the system by questionable tax practices.
@diss. Exactly. I thought it a well-balanced McRant.
In all fairness to Goosef, you are correct HST, he didn’t say that, I apologized for my assumption down below. However, as far as paying for a drug dealer that is getting welfare I maintain that the burden of proof is on the detractor of the system to show that people who don’t deserve welfare are getting it. The next step should be that the system should be fixed, not that my tax dollars shouldn’t fund what, I believe, is a worthwhile goal.
Hey, no worries, Jane.
I was tossing out the “fallacy of generalization…’
I’m with Jane. No, I don’t want to pay for people who abuse the system, but I don’t think it’s cool to use them as an excuse to eliminate the system. I’m a fan of weeding out the waste and the glitches in the government more than just slashing programs.
That being said, let me pose another question: If the only two choices are: welfare helps everyone who needs it including those who abuse it OR cutting welfare completely so nobody abuses it while helping nobody, which do you choose? I choose keeping it despite the abuse so hopefully the right people still get it.
Definitely. *I* don’t want to see some martini-swilling CEO who gamed the system and cheated American citizens with what amounts to a giant real estate/insurance/stocks based Ponzi scheme be allowed to take his money and retire, but that doesn’t mean I want all rich folk put up against the wall and shot. I just want to see more checks and balances in place to avoid that happening in the future.
i’m trying to be self-employed, i draw a small disability check, and i get a few other benefits — i would love to live half as well as someone who is at poverty level! i have no car, i don’t have cable or those boxes for broadcast tv, i have internet because my daughter signed a 2 yr contract then moved to an area where that isp didn’t exist, yet they still wanted their lb of flesh every month, i struggled every month all winter long to keep my power on – and i am not a dealer — i don’t get free housing, i’m losing my medical coverage in 4 days and right now my life sucks…. so sign me up for all those taxpayer suported bennies, because i’m not getting any now! (and i do pay taxes – property, sales, income)
I’m sorry for your troubles Fairie.
thanks pm
i am so tired of the insinuations and sideways innuendo that all public assistance recipients are junkies and lazy-@ssed leaches. sure, statistically speaking there will be some who abuse the system and there is so much room for improvements (besides just cutting eligiblity). but blanket statements and overly broad generalizations tick me off a bit (regardless of subject matter), and add to that the day i had yesterday… in a foul mood i was!
And all this just goes to show that arguing from the premise of abuse of the system (though rampant and built-in) is pointless with the left and definitely not the way to argue. Sure, one needs to point out the abuses inherent in any such system that doesn’t differentiate, but it’s not the *reason* why all such programs, on a federal level, absolutely need to be abolished. It’s just a side note.
Non-argument, you imply that I think all welfare recipients are drug dealers, not the case, I never once stated that, I am not stereotyping or paranoid, and its not paranoia if everyone is out to get you. (Lightening the mood, since everyone thinks we have to be mean to disagree)
The fact remains that there are drug dealers who receive welfare money, there are plenty of nefarious schemes hatched to received SS and disability and Medicare, does everyone who is on that assistance take part? NO i never said they did, but the system is abused, and yet instead of fixing a system Like the FAIRTAX would we continue to pump hard-earned money into it. Statistics show that the Average Joe pays more in taxes than the rich and the poor, and that is a broken System
@diss and HairySexyTroll
Thanks to both of you, the intention was to point out that we are being screwed by the government and the people alike.
@Jane checkout Fairtax.org it is very enlightening.
That is true, you did not claim ALL welfare recipients are drug dealers, and for me to imply that you did, I apologize. It’s the venom behind the statement that I feel is dangerous because too many people use it to color their viewpoints of people less fortunate then themselves. The fact that the system needs to be fixed doesn’t negate the need or the rightness of the system. My personal views are that we SHOULD use tax dollars to pay for social programs. That the society is only bettered by looking out for the less fortunate among us. Do I want tax dollars to fund inefficient programs? No, but neither do I delude myself into believing that tax dollars haven’t been funneled into programs that are broken and faulty for decades.
“Broken and faulty for decades”. Come work with me for a week. I will show you example after example of people using the kindness of the company I work for (we work with the unemployment office to pay the difference in reduced hours for our employees during the recession) in order to milk the system by missing days. Then those people will go to the unemployment office and claim those intentionally missed days as “reduced work” and get paid for them. Since we are in a recession, the UO doesn’t ask questions, since the follow up on that will involve an investigation, paper trails, tracking down the hours and differences in hours, and far too many man hours to justify non-payment. Meanwhile the employee gets to collect those payments until proven wrong, and would have to be charged by the UO for the difference, leading to a whole other can of worms. So the UO just goes ahead and pays what amounts to laziness in order not to have to spend time tracking this stuff down. It’s irritating, annoying, disheartening, and sick, especially since 80% of the people using the difference in hours are really doing it the right way. They come to work every day we are here and bust their butts, only to see the person next to them miss three days in a week and still get the same amount of money.
Froo, I think it’s great your company is behaving that way.
I also deplore the people who are cheating the system.
I applaud the unemployment office for not “Spending dollars to chase dimes” as the saying goes.
I think you make my main point pretty well too: the vast majority of people are *not* cheating, and would rather work than milk the system. That matches well with my beliefs, too.
Will I have to kill chickens? *glances around nervously*
J/K
Don’t get me wrong, I hate it when people abuse the system too. My aunt owns her own business. She provides before and after school care to the school corporation her granddaughter goes to. Her employees are hired as seasonal workers and as such are ineligible for unemployment in the summer time, yet many of them have filed for and been granted unemployment. This is completely not fair but I don’t feel that the system should be abolished because of this, I just feel that people who don’t deserve the benefits should be getting denied. My aunt even showed ample proof of an employee that had been told several times to stop certain behaviors or she was going to get fired and they still granted her unemployment. In that case, there was no research to be done, my aunt had the proof, they just need to deny the claim, and that sort of thing shouldn’t be happening.
Statistically speaking, I think it’s impossible for there *not* to be a drug dealer taking welfare somewhere, and I agee that that person should be found and punished to the full extent of the law. However, I don’t want to see another child do without food, education, or medical treatment because we’re too paranoid.
Besides, every $1 spent by a welfare recipient generates $1.1 (sez Thom Hartmann, I haven’t researched it myself yet) in local business. A poor child without healthcare and access to higher education is also much more likely to grow up and mug your children some day, or become a drug dealer, so really, it’s in our best interest to treat these kids right.
Out of curiosity, how many people credit welfare for helping them overcome in their life struggles? How many people say that it was a government program instead of hard work that got them “to where they are today”?
You are 100% correct, Froo. The second question, though, would be how many people credit welfare with being the difference between starving, or Mom having to turn tricks on the street, or Dad resorting to mugging or armed robbery?
I believe (and I’ll admit it, I haven’t researched this) that giving a family $15,000 to $25,000 per year to avoid starvation is cheaper than spending $35,000 to $50,000 per year to lock someone up, not to mention the cost of the courts, public defenders, parole officers, and what have you. Also, once someone enters the criminal justice system as an offender, their opportunities in life are severely curtailed. I know *I* have to think long and hard about hiring someone with a criminal record. More often than not it comes back to bite me.
Until you prove that every single person on welfare is truly needy and not just milking the system you are operating on a teary, made-for-tv movie montage of the Earnest Poor Person trying to get ahead; You can flame me all you want; I was very liberal in my beliefs about welfare until I worked in a clinic-I saw earnest poor people trying to get ahead, (I remember one woman the day that she was able to pay for her own medical bill brought in cupcakes to celebrate ebing off of welfare) but often, extremely often, I saw people who were generational welfare recipients who sincerely believed that being on welfare and receiving benefits was “normal” and that they were entitled to it, and as often I saw many people having jobs, earning good money yet “working the system”; At my second job at that time, I worked with a woman who lied to get head start and door-to-door transport for her kid-and she earned more than I did, and used to laugh at the social services people who believed her. Also bear in mind as you flame me that I grew up on and off homeless with an abusive family and was on my own and homeless at 16-so I am not speaking from ignorance or lacck of understanding; in fact I am likely speaking from a more realistic, real-life perspective than you. How many real-life welfare recipients do you personally know? Volunteer work doesn’t count-that’s not always reality.
And how many did you report for their fraud?
Exactly!
-
It’s one thing to complain about people abusing the system, but quite another if you’re aware of it and say nothing. You are condoning what they are doing by saying nothing.
Eddie and DWN: We’ve tried to report our people for fraud, only to be told it was too much trouble to try and do anything about it. Our company isn’t about to punish the majority of our workers because of the abuse of the minority, so we (and the state) get stuck paying for laziness.
That sounds like a good reason to increase the funding for investigators. If we underfund the IRS, we get more successful tax cheaters, as was proved in the last couple years. If we underfund the FDA, we get more toxic food…
Reporting people seldom works for a variety of reasons-not enough investigators; apathy; and the people who you would report the frauds to are also the people who approved them in the first place-they would either be unwilling/unable to accept that they had been conned; too overwhelmed, and often “knew” that we were completely wrong about it-the frauds were “such nice people, and really appreciated everything that we do for them” (d-uh, of course); I still remember riding the bus one day, en route to my second job, an ended up sitting next to a client and her daughter, who was four; the mom had elaborately coiffed hair, her nails were done/decorated; she had nice clothes and jewelry on; she was asking her daughter if she wanted a tv for her room or a new boom box for her birthday…
Uh, I think you have a nesting fail. I didn’t flame you as I wasn’t even talking to you. I was, in fact, talking to Goosef.
Until *you* prove that every single person on welfare is a cheating, drug dealing lazy bastard, I will continue to believe that welfare is money well spent.
I just love that I keep finding ways to use this:
You know who has no safety net for the indigent among us? Iraq. Afghanistan. Somalia. Haiti. Pakistan. How’s it working for them?
speaking of iraq, i read a headline last night where the leader of iraq/iran is urging men to marry war widows ‘because they don’t know how to manage their money and would spend it foolishly because they are uneducated’ …..
Leftists have some kind of weird hardon about wanting to keep what I slave for as being greedy and selfish, goosef. Never mind how much we contribute to charity, to taking care of our own families, providing jobs and security and a decent lifestyle to everyone else – it’s taht GREEDZ, I tells ya’! Just because it’s unconstitutional to keep stealing ever increasing amounts of our money and production to redistribute, it’s greed. What a shallow, childish, ridiculous view of rampant government power – “Take care of me! Take care of us! Or we’ll just take it and riot in the streets if it isn’t enough!” People should be ashamed of themselves with this nonsense.
I’ll thank you not to refer to my hard on again! At least buy me a drink if you’re gonna take the conversation in such a sleazy direction.
Everybody pays for something that they don’t use. I have no kids, so why should I be paying teachers? I don’t drive, so why should I be paying for highway upkeep? I am really not happy about any of my hard earned dollars going towards sports, the military or the space program (well, I would be unhappy about the space program thing if I lived in the States). However, since I am supporting all this stuff with my tax dollars, the SUV driving, suburban dwelling neanderthals who live for all this American/Canadian dream nonsense can suck it up and support things that are of value to me, if not to them.
