While you're all outraged about the bailout... - Page 2

Flint · 03-22-2009, 04:13 PM

NSFW

TheMercenary · 03-22-2009, 04:21 PM

Balls.

classicman · 03-22-2009, 07:40 PM

Flint - you are looking oooollllllddddd brother - looks like you need a vacation

sugarpop · 03-23-2009, 09:07 PM

I don't think it would be such a bad thing to require young adults to serve, in some capacity, for a couple of years. It might actually instill some good qualities, instead of laziness and greed.

TGRR · 03-23-2009, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I don't think it would be such a bad thing to require young adults to serve, in some capacity, for a couple of years. It might actually instill some good qualities, instead of laziness and greed.

The federal government is not empowered to compel any service beyond the military.

ZenGum · 03-24-2009, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGRR

The federal government is not empowered to compel any service beyond the military.

Does that apply to prisoners who are required to work in near-sweatshop conditions? Seems to me they are being compelled to do so by the government, or in the case of privately run prisons, by the government's proxy.

Mind you, I reckon it probably does 'em some good. Just askin, thats all.

TGRR · 03-24-2009, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Does that apply to prisoners who are required to work in near-sweatshop conditions?

Nope. Those citizens have been convicted in a court of law. Apples and oranges.

sugarpop · 03-26-2009, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGRR

The federal government is not empowered to compel any service beyond the military.

Why?

TGRR · 03-26-2009, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Why?

Because that's the only compulsory service the constitution authorizes, and amendment X forbids them from doing anything they are not specifically empowered to do.

sugarpop · 03-26-2009, 08:32 PM

Why?

TGRR · 03-26-2009, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Why?

TheMercenary · 03-27-2009, 10:38 AM

Pelosi to ramrod 634 billion dollar funding through House for funding for health care over 10 years.

Quote:

Pelosi defended a drive by House Democrats to put health- care legislation on a fast track under a budget proposal announced this week.

Legislative Maneuvers

A draft of the House tax-and-spending blueprint calls for using “reconciliation” procedures, a maneuver that would allow a health-care overhaul to move through the Senate with a requirement for a simple majority of 51 votes. Under normal Senate debate rules, 60 votes are needed to keep opponents from blocking legislation.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide

Transparency. Not.

03-27-2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Pelosi to ramrod 634 billion dollar funding through House for funding for health care over 10 years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=worldwide

Transparency. Not.

There is no transparency issue.

Obama's 2010 budget proposal, which includes the health care reform initiative, has been on the WH website since he sent it to Congress several weeks ago.

The budget proposal is being debated in various committees in both the House and Senate and the Republicans are not excluded from the debate nor from offering amendments.

The Democrats are considering using a parliamentary procedure that was used by Republicans in the past to prevent the Senate from forcing a 60 vote threshold.

It may not represent "change" but the hypocrisy is the Republicans bitching about a procedure they used themselves (mostly notably to get Bush's tax cuts enacted)

xoxoxoBruce · 03-28-2009, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Transparency. Not.

If it's not transparent, how do you, and I, and every media outlet know about it?
If you don't like the way they're doing it just say so, but stop lying about transparency.

TheMercenary · 03-28-2009, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If it's not transparent, how do you, and I, and every media outlet know about it?
If you don't like the way they're doing it just say so, but stop lying about transparency.

Why would you consider it "lying"? When the hell does my assessment of what they are doing become a lie to you? I think it is pretty obvious my feelings otherwise, so why do you call it a lie?

03-22-2009, 04:13 PM	#1
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	While you're all outraged about the ball out ... NSFW Attached Images __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

03-22-2009, 04:21 PM	#2
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Balls. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

03-22-2009, 07:40 PM	#3
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	Flint - you are looking oooollllllddddd brother - looks like you need a vacation __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

03-23-2009, 09:07 PM	#4
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	I don't think it would be such a bad thing to require young adults to serve, in some capacity, for a couple of years. It might actually instill some good qualities, instead of laziness and greed.

03-26-2009, 08:32 PM	#10
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	Why?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)