http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/think-tea-party-movement/ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/think-tea-party-movement/)
Yes, there is an option for "Fruitless mix of racism, conspiracy theories"
A friend of mine just linked me to this poll. If I didn't know any better, I'd say the Tea Party Movement is an elaborate hoax. However, knowing how a lot of conservatives think, I'm not surprised by it. Is there anyway we can inject any more chaos into the mix? :D A group like this is just begging to be taken advantage of.
Quote from: Horrendous Foreign Love Stoat on February 10, 2010, 10:11:00 PM
QuoteAmericans. What's all this I hear about Tea Partys? Are you fuckers wasting tea again? RECREATING WASTE. OF. FUCKING. TEA? TEA? Do you underestimate how important tea is to me being English?
To put it into terms you can understand: Do you see me throwing boxes of freedom, bald eagles, apple pie, & liberty into the fucking dock. No do you fuck. Knock off this waste of tea or you may see different.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
BALD EAGLES! :lulz:
I love that "Fruitless mix of racism, conspiracy theories" is at 68%.
QuoteI love that "Fruitless mix of racism, conspiracy theories" is at 68%.
Ahem. Exhibit A:
(http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/ZZ56685266.jpg)
:?
Quote fail, or am I missing something?
Oh shit. Yeah, that was a quote fail.
Fixed. Now this makes more sense.
Teabagging news!
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/tea-partiers-fighting-against-ron-paul/
QuoteThere is more than a little irony in the fact that congressman Ron Paul is facing three primary challengers this year, all of them linked in some way to the Tea Party movement.
Many observers give the libertarian from Texas credit for having sparked the Tea Party movement in 2007 when he held a "money bomb" fundraiser on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, raking in some $6 million for his presidential run in one day.
But, as the Dallas Morning News reported earlier this week, Paul is facing three primary challengers -- more than he has faced in the past six primaries combined. And every one of the challengers is linked to the Tea Party movement.
Washington Independent contributor David Weigel told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Monday night that the Tea Party movement of today has little in common with that fundraiser in 2007.
"Those libertarian ideas [may be] popular at the Cato Institute, [but] they're not really popular with Tea Party activists," Weigel said.
Story continues below...
As the Morning News put it, Tea Partiers say Paul is "too focused on his national ambitions; that his views are too extreme; that he doesn't support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; that he votes 'no' on everything, including federal aid for his district after Hurricane Ike."
By comparison, "the Sarah Palin version of Tea Party conservatism is a little bit less specific," Weigel said. "It's more slogany. You can write the talking points on your hand if you want to."
And Europe needs Teabaggers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021002453.html
QuoteAt the risk of taking contrarianism to extremes, let me offer this suggestion: The global economy needs a "Tea Party" movement in Europe to lobby for fiscal conservatism there.
Many "mainstream" analysts deride the Tea Party agitators as a right-wing fringe group, and in many respects, that label is deserved. I wouldn't want them running the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve.
But these conservative populists do perform the useful function of focusing American political attention on the need for fiscal responsibility. They make a good point, for example, in arguing that we shouldn't add a major new entitlement program for health care until we've figured out how to pay for the entitlement programs we've already got.
Europe, by contrast, lacks this sort of potent conservative movement to constrain government spending. Given Europe's experience last century with virulent right-wing populism, its wariness of extremism is understandable. But it means that Europe lacks a strong voice for reducing public-sector spending and debt.
If you want to argue for 'No government in my government' kind of libertarianism, there isn't a better, more eloquent representative than Ron Paul. Now, I'm not saying he should be President... just that for the TP people to be against him really seems to show how completely incompetent they are. The one shlub that's actually pushing their supposed agenda and they're trying to take him down...
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :horrormirth:
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 11, 2010, 05:26:51 PM
If you want to argue for 'No government in my government' kind of libertarianism, there isn't a better, more eloquent representative than Ron Paul.
Well, except for that annual $400,000,000 in pork he sends home.
But that's different.
But I get your point.
Also, :lulz: at Teabaggers wanting fiscal responsibility AND two wars.
Yeah, you'd think if the Tea Party actually meant any of its rhetoric, then Ron Paul would be, like, their standard-bearer or something. Of course, given the most Neoconish Republicans became self-appointed speakers for the movement, it would make sense they would try and bring Ron Paul down. They hate him like poison. Some of the vitriol directed his way by his own party during the election in 08 was amazing.
"WE WANT FIZKAL REZPONZIBILTY, BUT ONLY WHEN IT SUITS US."
\
:mullet:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 11, 2010, 05:29:53 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 11, 2010, 05:26:51 PM
If you want to argue for 'No government in my government' kind of libertarianism, there isn't a better, more eloquent representative than Ron Paul.
Well, except for that annual $400,000,000 in pork he sends home.
But that's different.
:lulz:
Of course, he is after all a politician ;-)
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 11, 2010, 05:40:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 11, 2010, 05:29:53 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 11, 2010, 05:26:51 PM
If you want to argue for 'No government in my government' kind of libertarianism, there isn't a better, more eloquent representative than Ron Paul.
Well, except for that annual $400,000,000 in pork he sends home.
But that's different.
:lulz:
Of course, he is after all a politician ;-)
Yes, and it's silly and self-defeating to believe in any of them, for any reason.
I mean, other than "I believe this politician is going to fuck me up the ass and call me Susan".
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 11, 2010, 05:41:40 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 11, 2010, 05:40:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 11, 2010, 05:29:53 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 11, 2010, 05:26:51 PM
If you want to argue for 'No government in my government' kind of libertarianism, there isn't a better, more eloquent representative than Ron Paul.