I’m gonna focus on the military aspect here. You do realize without the military we would not be free? Any person in this country that does not want their money going to the military needs to read the Constitution. That’s the only thing specifically called out for the federal government to tax for. Therefore as a citizen it is your duty to pay that tax. All others are not mandated in the constitution.
So you admit that sometimes the greater good takes precedence over what we deem to be our personal freedoms. The constitution isn’t static. It can, and has, changed in the 200+ years it was written.
But do we really need to put 50% of our money towards it when we already have an army that is larger than all the other industrialized nations (including North Korea) COMBINED! I find it really hard to believe they are all going to get together and attack us so why do we need a military THAT BIG?
If we cut just 10% out of the military funding and put it towards health services, we could open Medicaid to the many more uninsured poor in the country. Wouldn’t keeping more children healthy be a better use of our money than waging wars on countries that never attacked us?
Wait, what?
Where are you getting the idea that ANY group wants to get rid of the military???
Probably from Rattus’ post, supra, specifically:
I see.
thanks for the clarification.
No prob. I think there’s a possibility that Rattus is the Unabomber, though. I didn’t know the Federal prison system had inmate internet access.
I thought Rattus was being ironic in order to prove the point that our tax dollars fund things deemed necessary “for the greater good” and that it is then hypocritical to say that certain social programs shouldn’t get tax money simply because you personally don’t use them. I could, however, be giving Rattus more credit than s/he deserves but I don’t don’t know much about him/her in order to make that determination.
Oh, my comment’s based at least in part on his post below, too. I probably should have nested it down there.
“You do realize without the military we would not be free?”
Debatable, but more importantly, do we need one bigger than all the rest of the world’s combined?
I say yes
Besides, China loves to brag that they can mobilize something like 1 billion people for the military if they need it. That scares the hell out of me, especially considering the demonstration of discipline that was the Olympic Games.
The thing is, any strategy gamer will tell you it’s much more efficient to keep a military that’s just big enough to be a deterrent, then spend the $$$ saved on improving the economy (in my mind this would be infrastructure improvement, free higher education for those who are getting good grades, and single payer health care). Then, when war breaks out, your superior means of production out perform the opponent who went balls to the wall on military spending but doesn’t have the economy to support long term effort.
Hey, it worked for us in WWII, didn’t it?
Is it funny or sad that I find the most accessible simulations of war come from player vs player RTS games…
Sure, you can do a rush with peons but what happens when you splat on the walls of a better prepared opponent?
Why is it that so many of the people (not necessarily PortlandMark specifically) who think that big, evil, MONOPOLISTIC corporations are the bane of humanity, seem to think that “single payer” health care would be a good thing? Is it really safer to put all our eggs in the federal basket? They don’t really have much of a track record of running things well, efficiently, or innovatively.
Believe it or not, fish, the last moonbat I asked that question of said “Because the government will at least be responsive to me as an individual.” I sh*t you not.
Wow. That’s…. Wow. How do you respond to that? I wonder if that person has ever actually dealt with any government, let alone the US federal government.
See the computer you typed that post on; it got to you in the back of a truck, that drove on the highway. Same goes for all your other appliances, your furniture, the lumber, brick, concrete etc that your house/apartment is made of, any food you buy in shops, your clothes…
Still think you shouldn’t pay for upkeep of the highways?
I can live without a computer (in fact, I’d prefer to do so but my employers insist that I use one) and I could live without a lot of the crap that is currently considered to be “necessary”. My house was built 100 years ago from lumber cut down locally and I grow my own vegetables. If people would stop breeding like flies and purchasing McMansions in the suburbs and driving their gigantic moron-mobiles to big box stores every weekend, we wouldn’t need the multi-lane superhighways – just a lane or two for transporting goods. But no. A sufficiently sized house on a sufficiently sized property situated in an area where you can walk wherever you need to go is just not American-dream (i.e. status-conscious) enough for your average xenophobic, god-fearing idiot.
personally, i think you’re full of BS on a lot of this stuff. everything paws brought up you had a convenient answer to… lemme guess, you also grow your own cotton and weave your own cloth and sew your own clothes so you don’t have to be a consumer there either, right?
anyway, i’ll stop being snarky.
i don’t think your concept of the smaller house, piece of land, walking distance is something that can honestly occur in this day and age. i live in a smaller home (about 1800 sq ft) on .12 acres. the grocery store is within walking distance, as is the pharmacy and the shoe repair and all of that. but my office is 25 miles away. it’s not just “xenophobic, god-fearing idiots” who have to live away from the grocery store and the pharmacy and everything. it’s people who maybe got a job in an area that’s not really heavily populated. or the town used to be really lively and now there’s not much left. this necessitates the need of highways.
i have to take 3 different highways to get to the office everyday. yeah, it’d be much nicer to be able to walk to work rather than have a 45 minute drive but that’s just unrealistic. in your world, the grocery store is in the same block as the high rise office building. it just doesn’t exist.
if they were to remove the highways from my route to work it would take me well over 2 hours to get to the office on 2 lane country roads.
now i know you’re going to say that i should find a different job that’s closer to my home. and i’ll cut you off right there and tell you that if you can find it, i’d take it. but if you haven’t looked at the job market lately… there’s not much to choose from. my job before this one was 78 miles from my house. i quit after a week because it was absolutely insane and i couldn’t relocate.
highways are a necessary evil whether you like them or not. as are most of the other things we pay taxes on. if you’re so opposed to paying taxes on all these products and services, go live in a hippie commune where they do weave their own clothes and don’t use computers.
Sometimes the simplest answer is that there isn’t a simple answer.
yeah, i rambled on and on and on. but rattus was being a douche and i’ve had a craptabulous 2 days at work… so i went to town.
i’ll second all that, including the cr@ptabulous day — i spent 2 hrs on the bus to the doc’s office, another 4 hours off to another appointment in the next town over (so close you can’t tell where one stops and the other starts except the name chages on all the streets) then back almost home for a 2 hr wait for my scripts to be filled, then another 1.5 hr bus trip and walk half mile up hill to get home — all with a gimpy knee which is what i went to the doc’s for in the first place…. and forgot to get the brace dealy for my knee until i was already on the bus and there was no way in holy hades i was getting off to go back.
You’re full of it.
Won’t even get into an arguement on how little money goes the highway system. Most of the is state dollars. No one is saying we shouldn’t upkeep them either. Why is it the liberals tlak of those systems and not of the miilions to China for drinking hookers, the welfare system which is broken, sending money to south america to do a gay study, providing condoms in schools, etc….
Seriously? Why the hell do you keep going on about Chinese hookers? I’d say that this board is no place for your personal fetishes, but that’d be an out and out lie. Just be open about your yearning for a drunken Chinese prostitute and we’ll all be a lot happier.
Freud’s ghost would be proud of his openness, that is for sure.
doesn’t want on, wants to be one!
All I want to know is, if we’re paying for these drunken Chinese hookers, where the hell are they? We spent miilions on them, why is no one tlaking about this?
I want my Gub’mint Issue, Drunken Chinese Hooker, dammit! And my free condoms and my welfare check!
Dammit, Toasty, now I’ve got the “Getting Gay With Kids” song from the South Park Rainforest episode stuck in my head.
what’s the problem with providing condoms in schools? afraid your kids will have sex even if you’ve told them their wang will fall off if they aren’t married first? well guess what, it’s going to happen (and i won’t even point fingers at any 17 yo single mother who was raised by an abstinance only parent!) teenage sex has been happening for a very long time — only difference is now we don’t have girls getting married just because they’re in the family way and having ‘early’ babies, nor are we as a general rule shipping girls off to other places to have babies and putting them up for adoption elsewhere, or girls having their babies and both bearing an ugly stigma the rest of their lives…. and lets not even bring std’s into the mix, except to say that if you are in a relationship and pick up a little something something on the side, wear a raincoat because odds are, that little something something has slept with more people that you realize and who all have they slept with?
Two wrongs don’t make a right, genius.
Please let me know when I can move in with you and eat your food. Remember, its important to share.
LOL
Sharing food and shelter with those who don’t have any, yep, it’s hilarious.
hon, you can move in with me and eat my food, but like everyone else who lives here, you will do chores, help out around the house, and be nice to my dogs. btw, this is a clean and sober house – no drugs unless prescribed (and i keep them under lock and key), no booze and that includes mouthwash with alcohol and other hygiene products. what all this will gain you is safe, drama free refuge, and perhaps depending on who you are, acceptance as part of my family….
Deal!!
sure hope you know something about plumbing then, i’ve got a problem in the second bathroom that is going to become a serious repair any second now! and i need a couple electrical jobs done – hang a ceiling fan, wire a new outside security light, and an outside plug in; i also need the rain gutter on the carport repaired and added on to so the water drains away from the house, window trim needs caulked on the outside of the house, and if i can get paint this year, the house needs painted too…. still want to move in?
My dad is an engineer. I could fix all that with duct tape and baling twine! My grandfather was a farmer.
about being able to fix anything – although do not discount the usefulness of duct tape
two things come to mind here:
how is duct tape like the force? it has a light side and a dark side, it holds the universe together, and if you can’t keep them straight, they’ll really f’ up your life.
if it moves and it isn’t supposed to: duct tape, if it doesn’t move and it’s supposed to: wd-40.
if the women don’t find you handsome, they should at least find you handy
RED GREEN!!!! i miss that show
“All believer were of one heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shard everything they had.” Acts 4:32(NIV)
Obliviously not in America. The land where God fearing doesn’t include sharing love.
I was about to make this point but i saw this reply and couldnt say it better myself. Very good beerdrinker.
Sharing implies return of said item being shared. Ownership does not change hands, does that mean I get my money back that I “share” with Obama’s Socialist state?
If you drive on the Interstate, or use some other serivice that the Federal government supports, you do. Funny how, just since January, the U.S. has gone from being Republican heaven–with massive national debt, rapid elimination of freedoms, huge growth in government, and an illegal oil war–to a nasty ol’ socialist state, which may, at some point, do the unthinkable, and provide health care to all its citizens.
Personally, I’d rather live in Sweden (liberal) than Iran (conservative).
Won’t even argue with you, if you truely believe that the War in Iraq was about oil, then you’re beyond reasoning and already brain washed by the Socialist Party!
Ok, back up your statement. What was it about?
Two fold:
1. Protect america. Right now we’re fighting Al Queda in Iraq, and not on our home soil.
2. Vendetta. I’ll admit that part of it had to do with GW’s father.
But about oil, please show me the oil we’re getting from Iraq? Oh wait None!
“protect america”
Because engaging in legally questionable and unilateral invasions is the best way to make sure that no-one will attack you back. Whatever the reasons for the invasion, or how right or wrong they might be, I think we should all be able to agree that it was a mistake.
Also, the first gulf war never actually ended in treaty. It ended in a cease-fire. (not unlike the Korean war, which looks just about ready to resume)
The terms of the cease fire included a number of provisions to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq to be sure that they were not resuming WMD programs. These terms were clearly violated. Whether or not Iraq posessed these weapons, they CLEARLY were presenting the front that they did, or that they would not listen to demands to not pursue them.
No declaration of war was required to go back in, as the original declaration of war was still in effect (and even Clinton lobbed a few missiles at them during his term), and the terms of the cease fire were clearly violated.
