Why California Sucks Ass!!!
God the list is so long I don't want to waste UT's bandwidth.
"Talk amongst yer'selves.." Barb.
Earthquakes
Wildfires
Mudslides
Radar
Papparzi
Madonna
Snob Hypocrital Liberal Actors
Etc.
Did I miss the law telling you to forcibly relocate, Merc?
tell me again why sucking ass is bad?
Raiders fans
Lakers fans
Allowed Barry Bonds to live there more than one day
I've never gotten into the whole California-worship thing. Whenever I've visited (San Diego, Oakland/Berkeley, and Monterey), I thought it was nice, but in a Stepford, plastic kind of way. I've always been happy to return to my native east coast.
Though I have to admit, sometimes when I'm lying awake at 3AM, I do wonder if I should have gone to Cal tech and tried to get a foot in at the JPL.
LA gave up NFL football and nobody cared.
That's just sick.
However, not all of California sucks. The further North of Sacramento you go, the better it gets. Well, the parts that aren't on fire, anyway.
Oh and its all the "way toooo the left"
Feinstein
Boxer
Waxman
ad infinitum
The Socialist Republik of Kalifornistan does your thinking for you.
The Socialist Republik of Kalifornistan does your thinking for you.
OK, I have to play devil's advocate here. There is no state in the country where it's as easy as it is in California to change the law via direct ballot action. Yet you suggest that the government is an independent entity that thinks for the citizens. What's the deal?
OK! The land of fruits and nuts!!
don't forget the far left field libertarians who are subconsciously into the blue state mentality.
OK, I have to play devil's advocate here. There is no state in the country where it's as easy as it is in California to change the law via direct ballot action. Yet you suggest that the government is an independent entity that thinks for the citizens. What's the deal?
The deal is that the system is dysfunctional, if not broken.
There's a reason we have elected representatives. Professionals, or semi-pro, to do the work of legislation. When (seemingly) every law is challenged by a ballot proposition, what's the point of having a government that makes laws?
There have been some spectacular failures of successful ballot initiatives.
Prop 13 comes to mind. The unintended consequences of that well intentioned measure were devastating to the public schools. There were other tax funded organizations that suffered greatly.
My point is that it is easy, too easy, to write a thunderously pandering proposition, gather the signatures and votes, without adequate regard to overall effect.
Additionally, we had these things on the ballot ALL THE DAMN TIME. I don't want to be a legislator. I "hired" someone to do that for me, and my neighbors. I don't want to walk around behind him, redoing all his work.
There have been some spectacular failures of successful ballot initiatives. Prop 13 comes to mind. The unintended consequences of that well intentioned measure were devastating to the public schools. There were other tax funded organizations that suffered greatly.
The alternative to to Prop 13 is to force people to move out of homes they've lived in their entire lives when an insane real estate bubble shoots the price of their home up by 100% in 5 years.
When my dad retired, his home was worth 1.1 million. It's a modest 3 bedroom track home in a very hot real estate market. Without prop 13, my dad would have had to come up with $11,000 a year to stay in his home. If he couldn't make that payment on his retirement pension, he would have been forced to sell his home.
The alternative to prop 13 is to leave long-term homeowners hostage to the inflated prices jacked up by speculators and foolish buyers.
The deal is that the system is dysfunctional, if not broken.
I'll stipulate your points. (Notice I never suggested it was a
good system.) But my original comment was about a post that suggested that the gummint does people's thinking for them, and I don't see that out of what you describe,
SD: You're right. Radar's point that teh gummint does all the thinking in California is incorrect.
Your point that there is a *very* active political culture in California is also right. Many, many good things have come from California, things that started as political ideas, brought to life by laws. Not all of them were invented there, but once adopted there, they blossomed.
sm: Prop 13 was conceived and passed because there *was* a real problem with rising tax bills. I don't contest that. My point was that it was an oversimple solution that caused as many problems as it solved. It was effective. But, because it was put together by amateurs, it was poorly made.
There is a reason we have professionals of all stripes, and this is a good example of why we should have professional lawmakers.
/devil's/ When I was new in the car biz and people would ask for a "senior salesperson" I would laugh with them and say I understood. Why would they want to deal with me and my amateurish, semi-transparent negotiating techniques when they could have a real professional; someone so experienced and versed in the trade they could assfuck them from three states away without the customer being any the wiser.
having a pro taking care of you is really only beneficial if you can trust them to really be on your side. how many "professional lawmakers" have you met that fit that description? /advocate/
Yes, you are correct. It is a matter of trust. My Dad imparted this wisdom to me, early and often, "Consider the source, son." It is so true. While we're dogging politicians, I'm reminded of the immortal words of
Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?
You're a pro, can you do a better job at what you do than some duffer? Probably. *and* you could probably do a better job at disguising your malfeasance, hypothetically assuming you committed any. Same here. Same at the capitol. But the chances that something good will come from the efforts of an amateur (or a million amateurs) compared to a pro, for something as complex as legislation are slim.
What we share here is the unspoken disgust at unethical behavior, coming from a salesman or a legislator or whomever. That chaps my ass same as you. But it's not because they're professionals.
don't mean to dodge your question about how many lawmakers have I met...
Practically none. But it is *possible* to make an informed judgment of the trustworthiness of a politician based on their words and actions. But that takes much effort, and considerable application of my Dad's wise words, "Consider the source, son."
There have been some spectacular failures of successful ballot initiatives. Prop 13 comes to mind. The unintended consequences of that well intentioned measure were devastating to the public schools. There were other tax funded organizations that suffered greatly.
Prop 13 didn't harm public schools, making them PUBLIC is what wrecked them. Allowing the government, especially the federal government to be involved in the funding, planning, building, testing, or designing curriculum of our schools is a nightmare.
I have to admit I was pretty angry after the last vote. We had a proposition (Prop 98) on the ballot to eliminate eminent domain for private use. It would have prevented politicians and wealthy developers from stealing someones home, rentals, business, or place of worship simply because something else would provide more tax dollars. It would have protected real property from people.
The developers, and the league of California cities, and counties, etc. created another proposition to sink the first one. They made a proposition that offered no protection at all and paid millions and millions of dollars to scare the crap out of old people and socialists by claiming Prop 98 would end rent control. Prop 98 didn't end rent control for anyone that was already renting under it....even though it should.
