What Do You Think the Tea Party Movement is About?

[Elder Iptuous]

1.  Because he knows they'll pass anyway.  It's like him voting against congressional pay raises, then taking the raise (by contrast, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin still accepts the same pay he received as a freshman, donating the difference to charities in his state after voting against the raises.  There's other reasons to hate Feingold, though.).

2.  So people in New York deserve good roads, but people in the Appalachias don't?  And states should pay for constitutionally-mandated federal highways (article I, section 8, postal roads)?

3.  Sure.  But it's easier, and more fair, than dismantling a system others are using, because you don't want to pay the bills.  If there's an existing system that is more to your liking already in place, why not use it?  Sure, you'll die of cholera, but at least you won't have to pay for the CDC, or take it away from people who DO want it.

1- that's a good point... i had heard of him opting out of the congressional health care and retirement because it wasn't fair, and i had heard of him voting against the congressional pay raises, but i hadn't heard about him turning down the pay increases....  I take it you have read that he accepts the pay increases?  I'm going to have to email him and ask why he doesn't turn it down....
good call

2- although i disagree with how the highway funding is used to strongarm states into complying with totally unrelated things, i do believe that it is a national infrastructure item that should be funded federally and should be evenly applied...  just one of the things i disagree with a large part of the RP crowd on...

3- easier and more fair? i'll have to remember that...  also i think that characterizing the RP crowd as wanting to 'dismantle' a system has implications of them wanting to destroy rather than restore, which is what they might describe their aims as.  besides, isn't your aim to 'dismantle the system'?  what country would be more suitable for you in this context?

OT- you frequently mention being stuck in your desert.  what is your fetter in that place? just curious....

[Doktor Howl]

2- although i disagree with how the highway funding is used to strongarm states into complying with totally unrelated things,

True, and that's why we need congressmen that will actually do more than yap.

3- easier and more fair? i'll have to remember that...  also i think that characterizing the RP crowd as wanting to 'dismantle' a system has implications of them wanting to destroy rather than restore, which is what they might describe their aims as.  besides, isn't your aim to 'dismantle the system'?  what country would be more suitable for you in this context?

Restore what?  And no, my aim is to burn it all down, in a gleeful fit of senseless and wanton destruction.  But I don't pretend to have the nation's best interests at heart.  Quite the contrary, in fact. 

OT- you frequently mention being stuck in your desert.  what is your fetter in that place? just curious....

Two things:

1.  I have the last remaining job with full benefits in the country, and the last solvent school district for my kids.

2.  There's extra gravity in Arizona.  Once you're here, you can never really get away.  Sister Gothique, for example, is about halfway across North Carolina, desperately clawing at the ground in a futile attempt to stop falling West.

[BabylonHoruv]

No, it fucking is not.  It is the department of the treasury's money, until such time as it is allocated, once you strip the rhetoric off of it.  If you want it to be YOUR money, as in The Peoples' money, then I suggest you demand a representative that does more than a self-serving, cynical dog and pony show.

And yes, the Ron Paul crowd is more than pleased with the status quo. 

Unless they'd like to lose highway maintenance.  Or the military that protects us from the people we've raped for the last 200 years.  Or sanitation, emergency services, yada yada yada.

What they AREN'T happy with, is having to PAY for these things.  Well, too damn bad...reality is what is still there when you're done bitching, and the fact is, the bills DO have to be paid.  If the Libertarians don't like it, they can fuck off to Somalia, where there are no horrible "laws" and "taxes".  Or "roads" and "food" (the two ARE connected).

I would agree with you were it not for the fact that he votes against the bills.  I don't see how you can call it a show if he's not voting for them.

As far as your examples of the RP crowd being pleased with the status quo, I would say that in large part they do want federal funding out of them...  many/most of them to a greater degree than I do...

'if you don't like it, you can move to some other place...'  huh. Where have I heard that rhetoric before?

1.  Because he knows they'll pass anyway.  It's like him voting against congressional pay raises, then taking the raise (by contrast, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin still accepts the same pay he received as a freshman, donating the difference to charities in his state after voting against the raises.  There's other reasons to hate Feingold, though.).

2.  So people in New York deserve good roads, but people in the Appalachias don't?  And states should pay for constitutionally-mandated federal highways (article I, section 8, postal roads)?