You know Al Queda is only in Iraq now because we got rid of Saddam, who was keeping them out, right?
Because they feared his genocidal tactics. Please don’t be ignorant. We have taken care of the insane dictator, we’re working on the misguided extremist terrorists next.
If it was the War on Terror, shouldn’t we have gone after them FIRST? Don’t get me wrong. I’m not sorry Saddam Hussein is gone. He was a massive douche bag. But can you honestly say HE was the greatest threat to this country?????
Of course he wasn’t. But unlike the terrorists, who aren’t in a specific location, Saddam wasn’t entirely difficult to find. (Sort of)
The war on terror is a completely different war than Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Protect America? Are you serious? Dude, even the Kool-Aid man says you’ve been hitting the tropical punch a little too hard.
“Oh yeah!”
Can you link to me any substantial evidence of any oil recovery/refinement/shipment/export etc or anything that the US has had a direct hand in since the war in Iraq?
I’ll save you some time and answer my own question. NO!
You silly liberals with your brainwashing propaganda.
Says the conservative who actually bought that horse sh!t that Iraq was a serious threat. If Bush told you there were leprechauns riding unicorns, would you buy that too?
Freedom doesn’t belong just to the United States, but to the world. There were two major reasons to invade Iraq: to take a maniacal dictator out of power (which keeps the Free World free) and to clear out the insurgents so that the Iraqi people could have a taste of the freedom as well.
You act like I am the one who is so misguided by false propaganda yet you didn’t understand the fundamental reason for the war in Iraq and the war on terror.
In a global economy, it isn’t necessary for the US to be directly involved in those things. It’s enough that US oil companies can profit on the uncertainties in the market caused by the invasion, which was followed by a lowering of world production (Iraq was unable to produce oil for years following the invasion.)
A report by the Center for Contemporary Conflict released a few weeks into the war seems to predict this, though I’ve only skimmed it so far:
{http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/apr03/middleEast.asp}
Those predictions seem to have been borne out, according to Geoffrey Lean of The Independent:
{http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/86515/}
Sorry, Toasty. I’ve been a republican and a Bush supporter, and even I have to admit that our involvement in Iraq was about oil. – but that’s for another forum.
As for Nailin Palin’s comments, Yes, we all need to pay our fair share. Yes, Bush whom I supported did a LOT that I can’t support. Yes, the last Republican administrations racked up a lot of national debt. Now let’s come up to date with our discussions. The current administration has already incurred more debt than both Bush administrations combined. We borrow money and apply it to programs that all the experts say will do very little to help our current situation. The economic nosedive has mostly stabilized. All the experts agree that consumer spending will drive the recovery going forward. The only problem is that with increasing taxes and increasing debts, the consumer will not have anything left to spend.
There is corruption and waste in both political parties. We shouldn’t be taking sides against each other. We should be taking sides against a corrupt system. Just because Obama is new, don’t be fooled into thinking that he’s not as corrupt or ignorant as Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, or any of the others.
I asked a poster above to show me any source whatsoever that indicates we have had any oil operations in Iraq since the war. I will ask you the same.
I’ll personally buy you the ticket to Sweden.
Your response is the same tired old nonsense trotted out when someone dares complain that government is out of control. Roads and firemen and basic public services are acceptable to everyone except the most extremist anarcho-libertarians. To even mention it is a strawman. Highways are not socialism.
What is your definition of ‘basic public services?’ We could have privatized fire departments, roads, sewers, and so forth, why don’t we? If public ownership and administration of a resource isn’t socialism, what is?
@Eden, mind sending me some tickets to Sweden as well? I could use 2 first class tickets, around the end of June please. My original vacation had to get bumped due to family circumstances and I’d appreciate a free trip to Sweden.
Eden:
I’ll be glad to buy you a ticket to Iran. I’m sure an uber-conservative like you would be much happier there.
However, I’d agree with you that the government went out of control…under Cheney/Bush.
Apparently the definition of socialism is: anything the government pays for that they are against.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, whichever one you decide to go to. We have constitutional limits here, and what we’re doing is 100% unconstitutional. Too bad, so sad – go somewhere where you like how they spend other people’s money. If you’d earn some of your own you might get the hint.
Yeah, it’s too bad you righties hate our judicial system so much. That’s the branch of government that would reign in excesses by the Executive and Legislative branches. “Judicial Activism” my ass!
It sucks because it’s not clever, it’s not funny, and it’s borderline preachy. Did you actually think this was funny? Or did your vision askew the qualifier “Lol” before news? I understand that this supposed to be satirical, but it’s not. It’s just a whole lot of fail, regardless of whatever political agenda your “truthiness” comment stems from. It’s asinine. This is a site for lols — and if you thought this was funny, main page funny, then the truthiness of the matter is you’re easily amused, especially when it panders to your political mindset. That, my friend, is why it sucks.
Because it’s stupid, it’s mindless, it’s not true, and it’s definitely not funny. It blows.
Neither is “eat your food! don’t you know there are children in africa who are starving right now?” that one was my moms favorite…
btw, you’d think they’d do a little research before calling themselves tea baggers…lol
They didn’t call themselves tea baggers…the media did. They called the events Tea Party Protests. Who needs to do research?
No. They just said they wanted to “Teabag Congress”.
{http://teabagcongress.com/}
That makes me laugh. Teabag congress… that is priceless.
(t)oolong;did not read.
I’m just kidding, my dar(jee)ling.
You’re always stirring up trouble. Why don’t you leaf these people alone?
Don’t Tazo me sis!
Well, all right. But only if you chai to get along.
That is one small fraction of the protesters, not by any means, the whole of them.
I personally find the term “tea-bagger” offensive and demeaning. Two things the liberal media wanted it to be.
It’s just more of their anti-American propaganda.
‘Anderson Cooper has jumped into the fray. On his “Anderson Cooper 360 program” on Tuesday, in response to a comment that Republicans were “searching for their voice” after two electoral losses, Cooper quipped, “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging.”‘ (The Edge)
LOL.
Perhaps he should have done his research. It isn’t all that difficult to talk while tea bagging, unless your tea bagee bites you or something…
Sure, it might be awkward carrying a conversation whilst doing so, but it is certainly doable. If you’re talking to your tea bagee, it will be a one way conversation. If you’re talking to others, then it might seem strange, unless of course, there are other people in a similar state of dress and/or act, which might make your situation seem, perhaps, a little less unusual in the context of that conversation.
It’s the process of *being* tea bagged that makes conversation somewhat more difficult.
You’re nuts!
I mean, is there nothing sack-red in this world anymore?
Congratulations. I was just testing you, and you passed my testes.
Good thing, too – if not, I would have balled.
*nads head in approval*
Wait — there’s a vas deferens between what you two…
I want to prostate this thread!
Thank you for that very important PSA.
Jewel find loads of double en-tenders in this family.
Liberals think the government should TAKE the toys from Tommy and give them to someone else. Aka tyranny.
Pfft. I’m a liberal, and I think the dern government should be staying the hey away from my Lego. If they give them to my little brother, I’ll break his nose! He just celebrated his 35th birthday. Happy smurfday, little bro!
There’s a difference between “liberal” and “communist”, you know, whether or not you like it
The problem is that more and more “liberal” ideas are looking more and more like “communist” or “socialist” ideas. Well at least from where I am “standing”.
Actually, the problem is that more “conservative” ideas are looking more and more like “fascist” ideas. Torture, warrantless spying on U.S. citizens, elimination of habeus corpus, anyone?
Oh Noes! Obama wants to return us to the bad old days of the Clinton administration! When the economy was… um… well yeah, sure there was unprecedented economic growth, and the first growth of the middle class since Reagan, but… SHUT UP! JUST SHUT UP! I DON’T WANNA PAY FOR EVERYTHING I GET FROM THE GOVERNMENT!
Seriously, you know who has low taxes, and no government interference in their lives? Somalia. Iraq. Afghanistan. Pakistan. Liberia.
Workin’ out real well for them, isn’t it?
Don’t forget Haiti. They’re doing great!
*stomps foot*
I wanna be the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and have my government overthrown during food riots!!
You forgot all the fun ultraviolence…
Oh bliss! Bliss and heaven! Oh, gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh like a bird of rarest-spun heaven metal or like silvery wine flowing in a spaceship, gravity all nonsense now.
Marry me? Or at least let me have a weekend of illicit debauchery. Before I go under the technique, for the good of society, it’s the least I deserve.
Not a dook of an idea how to comport yourself public-wise, O my brother.
Appy-polly-loggies. I had something of a pain in my gulliver so I had to sleep.
THIS!!! This is my argument for my crazy super-conservative aunt and uncle. Super conservative countries are like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and many parts of Africa. Super liberal countries are like Sweden, Denmark, and most of western Europe. (at least liberal compared to the U.S) Which group do we really want to be more like?
And he’s bright enough to realise that you can’t fund it all by selling housing for more than it’s worth to people who can’t afford what it costs them for ever.
Yeah I just love the paying farmers not to grow crops, I love the benefits I get from training chinese hookers how to drink responibly. I prefer my insurancre that gets my daughter seen the same day I call with health issue. I like the unbiased education she gets that I pay extra for. Good job, but the government is most wasteful business in the world.
What insurance do you have that gets you seen the same day? My wife broke her ankle and her doctor couldn’t schedule a visit for weeks, she had to go sit in the emergency room for eight hours, just like someone without insurance.
When I had pink eye my doctor got me in that day to see the nurse practitioner. I don’t have insurance though, and was paying out of pocket.
Insurance that allows me to see any Dr that takes their insurance. Not tied to one Dr. That’s how I like it, I don’t want the govy telling me where and where I can’t get medical attention. B/c the govy is too incompetent to do that, see Canada health care.
So you’re happy with disjointed PHC. See {www.distractable.org} for informed opinion as to just why that is a bad idea!
What? Canada’s health care system is tons better than ours, lower infant mortality rate, longer average lifespan, better health outcomes, all for less than half the spending per capita that we have in the US. Google ‘health care outcomes per capita spending’ for some interesting data on exactly how bad the US healthcare system is.
I would throw myself into the fray but I only have anecdotal evidence of happily satisfied Canadian family members and no actual hard facts.
“Insurance that allows me to see any Dr that takes their insurance”
Hmm Toasty – in my case this has usually limited my Doc choice to 1 or 2 in a specific area, especially when it comes to specialists. Tell me, in my case, how does this differ? Not to mention he’s (Obama) has mentioned, I believe it’s on his site (which probably would be the WhiteHouse.gov site now) that he states that you will still have a choice of doctors in your area and not be tied to just one Doc.
You’re exaggerating and making a point that doesn’t help your cause. But, please continue.
Also, to support Seth – Europe’s health care system is considered far better than ours as well in terms of patient care and accessiblity for services. Also, if you look up on WHO’s site (you’ll have to do a search) you’ll find the last polling of health care world wide, apx. 5 years ago, put US far down the list – I can’t remember exactly where we fell but it was in the 30′s or 40′s- BELOW the United Arab Emirates.
Just thought I’d help.
To the extent that the government is incompetent, I think it’s because representatives of one party don’t believe that government works at all. When they’re elected, they don’t even try to make it run well, and even actively try to destroy it.