The scumbags got their way and the idiots of the state voted down the only protection they could get from having their property stolen from them, or their friends, neighbors, and relatives.
[quote=BigV]California's referendum mania is a symptom of their f*cked up political system
snip--
I have to admit I was pretty angry after the last vote. We had a proposition (Prop 98) on the ballot to eliminate eminent domain for private use. It would have prevented politicians and wealthy developers from stealing someones home, rentals, business, or place of worship simply because something else would provide more tax dollars. It would have protected real property from people.
The developers, and the league of California cities, and counties, etc. created another proposition to sink the first one. They made a proposition that offered no protection at all and paid millions and millions of dollars to scare the crap out of old people and socialists by claiming Prop 98 would end rent control. Prop 98 didn't end rent control for anyone that was already renting under it....even though it should.
The scumbags got their way and the idiots of the state voted down the only protection they could get from having their property stolen from them, or their friends, neighbors, and relatives.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for providing further evidence for my point.
Prop 13 didn't harm public schools, making them PUBLIC is what wrecked them. Allowing the government, especially the federal government to be involved in the funding, planning, building, testing, or designing curriculum of our schools is a nightmare.
--snip
You forgot to pack your eloquence for this trip out to the interwebz. I understand what you're saying, but, in addition to being fundamentally wrong, you misleadingly conflate the big bad Feds with what it takes to make a school system succeed. I'm just sayin.
I'm not fundamentally wrong. Public schools are an utter failure. All schools should be private schools. Public schools teach kids to rely on the government for everything. It's these kind of people who grow up thinking if you're against government funded schools, it means you're against kids getting a decent education or you don't want an education to be available to everyone.
What it takes to make a school system succeed are good teachers who engage kids and keep their attention. It takes an environment that kids enjoy and where kids don't fear getting shot or beaten by gang members. It takes a flexible curriculum and it takes parental involvement in the process.
When government pays for any part of this, they want to control all of it. Government is like King Midas, except instead of gold, everything it touches turns to shit.
I care too much about the education of our kids to allow government to screw it up in the same way it screws everything else up.
Calm. Down.
Public schools are not an utter failure. There is a place for private schools, but that place is not "No public schools". Public education is a crucial part of the foundation of our national capital, our civic infrastructure. We could no more have only private schools than we could have only private roads, or only a private military. Your hyper-allergic reaction to all things governmental is causing an overreaction here.
What it takes to make a school system succeed are good teachers who engage kids and keep their attention. It takes an environment that kids enjoy and where kids don't fear getting shot or beaten by gang members. It takes a flexible curriculum and it takes parental involvement in the process.
Right! And this in no way precludes the idea of a public school system.
You don't want *your* kid to go to public school, fine. But that does not give you license to burn down the whole public education system.
[grumble]..teach kids to rely on government for everything... what a maroon[/mumble]
Did you go to a public school, Radar?
Calm. Down.
Public schools are not an utter failure. There is a place for private schools, but that place is not "No public schools". Public education is a crucial part of the foundation of our national capital, our civic infrastructure. We could no more have only private schools than we could have only private roads, or only a private military. Your hyper-allergic reaction to all things governmental is causing an overreaction here.
Right! And this in no way precludes the idea of a public school system.
You don't want *your* kid to go to public school, fine. But that does not give you license to burn down the whole public education system.
[grumble]..teach kids to rely on government for everything... what a maroon[/mumble]
We could have all private roads. If we did, they'd probably be in better shape. Public schools actually are a complete failure. Government funded education is neither crucial, nor important.
If you want *YOUR* kid to go to a second rate, public school, fine. Just don't expect me to pay for it through taxes or any other way. Only those who send their kids to those schools should have to pay for them. People without kids should not be forced to pay for them, and neither should people who choose to educate their children at home, or in private schools.
It's not a matter of my right to burn down public education, it's a matter of whether or not you have the right to force others to pay to educate YOUR kids, or whether any government has such authority. Certainly the federal government has no such powers so all federal money for education should be eliminated.
Since all governments may only have the powers that the people grant to it, they may only have powers that people have without a government. If there's no government at all, you don't have a right to take what I earn to pay for the education of your kids. This means you can't grant this power to government, and neither can a million of you or a billion of you.
y'know... I don't expect you to pay for it. Just go away to anarchy-land, where there is no pesky government.
**until then**, I expect you to do as I do, and that is obey the laws, including those laws that require you to pay taxes that support our public schools, and our roads and our military, among other things.
I don't care if you like it or not. I don't care if you complain about it or not.
Your conversational style chafes me. I disagree with most of what you've posted in this conversation. Your "logic" is faulty. You assert and then build on those assertions. But you build on sand.
I'm not gonna argue with you since our positions on the initial conditions aren't even close. We're not close enough to learn anything from each other.
I do appreciate your civil tone, thank you.
shhh. he's a constitutional scholar.
y'know... I don't expect you to pay for it. Just go away to anarchy-land, where there is no pesky government.
**until then**, I expect you to do as I do, and that is obey the laws, including those laws that require you to pay taxes that support our public schools, and our roads and our military, among other things.
I don't care if you like it or not. I don't care if you complain about it or not.
Your conversational style chafes me. I disagree with most of what you've posted in this conversation. Your "logic" is faulty. You assert and then build on those assertions. But you build on sand.
I'm not gonna argue with you since our positions on the initial conditions aren't even close. We're not close enough to learn anything from each other.
I do appreciate your civil tone, thank you.
1. None of my logic is faulty. If you think it is, don't merely state it, prove it.
2. I state a fact (bedrock) and build upon that. You don't have the right to force me to pay to educate your kids. This means no matter how many people vote on such a law, it is illegitimate. If I refuse to comply with an illegitimate law, I'm still morally and ethically correct.
3. I think if you and a bunch of other people want to get together and pool your money for a school and you agree to pay a certain portion of your income to support such schools, that's just great. Kudos to you. Just dont' try
FORCE others to contribute with illegitimate legislation.
4. I'm sorry if my civil tone chafes you. It's just my normal conversation style.
shhh. he's a constitutional scholar.