Well, except for that annual $400,000,000 in pork he sends home.
But that's different.
:lulz:
Of course, he is after all a politician ;-)
Yes, and it's silly and self-defeating to believe in any of them, for any reason.
I mean, other than "I believe this politician is going to fuck me up the ass and call me Susan".
No, Ron would put all the smudgy people in prison where they could do that to each other (cause ya know, they're responsible for so much crime!)
Oh those fleet-footed blacks!
A privately-run prison, of course. Because they'd do it so much better.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 11, 2010, 05:43:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 11, 2010, 05:41:40 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 11, 2010, 05:40:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 11, 2010, 05:29:53 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 11, 2010, 05:26:51 PM
If you want to argue for 'No government in my government' kind of libertarianism, there isn't a better, more eloquent representative than Ron Paul.
Well, except for that annual $400,000,000 in pork he sends home.
But that's different.
:lulz:
Of course, he is after all a politician ;-)
Yes, and it's silly and self-defeating to believe in any of them, for any reason.
I mean, other than "I believe this politician is going to fuck me up the ass and call me Susan".
No, Ron would put all the smudgy people in prison where they could do that to each other (cause ya know, they're responsible for so much crime!)
And welfare queens driving caddillacs, which he admitedly never saw, but knew existed.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 11, 2010, 05:51:17 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 11, 2010, 05:43:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 11, 2010, 05:41:40 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 11, 2010, 05:40:24 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 11, 2010, 05:29:53 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 11, 2010, 05:26:51 PM
If you want to argue for 'No government in my government' kind of libertarianism, there isn't a better, more eloquent representative than Ron Paul.
Well, except for that annual $400,000,000 in pork he sends home.
But that's different.
:lulz:
Of course, he is after all a politician ;-)
Yes, and it's silly and self-defeating to believe in any of them, for any reason.
I mean, other than "I believe this politician is going to fuck me up the ass and call me Susan".
No, Ron would put all the smudgy people in prison where they could do that to each other (cause ya know, they're responsible for so much crime!)
And welfare queens driving caddillacs, which he admitedly never saw, but knew existed.
Good Politicians never let facts get in the way of a great soundbyte!
http://exiledonline.com/royal-tea-partiers-the-heroic-billionaires-struggle-to-overthrow-the-tyranny-of-democracy/
QuoteWhile Tea Party movement followers ran around Nashville last week dressed up in their Paul Revere period costumes, blathering about their heroic struggle against Obama's Islamosocialist tyranny, the right-wing elite that nurtures them, and their paid libertarian ideologues, have been openly advocating the abolition of America's democracy in favor of a free-market junta, because, as they say over and over, voters cannot be trusted to rule themselves.
Here, for example, is how one popular libertarian pundit summed up the attitude: "To be a libertarian in a modern democracy is to say that nearly 300 million Americans are wrong, and a handful of nay-sayers are right." It's a quote so common among the Republican and libertarian vanguard that it's almost irrelevant which one of them said it — I'll get to this guy later, but suffice to know that he's a tenured professor, and sitting pretty in the same billionaire-funded world of think tanks, institutes, and PR machines that launched the Tea Party.
That's the dangerously authoritarian part of the Tea Party that we've forgotten about lately.
It's evident even in Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo's shocking "Jim Crow speech" that kicked off last week's Tea Party Convention — when the out-of-the-closet xenophobe unveiled his Big Idea on how to preserve America's freedom, he wasn't just advocating more bigotry, but also a plan to roll back America's overly-free democracy, replacing it with a rule of elites that uses "civics literary tests" as the justification for denying voting rights to tens of millions of "wrong" Americans, like minorities and people with funny accents.
That's what made the whole period-costume fetish party so surreal: the sight of all these people re-enacting the Founding Fathers revolutionary fight for democracy, while at the same time cheering on a plan that overthrows American democracy and restricts power to a vanguard elite — which presumably includes the kinds of draft-dodging rednecks and bipolar government-parasites like Tancredo.*Most of the gullible rank-and-file fools at the convention who snickered gleefully at Tancredo's "I have a dream ... of denying democratic rights to poor black kids's families and brown kids' families..." speech didn't understand that in all likelihood, they too would have their "irrational" voting rights canceled, because their masters despise them. And they don't even hide it. As incredible as it seems, these Republican and "libertarian" ideologues have been arguing that the real problem in America's democracy is that too many people have voting rights, leaving America at the mercy of "irrational" or dangerous voters who elect the wrong people. They have argued that the only way to save America is by overthrowing this democracy and replacing it with an enlightened, free-market dictatorship.
One reason you don't hear much about this is because most of them zipped up their mouths by the middle of 2008, when there was a real fear of a populist uprising and a new New Deal. But the Republican right-wing elite wasn't always so shy; right up through the financial collapse, many boasted as publicly as possible about their dream of overthrowing the democracy and replacing it with a free-market dictatorship.
There's more at the link
"THE TEA BAGGERS=INDEPENDENT THINKERS TRUE PATRIOTS, AND BELIEVERS IN THE CONSTITUTION. THE DEMS., WILL CALL ANYONE NAMES THAT DO NOT THINK AS THEY DO, OR BOW DOWN TO ODUMINUS!!!"
wat am oduminus?
/
:lulz:
"We the TEA PEOPLE are defending our democratic republic from the cretins!
No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity!
Does Barrack Hussein Obama belong with another group of elitists? UHC=socialism, GM takeover=fascism, what in the hell is next?
NAME ME A SUCCESS STORY FROM THIS LIST!
Which of these glittering jewels of humanity listed was a success and adorned his people with prosperity and greatness!!?