The state of Massachusetts has begun providing low-income people with health insurance at little to no cost. My father had to go to the ER and was in and out in about 3 hours, and that was with those coming in on ambulances being seen first. When my mom (who had lung cancer) had to go to the ER down here in Florida, she sat in the waiting room for 10 hours before finally being given something for the pain she was in. So as far as I’m concerned, health insurance for everyone is a good thing, because then people are seeking treatment before they get so sick they need to go to the ER.
Pretty much the only thing that gets me to get seen is when I am too sick to protest. The joys of no insurance.
Here f*cking here, my friend. I need to be on birth control for medical reasons but my prescription is about to run out and the exam is more money then I have right now. Now I have to try to convince the doctor to extend my prescription till September and see me then, but I don’t think she’ll go for it.
The sad thing is that a lot of insurance coverances use Bible Belt thinking to try and keep women from birth control. Or at least that was my experience when I worked for Medco taking prior authorizations.
It was… Frustrating because viagra just required a very easy doctor call, though the allowed amount was limited. However for birth control, if it wasn’t for something besides the normal reason (birth control) then it was denied and even appeals would usually be a waste of time. Just galled the hell out of me and my sense of fair play.
/rant
I still remember when the Congress was going to vote that Federal Govt’s health care would cover viagra, when it didn’t cover any form of birth control at all. There was a very public & much photographed march of all female congress persons on Congress in response to that one! I think the result was that the Fed’s health care now covers contraception?
Not that I agree with it, but I suspect the justification is that prescriptions are covered for what’s wrong with you (illness, chronic health conditions) not what’s right with you (having normally functioning reproductive organs). In general, the condition requiring Viagra has roots in some type of health condition or other medication side-effect, making it a prescription to help your body function normally despite your health problem.
Considering that insurance generally covers childbirth costs, which can be exorbitant, seems like covering whatever kind of birth control you wanted would be economically efficient.
By the way, I’ve been without health insurance before, but I’ve never had health insurance that wouldn’t cover birth control. That’s just weird.
However, dear Diss, you forget how they marched the idea of Viagra vs Birth Control. They played the moral high horse game.
As for your argument, you already answered yourself with economics. It also boils down to preventative medication. You get vaccines and the like to prevent conditions you would rather avoid that can be detrimental to your health and birth control can fall udner the same idea.
@DWN: Did they? Hmm. Like I said, it’s never been an issue with any insurance I’ve ever had; it just sounded to me like a typical “How can we get out of paying for something?” insurance company thing that was extremely short-sighted as far as overall costs go (also not unusual, sadly…).
@diss I disagree with that. I have very bad cramping, to the point of disrupting my normal life, during my periods if I’m not on my birth control, and at one point was being observed for endometrosis because of it. and yes, birth control is often used to help with the symptoms of endo, Yaz even states it in their commercials.
@ alicia: We’d already established that we were talking about birth control prescribed without any indication other than birth control; as DWN had stated that patients were able to get authorization when the did have another indication for the prescription. Also I’m not really defending the insurance company so much as trying to dissect the thought process behind the determination (which I think I said was stupid & short sighted).
And slightly offtopic, sorry ’bout your cramps. Glad you found something that helps!
@diss, it’s all good. I just thought for a second that you were saying that it shouldn’t be prescribed for a ‘normal’ functioning thing such as egg release. I was really more skimming, so it’s mostly my bad. >> I wasn’t really into the threads on this pic until further down. Though I do agree that insurance is… retarded.
So am I, diss, so am I;
There was a good economy under Clinton because of the tech boom. We had a good economy IN SPITE of the government, but ignorant vacuumheads like you can never understand that. Also note that it started collapsing before Bush got in. Why don’t you fools blame that bubble burst on Clinton? because you are useless ideologues who believe your “side” is perfect and unerring and everyone who dares have a slightly different opinion is demonized.
Politicial ideology = religion in every aspect that matters.
If that is true, then why is it that, under Democratic presidents over the last 100 years, the stock market has grown an average of 8.4% per year, but under Republican presidents, the stock market only grew an average of less than 1%?
I’m in the tech industry, so tell me, when did the bubble burst? Because I remember things still going full steam long after Clinton left. Nobody’s ‘side’ is perfect, but the data clearly shows that one side is better than the other.
Right! The only thing that burst was the dot.com bubble which was more fluff then substance anyway and was doomed to failure from the start. It was only those companies that were solid to start with that survived.
Not to mention, it’s funny to hear a Bush supporter talking about a bubble economy collapsing, like their guy didn’t lead us into the worst Republican Great Depression since the one in the twenties!
The internet dotcom boom was a major boost to the economy that Clinton had absolutely no hand in.
It’s like a store clerk taking credit for someone winning the lottery in his store.
Don’t be an idiot. If it weren’t for the dotcom boom the economy would have suffered and no one would be praising Clinton the unfaithful today.
You forget that the dotcom boost didn’t happen in a vacuum. It takes a large, complex infrastructure, including but not limited to things like roads, educated workers, social stability, and favorable trade relationships with other countries, all of which are dependent on government functions to continue.
Ain’t no Daniel Boone out there carving an empire out of the virgin forest anymore. Our society works, to the extent it does, by a certain amount of spending on social programs that provide the fertile soil our capitalist systems grow in.
The only problem with your theory is that the Dotcom boost did essentially happen “in a vacuum”. The reason it was an economical boom was because there was little to no resources required to start up a Dotcom business. Roads, workers, etc don’t really come in to play when your customers are accessing your store via a computer.
The only reason that bubble burst is because there were too many startups. The whole thing collapsed in on itself.
The closer you get to the extreme Right in politics, the nearer you get to the extreme Left.
it’s called the circle of life!
what a lovely bunch of coconuts! la da de de da de da.. big ones, small ones, some as big as your head!
Oh, I would have never had to do this with Mufasa.
“what did you say?”
“uuuuuuh, uuh, mustafa?”
“i told you never to say that name. NEVER.”
*enter the hyenas*
i haven’t seen that movie in like 4 years. sad times.
“There’s one in every family, Sire…..two in mine, actually…..and they always manage to ruin family occasions.”
“What am I to do with him?”
“He’d make a very handsome throw rug…” “ZAZU!”
“And just think….whenever he gets dirty, you can take him out and beat him!”
-
Hehehe, that movie and Aladdin….. I can pretty much quote them word for word. Good times.
the throw rug comment always gave me the giggles. i actually saw lion king on the big screen when it first came out. it was a double feature with angels in the outfield… that opening sequence with the sun coming up and all the animals was epic on the big screen.
haven’t seen aladdin since i was in like 6th grade… yikes, that was a LONG time ago.
It’s been too long since I’ve seen either of those. I need to have a pizza and Disney cartoon night with my big ol’ teenagers.
i haven’t seen any of them because i don’t have them on dvd and the one vcr we have left in the house is hooked up to the smallest tv.
my niece owns them all on dvd… i’ve even bought most of them for her. but she lives in AZ so i can’t steal them.
i think i need to lay off buying shoes for a few weeks and start buying classic disney films. cinderella, bambi, aladdin, lion king, snow white, fantasia, lady and the tramp, 101 dalmations, beauty and the beast, mulan… good stuff. i already own little mermaid though. i got that the day it was released from the vault.
ok, so i googled disney movies and this came up… the writing is making me laugh in my office.
{http://www.cracked.com/article_16905_7-classic-disney-movies-that-taught-us-terrible-lessons.html}
I went to the same double feature! Well, obviously not the same theater, but still. No one ever believes me that this occured, they’re always like, “Lion King AND Angels in the Outfield, are you kidding me?”
they played lion king first. and i totally fell asleep during angels in the outfield.
Widespread Panic:
I like coconuts
You can break them open
They smell like ladies lying in the sun
I like coconuts
You can break them open
They smell like ladies lying in the sun
And if I had my way
I’d give a coconut to everyone
{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvEyMdj8d5A}
Since when did taxes become tyranny?
Everything is getting so slippery slope these days.
Taxes is tyranny.
Meat is Murder
etc
What happened to “No taxation without representation” (note, you’ve got your representation)?
Or maybe we’re doing the “I’ll keep the parts I like and then forget about the rest” routine that fundamentalist christians do when they promote stoning gays but conveniently forget about the ban on cutting the hair at the sides of your head.
There are people who don’t seem to realise that the corrolary (sp) of “No taxation without representation” is “No representation without taxation”.
Makes Washington DC (taxes, but no voting rep) look…interesting.
But meat IS murder. Delicious, meaty murder. Mmm, summertime = grill time…
LOL @ meat is murder! Awesome. Also redistribution by govt. force, giving of your own free will because you want to and parental tyranny are all separate things. Parents get to be dictators in their own house. That’s why they became parents
.
Hey, watch it bub! I’m made of meat.
That you are…
Therefore: ‘hide the salami’!
i misread that as “Texas is Tyranny”
I’d be really interested in learning more of your obscure ideas of what Christianity is. Oh wait no I wouldn’t!
There are hypocrites in all walks of life. The only reason Christians get more heat is because they are held to a moral standard that the rest of the world is free from (ie. gays).
If a Christian follows the bible word for word they would not be allowed to say what someone else is doing is wrong. The person doing the wrong thing should realize their wrongdoing by comparing themselves to the picture perfect Christian. Too bad most Christians do not accomplish that lifestyle and fall short in some way. Thus, non-Christians compare themselves to those hypocrite Christians and dismiss the gospel because they are turned off by what they see.
HEY! Go see the religious LOL on page 2 for this kind of stuff. I think we’ve made it to an even 2 million comments on Jesus Camp lady. Thanks in advance.
I’m not really privy to the whole Jesus Camp Lady thing, so I can’t comment on that.
I’m assuming she’s probably some misguided lady who calls herself a Christian.
You have to have some sort of ability to differentiate obvious non-Christians to Christians.
Just use the example of Christ. If the person calls themselves a Christian (Christ-like) but is not like Christ, they are obviously not Christian.
For crying out loud, Hitler claimed he was a follower of Christ.
If you can’t tell he (and the Jesus Camp lady) was lying, then you probably shouldn’t be debating religion.
snork – who says that non-xians compare themselves to xians? (other than you that is) for me, i compare xians & their words & actions to what i understand the new testament is all about (didn’t bejebuz throw out the laws in the old testament? – because the best i can understand, xians don’t have to follow the some 168 mitzvahs)
He didn’t exactly “throw them out” so much as fulfill them. All of the laws in the OT were there to show us that there is no way to be perfect, especially since if you commit one you commit all. Jesus was perfect, fulfilled the “law and the prophets”, and gave us a more important law to follow. The old ones are still there, but are secondary.
I really have no idea what you were saying. Was that Latin?
Surely you can’t that thick. How many times have you seen Christmas spelled Xmas?
“xians” was only one vague word. “bejebuz” was the other.
sounds like a sci-fi novel to me.
How is the government taking and subsequently misusing the people’s money in any way related to parents making their children share toys (that were purchased by the parents in the first place)? When Tommy gets a job and buys his own toys and mom and dad take those toys and redistribute them among the other siblings…then this will make sense.