I am indeed, but don't limit me to only being a scholar of Constitutional law and the principles behind it. You can add other areas where I've devoted a significant amount of study like computer science, libertarian philosophy, American history, etc...
I just don't get how people who live in society, who use public roads, have probably pissed in a public toilet, who have access to public libraries, who have access to a public legal system and have access to public health if their situation calls for it, can sprout so much crap.
If you don't like society, go live in a fucking cave dickhead.
If you don't like society, go live in a fucking cave dickhead.
Society won't let him. Why so pissed about an alternative viewpoint? Last I checked we hadn't evolved into a perfect society.
To be fair, Radar's point has often been that those public facilities shouldn't exist in the first place NOT that it's unfair he should have to pay for something he wants to exist.
The thing is that Radar's interpretation of the constitution (and yes, Radar - that's all it is - YOUR interpretation, if it was hard fact there would be no debate)and the basis for the founding of this country lead him to these extreme views. There is no point in arguing the very real details of our social and political machines with someone who begins with the view that it is all illegitimate and ends with you're a poopy head. Only frustration can come from it.
You don't have the right to force me to pay to educate your kids. This means no matter how many people vote on such a law, it is illegitimate. If I refuse to comply with an illegitimate law, I'm still morally and ethically correct.
Sure. As long as you understand that when you're 75 and need prostate surgery, all doctors aged 55 and younger (the ones who were getting educated during all your working-adult-but-non-school-tax-paying years) are morally and ethically correct if they choose not to operate on you, or to only operate on you at a higher price than they would charge someone who helped educate them.
You're ok with a doctor picking/choosing patients for that type of reason Clod?
Sure. As long as you understand that when you're 75 and need prostate surgery, all doctors aged 55 and younger (the ones who were getting educated during all your working-adult-but-non-school-tax-paying years) are morally and ethically correct if they choose not to operate on you, or to only operate on you at a higher price than they would charge someone who helped educate them.
I've got no problem with that. Health care isn't a right. I'm willing to pay a fair price for that service. I have no right to force someone to provide me with service, or to force them to pay for services I want.
I just don't get how people who live in society, who use public roads, have probably pissed in a public toilet, who have access to public libraries, who have access to a public legal system and have access to public health if their situation calls for it, can sprout so much crap.
If you don't like society, go live in a fucking cave dickhead.
Socialism is not "society". I buy my own books, I hire my own lawyers, I pay for my own education, etc. Why should I also be forced to pay for someone else's?
If you don't like me keeping what I earn than go into that public toilet and flush your head down the toilet because it's more full of shit than your ass. Being against government funded schools is not the same as being against education. Being against government funded retirement is not the same as being against the elderly. Being against government funded healthcare does not mean you're against the poor getting healthcare. In fact the exact opposite is true. Those who rely on government programs get LESS help than they would otherwise privately and through non-profit charities. Only an ignorant cunt would claim otherwise.
To be fair, Radar's point has often been that those public facilities shouldn't exist in the first place NOT that it's unfair he should have to pay for something he wants to exist.
The thing is that Radar's interpretation of the constitution (and yes, Radar - that's all it is - YOUR interpretation, if it was hard fact there would be no debate)and the basis for the founding of this country lead him to these extreme views. There is no point in arguing the very real details of our social and political machines with someone who begins with the view that it is all illegitimate and ends with you're a poopy head. Only frustration can come from it.
My views are not extreme. Those who think it's ok for them to steal from others to suit their own desires are the extremists, not me.
Also, NO it is not my "interpretation" of the Constitution. I don't interpret the Constitution because it means what it says and it says the federal government may not be involved in, or legislate over areas that are not enumerated in the Constitution. End of story. I don't interpret the Constitution...I read it and unlike most people
(including many on the supreme court), I actually understand it.
Each and every single thing the federal government does that is not enumerated in the Constitution is unconstitutional and illegitimate, PERIOD. End of story. There is no gray area.
You're ok with a doctor picking/choosing patients for that type of reason Clod?
No, just pointing out the other side of Radar's coin. I personally think the education of a society's children benefits everyone in society, not just the parents/children, and thus everyone should contribute to it in some way, whether or not they have children themselves.
No, just pointing out the other side of Radar's coin. I personally think the education of a society's children benefits everyone in society, not just the parents/children, and thus everyone should contribute to it in some way, whether or not they have children themselves.
Doesn't this assume that there's a public benefit to having children? What about that one guy who thinks that the worst thing you can do to the planet is to have one more kid. I, oops,
he shouldn't have to pay for public schools, should he?
EDIT: Here's another timely quote from the TipMug:
A significant improvement in the quality of American education can only be achieved if we burn down all the schools and shoot all the teachers.
--H. L. Mencken
Doesn't this assume that there's a public benefit to having children? What about that one guy who thinks that the worst thing you can do to the planet is to have one more kid. I, oops, he shouldn't have to pay for public schools, should he?
Public benefit and planet benefit are different. I've already demonstrated there is a public benefit to having children. Unless you're prepared for your quality of life to plummet significantly in your old age as the human race and all its infrastructure dies out, basic population maintenance is necessary, on the order of two children per couple. So at that point you're either going to enforce maintenance a' la China, or you're going to select which children are cared for and which have to fend for themselves. Or you're just going to suck it up and pay for public schools. :)
ETA: I'm not saying the current public school system itself is necessary or any good at all. I'm just saying that even if a better system were put in place, it should still be everyone's responsibility to contribute to that system in some way.
... Unless you're prepared for your quality of life to plummet significantly in your old age as the human race and all its infrastructure dies out, basic population maintenance is necessary, on the order of two children per couple. ...
Those old people need
something to complain about.
A lack of a public education system is not a lack of an education system. It just means we'll have no government involvement where it doesn't belong.
If you think having educated children is a benefit to "society", than having better educated kids offers MORE benefit. Giving kids a government education is a disservice to them and to "society".
By the way there is no such thing as "society". Society is nothing more than a bunch of individuals. A society of a billion people has non more rights than a single person.
By the way there is no such thing as "society". Society is nothing more than a bunch of individuals.
I have nothing significant to add. I'm just reveling in the irony of you saying a concept doesn't exist, and then in the very next sentence defining that concept in a way that does exist.
Delicious!