3.  Sure.  But it's easier, and more fair, than dismantling a system others are using, because you don't want to pay the bills.  If there's an existing system that is more to your liking already in place, why not use it?  Sure, you'll die of cholera, but at least you won't have to pay for the CDC, or take it away from people who DO want it.

I'll argue that yes, people in New York deserve good roads and people in Appalacia don't.  Cars are one of the problems with this country and if we were using those funds to build a viable nbational mass transist system instead of subsidizing car usage we would cut off a major source of funding for terrorism as well as reducing our national defecit and improving our environment.  People in Appalachia deserve access to trains, New York is dense enough that buses and taxis are a viable form of mass transit, thus requiring higher quality roads for them to run on.

[Doktor Howl]

I'll argue that yes, people in New York deserve good roads and people in Appalacia don't.  Cars are one of the problems with this country and if we were using those funds to build a viable nbational mass transist system instead of subsidizing car usage we would cut off a major source of funding for terrorism as well as reducing our national defecit and improving our environment.  People in Appalachia deserve access to trains, New York is dense enough that buses and taxis are a viable form of mass transit, thus requiring higher quality roads for them to run on.

So, there's no need to move products or food into or out of Kentucky or Tennessee?

Great.  So they're locked out of the economy, and relegated to serfdom.

GOD BLESS AHHHH-MERICA...

[Elder Iptuous]

BH,
also the highways have a military purpose that often gets overlooked.
they are necessary for defense of the nation.

[Elder Iptuous]

Restore what?  And no, my aim is to burn it all down, in a gleeful fit of senseless and wanton destruction.  But I don't pretend to have the nation's best interests at heart.  Quite the contrary, in fact. 

restore the good old days, of course... 

also, you, sir, are a weapon of mass destruction and should be kept in a silo for use in the event of total war...

Two things:

1.  I have the last remaining job with full benefits in the country, and the last solvent school district for my kids.

2.  There's extra gravity in Arizona.  Once you're here, you can never really get away.  Sister Gothique, for example, is about halfway across North Carolina, desperately clawing at the ground in a futile attempt to stop falling West.

the gravity well of Arizona must be a local minima or else we'd all be tumbling towards it eventually.  therefore you must find another hellhole with a force of attraction.  one with a tree or two, and makes use of a larger part of the visible spectrum.

at least you have the Wikiup shoot in AZ....

[Doktor Howl]

BH,
also the highways have a military purpose that often gets overlooked.
they are necessary for defense of the nation.

That was the excuse.

We're better off relying on rail for that.  Ever try to drive a Bradley more than 100 miles?

But what they DID do, was make us rich as hell, by the rest of the world's standards.  So the natural thing to do is dismantle them and go to a totally inappropriate system, because apparently, hillbillies deserve wretched poverty (per Horuv).

[Doktor Howl]

Restore what?  And no, my aim is to burn it all down, in a gleeful fit of senseless and wanton destruction.  But I don't pretend to have the nation's best interests at heart.  Quite the contrary, in fact. 

restore the good old days, of course... 

When were those, again?

also, you, sir, are a weapon of mass destruction and should be kept in a silo for use in the event of total war...

This IS a total war.  I asked you all - nicely - to kill me, and you didn't.

Two things:

1.  I have the last remaining job with full benefits in the country, and the last solvent school district for my kids.

2.  There's extra gravity in Arizona.  Once you're here, you can never really get away.  Sister Gothique, for example, is about halfway across North Carolina, desperately clawing at the ground in a futile attempt to stop falling West.

the gravity well of Arizona must be a local minima or else we'd all be tumbling towards it eventually.  therefore you must find another hellhole with a force of attraction.  one with a tree or two, and makes use of a larger part of the visible spectrum.

at least you have the Wikiup shoot in AZ....

The gravity here only works if you've been exposed to it for more than a few weeks.

[BabylonHoruv]

I'll argue that yes, people in New York deserve good roads and people in Appalacia don't.  Cars are one of the problems with this country and if we were using those funds to build a viable nbational mass transist system instead of subsidizing car usage we would cut off a major source of funding for terrorism as well as reducing our national defecit and improving our environment.  People in Appalachia deserve access to trains, New York is dense enough that buses and taxis are a viable form of mass transit, thus requiring higher quality roads for them to run on.

So, there's no need to move products or food into or out of Kentucky or Tennessee?

Great.  So they're locked out of the economy, and relegated to serfdom.

GOD BLESS AHHHH-MERICA...

There sure is.  It should just be being moved on trains, rather than via truck.

