Quotes of the Moment II

[Nephew Twiddleton]

lol, Star Wars episode V: Paulbot Strikes Back:

Paulbot: Roads and infrastructure are a necessity to allow the populus to go to work efficiently everyday to generate personal income and income tax revenue. It has no comparison to healthcare.
about an hour ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Actually, it does have comparison. A pretty apt one, I might add.
about an hour ago · Like

Blight: Since, you know, properly functioning bodies are necessary to go to work efficiently.
about an hour ago · Like

Paulbot: Ideally, people would use these roads to go to their workplace that provides healthcare coverage
about an hour ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Oh, so you are in fact in favor of workers having affordable, preferably work provided, healthcare so that they can work and produce personal income and tax revenue?
about an hour ago · Like

Blight: A necessity, even?
about an hour ago · Like

Paulbot: Not really. Because you can't associate the wear and tear a road recieves and what types of wear and tear a human encounters. Nevermind the bodies natural ability to heal itself of many ailments. Those assholes keeping you up at night. Lets call them white blood cells
about an hour ago via mobile · Like

Blight: So, ability to travel to work is important, but ability to work is not?
about an hour ago · Like

Blight: So much for efficiency.
about an hour ago · Like

Paulbot: The governments job is to provide infrastructure so that individuals and business have a environment to thrive in.
about an hour ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Let's frame it this way- You can up and redo a road entirely. Human bodies do in fact have points of no return, despite our resilience biologically.
about an hour ago · Like

Blight: So, what you are saying is that the purpose of government is to facilitate business, but not the citizenry?
about an hour ago · Like

Blight: And that laissez-faire capitalism benefits the average worker?
about an hour ago · Like

Blight: And that the average worker thrives?
about an hour ago · Like

Paulbot: What about those who have the ability to work and chose not to?
about an hour ago via mobile · Like

Blight: "And what information are you basig this on?"-Paulbot
about an hour ago · Like

Blight: You ever been unemployed?
about an hour ago · Like

Blight: I already know the answer to that.
about an hour ago · Like

Paulbot: Another thing, as a 11 year tax payer and someone who has paid for his health insurance and maintained his health, why do I suddenly have to pay more money for less coverage? How is that fair?
about an hour ago via mobile · Like · 1

Paulbot: Unemployed, yes. But have paid income taxes. I also just had a kid without health insurance, and you know what I did, I paid for it
about an hour ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Well, as 16 year taxpayer, who lucked out not getting terribly sick, why do I have to pay more money, through the same insurance plan I've had for years and years, once the libertarians coopted the Republican party and stormed congress?
about an hour ago · Like

Blight: Even though Romneycare kicked in long before that.
about an hour ago · Like

Paulbot: Fyi, obamacare is causong the price hikes
about an hour ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Of course it is. Now we are forced by capitalism to purchase something. Something that every other developed nation in the world provides for their citizens as part of being a citizen. You might look upthread about Canadian socialist friend laughing about Obamapave. She's Canadian.
about an hour ago · Like

Paulbot: Romneycare applied to a small sample size. Massachusetts, a small well to do state on the east coast, your tax dollars could afford to cover those uncovered. One size fits all does not apply to nationwide healthcare plan
about an hour ago via mobile · Like

Blight: I don't like Obamacare either, but for entirely different reasons. The same reasons which made me think Romney was a corporate jackass.
about an hour ago · Like

Blight: Sure, you know if the libertarian leaning states actually taxed their citizens at an appropriate rate, people like Massholes wouldn't have to cover their deficits with our own taxes that we never see anything for.
about an hour ago · Like

Blight: If friggin' Alabama picked up more of their slack, MA taxes would be spent more on MA.
about an hour ago · Like

Blight: So who's the moocher now?
about an hour ago · Like

Blight: And I'm guessing that Illinois is doing the same as Massachusetts. Paying for other states that would otherwise be third world countries.
about an hour ago · Like

Paulbot: Illinois is broke. Our state is underwater, and now we have this
about an hour ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Thank the Confederacy for that.
about an hour ago · Like

Blight: You do realize that, yes? That freeloading states are causing us to pay more in taxes just to keep the nation as a whole somewhat, barely, affloat?
about an hour ago · Like