There is no irony for you to feast on. I was merely pointing out the fact that there is no entity known as "society". The word "society" merely describes a bunch of individuals. "Society" has no rights. Only individuals do.
Radar, did you attend public school?
i think that is fairly evident from his gaps in logic and reasoning.
I think my education is far superior to yours since you fail to see that there are no gaps in my logic or reasoning. I suppose it's something you must tell yourself to feel better since I constantly beat you in debates.
You seem to be avoiding my question.
I think you did go to public school.
Radar - Mr. Semi-mantics
fixed that for you
you got it sugar. but to be fair i don't know that we've ever had a debate.
Debate:
A: My point is X.
B: You are incorrect. Y is actually accurate because these three reasons: __________.
A: Ah, I see what you're saying, but reasons 1 and 2 don't stand up because of __________, so therefore your idea is incorrect.
and it follows in that pattern until an agreement is reached or all the evidence has been laid out but no minds have changed.
Radar's Debate Format:
A: I feel the government should ___________.
Radar: You're wrong, the constituition says ___________.
A: I disagree with your interpretation of the document.
Radar: You're wrong, the constituition says ___________!
A: I think the flaw in your reasoning is _____________.
Radar: [SIZE="4"]You're wrong, the constituition says ___________.[/SIZE]
A: Have you considered ___________?
Radar: [SIZE="5"]You're wrong, the constituition says ___________. And you are stoopid compared to me. I rule, you suck and you even smell bad too. And if you don't agree I'll kill a border patrol agent for carrying out illegitimate orders and I'll be right cuz you suck!!![/SIZE]
A: WTF?
Radar: See? I win all debates due to my superior intellect and education.
Now, would you care to tell me I'm wrong about your debate style? or will it just be easier to say you've read a document with the One True Understanding ingrained upon your soul so everything and everyone else is irrelevent?
Your conversational style chafes me. I disagree with most of what you've posted in this conversation. Your "logic" is faulty. You assert and then build on those assertions. But you build on sand.
[halloffame]This is a Hall of Fame Statement for any discussion with Radars whacked out thinking.[/halloffame]
There are many many good public schools that do a very good time educating our kids. Everyone pays for something, this is just another example of something paid for.
Actaully it goes a bit more like this.
Lookout123: The federal government should provide meals for all hungry people.
Radar: The role and scope of the federal government is limited to only doing what is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. But even if this were an enumerated power, the government would be horrible at it, and we'd be better off with something more efficient like private charities.
Lookout123: I disagree with the way you INTERPRET the Constitution.
Radar: I don't interpret the Constitution, I read it. There is no "interpretation" involved. It wasn't written in Swahili, it was written in English, and the words in the Constitution specifically prohibit the federal government from taking part in or legislating anything other than the enumerated powers. This prohibition is in the 10th amendment which the founders wrote specifically to prevent anyone from claiming the federal government has "implied powers" and to place strict limits on the powers of government.
Lookout123: The flaw in your logic is that you don't agree with me in making a bogus claim that the federal government has any powers it wants to have including providing food for everyone.
Radar: There is no flaw in my logic. There is no wiggle room. It is a black and white issue. It's a binary function. The federal government may have powers other than those enumerated or it can't. I've provided a reference to the part of the Constitution that says in no uncertain terms that the federal government may not do anything other than the specific enumerated powers.
Lookout123: Have you considered that hungry people need to eat?
Radar: Yes, but this doesn't grant the federal government the power to feed them.
Lookout123: Oh, so repeating it makes it true?
Radar: No, the fact that it's true makes it true.
Lookout123: You are unreasonable and no matter what you say, you are "interpreting" the Constitution.
Radar: No, I'm not so stop lying about this.
Lookout123: Oh, calling me a liar now. You have to resort to name calling.
Radar: No, I'm using an accurate description of a person who tells lies.
etc...etc...ad nauseum.
After reading the last 4 pages I realized I forgot one~~~~~~>
Why California Sucks Ass!!!
Radar.
:lol2:
Radar, did you attend public school?
Whether or not I personally went to public school is irrelevant. The anecdotal evidence of a single person has no bearing on the state of the public education system as a whole. Also, the public education system has been steadily declining for the last 50 years and has gotten progressively worse at an alarming rate since Ronald Reagan created the federal Department of Education.
The failure of public schools has nothing to do with the amount of money they receive. On average in America, public schools get about $10,770 per pupil per year. The average tuition of a private school is $6,600 and on average the students get a better education than public schools.
When I ran for Congress, I suggested we give any person or company a dollar for dollar tax credit for any kids they send to private schools. They don't even have to be their own kids. This means if I have a $30,000 tax burden, and I choose to spend $19,800 to send 3 poor kids to a private school, my tax burden is reduced to $10,200. A business could choose to send hundreds or thousands of kids to schools.
This would also give the American people a choice of where their tax dollars are spent. If I don't want my tax money going to fund an illegal war, I can choose to spend it to provide a service the government normally provides. For the first time, Americans could choose to spend the money to send poor kids to school, to feed hungry people, to buy medicine for the elderly, etc. and all of the money would go to those in need rather than to the federal government to be spent on pork.
...and all of the money would go to those in need rather than to the federal government to be spent on pork.
Kids who go to public schools are not pigs.
Kids who go to public schools are not pigs.
I disagree. I have to try to teach them once they've emerged from 12 years of public education. The metaphor stands.
Radar, you've got me all wrong. I'm the guy who'd rather shoot the homeless than feed them.;) But in all honesty, well played. well played.
Girls, girls ... you're both pretty. Now kiss and make up. With tongue.
:mg: :eek: :smack: :hugnkiss: :shocking: :shock: :vomit:
Lookout knows I don't take it personally. :)
It's all fun until someone loses an eye.
Socialism is not "society". I buy my own books, I hire my own lawyers, I pay for my own education, etc. Why should I also be forced to pay for someone else's?
If you don't like me keeping what I earn than go into that public toilet and flush your head down the toilet because it's more full of shit than your ass. Being against government funded schools is not the same as being against education. Being against government funded retirement is not the same as being against the elderly. Being against government funded healthcare does not mean you're against the poor getting healthcare. In fact the exact opposite is true. Those who rely on government programs get LESS help than they would otherwise privately and through non-profit charities. Only an ignorant cunt would claim otherwise.