* * *
The Communist Club:
Vladimir Lenin
Alexey Rykov
Vyacheslav Molotov
Joseph Stalin
Georgy Malenkov
Nikolay Bulganin
Nikita Khrushchev
Alexei Kosygin
Nikolai Tikhonov
Nikolai Ryzhkov
Valentin Pavlov
Ivan Silayev
Yeltsin
Gaidar
Chernomyrdin
Kiriyenko
Primakov
Stepashin
Kasyanov
Khristenko
Fradkov
Zubkov
Putin
Also:
* * *
Saloth Sar, [better known as Pol Pot]
Fidel Castro
Mao Zedong
Nicolae Ceauşescu
Josip Broz Tito
Hugo Chavez
Che Guevara"
:lulz:
"The dumbocrat liberals are coming out of the woodwork as we approach midterm elections. The stench of fear from these morons would knock a fly off a garbage truck.
--
Tea party people must be doing something right in order to elicit this much hatred for American's rights to speak and believe as they see fit.
--
Where is all the huggy/kissy/feel good/tolerance attitude these buttheads profess to believe in? Hmmm? Hmmm? Hmmm?"
:lulz:
This shit is better than YouTube comments.
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/man_charged_for_stockpiling_weapons_was_tea_partie.php
QuoteThe Massachusetts man charged this week with stockpiling weapons after saying he feared an imminent "Armageddon" appears to have been active in the Tea Party movement, and saw Sarah Palin, who he said is on a "righteous 'Mission from God,'" as the only figure capable of averting the destruction of society.
If Sarah Palin is the only person capable of averting the destruction of society, I'd rather have the destruction take place.
A political thread without any argument?!
well, since somebody has to volunteer to get bagged on, i'll bite....
i must admit that i really haven't followed the tea party stuff after the election as i became disenchanted after the election primaries.
but some points that i think are valid to the conversation:
-tea party and the RP campaign were pretty much one and the same initially. after the primaries were over and the tea parties started making news and were not able to be ignored, the neocon machine went into coopt mode and were very effective. even though there is still the contingent of the RP people present that want more than slogans, they are drowned out so they don't have the exposure that the Palin crowd does.
personally, i think those RP groupies still fighting for a place at the table in the tea party crowd should admit that their game was taken over and should distance themselves from it completely and then denounce it as the neocon trickery that it now is.
-regarding RP's 'pork' that he earmarks for his district, his answer is that the earmarks do not add any money to the budget whatsoever. they simply allocate some portion of it for spending in some district or another. his reasoning is that if the constituents in his district are going to be taxed (unreasonably in his estimation), then it is his job to get those funds back to his district as best he can. (i haven't seen what the numbers are in regards to the amount his district pays out in federal taxes v. what he brings back in....) Furthermore, he does this under protest, since the budget and appropriations bills that he puts these earmarks in, he votes against.
I'm curious what the argument against this is? or is it just an easy target for some yuks?
Iptuous,
golf ball collector at the driving range
(http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/116158/Asinine-America-CANADIANS-HATE-THEIR-HEALTH-CARE-FOX-NEWS-TOLD-ME-SO-500x500.jpg)
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 01:25:52 PM
-regarding RP's 'pork' that he earmarks for his district, his answer is that the earmarks do not add any money to the budget whatsoever.
Sure. They all say that.
Also, the Teabaggers are a prime example of Stang's Rule: By the time you've heard of something, it's a product.
(http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h183/Jenne73/fuxnewstp.jpg)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 03:10:00 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 01:25:52 PM
-regarding RP's 'pork' that he earmarks for his district, his answer is that the earmarks do not add any money to the budget whatsoever.
Sure. They all say that.
perhaps i should have been more clear.... he was referring to earmarks in general, not his specifically.
Earmarks do not affect the size of the budget. Some of his supporters criticize this activity saying that it indirectly supports the status quo. his argument seems pragmatic to me, though...
Re Stang's Rule, your right, but it's a moot point since everything is a product from the moment it is, um.... produced? :? what is the implication in the rule?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 03:21:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 03:10:00 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 01:25:52 PM
-regarding RP's 'pork' that he earmarks for his district, his answer is that the earmarks do not add any money to the budget whatsoever.
Sure. They all say that.
perhaps i should have been more clear.... he was referring to earmarks in general, not his specifically.
Earmarks do not affect the size of the budget. Some of his supporters criticize this activity saying that it indirectly supports the status quo. his argument seems pragmatic to me, though...
Re Stang's Rule, your right, but it's a moot point since everything is a product from the moment it is, um.... produced? :? what is the implication in the rule?
With all due respect, Iptuous, that's crap. If the money in the "earmarks" wasn't used for pork, the deficit could be reduced. Let's be clear, here: Earmarks are the new word for pork. If I ran my department's budget the way Rep Paul and his cohorts ran the budget, I'd be out of work and possibly in jail.
For example, if I had X amount of money budgeted, and I decided to hold back what isn't actually necessary, I could improve my plant's bottom line. That would be the responsible thing to do.
What Rep Paul does is what everyone in congress does, and has done for the last 30 years. Spend like a bastard, and then point fingers at everyone else, while calling his pork "earmarks" and everyone else's "earmarks" pork.
Representative Paul is a bit of a hypocrite, IMO.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 03:21:16 PM
Re Stang's Rule, your right, but it's a moot point since everything is a product from the moment it is, um.... produced? :? what is the implication in the rule?
So the tea party movement was astroturf from the beginning? I can't say I'm surprised.