And, really? Teabaggers? That’s mature…
didn’t you hear? the new economic plan is recylcing toys from Toys “R” Us into advanced espionage weapons in our war against the youth of china. We’ll send them biologically impossible proportioned dolls and action figures to depress the youth into anorexia and/or steriods. Then we’ll send in violent video games with lots of sex and drug content that will make roided up kids devour the anorexic kids. It’s genius!!
That… is genius.
Call my cabinet! I have a new foreign policy idea…
Sir, I have the Department of Redisturbation on Line 2.
Excellent patch them through.
Why hello Tom, you won’t believe the idea I foinked from some sarcastic genius on the interwebz…
foinked, huh? And.. I was being serious! Seriously.
Fine, fine. You’ll get credit and a position on the board and enacts this policy…
score! With the support of the People’s Breasts, you should be a shoe in for the next election.
Now, i must go study. Where did I hide those playboys… hmm..
With my cabinet and the support of the people, I would be nothing. I am here for them. *cue winning smile and thumbs up*
As for your study, I suggest a slow building method with a furious ending for maximum effect.
*Without
Typo fail…
There is a real life, yet obscure example of your insane idea. In the early 2000s, Saddam evaded the electronics embargo on Iraq and purchased some 200 Playstation 2 game systems. Some people think he did so to network them into a super computer that would be powerful enough to guide an ICBM from his country to ours.
Dude, that would be a kickass PS2 game. Can I get that at Best Buy?
on the idea of launching ICBM’s, in the iTunes EULA, there is a clause stating that you will not use the program to create or deploy nuclear/chemical/biological weapons.
I’m pretty sure anything we send to China in terms of video games/strange looking stuff would be nothing compared to what they’ve already seen. I mean, they’re neighbors with Japan and have you seen some of the crazy shit that comes out of there?
The single strangest computer game I’ve ever seen actually came from Sweden of all places!! It was basically just a marble-rolling game, but the marble was doing psychadelics!
Where were their parents when Cheney and Bush were increasing the size of government by 50% and doubling the national debt in eight years? I guess it’s not what they are doing, but who’s doing it that matters.
you, ma’am, are awesome! good luck making that argument to a conservative though.
Speaking as a Conservative…..
We are quite aware of the Bush/Cheney screw-ups that led us to a doubling of national debt in 8 years. We are also quite aware that the number has increased (I believe) 4 times that in the last 120 days. That is all
Froo! I haven’t talked to you in a while! :hugs: I haven’t been on this site in a few weeks >>
I was being lighthearted, I assure you. Though, I also come from a space where my grandmother is a hardcore enough of a republican she says that Pelosi should watch her mouth, that she’s gonna get killed.
Oh my family.
I’m been curious about your namesake. Was that movie any good? And yes, I know what kind of movie it is.
I heard rumors it was going to be release in IMAX 3D
…..my eyes! my eyes!!!
Well I don’t want to watch it in theater, I am a homebody myself and Lynn is enough company for such features.
Hell, me, myself and I snuggled up on the couch form the perfect ménage à trois for such features…
So you use both hands then…
Ah yes sharing…
Where you get to retain what you possess and allow someone else to play with you.
As opposed to redistribution… Where something gets taken from you and you never see it again.
Typical Lib… Doesnt know the difference.
Must been edumacated in a public skool.
this post FTW
A homeless man approaches a rich man and asks him for his gratitude. The rich man complies and offers the man his sandwhich that he just purchased, as “it won’t be too much trouble to buy another one.” The homeless man is happy, because he’s no longer hungry, and the rich man is happy, because he’s done something good for his community.
A government man approaches a rich man, and takes his sandwich, and gives it to a hungry homeless man. Now, the rich man is pissed, because his sandwich was taken, and the poor man thinks he’s entitled to it.
There’s a major, major difference between generosity and redistribution. The American upper class worker should be given incentive to share, rather than having their money taken from them.
An younger brother approaches his older brother and asks him for his gratitude. The older brother complies and offers the younger brother his Legos, because it won’t be too much trouble to play with more Legos. The younger brother is happy, because he is no longer not playing with Legos, and the older brother is happy because he’s done something good for his family.
A parent approaches an older brother, and takes his Legos, saying “now Tommy share with your brother” and gives it to the younger brother. Now the older brother is pissed because his Legos were taken against his selfish will, and the younger brother now thinks he’s entitled to it because the parent feels it is his brother’s job to share.
Clearly, there is a difference in method, yet the older brother now has less, and the younger now has more. Since the physical result is the same, the only difference left is emotional. However, it seems to be a popular method of parents to promote sharing in a family by force. So, perhaps, there is merit in the captioned point, that the parent is now unable to force the siblings to share with each other and cannot intervene when one is too selfish to redistribute his Legos out of the kindness of his heart.
…you forgot the part where the older brother waits until the parents aren’t looking and promptly kicks the sh!t out of the younger brother, and threatens further sh!t kicking if said younger brother squeals.
My family, in a nutshell.
My brother and sister were pains but I wasn’t forced to share. I was also 9 and 10 years older than them so that made a difference. However, I did make sure to take care of them.
On a separate note, they fear me almost as much or more than Mom. Heh, when Mom announced her engagement to a man only two years my senior, they said they will going to tell me and I would kick his ass.
Oddly enough, I didn’t give a damn and gave my blessing, which Mom didn’t need to begin with. I got my mean streak from somewhere, after all.
I had no idea Demi Moore was your mom.
No, I lack an Oedipus complex and even typing that made me gag a bit.
You forgot the part where the people I’m sharing with aren’t my brother, and the person taking my money isn’t my parent.
Are you christian by any chance? Just curious.
So the opposite of “Socialist” is now “Anarchist” is it? Big clue guys; a true Anarchist government is the only one that won’t enact legislation that requires you to pay taxes for things you don’t agree with.
My 7:46 on May 27ths was supposed to be a new post; WierdPretzel is up to tricks again!
Anarchist government?
Wait, what?
Yeah that one left my head spinning.
Ok, as I see it.
American “Conervatives” are all upset because American “Liberals” want to raise taxes to pay for stuff the Conservatives don’t agree with. This does not make the Liberals into Socialists; you’ll know when that happens because they’ll start taking over businesses to create national monopolies.
The only way to avoid governments charging taxes and spending the revenues on things you don’t agree with, be it something that should be a right like healthcare and decent housing for all, or giving a war in someone else’s country, is to have a system of government that doesn’t charge taxes. The only system I know of that doesn’t charge taxes is the anarchist system.
Anarchist system is an oxymoron. I think you are misunderstanding the definition here. Anarchy is chaos. There is no administration, no government, no order in an Anarchist situation.
“you’ll know when that happens because they’ll start taking over businesses to create national monopolies”
Hmmm. Like maybe a national “single payer” monopoly on health care? I guess I’ll start to worry if I hear anything like that….
BTW, where exactly should my “right” to health care end in your view? Am I entitled only to life-saving procedures? (It’s already illegal in the US to deny those just because someone can’t pay.) What about things that just improve my quality of life? Or things that help me get better sooner than I would have on my own? What about new (and expensive) experimental treatments? What if there’s a procedure that has a 2% chance of curing me? Am I entitled to that for free no matter how much it costs?
Besides all the mess in the gory details, if my tax dollars now go to pay for your medical care then I suddenly have a perfectly legitimate claim to intrude in how you live your life. Do you smoke? Drink alcohol? Eat fatty foods? Avoid exercise? Have unprotected sex? Not anymore, you won’t!
Now, this seems like an increasingly common but senseless logical leap. Why should you gain any control over another person’s choices? Once you’ve paid your taxes, the money is no longer yours. You have no choice in how that money is spent, beyond your position as a citizen and voter. And that right is spread over all citizens. They all have a say in how your tax dollars are spent. It’s no longer your choice alone.
The problem with leftist mentality in a nutshell.
I think you misunderstood my point, perhaps due to the way I phrased it. I didn’t that I, as an individual, not have a say in how you, as an individual, lead your life. I meant that society/government now has a say in how you live your life, to the extent that it impacts your health/risks and hence your cost to the public treasury. If you pay for your own health care/insurance then no one has a right to complain that your “lifestyle” is unfairly impacting others. Your provider can raise your rates and you can switch to another company if you want.
But if the government takes over health care then you no longer have any choice in what coverage you get or who provides it, nor do any of the others who are forced to pay for the consequences of your life choices. Since everyone else is now forced to pay for your choices, they morally should have some say about those choices. I’m libertarian enough to believe that you should be able to do just about anything you want as long as it doesn’t harm other people, but if your behavior harms other people then it can and should be constrained. Your choices harm me if they (without my consent) infringe my freedoms, damage my own health, or MAKE ME POORER. That last one is what happens when my taxes go up because you choose to do risky/unhealthy things and society is obligated to pay your medical bills.
I don’t see a logical connection here. Why do you lose all choice in coverage if the government takes over health care? Yes, in some countries that is the case. But it doesn’t have to be that way. And yet everyone discussing it seems to assume so.
I think the underlying psychological problem at work here is that people are holding ownership over their taxes after they’ve paid them. They think “I don’t want my tax dollars paying for that!”. You pay your taxes as part of the social contract, as the cost of citizenship, and then the money is no longer yours. You don’t pay for anything that the government does, you pay what is due as a citizen.
Maybe this seems like a meaningless distinction, but I think the disconnect is vital in keeping our government clean and equal. Imagine if people did actually get to say what their personal tax dollars could be used for. Suddenly, we would have absolute rule by the wealthy and charismatic.
I can think of two workable systems for government-provided health care. The government only provides for basic care, and people must pay for extra care, or get third-party health insurance. People may make themselves ineligible for government-provided care by their lifestyle choices, such as smoking. This would help people too poor to afford basic care or insurance, and make sure that everyone can have coverage. However, the market remains generally unchanged, and people are free to live how they want, and pay for whatever treatment is considered unfair for others to pay.
The other option is to buckle down and declare medical treatment a human right, damn the cost. Either we treat people as equals, with an equal right to live and receive medical treatment for whatever ails them, or we don’t. I don’t think this is likely to happen now, but it will happen eventually. Once we actually discover some principles and realize that life or government without principles is just a roiling mass of corruption, of people playing social games and enslaving each other.
The problem with this line of thought is that they wouldn’t be taking your money based on the cost. It would be a static tax that would then be used for healthcare. Whether they actually use the money or not it is still taken from you.
The homeless man has no property to protect, he gets less from the government. The law forbids both he and the rich man from sleeping under a bridge, but that does not effect the rich man. The rich man benefits from an educated workforce, the homeless man does not. The rich man benefits from public roads, the homeless man does not.
Adam Smith said, “Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. “
How do you suppose his Night Train got to the liquor store without public roads? Or how did he get a fistful of change without the destinations of an educated workforce?
And that bridge didn’t just build itself, you know…
*donations
ROFL!!
So, you are claiming that a homeless man and a rich man get the same benefits from the government?