Being against public funding in any way means you shouldn't be driving on the publicly funded roads.
You shouldn't be using publicly funded facilities such as rest rooms in parks.
Surely you get that? Surely you realize that's what your taxes pay for, aside from the other things like health and education.
Only a stupid cunt doesn't get that. Although, I suppose people who still use public roads while saying they shouldn't have to pay taxes must be stupid.
When I ran for Congress
Were you a winner or a loser then too?
Back then, as now, I was a more intelligent, and better person than you and my campaign was very successful. It's cute when someone who has lost every argument with me has the temerity to call me a loser.
In America, we have a little thing called the Constitution and our constitution was created to restrict the powers of our government. It grants government certain powers and those include ROADS. I have no problem paying for services that I use. American taxes are paid for with gasoline taxes. I think a better way to do it would be to make the roads private and to pay tolls. And we should allow any private person to create toll roads if they buy the land and build them.
As far as parks, public restrooms, etc., I'd be for having privately owned parks run by nature conservancies. I'd pay a fee to use the park as long as it had clean restrooms that don't stink...which very few parks in America have.
It grants government certain powers and those include ROADS.
Post roads?
I disagree. I have to try to teach them once they've emerged from 12 years of public education. The metaphor stands.
I'm very proud of my education (public though it may be), at this age, if there is a flaw it is my own failing.
On that note...
My history professor (hist 1301 or US Hist 1) was listing some Catholic beliefs, "They don't believe in using contraception because sex is for the purpose of..." Guy in back of room, "What's contraception?"
I was trying so hard not to laugh out loud I didn't here the professor's response, kinda wish I did.
[insert shovel, w/2 cents]I just reckon it's why California needs me. We need at least one person who pays attention to foreign policy to counterbalance radar's view that foreign policy shouldn't exist -- constitutionally.
I think it's cute when someone bases their ethics and morality on an old piece of paper, written by people who lived in a very different world. Whether it's the Bible, the Koran or the Constitution.
I think it's cute when someone bases their ethics and morality on an old piece of paper, written by people who lived in a very different world. Whether it's the Bible, the Koran or the Constitution.
I guess it's a good thing my ethics, morality, and rights don't come from any religious doctrine or old pieces of paper. I do respect the foundation of our government (the U.S. Constitution) and demand that our government abide by the limitations on its powers by that "old piece of paper" whose words are as fresh, carefully crafted, and meaningful today as they were the day they were written.
[insert shovel, w/2 cents]I just reckon it's why California needs me. We need at least one person who pays attention to foreign policy to counterbalance radar's view that foreign policy shouldn't exist -- constitutionally.
I'll thank you not to make baseless assertions or false claims about my position. I think America should have a foreign policy. I think we should trade freely and equitably with all nations and should never use our military to be involved in the disputes of other nations, to make enemies globally, or to otherwise stick our noses where it doesn't belong....like Iraq.
California needs you like Lincoln needed another hole in the head. America needs a workable and intelligent foreign policy like mine in the same way humans need oxygen to survive.
California needs you like Lincoln needed another hole in the head.
Libertarians are supposed to be extremely anti-Lincoln. I would think you'd be all for another hole in his head.
Here are the Top 5 cities which ranked highest in auto theft last year:
• Modesto, CA.
• Las Vegas, NV.
• San Diego/Carlsbad/San Marcos, CA.
• Stockton, CA.
• San Francisco/Oakland/Fremont, CA.
Highlighting mine.
Back then, as now, I was a more intelligent, and better person than you and my campaign was very successful. It's cute when someone who has lost every argument with me has the temerity to call me a loser.
In America, we have a little thing called the Constitution and our constitution was created to restrict the powers of our government. It grants government certain powers and those include ROADS. I have no problem paying for services that I use. American taxes are paid for with gasoline taxes. I think a better way to do it would be to make the roads private and to pay tolls. And we should allow any private person to create toll roads if they buy the land and build them.
As far as parks, public restrooms, etc., I'd be for having privately owned parks run by nature conservancies. I'd pay a fee to use the park as long as it had clean restrooms that don't stink...which very few parks in America have.
Just a couple of things.
Firstly, so were you a winner or a loser when you ran? You didn't answer the question.
Secondly, with respect to your last couple of paragraphs; let's just use the question of roads for the sake of argument. If you don't pay taxes, who is going to provide the roads for you to drive on? I'm really interested to know what your solution would be (aside from putting tolls on all roads because this is simply not feasible and I don't have the time or energy to bother putting type the reasons why your suggestion is totally ludicrous).
Oh yeah, one other thing.
I'm pretty sure you're the only one who thinks you've ever 'won' every discussion you and I (or you and anyone else) have ever had. If it makes you feel good about yourself to think so, that's ok though. Surprisingly, I really don't lose any sleep over people like you who to me, are the bad apples that put a tarnished reflection on all their countrymen and women. I don't suppose you care about that though...considering you're an individual and don't care about your countrymen beyond the constitution and how it affects you as an individual.
It grants government certain powers and those include ROADS.
Post roads?
I like this!
Let me know when it's officially a meme and I'll join in.
I was a winner before, during, and after I ran for office. I accomplished all of my goals of running a successful information campaign.
I never planned on winning the office. That would be impossible given the circumstances and the district demographics.
Before 1913, Americans didn't pay income taxes, but guess what? We had paved roads. We had a legislature. We had a military, etc.
Claiming toll roads isn't a feasible solution only shows that you know little to nothing about the subject and haven't dedicated any actual thought to the subject...much like every other subject, especially with regard to Israel and the middle-east.
I love how you think it's wrong for the people who use a service to pay for it, and for those who don't use it to be exempt from paying for it. It shows how irrational you truly are.
Oh yeah, one other thing.
I'm pretty sure you're the only one who thinks you've ever 'won' every discussion you and I (or you and anyone else) have ever had. If it makes you feel good about yourself to think so, that's ok though. Surprisingly, I really don't lose any sleep over people like you who to me, are the bad apples that put a tarnished reflection on all their countrymen and women. I don't suppose you care about that though...considering you're an individual and don't care about your countrymen beyond the constitution and how it affects you as an individual.