The Tea Parties were funded and run, at least in the early stages, by FreedomWorks, a conservative non-profit organization who specialize in astroturfing. Several other groups associated with the incredibly rich and incredibly conservative Koch brothers, who also fund FreedomWorks, are known to be involved with the Tea Partiers as well.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 04:03:13 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 03:21:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 03:10:00 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 01:25:52 PM
-regarding RP's 'pork' that he earmarks for his district, his answer is that the earmarks do not add any money to the budget whatsoever.
Sure. They all say that.
perhaps i should have been more clear.... he was referring to earmarks in general, not his specifically.
Earmarks do not affect the size of the budget. Some of his supporters criticize this activity saying that it indirectly supports the status quo. his argument seems pragmatic to me, though...
Re Stang's Rule, your right, but it's a moot point since everything is a product from the moment it is, um.... produced? :? what is the implication in the rule?
With all due respect, Iptuous, that's crap. If the money in the "earmarks" wasn't used for pork, the deficit could be reduced. Let's be clear, here: Earmarks are the new word for pork. If I ran my department's budget the way Rep Paul and his cohorts ran the budget, I'd be out of work and possibly in jail.
For example, if I had X amount of money budgeted, and I decided to hold back what isn't actually necessary, I could improve my plant's bottom line. That would be the responsible thing to do.
What Rep Paul does is what everyone in congress does, and has done for the last 30 years. Spend like a bastard, and then point fingers at everyone else, while calling his pork "earmarks" and everyone else's "earmarks" pork.
Representative Paul is a bit of a hypocrite, IMO.
the money is budgeted
before the earmarks are put in! the deficit is determined before the earmarks are made, and they are simply a method of allocating the money congressionally rather than having the executive branch make the calls. I know don't think that the executive branch is somehow immune from spending the cash on pork projects and cronyism....
Earmarks are a red herring IMO. Reducing the bottom line certainly IS the responsible thing to do, and is precisely what RP has been blathering on about for yearsnyears. That is also why he votes AGAINST the budget bills that he puts those earmarks in. This is the critical difference between him and everyone else in congress for the last 30 years. He
doesn't approve the spending, so he is fully entitled to point the finger at all the others that do.
Quote from: Cain on February 15, 2010, 04:17:54 PM
The Tea Parties were funded and run, at least in the early stages, by FreedomWorks, a conservative non-profit organization who specialize in astroturfing. Several other groups associated with the incredibly rich and incredibly conservative Koch brothers, who also fund FreedomWorks, are known to be involved with the Tea Partiers as well.
the tea parties were
not funded or run by anyone in the early stages.
they were ad hoc things set up by RP supporters in intarweb forums. i don't know when they became coopted, but i can tell you that for sure...
Earmarks are red herrings unless there are assholes holding up the works in legislation for DAYS because they wan't kickbacks--I'm sorry--EARMARKS put into the bill.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 04:19:53 PM
the money is budgeted before the earmarks are put in!
So is my department's money. If I don't spend it unnecessarily, though, it can be used for other things, or simply added back to the bottom line.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 04:19:53 PM
the deficit is determined before the earmarks are made, and they are simply a method of allocating the money congressionally rather than having the executive branch make the calls.
Or you could just, you know, budget for spending bills already passed, instead of piling up the filthy lucre and having everyone just dig the fuck in. No new rules would be required to do this, but I don't see Rep Paul clamoring for it.
My budget is built on what maintenance expenditures and projects can be foreseen from previous data. I don't just get a fucking pile of cash every month, and then sit around and think of ways to spend it. If I can do it, congress can. But nobody even tries...including Representative Ron Paul. Mouthing platitudes about taxation won't cut it.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 04:22:43 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 15, 2010, 04:17:54 PM
The Tea Parties were funded and run, at least in the early stages, by FreedomWorks, a conservative non-profit organization who specialize in astroturfing. Several other groups associated with the incredibly rich and incredibly conservative Koch brothers, who also fund FreedomWorks, are known to be involved with the Tea Partiers as well.
the tea parties were not funded or run by anyone in the early stages.
they were ad hoc things set up by RP supporters in intarweb forums. i don't know when they became coopted, but i can tell you that for sure...
Then they didn't start out as a product. They became one when they crowned Hannity on their first attempt at large scale action...ie, when most people heard of them.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 04:22:43 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 15, 2010, 04:17:54 PM
The Tea Parties were funded and run, at least in the early stages, by FreedomWorks, a conservative non-profit organization who specialize in astroturfing. Several other groups associated with the incredibly rich and incredibly conservative Koch brothers, who also fund FreedomWorks, are known to be involved with the Tea Partiers as well.
the tea parties were not funded or run by anyone in the early stages.
they were ad hoc things set up by RP supporters in intarweb forums. i don't know when they became coopted, but i can tell you that for sure...
The earliest Tea Party sites and blogs were set up by the Sam Adams Alliance, a very well funded libertarian organization with links to the Koch family. Facebook based groups were set up by individuals linked to various rightwing PR firms (or by people who
didn't actually exist) and all carried suspiciously similar writing styles. Some "small" "grassroot" groups like Right.org were able to offer cash prizes in the tens of thousands for their anti-bailout video competition.
Brendan Steinhauser is the point-man at FreedomWorks, who got the idea for the Tea Parties from Michelle Malkin's blog, in the fall of 2008, and farmed out the grunt work to web designers and activists picked up from the libertarian fringe, including - yes - Ron Paul supporters. Eric Odom, who is also linked to FreedomWorks and the Koch Family, plays a similar role.
what do you think - engineering dissent and framing it as an organic grassroots outrage:
tyranny? or good marketing?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 04:26:01 PM
So is my department's money. If I don't spend it unnecessarily, though, it can be used for other things, or simply added back to the bottom line.