Paulbot: And by the way, you never aswered MY question on why I should now pay more for health insurance, why am I being punished for the good of people who have gone without insurance ?
about an hour ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Are you, in fact, being punished for the otherwise uninsured? Do you actually understand what PPACA is about?
about an hour ago · Like

Blight: If we actually had universal healthcare, and not compulsory purchasing, you might have a leg to stand on.
59 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: That's where your wrong and why you think we can have this healthcare system, you think or government is afloat. Its not. We are going backwards. Like I have said before, universal healthcare sounds great, but we can't afford it, our wars, and other useless expenditures
58 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Of course we can't afford Universal Healthcare, that's why we do not have it. Is the government paying for your healthcare?
57 minutes ago · Like

Blight: I will agree with you about the wars though.
57 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: Hi , I'm hold a license in health insurance. Do YOU actually know how insurance works and is funded?
57 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Hey, insurance guy, quick question. Is the government paying for our insurance or forcing us to buy it?
56 minutes ago · Like

Blight: And if it's not the latter, then how is YOUR bottom line being affected? By, you know, the AFFORDABLE part?
55 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: Its not affordable. Wait till you have A co pay or a deductible to pay. You'll see where all those savings went
53 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Paulbot: Once again, you don't know anything about insurance
53 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Paulbot: I can call a black cat red, but its still a black cat
52 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Of course it's not affordable. It's not paid for by the government, and people who draft these laws don't know what it's like to be a normal person. How much do you pay for insurance?
52 minutes ago · Like

Blight: Before the goddamn teabaggers got into Congress, my insurance, for health, vision, and dental, was about $16 a week, through work. Then it jumped up to $86 per week. I work for a goddamn hospital.
51 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: Nevermind the fact that the coverages offered are fucking ludicrous compared to a what I have been getting for the last 10 years
50 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Hey, my coverage is fine, and my copays reasonable, even though I'm paying about $70 more a week than before.
50 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: My coverage for Paulbot-fiancee, the girls, and myself is 75 a week.
49 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: So it's about the same. What was it like before the anarchists took over the legislature?
49 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: What makes you think that working at hospital gives you better insurance rates
49 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Except, you know, I work for a hospital and I'm paying for just me, not Villager and non-existent kids.
48 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: Its not even close to the same. Go tell your work you just had 2 kids and see how much your insurance goes up
47 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Well, it would be logical, no? I mean, I'm working for the organization to begin with. Sure, I get seen a little quicker.
47 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: If I did have dependants, my health insurance is free
47 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Wait, let's revisit this. A father in a family of 4 pays $75 for insurance. A single man pays $86. And if I have dependents, my insurance goes up? Even though you are paying less? And you do have dependents. You're a father of 2.
46 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: Yep. Its called "how its supposed to be"
43 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Paulbot: You pay more for health insurance than I do
43 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: So... you're contradicting yourself, no?
43 minutes ago · Like

Blight: Wait, no, ok, I got it now.
42 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: You know, you can switch employers, better benefits is great reason to change jobs
42 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Well, that's why I'm back in college. But you know, it doesn't change the fact that I am fundamentally against the idea of compulsory purchasing for a product that every other developed nation in the world provides to their citizens as a given.
41 minutes ago · Like

Blight: I hate PPACA because it's forcing people to buy something. If you're going to insist that someone has something, well, then, you better give it to them.
40 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: I hate to tell you, health insurance is not free in other countries, its just not deducted from your paycheck. Look at sales tax/exchange rates in those countries.
36 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Paulbot: Plus, our quality of healthcare is top notch.
36 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Paulbot: The government pays the hospitals and the doctors with tax noney.
35 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: LOL
30 minutes ago · Like

Blight: So, wait, sales tax is the same as insurance? Canadian socialist friend, you're from one of those goddamn Commie countries, please to tell more.
29 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...