I'm a shining example of what a truly patriotic, well-educated, and hard-working American can be. I'm a credit to my country and improve the reputation of America and my countrymen. When I travel to other countries, I am an ambassador of good will and friendship to all nations, but would still never allow my government to step beyond the boundaries of its limited powers. I care about myself, my family members, and my fellow citizens. This is why I constantly stay on the side of freedom, and away from stupidity like socialism. I fight for my freedom and for the freedom of those who are too stupid to know what freedom is. Even those who stupidly look to government to solve their problems.
It grants government certain powers and those include ROADS.
But only Post roads, right?
Post exclusive roads? Or enough roads to get the mail thru (which pretty much covers everywhere most people want to go)?
That's a question that was answered by the Courts in the late 1800s, but I'm sure Radar will have the correct answer for us through divination of the meaning as originally written. We wait.
All court interpretations are meaningless. Just read the plain sense of the document, stupid sheeple!
Everyone should live in the way they did when the Constitution was written. Then it can be accepted for the truth that it is. Roads? Who needs roads? Your slaves can cut across country.
Pssst. Slavery was/is unconstitutional.
Those who wrote it owned slaves.
Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, but uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with little debate.
In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.
The Fugitive Slave Clause is the last mention. In it, a problem that slave states had with extradition of escaped slaves was resolved. The laws of one state, the clause says, cannot excuse a person from "Service or Labour" in another state. The clause expressly requires that the state in which an escapee is found deliver the slave to the state he escaped from "on Claim of the Party."
Jefferson might have written that "all men are created equal", but he bought and sold human beings all the same. Obviously when they wrote about men (not women, not mankind) it didn't include people of different coloured skin. After all, the Native Americans were hardly treated as equal either.
Now I don't judge present day America on its shameful history. Not slavery and not the Ku Klux Klan. I hope that I'm not judged on Colonial Britain and Amritsah. But I don't push a bigoted old piece of paper as the basis of everything that is right and true in this country.
Post exclusive roads? Or enough roads to get the mail thru (which pretty much covers everywhere most people want to go)?
I get my mail at my house. In order for the postal service to deliver mail to my house, a road must be built. This means that all roads are
post roads because they all lead to some address.
As far as the original intent of the founders, they intended for people to get their mail. A postal road back then was a road to connect post offices so mail could be delivered between them. Since then, the postal service has changed a bit, and delivers to a lot more places. It's up to the fed to make sure there's a road everywhere that mail is delivered.
I get my mail at my house. In order for the postal service to deliver mail to my house, a road must be built. This means that all roads are post roads because they all lead to some address.
And that you should contribute to them - ie: pay taxes.
Everyone should live in the way they did when the Constitution was written. Then it can be accepted for the truth that it is. Roads? Who needs roads? Your slaves can cut across country.
Do you think every country that has a constitution, every organization that has a charter, should just throw it out the window and forget about it after its written? Because people at the time had some different beliefs than we do now - nothing they believed then has any value to us now? Look beyond the roads for a minute.... you don't see any tax money being wasted anywhere that maybe wouldn't be if were sticking more closely to the 'rules'?
That's a question that was answered by the Courts in the late 1800s, but I'm sure Radar will have the correct answer for us through divination of the meaning as originally written. We wait.
So you know the answer but you're not going to tell me because Radar pisses you off?
And that you should contribute to them - ie: pay taxes.
It's called postage stamps and gasoline tax. I pay for both of them.
I have no issue with the average American's average regard for the foundation of your laws. It's just Radar's blinkered belief that it is the beginning and end of all possible solutions for your country that is so alien to me. Honestly, fom my POV it's the same as the convoluted "laws" Hassidic Jews follow which are apparently based ont he 10 Commandments.
Seems like there's nothing written down that can't be deified.
I have never said that the Constitution is the beginning or end of any solution. Government doesn't solve problems. Government is force. It should only be used when necessary and only when directed in the right way.
All possible solutions for our country rest in the hands of our citizens. They can work to solve their own problems, or seek help from each other. But government is not the answer. I don't deify the Constitution. I remember that it is the foundation of our entire government and that it was created specifically to restrict and limit the powers of the federal government.
"Good evening fellow Americans. I’d like to share a quote from George Washington: ‘Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.’ "If you lived in a log cabin, you’d require fire for your survival. You’d use the fire to heat your home and to cook your food. Fire is such a necessary part of your survival that you’d create a special place for fire. It is called a fireplace. "Government is necessary for our survival. We need government in order to survive. The Founding Fathers created a special place for government. It is called the Constitution. "Anytime the fire is in the fireplace, it is a good fire. Anytime a fire gets outside of the fireplace, it is a bad fire. Conversely, anytime the government stays within the limits of the Constitution, it is a good government. Anytime the government is outside the Constitution, it is a bad government, and it is time to stomp it out."
-Michael Badnarik
In many rural areas, mail is not delivered to an address. Instead, mail is collected at the post office and the addressee must go and pick it up in person.
In many rural areas, mail is not delivered to an address. Instead, mail is collected at the post office and the addressee must go and pick it up in person.
The federal government should only pay for roads as far as the postal service needs them to deliver mail in a timely fashion...like freeways between cities.
I guess the states can handle roads beyond that, and this is done through gas taxes.
I pay the post office in the form of stamps to build post offices and to sort and deliver mail. Actually most of this is paid for by junk mail people, but I pay my share in this form. For the rest of the roads, I pay via gas tax. I'm always willing to pay my fair share for the services I actually use.
I think it's cute when someone bases their ethics and morality on an old piece of paper, written by people who lived in a very different world. Whether it's the Bible, the Koran or the Constitution.
G.W.B's mantra.
I swear!
I get my mail at my house. In order for the postal service to deliver mail to my house, a road must be built. This means that all roads are post roads because they all lead to some address.
As far as the original intent of the founders, they intended for people to get their mail. A postal road back then was a road to connect post offices so mail could be delivered between them. Since then, the postal service has changed a bit, and delivers to a lot more places. It's up to the fed to make sure there's a road everywhere that mail is delivered.