[Doktor Howl]

I'll argue that yes, people in New York deserve good roads and people in Appalacia don't.  Cars are one of the problems with this country and if we were using those funds to build a viable nbational mass transist system instead of subsidizing car usage we would cut off a major source of funding for terrorism as well as reducing our national defecit and improving our environment.  People in Appalachia deserve access to trains, New York is dense enough that buses and taxis are a viable form of mass transit, thus requiring higher quality roads for them to run on.

So, there's no need to move products or food into or out of Kentucky or Tennessee?

Great.  So they're locked out of the economy, and relegated to serfdom.

GOD BLESS AHHHH-MERICA...

There sure is.  It should just be being moved on trains, rather than via truck.

Yes, because rail lines should go to each and every small town, or even every manufacturing facility, farm, and grocery store.  And we should get enough engines and freight cars to reach all of these places.  To save money.

[BabylonHoruv]

I'll argue that yes, people in New York deserve good roads and people in Appalacia don't.  Cars are one of the problems with this country and if we were using those funds to build a viable nbational mass transist system instead of subsidizing car usage we would cut off a major source of funding for terrorism as well as reducing our national defecit and improving our environment.  People in Appalachia deserve access to trains, New York is dense enough that buses and taxis are a viable form of mass transit, thus requiring higher quality roads for them to run on.

So, there's no need to move products or food into or out of Kentucky or Tennessee?

Great.  So they're locked out of the economy, and relegated to serfdom.

GOD BLESS AHHHH-MERICA...

There sure is.  It should just be being moved on trains, rather than via truck.

Yes, because rail lines should go to each and every small town, or even every manufacturing facility, farm, and grocery store.  And we should get enough engines and freight cars to reach all of these places.  To save money.

Yes they should.  At least to a local freight depot in every small town.  I didn't say it would save money, what it would do is cut off funding for terrorism, reduce environmental damage, and reduce our national deficit.  Local roads within a town to move around in town ought to be the responsibility of the town, the interstate highway system meanwhile is a massive piece of pork that subsidizes gasoline consumption at unsustainable levels.

[Doktor Howl]

Yes they should.  At least to a local freight depot in every small town.  I didn't say it would save money, what it would do is cut off funding for terrorism, reduce environmental damage, and reduce our national deficit.

So, trucking coming from other states will pay the extra cost to have their freight transferred to rail, right?

Of course they will.  Out of the kindness of their hearts, rather than let the area wither on the vine.

Local roads within a town to move around in town ought to be the responsibility of the town, the interstate highway system meanwhile is a massive piece of pork that subsidizes gasoline consumption at unsustainable levels.

Oh, okay.  So your argument is that we should go back to 1865.

[Elder Iptuous]

When were those, again?

once upon a time in a reality far far away...
the documentary of those times aired between 1960 and 1968 and followed the life of a local sherrif

This IS a total war.  I asked you all - nicely - to kill me, and you didn't.

well i attempted to, but i made the mistake of outsourcing the job to this Wiley fellow that you splattered across the highway.  he almost succeeded, but that only counts in hand grenades and horse shoes... (he didn't take my advice on the hand grenades.)  I guess if you want something done right.....

[Doktor Howl]

When were those, again?

once upon a time in a reality far far away...
the documentary of those times aired between 1960 and 1968 and followed the life of a local sherrif

   

This IS a total war.  I asked you all - nicely - to kill me, and you didn't.

well i attempted to, but i made the mistake of outsourcing the job to this Wiley fellow that you splattered across the highway.  he almost succeeded, but that only counts in hand grenades and horse shoes... (he didn't take my advice on the hand grenades.)  I guess if you want something done right.....

Too late now.  You'll notice I don't use that phrase anymore.

[LMNO]

I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, but I've always considered the way that most places handle their budgets to be a completely fucked up process.

You lobby for a certain amount every year.  Let's say you want $100K for your expenses, a number reached by looking at all the things that could go wrong, and making sure you have enough to cover.

So, they give it to you, and you do a really good job of cost-cutting, and only use $80K.

Now you realize that for the next budget cycle, if you haven't used all of your $100K, you're going to have justify why they should give the full amount to you next year, and they're most likely going to cut your budget by at least $20K.  That's right, you get penalized for saving the company money.

So, you spend they balance on useless shit, just to say that you "met your budgetary goals," and the company essentially loses money.

That just doesn't seem smart, does it?