Affordable Care Act: High deductibles could pinch consumers
articles.chicagotribune.com
Adam Weldzius, a nurse practitioner, considers himself better informed than most...
See More
29 minutes ago via mobile · Like · Remove Preview

Blight: You know, especially since you're the next country over and your currency is roughly equivalent to ours.
28 minutes ago · Like

Blight: Peer review or GTFO.
28 minutes ago · Like

Blight: I don't trust the MSM. lol.
27 minutes ago · Like

Blight: I hear a lot about how Canada's system is broken. So I'm going to hand a Canuck the microphone.
26 minutes ago · Like

Phox: Kev, I'm truly fascinated by this, so I will inquire if I am missing something. Did you just post 4 times in a row, or is there something going on that I am unable to observe?
23 minutes ago · Like

Blight: 4x.
23 minutes ago · Like

Blight: Actually, Phox is Illinoisie too.
23 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: *healthcare is not free
23 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Paulbot: Healthcare is never free. Even if the government provides it, you're still paying for it through taxes. But... um.... it's cheaper if you do....
22 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: I agree. But that's not what we gave here
20 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Paulbot: Have*
19 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Of course it's not what we have here.
19 minutes ago · Like

Blight: :looks at watch:
19 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: That's why this is bullshit.
18 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Oh? And why is it bullshit? :Looks at watch:
17 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: They didn't reinvent the wheel, they took the same old one and removed a few spokes
17 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Spokes, you say? Elaborate on the spokes.
17 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: They actually have made insurance worse than it was before
17 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: And how did they make insurance worse?
16 minutes ago · Like

Blight: :looks at watch:
16 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: http://www.forbes.com/.../

How Obamacare Dramatically Increases The Cost of Insurance for Young Workers
www.forbes.com
In 2009, during the height of the debate over Obamacare, the law's architect, MI...
See More
8 minutes ago via mobile · Like · Remove Preview

Blight: Forbes.com
7 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: I'm done fyi.
7 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Mhmm.
7 minutes ago · Like

Paulbot: Read the damn article
7 minutes ago via mobile · Like

Blight: Forbes.com
6 minutes ago · Like

Blight: Peer review or GTFO.
6 minutes ago · Like

Blight: Forbes. The magazine for the rich and the "pre-rich:.
4 minutes ago · Like

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I'm going to take the quote out of context of the conversation, but it's addressed to Twidsister, who is 17.

You're almost an adult. I think its time you start saying what is best for you and not what others think is best for you. And THAT made me feel old little one.

My nickname for her is Little One, because of the stark age difference between her and Midsister and I.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

...and I suppose that this is the most Jewish experience I will ever have, Lord. Talking to you, and getting no answer.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I offer this quote to illustrate that believing is not easy.

[Cain]

I can't take a 2 minute break on IRC without someone forcing me to work.  Today is just one of those days:

- yegha78tg joined
<yegha78tg>  YOU MAY BE WATCHED
<yegha78tg>WARNING       WARNING      WARNING,                       WARNING
<yegha78tg>WARNING             WARNING              WARNING,     WARNING         WARNING
<yegha78tg> YOU MAYWATCHED
<yegha78tg>YOU MAY BE WATCHED
<yegha78tg>   YOU MAY BE WATCHED
<yegha78tg>            )
<yegha78tg>Do usa&Israel use chat &facebook 2 spy?!?!?!?
<yegha78tg>Do they record &analyse everything we type?!?!?!?
<yegha78tg>Do usa&israel use chat&social communication prog(facebook&twitter) to collect informations,,,,can we call that spying!!!!
<yegha78tg>هل تستخدم امريكاواسرئيل الشات والفيس بوك للتجسس!؟!؟!؟!؟!؟!؟!
<Ixxie>Burns have you tried chill stuff in the more techhousy direction?
- yegha78tg left (Kicked by Cain with the foliowing reason: -)
<Ixxie>Can you kick it?
<Cain>its called Unit 8200 d00d
<Ixxie>YES YOU CAN!
<Cain>I mean, seriously, Wikipedia
<Cain>the real question is who ISN'T using facebook to spy on us
<Cain>I have money on North Korea, only because North Korea can't figure out the privacy options on it, having no concept of privacy as they do
<Cain>also their only computer is on timeshare between their hacking division and Kim Jong-Un's Call of Duty clan

[LMNO]

 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Rush Limbaugh seems to have a problem with article I, sec 5, clause 2 of the constitution.