The homeless man doesn’t put in what the rich man has. He doesn’t have a job, he isn’t even making an effort to get one, because there’s no incentive. He’s living off the state, in state housing when he can. Why should he clean up and go to a McDonalds, and grocery store, or a warehouse and work when the government is going to redistribute the money I worked for to his pocket. Seems like a dumb system to me. I agree the man needs help, but I also agree it should be my choice to give him the help he needs, not elected officials. I should get back just as much as him, into my pocket, if your backwards logic makes any sense. Until government stepped in to be everyone’s big brother, this wasn’t a problem.
Oh, don’t mind me. I’m just testing out my ‘reaganomics-talking-points’-detector.
Seems to be working fine.
Carry on.
The government has a policy of keeping the unemployment rate above 5%, ostensibly to ‘curb inflation,’ but in reality to depress labor prices and funnel wealth to the rich. That’s only counting people on unemployment, not underemployed or those who have quit looking.
The rich man takes more than he gives back, that is why he is rich. The idea that the rich work hard is ludicrous to anyone who has ever worked a real day’s labor in their life. They sit on their backsides and reap ‘profits’ for which they risk nothing of consequence.
After you have a certain amount of money, the only thing more money gives you is more control over other people’s lives. Do you want selfish, rich, lazy folks living off of your hard work?
There is one fault with your post. When a rich person becomes lazy, they don’t stay rich for long.
For a lot of poor people, they see rich people as privileged and self serving, when the biggest thing they missed is most if not all rich people have worked to become rich. I don’t know where it is that people just start out rich, but I’d love to move there.
It is a poor person’s mentality to blame their own poverty on people who can afford to blow money on things like entertainment and vacationing. This nation might be suffering from a recession but hard work is always rewarded.
Another major problem with poor people is they set their minds to the financial level they are at and then it is near impossible for them to rise above it.
Here is an example. A poor man wins the lottery and immediately turns around and buys a huge house (with a huge tax rate), an expensive sports car (with high insurance), and other commodities like that. It’s something any of us would do. But the problem here, is the man has been incredibly irresponsible with the money he won and it has left him faster than it arrived. His house gets foreclosed on, his car gets repossessed, and all his other toys are taken away, because even though he was a temporary millionaire, he is still a poor man.
On the other hand, you have a rich man who lands a multi-million dollar contract at his firm. He celebrates with a dinner, perhaps, and then thinks nothing of it. Meanwhile, he puts that money to work. Invests some, saves some, etc.
Do you see the difference?
Poor people will always be poor unless they make a conscious choice to not be poor anymore. Call me crazy but I gave you a clear example of how even a man with millions of dollars can be poor.
The government can do nothing to help the poor man. No matter how many goods and services are given to him freely, he will remain poor and remain a money funnel.
So I am completely against the government coddling poor people who choose to remain poor.
When they keep feeding, clothing, and housing them free of charge, they are perpetuating laziness.
Obviously not all poor people are poor by choice, but whatever happened to the hardworking mentality our nation had 50-100 years ago? When we were suffering a recession we would roll up our sleeves and crack our knuckles and get to work. Now there is a recession and we are looking around for free money, handouts, so that we can take that money and blow it on a car stereo or a new hairdo.
I truly hate the thousands of lazy people who ride off our system. You would think others would share my opinion yet the government is actually rewarding laziness.
Our borderline-socialist government is leading us to our downfall by not condemning laziness, but condoning it.
Did we all not see what happened to the Soviets?
“There is one fault with your post. When a rich person becomes lazy, they don’t stay rich for long.”
1) trust funds. The rich pass on their money to their children in tax-protected ways.
2) legacies. The children of the rich get into the colleges of their parents, because those colleges want their parents to donate big bucks–trust me on this one, I work in the college world.
3) the rich get all sorts of interesting benefits from those who handle their money. Ever noticed the fine print on documents from your bank, whereas you are not charged fees if your balance is over a certain amount? The poor could certainly use that money spent on fees, to do things like pay for new clothing for their kids. (I’ve read those documents, and have a couple friends in investment banking.)
Your comment applies to an incredibly small part of the rich population.
Like I said, no one starts out rich. Someone in their family history had to work for that money.
So yes, I did neglect to take account for the rich people’s kids. But I think my point is maintained.
You have a point. There are people who either choose to remain poor despite the options available to them, or simply have poor fiscal sense, and cannot manage the wealth they do obtain. But what should be done about those who don’t have options, or just need a little hand up to get started? There are those who would educate themselves, except they lack the money. And how difficult do you think it is to get a job if you don’t have transportation? Or a telephone? Or the facilities necessary for proper hygiene?
I’d say that the hardworking mentality is a victim of capitalism, and the New American Dream. Once, this was a country where hard work got you something. All you needed was the willingness to put in an honest day’s work, and you got an honest return on it. The Dream was that we could create a society of hard-working people who would cooperate honestly to enrich everyone. That everyone who worked would be prosperous. But at some point, the American Dream transformed into one of greed and luck. The goal was to come a “strike it rich”, gamble on something, whether it be gold, oil, or simply a business, and either die in poverty or never have to work again. The New American Dream is that everyone has an equal /chance/ at success, with some failing miserably, and others building their success on the backs of those who fail. It became cutthroat and dishonest.
People talk about the problem of free-riders. You say you “hate the thousands of lazy people who ride off our system.” What about the other free-riders, who actually claim that your work is theirs, that they deserve what is rightfully yours? Our system has become a vicious struggle to the top, with the people near the bottom getting very little back for their work, while the people near the top work less and less, and yet get more and more. They don’t earn it, and they haven’t earned it. And yet they claim to. And we accept it, we all play the game, each hoping that we’ll get lucky, and our hard work will eventually pay off, instead of paying for someone else. We haven’t created a system that rewards laziness. We’ve created a system that rewards greed and deceit.
So I ask you the same question: what happened to the hardworking mentality of the our yesteryears?
reading this, paris hilton comes to mind — never did make it to the end, lo siento
@DKulich, you say that and do you know the homeless man’s story? No, you have no right to assume he’s just cheating the system. Do you know how many Veterans are homeless? Those who are mentally deficient? Or how about those who, despite their hardest efforts, are homeless and being kicked around like they’re the drek of the world? I’ve done a dissertation on homelessness, how many times, yes, they are doing what you’ve said, but the majority of them are not.
“The homeless man doesn’t put in what the rich man has. ”
The thing is, it is statistically probable that the rich man came from a background of wealth and privilege to begin with. I don’t mind a bit the Bill Gates, Warren Buffets, or Alex Rodriguez’s of the world earning a healthy living, but I resent the hell out of some spoiled rich kid’s son being given access to greater wealth just because his dad’s rich. The Mexicans sweating in my kitchen for their second shift of the day deserve a comfortable home and security for their family a lot more than some kid who’s major effort in life involved successfully passing rush week at college.
typical conservative thought, schooling should only be decent for those who can afford private schools, huh?
It isn’t sharing if you’re forced to do it.
I should “share” my penis with the OP’s mom.
^
I lol’d
Something that small really cannot be shared. Kind of like those “fun” size candy bars.
Keep your eyes in your own pants, explody pervert.
Said Tom blindly.
Conundrum for you.
If she was that easy enough for you to get with, would you actually want it?
Funny how liberals want me to share my wealth with them, but refuse to share their gf’s, wivesn or legally aged daughters with me!! Hypocrits!!!!
Silly conservative, females aren’t property anymore.
Except for the silly conservative females.
And women crazy enough to give consent to that sort of thing and even then it isn’t legally binding…
>_>
What?
Hmm, binding.
<_<
Legally even…
No judge would consider it a cause for civil ligation.
I wouldn’t want to tie up the courts with something like that anyway.
maybe the judge or bailiff perhaps, depending on….
Are you the judge or baliff?
i will judge your tying up abilities, and then, if necessary, act as bailiff and put you in handcuffs
I should known better than to flirt with a fellow dominant.
who better to flirt with? a sub? they enjoy the pain too much and keep asking for more
But they won’t threaten with handcuffs.
As if kids really share in the first place. *pshaw*
i know, right? my neighbor still has that damn g.i.joe tank he “borrowed” 16 years ago…
conservative children don´t have time for playing anyway. they are too busy being brainwashed at church to live a normal childhood.
And liberal children have plenty of time to play b/c they’re learning from their parent to suckle the government’s teet that to work hard!! See how stupid you sound?
“learning from their parent to suckle the government’s teet that to work hard,” sounds pretty stupid to me, what with the poor grammar and spelling.
shh.. don’t point out the irony, it only makes them bigger, louder and angrier (you wouldn’t like them when they’re angry – the name calling.. oh the name calling!!)
and the horribly clashing purple pants… when will they learn?
Typical liberal. Ignore the point and resort to grammar correction.
benefit of public education that neo-cons don’t want everyone to have access to
Says who? I’d love to see every man, woman and child receive the same education and opportunity as everyone else but the problem is only some take those opportunities.
You can’t fix laziness. No matter how many handouts you give, you’re just gonna make it worse.
I hate it when parents involve their kids in protests they don’t understand like tools to gain sympathy. These people are the scum of the Earth…bacteria deserve more respect than these low-lives.
As to note about the situation:
The government does not intend to “redistribute” money amongst other people, as I understand it, but scaling taxes according to class so people in the lower classes could have money to spend to boost the economy, while the upper classes give more to the gov’t so we can reduce the debt we owe to other countries for loaning us money that we so frivolously spent for the war and give some health care and education to children of the lower classes. I don’t think “distributing” taxes toward welfare checks is a priority at the moment, considering the mess we are in. I personally think it is the banks’ fault for lending money and giving credit to people can’t pay it back, as well as those peoples’ fault for knowing they are in over their heads for attempting to acquire those loans in the first place, but don’t take it out on the current gov’t for it. I just don’t understand how people can blame this administration for this at all when all these transactions occurred during the LAST one.
Agreed, more or less, especially “it is the banks fault”. I have a co-worker who blames Clinton for the housing collapse, as if Clinton was the one giving out sub-prime loans like free samples of crack, or “forcing” the banks to give out the loans. Whatever – the banks got greedy when they saw the amount of money that could be made with those loans.
Now, don’t get me wrong – I do think this administration is taking a mighty big risk with their unprecedented spending, and I’m not an Obama supporter by far, but unlike the parrots you see in the picture, I have legitimate beefs with his policies – No Chlid Left Behind being financially supported instead of abolished, government bailouts in general, Reinstatement of PATRIOT Act. But, I can see good things he’s done too, and I know better than to buy the FOX News party line like these idiots did.
I agree. Children shouldn’t be used as props at any political rally- for any side. Do you think these kids would really care if their parents weren’t forcing it on them at home? Even then most of the don’t care. Let your kids stay in school…they only get so many sick days a year and they don’t want to spend it being a human sandwich board.
poor kids ? have nothing better to do ? a shame that a mother would take her sons to something like that..i feel pitty for them, they should be learning at school or something.
thanks for sharing
Economic Liberalism is believing that 8,000,000 people controlling 90% of the money is BAD, but 535 people controlling ALL of the money is AWESOMESAUCE.
So how is decreasing the taxes of 90% of Americans not giving them more control over their money?
1. It isn’t permanent (expires in 2 years, didn’t you get the memo?)
2. It isn’t much. (I’m near the bottom, and I still got a bigger tax cut under Bush. I give him credit for not repealing ALL the Bush tax cuts, but that’s as far as it goes.)