True. i agree that it should be added back to the bottom line. but that doesn't happen. it all gets fucking spent. and that's why RP votes against those bills...
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 04:26:01 PMOr you could just, you know, budget for spending bills already passed, instead of piling up the filthy lucre and having everyone just dig the fuck in. No new rules would be required to do this, but I don't see Rep Paul clamoring for it.
My budget is built on what maintenance expenditures and projects can be foreseen from previous data. I don't just get a fucking pile of cash every month, and then sit around and think of ways to spend it. If I can do it, congress can. But nobody even tries...including Representative Ron Paul. Mouthing platitudes about taxation won't cut it.
Why do you say that he doesn't try to fight against the budget? He votes against the budget bills every time. he spends his time up at the podium railing against it...
Quote from: Jenne on February 15, 2010, 04:23:06 PM
Earmarks are red herrings unless there are assholes holding up the works in legislation for DAYS because they wan't kickbacks--I'm sorry--EARMARKS put into the bill.
Totally true.
i certainly won't argue that earmarks aren't being used for corrupt purposes. when i said they were a red herring, i was referring specifically to the criticisms leveled against RP....
Have you considered the possibility that Ron Paul's just playacting? There's no risk in voting against something that's going to pass (eventually...).
Quote from: Cramulus on February 15, 2010, 04:50:05 PM
what do you think - engineering dissent and framing it as an organic grassroots outrage:
tyranny? or good marketing?
"Freikorps".
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 04:54:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 04:26:01 PM
So is my department's money. If I don't spend it unnecessarily, though, it can be used for other things, or simply added back to the bottom line.
True. i agree that it should be added back to the bottom line. but that doesn't happen. it all gets fucking spent. and that's why RP votes against those bills...
But still takes the money. He puts on a good act for the rubes, though.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 04:54:50 PM
Why do you say that he doesn't try to fight against the budget? He votes against the budget bills every time. he spends his time up at the podium railing against it...
And he still takes the money.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 04:54:50 PMi certainly won't argue that earmarks aren't being used for corrupt purposes. when i said they were a red herring, i was referring specifically to the criticisms leveled against RP....
And we can't have
that. It's
different when "Dr Paul" does it.
Quote from: Cain on February 15, 2010, 04:42:54 PM
The earliest Tea Party sites and blogs were set up by the Sam Adams Alliance, a very well funded libertarian organization with links to the Koch family. Facebook based groups were set up by individuals linked to various rightwing PR firms (or by people who didn't actually exist) and all carried suspiciously similar writing styles. Some "small" "grassroot" groups like Right.org were able to offer cash prizes in the tens of thousands for their anti-bailout video competition.
Brendan Steinhauser is the point-man at FreedomWorks, who got the idea for the Tea Parties from Michelle Malkin's blog, in the fall of 2008, and farmed out the grunt work to web designers and activists picked up from the libertarian fringe, including - yes - Ron Paul supporters. Eric Odom, who is also linked to FreedomWorks and the Koch Family, plays a similar role.
Interesting information.
i'll have to dig into that and get up to steam with what the tea party is now....
I was referencing this as the earliest that i can remember:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/73588
it was sponsored by some group called the Committees of Safety.org are they a FreedomWorks group?
Quote from: Template on February 15, 2010, 05:03:25 PM
Have you considered the possibility that Ron Paul's just playacting? There's no risk in voting against something that's going to pass (eventually...).
yeah.
could be...
some have claimed that he is just playin' and is put in there by the machine specifically as a blow off valve for malcontents to safely bleed off steam rather than vote from the rooftops. others have suggested that he is genuine, but is allowed to continue as he fills this function.
others think that he should be supported as his actions are preferable, regardless of his intent. I count myself among the latter, but no longer hold any delusions that it will actually amount to anything.
I'm counting on a breakdown of the system as it devours itself. probably a slow and grinding one.
i think it's going to suck.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 05:14:58 PM
But still takes the money. He puts on a good act for the rubes, though.
Why the hell shouldn't he take the money?
it comes out of the pockets of his constituents, so he has a responsibility for a portion of it to be used in his district...
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 05:22:59 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 05:14:58 PM
But still takes the money. He puts on a good act for the rubes, though.
Why the hell shouldn't he take the money?
it comes out of the pockets of his constituents, so he has a responsibility for a portion of it to be used in his district...
No, he fucking doesn't. He has the responsibility to see that it is used in the best interests of the nation. This would mean servicing the debt or at least reducing the deficit, not sending pork home.
Do you realize you've basically just offered a justification for every pork barrel ever rolled out of congress?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 05:20:33 PM
others think that he should be supported as his actions are preferable, regardless of his intent.
What, "business as usual, with a little added rhetoric"?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 05:20:33 PM
I'm counting on a breakdown of the system as it devours itself. probably a slow and grinding one.
i think it's going to suck.
Yeah, but that's what every member of GIM is salivating over. Because they're all "survivors", and they'd really like to see lots of people die so that they can gloat a bit and have their dream of anarchy.
The fact that 90% of the silly bastards would be among the dead makes me smile a bit.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 05:52:35 PM
Quote from: IptuousWhy the hell shouldn't he take the money?
it comes out of the pockets of his constituents, so he has a responsibility for a portion of it to be used in his district...
No, he fucking doesn't. He has the responsibility to see that it is used in the best interests of the nation. This would mean servicing the debt or at least reducing the deficit, not sending pork home.