AND a bit of a problem with inappropriate analogies.  Apparently, congress exerting it's constitutional ability to modify its procedural rules is RAPE.  No shit.

LIMBAUGH: Let's forget the Senate for a minute. Let's say, let's take 10 people in a room and they're a group. And the room is made up of six men and four women. OK? The group has a rule that the men cannot rape the women. The group also has a rule that says any rule that will be changed must require six votes, of the 10, to change the rule. Every now and then, some lunatic in the group proposes to change the rule to allow women to be raped. But they never were able to get six votes for it.

There were always the four women voting against it and they always found two guys.Well, the guy that kept proposing that women be raped finally got tired of it, and he was in the majority and he was one that [said], 'You know what? We're going to change the rule. Now all we need is five." And well, 'you can't do that.' 'Yes we are. We're the majority. We're changing the rule.' And then they vote. Can the women be raped? Well, all it would take then is half of the room. You can change the rule to say three. You can change the rule to say three people want it, it's going to happen. There's no rule. When the majority can change the rules there aren't any.

[LMNO]

Oh, what the fuck.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Oh, what the fuck.

After all these years, the fat bastard is finally falling to the Ann Coulter Effect.   

[Cain]

Rush Limbaugh seems to have a problem with article I, sec 5, clause 2 of the constitution.

AND a bit of a problem with inappropriate analogies.  Apparently, congress exerting it's constitutional ability to modify its procedural rules is RAPE.  No shit.

LIMBAUGH: Let's forget the Senate for a minute. Let's say, let's take 10 people in a room and they're a group. And the room is made up of six men and four women. OK? The group has a rule that the men cannot rape the women. The group also has a rule that says any rule that will be changed must require six votes, of the 10, to change the rule. Every now and then, some lunatic in the group proposes to change the rule to allow women to be raped. But they never were able to get six votes for it.

There were always the four women voting against it and they always found two guys.Well, the guy that kept proposing that women be raped finally got tired of it, and he was in the majority and he was one that [said], 'You know what? We're going to change the rule. Now all we need is five." And well, 'you can't do that.' 'Yes we are. We're the majority. We're changing the rule.' And then they vote. Can the women be raped? Well, all it would take then is half of the room. You can change the rule to say three. You can change the rule to say three people want it, it's going to happen. There's no rule. When the majority can change the rules there aren't any.

Corey Robin puts it better, and with less hyperbole;

As Phil Klinkner explained to me, and as this old Washington Post piece confirms, before this vote, senators representing a mere 11% of the population could block all presidential appointments and all legislation.

From now on, senators representing a mere 17% of the population can block most presidential appointments; senators representing 11% can still block all legislation and all Supreme Court nominees.

The march of democracy.

And to put that in perspective, it should never be forgotten that Bush had a 27% approval rating when he left office.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Rush Limbaugh seems to have a problem with article I, sec 5, clause 2 of the constitution.

AND a bit of a problem with inappropriate analogies.  Apparently, congress exerting it's constitutional ability to modify its procedural rules is RAPE.  No shit.

LIMBAUGH: Let's forget the Senate for a minute. Let's say, let's take 10 people in a room and they're a group. And the room is made up of six men and four women. OK? The group has a rule that the men cannot rape the women. The group also has a rule that says any rule that will be changed must require six votes, of the 10, to change the rule. Every now and then, some lunatic in the group proposes to change the rule to allow women to be raped. But they never were able to get six votes for it.

There were always the four women voting against it and they always found two guys.Well, the guy that kept proposing that women be raped finally got tired of it, and he was in the majority and he was one that [said], 'You know what? We're going to change the rule. Now all we need is five." And well, 'you can't do that.' 'Yes we are. We're the majority. We're changing the rule.' And then they vote. Can the women be raped? Well, all it would take then is half of the room. You can change the rule to say three. You can change the rule to say three people want it, it's going to happen. There's no rule. When the majority can change the rules there aren't any.

Corey Robin puts it better, and with less hyperbole;

As Phil Klinkner explained to me, and as this old Washington Post piece confirms, before this vote, senators representing a mere 11% of the population could block all presidential appointments and all legislation.