Let's work from Answers.com since the Wikipedia entry lacks one crucial aspect of post roads. (Once the W is not so slow, I may improve the entry.)
http://www.answers.com/topic/post-roads
Mail routes between New York and Boston took shape in the late seventeenth century. These roads traced routes that became great highways and are still known as the post roads. The Continental Congress began creating post roads during the revolutionary war.
Okay, fine, but why use the term "post roads" and not just simply "roads"?
To designate a highway as a post road gave the government the monopoly of carrying mail over it; on other roads, anybody might carry the mail.
Huh! So that's the original understanding of the term, when the C was written:
Post roads provide a monopoly on mail on those roads to the Feds. That was the understood meaning all along, and during the 1800s they began converting regular roads to "post roads". These were and remain roads that the Feds did not build and did not maintain. But they became "post roads". And even the rivers:
Steamboat captains also carried letters and collected the fees for them, until in 1823 all navigable waters were declared to be post roads, which checked the practice.
Day-um! And that was what they did during the period you say was "free". Gawrsh!
Private letter-carrying companies after 1842 did much house-to-house mail business in the larger cities; but the postmaster general circumvented them in 1860 by declaring all the streets of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia to be post roads.
Through your interpretation you've just prevented all private mail delivery. Nice goin', genius.
I haven't "interpreted" anything. Someone said that if we followed the Constitution, we'd have no roads. I said we would. I was correct. Post roads are roads. They are all roads. It's nice that now the government will back off from making the claim that only the government may use those roads for mail delivery, but it doesn't change the fact that all roads are post roads or the fact that nothing I've said would prevent private mail delivery. The government's bogus claims of exclusive access to these roads would prevent it, not anything I've said.
I am unfamiliar with your source so I the veracity of your claim of the roads being the exclusive domain for government to deliver mail is questionable. Even if this is the case, the government has long considered itself to have a monopoly over delivering mail and over the use of force. The government claims the Constitution applies to citizens and not to the government when it furthers governmental power and the Supreme Court agrees. The Federal government says the Constitution doesn't apply to it when it comes to slavery, pollution, and a host of other things.
The roads between Boston, NY, Philly and points south, were established long before the revolution. Indian trails became horse trails and then wagon roads.
In 1737, when Benjamin Franklin was appointed Deputy Postmaster General by the King, he was charged with placing mile posts along those roads to determine the cost of sending mail. That's why they are called "post" roads.
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Post roads are roads. They are all roads.
Then why did the C not just say "roads"?
Probably because post roads are for delivering the mail, but not all roads back then led to a post office or a delivery address. Most of the roads back then were trails or paths that led to homes as someone mentioned earlier, back then the post office didn't deliver to homes. It delivered to other post offices. But the times have changed and now all roads are used to deliver the mail.
Bruce mentions that there were posts for each mile of road. Perhaps this is the reason. It really doesn't matter though.
What matters is the U.S. Constitution grants authority to the federal government to collect taxes to pay for roads and the fact that we had roads for 137 years before the 16th amendment was fraudulently ratified to create permanent income taxes. Lincoln created the first income tax in America, but it was temporary for the reconstruction effort. It did open the door for Taft though.
UT, quit interpreting, dammit!
Probably ... <snip> ... Perhaps ...
HOLY SHIT!!!!!
Radar just said the words "probably" and "perhaps" in relationship to an issue of constitutional interpretation!
Radar, you can't have it both ways. It very much does matter what kind of roads the Constitution granted congress the power to create, because anything beyond that specific type of road is an illegal expansion of power, and the road crews hired to build those roads should refuse to do it, and must in all good conscience quit their jobs.
As you yourself have
so eloquently argued before.
If you're looking for someone to argue that the federal government isn't overstepping its limited authority, you won't find it with me. All roads paid for by the federal government in which postage is not carried, is an unconstitutional use of federal money and an illegal expansion of power.
Thanks for your kind words saying I have argued eloquently. It's nice to hear even though it's an attempt to be sarcastic.
I wouldn't say contractors should quit their job if they are part of an illegal expansion of power on the part of government. But if they are good citizens, they will agree not to take part in that particular project.
As far as any ambiguity goes with regard to the Constitution, don't kid yourself into thinking I've said anything that wasn't accurate and clear. The Constitution says that the federal government may collect taxes to pay for roads. UT asked why the Constitution didn't merely say "roads" rather than "post roads". I speculated as to the reason and described why the roads currently being used by mail carriers are still legitimate uses of the federal government. The words "perhaps" and "probably" were used in discussing the possible reasons behind the use of the term "post roads" by the founders; not over the actual meaning of the Constitution or the words within it.
I want to know if you're winning or not Radar? Seems to me no one much is seeing your point of view yet.
I'll check back on your progress later. lol
And about this?
Back then, as now, I was a ... better person than you
I guess you don't believe all men (or women) are created equal then?
What an arsehole. lol
I had written a long rant in response to Ali's misconception about the relationship between States and roads. Bruce said it nicer and better.
[mini-rant]Radar makes a mistake tying everything to the long dead document which attempted to enumerate the powers of the Federal Government. There are no longer any significant checks to the power of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Please remember that when you call for more Federal control of roads, morgages, health care, or security, you are feeding the same creature that puts American combat boots on the ground all over the planet.[/rant]
Roads, Federal, State & County(Parish), are funded by fuel taxes. :lame:
All roads paid for by the federal government in which postage is not carried, is an unconstitutional use of federal money and an illegal expansion of power.
AND
all roads are used to deliver the mail
THEREFORE
All Federal involvement in roads is Constitutional. Which is really what you were saying in the beginning, we just didn't believe you would make such a case.
I mean, even the Feds don't use that interpretation. That interpretation is a wild granting of power to the Feds. But whatever, you're the man now dog.
It occurs to me that this is one of those threads non-Americans find to be utterly American. But would probably enjoy the quirkiness of regardless.
Honestly, fom my POV it's the same as the convoluted "laws" Hassidic Jews follow which are apparently based ont he 10 Commandments.
I'd assume Radar would see this differently. For him the Constitution is like the 10 Commandments before a few millenia of tinkering made an indecipherable mess of some pretty simple rules. He'd like to do the impossible, turn back the clock on entropy...
I had written a long rant in response to Ali's misconception about the relationship between States and roads. Bruce said it nicer and better.