3. It’s going to be more than eaten up by other tax increases, (okay, so I drink a lot of to-be-taxed diet soda – I’m a diabetic!) as well as the inflation that will hit once all this newly-printed money reaches the economy.
Bush’s tax cuts weren’t permanent, either.
How can you claim to get a bigger tax cut under Bush? They add together, Obama is not repealing YOUR Bush tax cuts, he’s adding on to them.
What other tax increases are you talking about that will eat up all your savings? Care to, ah, show your work there, or was that a guess?
Pfft, they are going to tax my straight up Pepsi, Coke, and the other pops that I drink. Guess I will have to drink more tea…
Oh, man….do the soda drinkers need to organize “tea parties” too? Is this one of those stupid damn nanny government “let’s tax crap that’s baaaaad!” things?
This may bring out my inner protester. Hmm.
You’re my Attorney General. Lead the troops, woman!
Okay, now I’m mad. Soda is my favorite beverage on the planet, and I’m paying enough for it already, dammit!!
Heh. Linkey.
Oh, it’s ON now, Senators….it is SO ON…
I just found out about this (obviously). Here’s a link to the Senate Finance committee press release from the 18th. {http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb051809.pdf}. Then I find out that the deadline for public comment on the committee’s Financing Reform Policy Options was May 26, 2009. Sneaky bastards.
Oh, and I did a caption on a pic of Baucus & Grassley, who are now officially on my list of Politicians I’m Annoyed With.
…politicians with whom I am annoyed.
If I’d have known anyone else cared, I’d have posted it earlier. And I DID leave commentary, by-the-by.
Fu(king government gives with one hand while it’s taking back with two. All that crap about lowering most people’s income taxes conveniently overlooks that they apparently plan to nickel and dime us to the poorhouse on every other form of taxation. [/rant]
And I’m glad you commented, anyway. I guess it’s my own fault for not following the news closely enough.
don’t shoot me diss, but i think ‘sin’ taxes are an improvement if the funds are used appropriately. there are a lot of people classified as disabled because of smoking – yet they continue doing it, so tax the nails and use that for medicare/medicade funding, same with booze… soda? i’m of two minds on that one – it’s not healthy for kids, nor for adults either – yet in moderation it does little damage to the consumers body and no damage through 2nd hand exposure….
I bet if you look at the statistics of most smokers, drinkers, junk food eaters, and soda drinkers in the nation, you’ll find that the greater majority of them are lower middle class and poor. 10-to-1 these “sin taxes” are just making it more expensive for the poor to live. So you’re sticking it to those who really can’t afford it.
true, but maybe raising the taxes on the items that are directly related to poor health will have a couple benefits – force them to cut back, and if the tax money is directly funneled into state medicare it help cover the medical expenses that the poorest drive up by these unhealthy habits.
my mother died of lung cancer – never lit a cigarette in her life, it was a bad way to go, and now 2 of my kids smoke. part of me wants to just slap some sense into them, but they know the consequences and do it anyway…
I’ll be honest, I’m not giving up my soft drinks no matter what they cost. It’s as much an addiction for me as cigarettes are for other people. So I’m screwed into paying more money.
-
Now, as for “sin taxes”, I know that drinking soft drinks are unhealthy, I made the choice to do it, why are you punishing me in order to try to force me to make a good choice? Wouldn’t it be cheaper on the economy and the nationalized health care that everyone wants to just let people die off from being unhealthy than to have to pay for them as they age further past retirement age? IIRC, Britain is considering euthanizing elderly dementia patients because they are so expensive to keep around.
And here’s another food for thought: The taxes seem like a good idea until people get sick of paying them. I’m not going to give up my soft drinks, but that doesn’t mean no one will. Here’s a story about what can happen when you tax the crap out of people: {http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html} Who’s to say that a massive revolt won’t happen on the national scale when people feel as though they are being taxed either back into the poor house, or being taxed in order to remain in the poorhouse?
You know what is bad? Class warfare by the rich against the poor. Over the last thirty years, the poor have gotten poorer, the middle class stayed the same, and the top 1% got nearly all of the increases in productivity that we ALL contributed to. Is that fair?
No, but neither is a lot of other crap. Life’s not fair.
Life isn’t fair unless we MAKE it fair. The rich are specifically making life unfair for the rest of us, and we have the power to stop them, so we will, and that will be perfectly fair.
Seth, if you get the money part worked out the way you like it, somebody else will think it’s not fair to them…anyway, there’s more to life, and the unfairness of, than just being broke.
I don’t care if ‘someone’ thinks what I’ve earned is unfair, as long as nobody is starving, and the majority don’t think I’m being selfish.
Fair enough, then.
So “fair” is completely relative then? Before you were leading the “fairness” crusade against the rich but then when challenged on your idea of “fair” you changed your opinion to suit your own agenda.
Perhaps this is the very thing that the rich are doing now. Changed definitions at a whim to keep the money in their hands.
Changing*
“Life isn’t fair unless we MAKE it fair”
Too much truth. I’d invite you to join me in a chorus of the Internationale, if you’d take it as a compliment.
I’m a card carrying member of the IWW, I know the words by heart.
Don’t know how I managed to miss that. Glad to know I’m not alone in here, though I have to admit I haven’t taken the final step and actually signed myself up.
Seriously? They’re still around? Why the hell aren’t they doing something about our problems anymore?
Lol, yeah…I was thinking “Which one?” when I read your first post. Then I thought “Wait, isn’t “The Hills” on VH1?” Not that I watch it, I’m just painfully aware that it exists.
The only thing truly wrong with socialism is people. If we as a whole global society were not so greedy/lazy/selfish/whiney/etc… and learned to respect each other as fellow human beings instead of resources to be exploited or taking advantage of social programs when you don’t need them we could work out a way for every person in the world to have a decent quality of life. Unfortunately we as an “intelligent” species are too immature and cling to ancient and animalistic ideas of survival by any means necessary. Guess what, as a species humans have survived and thrived, and what helped us; SOCIALIZATION. A human by himself is a physically pathetic animal and if we hadn’t formed groups and SOCITIES we would have been wiped out a long time ago. Humanities greatest acheivments aren’t based on what we destroyed, but what we have built and created together, using our intellects. Democracy and socialism are not exclusive of each other, in fact, just the opposite, whereas in pure capitolism the vast majority of people would be reduced to surfs working for a pittance making the rich all powerful and ushering in a new era of extreme nepatism and neo-royalty where general elections will cease to exsist and a new CEO of America will be elected by the board of directers. The common man will be used a a simple cog and when he is of no more use he will be simply cast out into the street to die among the throngs of starving people with no hope.
Started off well in the first sentence, but then kind of lost focus and accuracy after that.
It’s true, the problem with socialism (as opposed to societies, which are NOT the same thing) is that human beings just don’t work that way. We always want more, and we’re always looking for the next angle, or an easier/cheaper/better way to do things.
Now it’s possible that you could remove those desires from people, but what you’d be left with would, by definition, be something less than human.
You’re right, sometimes rants and coffee should be kept seperate. I just get so frustrated with the mine, mine, mine mentality when our success as a species has greatly depended on our reliance on each others protection and resources.
Humanity hasn’t fundamentally changed in thousands of years. They still try to enslave each other in whatever way possible. They’ve just tried to make it more palatable, tried to convince people to voluntarily be enslaved, rather than be forced. The willing slave is so much more productive than the one in irons. Our world has become a big game that people play, accepting that the winners deserve whatever they can take, and the losers must be walked on. They’ve taken what they thought to be necessary evils, and made them morally right. They’ve turned vices into virtues, and called it progress.
I guess this is why when there is a Republican in office charitable contributions go up and when there is a Democrat they go down….oh wait …….yep that is how it works. When people are not being forced to “share” they give more…hmmmmm.
… and the result is functionally the same (if we accept as a given your base assumption- which is itself up for discussion), so your point is… ?
Im guessing your comment “results functionally the same”, is into the refrence of the b.s. argument that rich keep getting richer and poor are getting poorer. BS because even the people how development the means to test percentages of income increasing for rich and poor say that their work is dramatically flawed and that poor people in the 70′s spent 1/3 of the income on groceries. Now it is 1/5 of income spent. Standard of living for every one has gone up mostly thanks to Reagan policies that Obama is trying to take away. But by all means lets hear how I’m wrong and more BS about how rich Americans suck.
Most of the taxes I pay go to other people’s grandmas so they can live in Florida and not stay at home in Massachusetts and watch after their ungrateful children’s devil spawn.
The Kennedy’s figured out that separating 2nd generation Irish immigrants from demanding and demeaning parents would get them the vote all the time.
Ship ‘em off to Florida.
A disarmingly solipsistic viewpoint Stephen!
you want to talk about selfish….. how about living your whole life, thus far, buying everything on credit not saving a dime for your future or a troubled time. Then expecting those who worked, saved and did not blow all their money on rims and ringtones to bail you out…. thats selfish
How many people do you know like that? I don’t know anyone like that. And unless I’m mistaken, African Americans are generally the ones stereotyped as buying rims they can’t afford, so I’m sensing a racist undertone to your post as well.
I know a lot of people who live beyond their means on credit. I don’t have a single credit card, and I live paycheck to paycheck, setting aside money where I can. I have been to one movie in four years (Star Trek), I have a basic cell phone that I just got because I need it for work, and I drive a paid-for 1992 Acura Integra (a very solid car).
Hell yeah I resent people with huge mortgages and a sh!tload of toys who are crying for help right now.
And “rims and ringtones” is alliterative, not racist.
actually I was a social worker (was being the key term because I was tired of watching our government enable people). I saw lots of White people (you prejudice SOB) living off the government because of exactly what I just said. If you are asking why I called you prejudice, It’s because you are a bigot that read what I said, with out any possible verbal tone (because it was typed) and you judged me. you are, as webster defines are prejudice and a bigot.
Obama has spent more $ in his first 100 days in office than W did in 8 years!
“Obama has spent more $ in his first 100 days in office than W did in 8 years!”
No, he hasn’t. When all is said and done, his administration WILL HAVE SPENT more than W. But by using past tense, you not only spread that blatant falsehood and exaggeration, but you also expose information about you: you parrot others’ lines, you didn’t educate yourself about Obama’s big spending policies, and you watch FOX.
Sorry….it’s still the truth!
Umm, no, it isn’t. It’s not even close.
Year Federal Spending in Billions of Dollars
2001 1863.2
2002 2011.2
2003 2160.1
2004 2293.0
2005 2472.2
2006 2655.4
2007 2728.9
2008 2982.9
For a total of 19,166.9 Billion Dollars!
source {http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.shtml}
By comparison, the omnibus spending package that Obama has signed, which will keep the government operational until September, is only 410 Billion Dollars.
(Let’s see, which number is bigger…)
Now, it would be easy for me to take cheap shots at the intelligence, education, or gullibility of your average conservative, but I happen to know that many of them are smart, educated, and not at all gullible, so obviously the problem lies with you.
He will indeed spend more money than Bush, if he gets re-elected in 2012. He could hardly avoid it since our population will have grown in that amount of time. But let’s not mistake our hyperbole for actual fact, shall we?