From now on, senators representing a mere 17% of the population can block most presidential appointments; senators representing 11% can still block all legislation and all Supreme Court nominees.

The march of democracy.

And to put that in perspective, it should never be forgotten that Bush had a 27% approval rating when he left office.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Senate was never intended to function based on representation numbers. Its whole reason for existing is to balance the power between small rural states and large urban ones, so this kind of thing was always part of the plan. Not that it is necessarily a good plan.

[Cain]

Oh, Corey Robin is well aware.  He's a professor of political science at NYU.  In fact, he once wrote on that very subject, noting:

As Jack Rakove argued in Original Meanings, one of the reasons some delegates from large states ultimately came around to the idea of protecting the interests of small states was that they realized that an equal, if not more powerful, interest than mere population size bound delegate to delegate, state to state: slavery. Virginia had far more in common with South Carolina than it did with Massachussets, a fact that later events would go onto confirm. In Rakove's words:

The more the delegates examined the apportionment of the lower house [which resulted in the infamous 3/5 clause], the more weight they gave to considerations of regional security. Rather than treat sectional differences as an alternative and superior description of the real interests at play in American politics, the delegates saw them instead as an additional conflict that had to be accommodated in order for the Union to endure. The apportionment issue confirmed the claims that the small states had made all along. It called attention not to the way in which an extended republic could protect all interests but to the need to safeguard the conspicuous interest of North and South. This defensive orientation in turn enabled even some large-state delegates to find merit in an equal-state vote.

As Madison, a firm opponent of representation by states, would argue at the Convention:

It seemed now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lay, not between large and small but between the Northern and Southern States. The institution of slavery and its consequences formed the line of discrimination."

True, Madison made this claim in the service of his argument against representation by states, but for others, his claim pushed in the opposite direction: a pluralism of interests in an extensive republic was not, as Madison claimed in Federalist 10, enough to protect the interests of a wealthy propertied minority.  Something more—the protection of group interests in the Senate—was required. (Which is why, incidentally, I'm always amused by conservatives' horror at the notion of group rights: what do they think the Senate is all about if not the protection of group rights? This is not to say that there aren't principled reasons to oppose group rights; I'm commenting merely on the scandalized tone of the opposition.)

And when one considers how critical the Senate has been to the protection of both slavery and Jim Crow—measures against both institutions repeatedly passed the House, only to be stymied in the Senate, where the interests of certain types of minorities are more protected than others—the distinction between race and state size becomes even harder to sustain. Though the Senate often gets held up as the institution for the protection of minority rights against majoritarian tyranny, the minorities it protects are often not the powerless or the dissenters of yore and lore.

[Cain]

<Cram>sup eve
<Cram>how is your post-black friday life?
<Cain>my post cyber monday life is terrible
<Cain>I did so much cybering on Monday
<Cain>I even had cybersex with a chatbot (not you, Wilhelm)
<F-U-C-K-U-P>AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH
<Cram>!comic
<Burns>!comic
<Burns>!comic
<F-U-C-K-U-P>Burns: Comic Here: http://imgur.com/4codoed
<F-U-C-K-U-P>Burns: Comic Here: http://imgur.com/cCvmwpc
<Burns>wtf comic mothafucka
<Cram>why did fuckup scream instead of wilhelm?
<Cain>Well, Wilhelm's not on
<Cain>unless I'm going blind from all the cybersex I had on cybermonday with my cyberhand
<Cram>you're going to get cyberhair on your cyberpalms
<Cain>damn right
* Burns did it
<Burns>so nightvale radio is amazing
<Cram>Yo after going down that Soul Bound Final Fantasy VII hole yesterday I have found myself watching Therian/Otherkin videos.
<Cram>I haven't actually gotten around to listening to Nightvale yet, but it's on the list
<Cain>Cainad has recommended it
<Cain>Nightvale, that is, not soulbonding
<Cain>though he probably would, that fucking furry sympathizer
<Cram>CAINAD IS A THERIAN YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST
<Cram>yifftastic

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Those comics are amazing. 

[Sister_Gothique]

J: If I were a cannibalistic serial killer, that's the first thing I'd buy.
SG: A caiman?!....I'd buy a deep freezer.
J: I'm just saying what we're all thinking here.