Do you realize you've basically just offered a justification for every pork barrel ever rolled out of congress?
he's a representative of the constituents in his congressional district and is tasked to act in their best interests. as a part of the nation, it is in their best interest to not run up huge deficits, so he votes against the bills. but if the bill is passed, it is in their best interest to have the money that is being taxed from them returned to their district.
that is not at all justification for every pork barrel project.
what is your definition of 'pork'? if a district has an urgent need for a project to be done that is to be paid for with federal funds and the representative earmarks some of them to ensure that it will get done, and not lost in the cracks waiting in line, is that pork? note, that i'm not saying that's what all of his earmarks are for (i have no idea what they have been for), but i think there are legitimate reasons that a representative should work to ensure that some of the money is funneled to their district.
One man's pork is another man's bridge...to nowhere.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 06:28:10 PM
he's a representative of the constituents in his congressional district and is tasked to act in their best interests. as a part of the nation, it is in their best interest to not run up huge deficits, so he votes against the bills. but if the bill is passed, it is in their best interest to have the money that is being taxed from them returned to their district.
1. He's a member of the federal house of representatives. His job is to make decisions for the country.
2. So a dog and pony show is good enough? If there were principles involved, he wouldn't take the pork. He would instead write legislation referring it to the debt, or to our infrastructure on the national level, and then make a big stink about it. But why do that when you can vote against something you know will pass, take the pork, and then smirk and brag about how "fiscally responsible" you are?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 06:28:10 PM
that is not at all justification for every pork barrel project.
It certainly is. It is a cookie-cutter justification for any pork barrel project that you could name.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 06:28:10 PM
what is your definition of 'pork'? if a district has an urgent need for a project to be done that is to be paid for with federal funds and the representative earmarks some of them to ensure that it will get done, and not lost in the cracks waiting in line, is that pork? note, that i'm not saying that's what all of his earmarks are for (i have no idea what they have been for), but i think there are legitimate reasons that a representative should work to ensure that some of the money is funneled to their district.
Perhaps you should look at where that $400Mn goes each year. Or not, if the answers might shake your faith in the cult of Ron Paul.
Wanting someone to reign in the spending is a good thing. Swallowing the lies of a fraud (because he at least mouths the words) is not.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 06:43:19 PM
1. He's a member of the federal house of representatives. His job is to make decisions for the country.
2. So a dog and pony show is good enough? If there were principles involved, he wouldn't take the pork. He would instead write legislation referring it to the debt, or to our infrastructure on the national level, and then make a big stink about it. But why do that when you can vote against something you know will pass, take the pork, and then smirk and brag about how "fiscally responsible" you are?
I disagree. his job is to make national level decisions with the interests of his district in mind. why have a house of representatives otherwise?
It's not a dog and pony show because he does the two things that should be expected of him in order to stand for what he says. he speaks up against the fiscal irresponsibility every chance he gets, and he votes against it every chance he gets. you seem to be ignoring that part. not ensuring that the funds that he votes against will at least, in part, be spent in his district would be cutting off his nose to spite his face in my estimation. I've seen many dismiss him as an ideologue, but when he makes a pragmatic decision, he is ridiculed as a hypocrite. pfft.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 06:43:19 PM
Perhaps you should look at where that $400Mn goes each year. Or not, if the answers might shake your faith in the cult of Ron Paul.
Wanting someone to reign in the spending is a good thing. Swallowing the lies of a fraud (because he at least mouths the words) is not.
you are correct. i really should look into it if i am to argue from an informed standpoint. as i understand it, this will be made easier since RP attaches his name to all the earmarks that he puts in, as opposed to the more corrupt uses of them where their anonymity is necessary...
If you could show me some of his worst offenses, it might help me out a bit....
Also, i'd like to point out that i'm not a full cult follower, as i disagree with him on some points, and i don't think his efforts will change anything ultimately...
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 07:04:58 PM
It's not a dog and pony show because he does the two things that should be expected of him in order to stand for what he says. he speaks up against the fiscal irresponsibility every chance he gets, and he votes against it every chance he gets.
And he takes the money.
In the end, it's about results. Or it should be.
What the Ron Paul crowd wants is talk.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 07:04:58 PM
If you could show me some of his worst offenses, it might help me out a bit....
Not even sure if I consider his pork "offensive". I'm just saying you should look with an unbiased eye.
Quote from: Horrendous Foreign Love Stoat on February 15, 2010, 07:15:19 PM
I'm a bit upset, now I realize you don't mean actual pork.
No, it's an American phrase meaning "filthy lucre".
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 07:13:34 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 07:04:58 PM
It's not a dog and pony show because he does the two things that should be expected of him in order to stand for what he says. he speaks up against the fiscal irresponsibility every chance he gets, and he votes against it every chance he gets.
And he takes the money.
In the end, it's about results. Or it should be.
What the Ron Paul crowd wants is talk.
is it not his constituents money to begin with?
they want talk? you mean to say that the RP crowd is actually pleased with the current status quo?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 07:19:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 07:13:34 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 07:04:58 PM
It's not a dog and pony show because he does the two things that should be expected of him in order to stand for what he says. he speaks up against the fiscal irresponsibility every chance he gets, and he votes against it every chance he gets.
And he takes the money.
In the end, it's about results. Or it should be.
What the Ron Paul crowd wants is talk.
is it not his constituents money to begin with?
they want talk? you mean to say that the RP crowd is actually pleased with the current status quo?
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).
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 07:28:54 PM
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?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 04:22:43 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 15, 2010, 04:17:54 PM
The Tea Parties were funded and run, at least in the early stages, by FreedomWorks, a conservative non-profit organization who specialize in astroturfing. Several other groups associated with the incredibly rich and incredibly conservative Koch brothers, who also fund FreedomWorks, are known to be involved with the Tea Partiers as well.
the tea parties were not funded or run by anyone in the early stages.
they were ad hoc things set up by RP supporters in intarweb forums. i don't know when they became coopted, but i can tell you that for sure...