And what? You watch your own biased and propaganda spewing news. Don’t elevate yourself. Everyone chooses a side. There is no one truly in the middle when the topics start mattering.
the inherent problem there, jojo, is most other news programs don’t masquerade “correspondents” as actual journalists. people like o’reilly, hannity and beck are not in any way journalists but they act like they are while reporting “news”
if it weren’t for this fact i might be less inclined to dislike fox so much.
take The Daily Show, as a good example: they are blatant about being comical yet they often relay more accurate news than Fox on a regular basis.
but i do agree with your last bit: “Everyone chooses a side” – be it a middle ground or side-skewed view (if that is a term, if not.. i’m trademarking it).
an argument i’ve had before in a philosophy class that there is no real and true reality given that every perception of that reality is skewed by one’s own perspective. so there might be something out there that is what is really there, but we will likely never know it due to our own nature of being human.
anyway, that applies here a bit i think.
You have misunderstood Fox news then. O’Rielly is the only one who considers himself a news reporter. The other two are clear about their positions as opinion-based television shows.
You are going to see a lot of biases on Beck and Hannity. Not so much O’Rielly.
It is clear that O’Rielly is right wing but he does his best to remain neutral on most topics. When he has a guest on that is starting to badmouth one side or the other, O’Rielly makes sure to get back to facts. People don’t want opinions, they want facts, and that is what has made his show the most watched show on all networks in that segment for 8 years now.
He calls it the no-spin zone and means it.
Of course there will be an instance or two when his true colors show, but only on topics of great importance. He’s not like Beck, who wears his allegiance on his sleeve and acts like the world is coming to an end at all times during his show. Hannity is alright, but he too is very biased. I myself am biased but I’d rather have my news source not be so. That’s why I watch O’Rielly and forgo the others.
LOL.
The hilarity of this whole topic is that “Money” is created out of “Thin Air”. It has become so embedded in our subconsious that once we do something for someone our immediate response is “well whats in it for ME?”
Why do we charge people to become smarter and pay them to be dumb?
We as a country would rather pay someone to mass produce babies and lounge around all day with a $1000 a day crack habbit. Then pay them to better themselves i.e. learning a new skill, become a more productive person in society.
I am sorry for the quick “End of workday Rant”
it’s ok, get it off your chest. end-of-workday-rants are theraputic.
Exactly how much crack can you get for 1000/day and where would that come from? Got hyperbole?
But Tommy produces work in the house for the use of the jointly owned toys. Where under the Obama/Bush plan individuals not only get to play with the toys of which they do not own or contribute to their maintenance, they get title to the toys.
In the alternative, the home setting is a perfect example of the efficiency of communal living. The dictatorship maintains the property for the common good and distributes that property upon equal lines. The inefficiency arises due to the 1:2 – 1:3 ratio of supervisor to citizen that exists in the community. Further inequities arise when the dictator takes control of the assets for unequal, personal use to the detriment of the people. In the small communal setting of the home, this occurs when mom discovers the fun of the Wii and hogs the damn thing ALL DAY LONG!
The picture is hilarious on its own! Didn’t need a caption.
I have friends who actually teach their children that they don’t need to share because sharing is “kinda communist.” They are otherwise normal. For now.
Do any of these teabagger people finish high school?
Did you, you intolerant loon?
I’ll take that as a “no.”
Do you know math? try figuring out what % of your taxes actually help you.
An then how much is going to an overpaid union.
Your question is an odd one. It is odd because it is dependent on either being a fortune teller or someone who can translate a poorly structured sentence.
If taken one way, your question can be read as “In the future, will these tea baggers graduate high school?”
That can be very hard to answer as no one can tell the future.
The other way you can take it is “According to recent data relating to the percent of tea baggers graduating high school, did these ones make it?”
Which is simply hard to answer because it isn’t entirely clear what you are asking.
Please reword your question and try again.
If you are simply trying to insult someone based on level of education, I would recommend against it, as you are firing a catapult in a glass warehouse.
Sooo… anyone wanna tell me why the hell those kids were out of school?
Sometimes it is important to step out of your daily routine to show the government that you won’t be bullied.
I do that by firing rockets towards Washington, from somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
Don’t worry. They are not fueled enough to make the trip. They end up landing in New Jersey usually. And that is not a bad thing.
Most of the kids at the tea parties were there after school was out. I don’t see a time on this picture, so your assumption is flawed.
I am surprised that PK allowed this picture to be posted twice.
Yes I know the captions were different, but still, it just feels like there is a dead horse receiving a massive beat down.
Teh libruls luuurve this picture – they think it proves some nonsensical “point” about something. They also need to read Atlas Shrugged. Or 1984. I’ll be one of those in room 101 if you need me; the Ministry of Love is sick of my patriotic dissent. Those children are smarter than most leftists.
I love your patriotic dissent. I just wish you knew how to express yourself with less anger and more compassion.
Oh, and Ayn Rand is not much of an Anarchist, a philosopher, or a writer. If you look into any of those areas a little more deeply, you’ll discover she’s a hack. Not to be condescending or anything.
“I’M SPECIAL! MY SUPERIORITY ENTITLES ME TO MORE PRIVILEGES THAN YOU STOOPID PEOPLE! THE WORLD IS DIVIDED INTO SMART PEOPLE LIKE ME AND STOOPID PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND YOU SHOULD ALL LEARN YOUR PLACE AND BE HAPPY I LET YOU LIVE ON THE CRUMBS THAT FALL FROM MY TABLE!”
That’s pretty much all I got from Rand.
Is that the book where all the “visionary” people go off and form their own community? I’ve never read it but it sounds awfy selfish to me…
Sounds a fair bit like the same philosophy, if not actual plot, as Gattica, too?
I think we’ve finally found a topic where I’m in total agreement with Seth and PM. *looks out the window* Yep, there go the flying pigs.
I can’t be sure; I’ve never read Rand. No, seriously, I haven’t. Only quotes. Just never found it on my list of “necessary reading” so far. Von Mises, now, that’s not optional.
Why the hell would you tell someone to read something you haven’t read yourself?
Doesn’t sound very smart, and considering that your whole point related at least lightly to intelligence… You’re nonsensical.
Yeah that’s pretty weird to so adamantly encourage someone to read a book, only to have never read it yourself.
Isn’t that judging a book by its cover?
Not really; I know a lot more about it than the mere cover. And I already know I’m not an Objectivist, so it’s not high on my priority list. Reading the book for an economic education on my part would be redundant, and I’ve already read the prophetic aspects of it. So, yeah, no, not judging anything by its cover, and for people who don’t know much it’s highly recommended – the parallels are quite startling. So…whatever.
Total faceplant fail.
Using your kids to protest isn’t cool, regardless of the issue.
Sorry, but that’s wrong on both sides of the isle, as far as I’m concerned.
It’s one thing to impart your values. But to con kids into being little pundits about issues they don’t understand? BS.
I think the parents have probably explained to their children the issues at hand. The children aren’t toddlers. They have the ability to reason. The very fact that they have used child-like examples is one indicator they understand.
I’d say if it is a good reason to protest (as the Tea parties were) then get the whole family involved. By not bringing your children you are giving the opposition a foothold in their minds. Call em brainwashed if you want, but the other side would just brainwash them the same.
And I think the children are incapable of understanding the real issues. Neither can their parents, who have given their children an oversimplified and biased view of the issues at hand. Anything can be colored to sound good or bad, you just have to hit the right buttons. And that’s all it’s about. Childish people who believe the only alternatives to brainwashing their children are letting someone else brainwash their children. But humans seem largely to be herd animals, incapable of intelligent thought. They just line up into arbitrary groups and attack each other.
It all boils down to externalization: seeing ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as separate from or external to our perception. Because we are genetically programed to seek Truth, but we will settle for truth. Look at me! I have The truth in my back pocket. Wait, you have The truth too? Nuh uh! Your truth is different from mine.
Whut whut? We have different versions of the truth? Hmm, how about we recognize there is only one Truth: the present moment, without interpretation? That is the only capital T truth, right here, right now. Nothing more, nothing less. This is It.
Bull. There’s never a bad time to school children in their RIGHTS in this country – which include the right to peaceably assemble for redress of grievances. My bet is they’re homeschoolers who did a whole lot of lesson preparation for this event and helped make the signs as well as came up with ideas.
I certainly brought my children to protests when our right to homeschool was threatened repeatedly in our state – and they knew exactly what it was about and why we were doing it – how dare anyone tell us how to live our private lives which were very happy for us? How dare they? You bet your sweet a** I taught them to protest encroachments upon our rights as individuals and as a family.
There is NOTHING wrong with that. And believe me, a 7 or 8 year old child can understand having things confiscated without just cause and given away to those who won’t even care for them because they never put in any effort to earn them. My children weren’t “given” everything (such as an allowance) – they were taught a work ethic, a right to their OWN property, a right to lend that property if they wanted to, and financial accountability if they damaged the other person’s property. There was no fighting over toys in our house, not once I figured out that “share your toys” was the lamest, dumbest way to run things and resulted only in fights and broken hearts.
Hell, a 4 year old can comprehend that, actually.
Look at those two sides feuding,
’bout which side knows of best,
the height and temperature,
of the fire that consumes them.
I must be honest – I never saw so many comments on a picture. Reading some of them I see… people who would apreciate living in a jungle, eating roots, and sometimes a frog. And some people that belive their biggest problem is that their SUVs should be bigger. Come on, USA alredy have the biggest military in the world, why spending MORE tax money with it?
I am happy to live outside the United States. Therefore, I would have to study more about this subject. The point is, I just dont agree alredy with some things. A guy mentioned that US people wouldnt be free without military. The soviets are LONG GONE, my friend! Seems like USA is all about oversizing – Oversized SUVs, oversized people, oversized BigMacs, oversized military. And it seems for me that Oversizing is proportional with republicanism and a selfish USA-centre-of-the-world view.
And yes, I like the fact that when I was living in Brazil I was considered rich, had a huge house (comparing to europe, I would have a amnsion), and that I was in the group of people who held most of the money in the country (the smallest group). It is confortable! Is it unfair? Yes, it is. Can I do something about it? No! Poor people keep reproducing like rabbits, keep getting money from the goverment for each child they get and keep putting children to work on the street to get SOME money so they can eat something. It is not my fault, I cant help them. They are just too stupid – instead of buying a 50 cent codom, they make a child, that will cost – at least in brazil – around 10.000 dollars to be raised with some confort untill the age of 6. Anyway, the psot is about American politics. I will try to read more comments later…
Sorry for the bad english. I am on an assigment right now, so I have to pretend that I am paying attention.
It’s nice to see that my first ever ‘first’ comment turned into such a shitstorm. Bravo!
Little hint: Your categorization of people whom you disagree with as not being “real people” does not help your case. Dehumanizing your opponents makes it psychologically easier to ignore their rights or discard their arguments off-hand, does not promote good discussion of a topic, and indicates that your motives are social domination, not a search for truth.
at kid #1, if u dint make the money yet, its up for grabs
Blogged about it, linked to it, and for good measure threw in a Digg as well. Thanks for the effort.
Kids shouldn’t be at ANY political rally-for ANY side. Both sides, stop using your kids as props for your poltical ideals.