Several of those websites were set up months in advanced of the 'spontanious' launch of the chicago tea party protest by members of Freedomworks. Which is funded by bankers and run by a senator. The ning site the teaparties have has a member of the Koch family (the bankers funding Freedomworks) as a watchdog on it as well.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 07:42:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 07:28:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 07:51:27 PM
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....
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 08:08:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 08:08:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 08:08:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 07:51:27 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 07:42:53 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 07:28:54 PM
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 15, 2010, 08:15:41 PM
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...
BH,
also the highways have a military purpose that often gets overlooked.
they are necessary for defense of the nation.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 08:14:55 PM
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... :lol:
also, you, sir, are a weapon of mass destruction and should be kept in a silo for use in the event of total war...
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 08:14:55 PM
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....
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 08:24:59 PM
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).
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 08:34:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 08:14:55 PM
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... :lol:
When were those, again?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 08:34:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 08:34:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 08:14:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 08:22:20 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 15, 2010, 08:15:41 PM
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 15, 2010, 08:46:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 08:22:20 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 15, 2010, 08:15:41 PM
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.
:lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 08:53:17 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 15, 2010, 08:46:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 08:22:20 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 15, 2010, 08:15:41 PM
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.
:lulz:
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 15, 2010, 09:00:06 PM
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on February 15, 2010, 09:00:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 08:38:10 PM
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
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 08:38:10 PM
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.....
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 09:06:01 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 08:38:10 PM
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
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 09:06:01 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 08:38:10 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: LMNO on February 16, 2010, 03:42:12 PM
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?
That is fucked up.
My budget per month is something like $95K. The budget is built from a zero base by yours truly, once a year. It is then approved or denied. The good thing: The prior year's spend has nothing to do with it. The bad thing: They routinely tell us to slash 20%, so I just build an extra 20% into the original proposal.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 16, 2010, 07:00:35 PM
That is fucked up.
My budget per month is something like $95K. The budget is built from a zero base by yours truly, once a year. It is then approved or denied. The good thing: The prior year's spend has nothing to do with it. The bad thing: They routinely tell us to slash 20%, so I just build an extra 20% into the original proposal.
We get the same thing on our engineering estimates.
we have forms and spreadsheets based on prior project actuals so that we can tell how much to bid for some work, but we know that the mgt will slash it by upwards of 40% when they pitch it to the customer, so the bids have to be massaged with this in mind. there's more creativity in the bidding than there is in the actual engineering!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 05:14:58 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 04:54:50 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 15, 2010, 04:26:01 PM
So is my department's money. If I don't spend it unnecessarily, though, it can be used for other things, or simply added back to the bottom line.
True. i agree that it should be added back to the bottom line. but that doesn't happen. it all gets fucking spent. and that's why RP votes against those bills...
But still takes the money. He puts on a good act for the rubes, though.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 04:54:50 PM
Why do you say that he doesn't try to fight against the budget? He votes against the budget bills every time. he spends his time up at the podium railing against it...
And he still takes the money.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 15, 2010, 04:54:50 PMi certainly won't argue that earmarks aren't being used for corrupt purposes. when i said they were a red herring, i was referring specifically to the criticisms leveled against RP....
And we can't have that. It's different when "Dr Paul" does it.
Dok,
I've thought about it a bit, and i now think you're right. it
is bullshit.
I don't think he's just putting on a show while actually gunning for the status quo, and i do think that he believes his justification (i can see where he's coming from), but it is bullshit that he can stand ideologically behind the limited role of fedgov, but in the end use the money for what he admits is unauthorized use...
he
should cut off his nose to spite his face, if the goal is to claw off the whole ugly head...
just thought i ought to say that.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 18, 2010, 05:54:54 PM
Dok,
I've thought about it a bit, and i now think you're right. it is bullshit.
I don't think he's just putting on a show while actually gunning for the status quo, and i do think that he believes his justification (i can see where he's coming from), but it is bullshit that he can stand ideologically behind the limited role of fedgov, but in the end use the money for what he admits is unauthorized use...
he should cut off his nose to spite his face, if the goal is to claw off the whole ugly head...
just thought i ought to say that.
Okay, so here's a thought: Why don't YOU run for office? Not being snarky, here.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 18, 2010, 05:57:19 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 18, 2010, 05:54:54 PM
Dok,
I've thought about it a bit, and i now think you're right. it is bullshit.
I don't think he's just putting on a show while actually gunning for the status quo, and i do think that he believes his justification (i can see where he's coming from), but it is bullshit that he can stand ideologically behind the limited role of fedgov, but in the end use the money for what he admits is unauthorized use...
he should cut off his nose to spite his face, if the goal is to claw off the whole ugly head...
just thought i ought to say that.
Okay, so here's a thought: Why don't YOU run for office? Not being snarky, here.
I've considered it.
but i don't know if i want to put my family through the wringer that would inevitably occur to anyone that gets into an office that makes any impact and doesn't join the beast.
also, i believe that there will be systemic collapse in my lifetime. perhaps there will be opportunity for political service in that time...
I dunno...
how about you?
Quote from: Iptuous on February 18, 2010, 06:11:28 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 18, 2010, 05:57:19 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 18, 2010, 05:54:54 PM
Dok,
I've thought about it a bit, and i now think you're right. it is bullshit.
I don't think he's just putting on a show while actually gunning for the status quo, and i do think that he believes his justification (i can see where he's coming from), but it is bullshit that he can stand ideologically behind the limited role of fedgov, but in the end use the money for what he admits is unauthorized use...
he should cut off his nose to spite his face, if the goal is to claw off the whole ugly head...
just thought i ought to say that.
Okay, so here's a thought: Why don't YOU run for office? Not being snarky, here.
I've considered it.
but i don't know if i want to put my family through the wringer that would inevitably occur to anyone that gets into an office that makes any impact and doesn't join the beast.
also, i believe that there will be systemic collapse in my lifetime. perhaps there will be opportunity for political service in that time...
I dunno...
how about you?
1. It's either that, or they go through the same wringer as everyone else, as these bastards rape us all.
2. Yes, a pill head with an unhealthy addiction to cactus and perverts will fly. :lol: If I ran, it would be on the Freak Ticket.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 18, 2010, 06:13:36 PM
1. It's either that, or they go through the same wringer as everyone else, as these bastards rape us all.
2. Yes, a pill head with an unhealthy addiction to cactus and perverts will fly. :lol: If I ran, it would be on the Freak Ticket.
i think the wringer can be minimized for those that prepare and keep their head low.
I would join you on the Freak Ticket...
I'll run for sheriff.
Quote from: Iptuous on February 18, 2010, 06:37:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 18, 2010, 06:13:36 PM
1. It's either that, or they go through the same wringer as everyone else, as these bastards rape us all.
2. Yes, a pill head with an unhealthy addiction to cactus and perverts will fly. :lol: If I ran, it would be on the Freak Ticket.
i think the wringer can be minimized for those that prepare and keep their head low.
I would join you on the Freak Ticket...
I'll run for sheriff.
Not the Freak Power ticket, which included the late great HST.
The Freak Ticket, which includes tape worm fetishists, branding freaks, and body modification weirdos.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 18, 2010, 06:39:16 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 18, 2010, 06:37:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 18, 2010, 06:13:36 PM
1. It's either that, or they go through the same wringer as everyone else, as these bastards rape us all.
2. Yes, a pill head with an unhealthy addiction to cactus and perverts will fly. :lol: If I ran, it would be on the Freak Ticket.
i think the wringer can be minimized for those that prepare and keep their head low.
I would join you on the Freak Ticket...
I'll run for sheriff.
Not the Freak Power ticket, which included the late great HST.
The Freak Ticket, which includes tape worm fetishists, branding freaks, and body modification weirdos.
although i, myself, am NRFB, i consider those people to be, in part, my people.
hoist the freak flag!
Quote from: Iptuous on February 18, 2010, 06:43:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 18, 2010, 06:39:16 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 18, 2010, 06:37:17 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 18, 2010, 06:13:36 PM
1. It's either that, or they go through the same wringer as everyone else, as these bastards rape us all.
2. Yes, a pill head with an unhealthy addiction to cactus and perverts will fly. :lol: If I ran, it would be on the Freak Ticket.
i think the wringer can be minimized for those that prepare and keep their head low.
I would join you on the Freak Ticket...
I'll run for sheriff.
Not the Freak Power ticket, which included the late great HST.
The Freak Ticket, which includes tape worm fetishists, branding freaks, and body modification weirdos.
although i, myself, am NRFB, i consider those people to be, in part, my people.
hoist the freak flag!
NRFB?
Never Removed From Box.
a collectibles value is dimished if altered from it's factory condition.
I'm still in stock condition. except hairier....
Quote from: Iptuous on February 18, 2010, 06:54:07 PM
Never Removed From Box.
a collectibles value is dimished if altered from it's factory condition.
I'm still in stock condition. except hairier....
Ho ho! You'd fetch a fine price from the dirty boys on Grant Street.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 18, 2010, 06:55:34 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 18, 2010, 06:54:07 PM
Never Removed From Box.
a collectibles value is dimished if altered from it's factory condition.
I'm still in stock condition. except hairier....
Ho ho! You'd fetch a fine price from the dirty boys on Grant Street.
Ain't nobody going to soil the good name of Sheriff Iptuous, so tell them Grant Street fellows to back off, cause this action figure comes with a M-82 and kung foo grip!
Quote from: Iptuous on February 18, 2010, 06:59:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on February 18, 2010, 06:55:34 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on February 18, 2010, 06:54:07 PM
Never Removed From Box.
a collectibles value is dimished if altered from it's factory condition.
I'm still in stock condition. except hairier....
Ho ho! You'd fetch a fine price from the dirty boys on Grant Street.
Ain't nobody going to soil the good name of Sheriff Iptuous, so tell them Grant Street fellows to back off, cause this action figure comes with a M-82 and kung foo grip!
SOLD.
Dok,
Gotta get paid.
Quote from: Horrendous Foreign Love Stoat on February 18, 2010, 07:17:30 PM
And I look trustworthy with a shave, suit & haircut.
A likely story.
See, we know the
truth about the British.
Quote from: Horrendous Foreign Love Stoat on February 18, 2010, 07:22:29 PM
the actual real truth .... :aaa: not the fake truth we let the rest of the world think is the real truth :?
The real truth.
The one about "America" being just an experiment run from 1776 by the royal family "just for a lark". I mean, come on...Cornwallis got beaten? Yeah, right. Here's let's dump all of our puritans and other religious whack jobs off, take a dive in the revolution, and walk away laughing, yes?
Quote from: Horrendous Foreign Love Stoat on February 18, 2010, 07:53:20 PM
uh ... no ... no ... not at all. you see it's all really about the .....oh wow, hey look over there its a NASCAR!
that should hold him while the Beefeater's seize him and beat some silence into him.
Shit yeah