I was only using roads as an example of a public facility, so I apologize for my misconception as to where the funds come from. It's not exactly that way here although a portion of road maintenance is paid for by fuel taxes, not all is.
My point is and always has been against Radar's notion that it's illegal for the government to expect citizens to pay personal income taxes.
If roads is a bad example, perhaps we could use public libraries instead. Perhaps it's not the same there, but here most towns and definitely all cities have public libraries which are funded mostly by government grants but also through some patronage but of course, the government funding is raised through taxes.
If you'd rather, we could look at police. Who's going to pay their wages if there's no income tax? Or how about judges and magistrates?
There are a whole range of public facilities and systems which would not be possible if it were not for income taxes.
As I've said before, if you don't want to pay taxes, that's fine, but you go and live away from society. Be self sufficient and do your thing. I have no problem with that what so ever. If that's what people want to do, they should go ahead and do it, but you only make yourself a hypocrite if you live within society and don't pay your taxes.
IIRC Radar is okay with other forms of taxes, such as fuel taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. It is only when the tax rate is directly tied to income that he objects.
I'm a shining example of what a truly patriotic, well-educated, and hard-working American can be. I'm a credit to my country and improve the reputation of America and my countrymen. When I travel to other countries, I am an ambassador of good will and friendship to all nations, but would still never allow my government to step beyond the boundaries of its limited powers. I care about myself, my family members, and my fellow citizens. This is why I constantly stay on the side of freedom, and away from stupidity like socialism. I fight for my freedom and for the freedom of those who are too stupid to know what freedom is. Even those who stupidly look to government to solve their problems.
That's a lovely little speech Radar, but you've blown a hole in your own foot with a lot of the tripe you've posted here. You constantly tell most if not all of us how you're better or more intelligent than us. You have some very strange ideas about how certain documents should be interpreted and quite frankly, you're incredibly rude and condescending in practically every single post you decide to create.
If that's a shining example of what an American is, then you and your countrymen have a problem.
I'm only rude to those who richly deserve it. You're as rude as I've ever been and you're consistently wrong on every subject and then get snippy when you are corrected.
If more Americans were like me, America would be loved throughout the world...including Australia. You are an anomaly because every other Australian I've ever met is very kindhearted, caring, worldly, and classy. In other words, they are everything that you are not.
I'm a much better American than you are an Australian.
IIRC Radar is okay with other forms of taxes, such as fuel taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. It is only when the tax rate is directly tied to income that he objects.
Yep I know thanks Clod
IIRC Radar is okay with other forms of taxes, such as fuel taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. It is only when the tax rate is directly tied to income that he objects.
You are right on all counts other than property tax. I don't think I should ever be taxed on what I own, or what I earn. Owning property is a right. Keeping the fruits of your labor is a right. I have a problem being taxed for exercising my rights. I have no problem with paying taxes or fees for services I use.
I'm only rude to those who richly deserve it. You're as rude as I've ever been and you're consistently wrong on every subject and then get snippy when you are corrected.
If more Americans were like me, America would be loved throughout the world...including Australia. You are an anomaly because every other Australian I've ever met is very kindhearted, caring, worldly, and classy. In other words, they are everything that you are not.
I'm a much better American than you are an Australian.
I suppose you think that's a winning post Radar? lol
Let's just have a look at the elements for a minute so you can see why it's not.
I'm only rude to those who richly deserve it.
Which must include pretty much everyone on this forum at least. From what I've observed, you've been rude to everyone at one time or another.
you're consistently wrong on every subject and then get snippy when you are corrected.
Not correct and I have no problem being corrected by someone who knows better than me.
If more Americans were like me, America would be loved throughout the world...including Australia.
Firstly, this is only your opinion. It'd be interesting to do a poll on it don't you think? I wonder also if you're implying that you're better than most other Americans here.
You are an anomaly because every other Australian I've ever met is very kindhearted, caring, worldly, and classy. In other words, they are everything that you are not.
You have no idea how kindearted, caring, worldly (although this is not a word that has any relevance with regard to any group of people made up of individuals) or classy I am. Just because I don't sprout off all the good deeds I do or boast about the people I help or do nice things for doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means I don't tell you about. You're making a very mistaken assumption here and it's so far wrong it's funny.
I'm a much better American than you are an Australian
Maybe you are and maybe you aren't. I suppose that'd be another interesting poll. I suppose you'd have to ask what makes a better American and also what makes a better Australian. Maybe the same ideals apply and maybe they don't. Once again, this is a very presumptive statement and is also simply your opinion until you can show me how you've quantified it and proven your theory.
So in summary, I'd say no, this is not a winning post. There is far too much left to speculate about yet. :)
Owning property is a right.
Wait a minute. What do you mean? Are you really suggesting we are born with a natural right to own real estate? or a car? or anything for that matter? owning these things is a privilege, a luxury really. you work for your money and you purchase them if you are able.
You are born with the natural right to own any piece of property that you acquire honestly. You can sell your labor and use the fruits of your labor (money) to buy property. You have a right to own the property that you've acquired either through purchase, gifts, inheritance, etc.
No other person or group of people has any claim to property that is yours. This doesn't change based on their perceived wants or needs.
All human rights come from the right to own property. We own ourselves, therefore we own our labor. When we sell or trade our labor for property, that property is an extension of ourselves. We own our minds, therefore we own our thoughts and can think freely. We own our voice so we can speak freely. The freedom of any society can be measured in how much respect is given to the sanctity of private property ownership.
I would like to reiterate my point.
California sucks ass becaue Radar lives there. That is all. Carry on.
You are born with the natural right to own any piece of property that you acquire honestly.
All human rights come from the right to own property.
Hmm...
I came out from Florida to help a family member with their new home in June '10. I have spent 7 months dealing with Californicatied pricks, pussies and a**holes.
I am disgusted, somewhat in shock, and just plain fed up.
Most of the people I have met are arrogant, think they know it all, are uppity, and just full of shit. But,, everyone is pretty, including the men!
Californians act like they are better than every other state in the U.S.
I've dealt with businesses and individuals and to be honest, I've never seen so much BULL & UN-PROFESSIONAL crap.
Radio Shack, Home Depot, Pizza Hut, you name it and there are dumbasses who work there screwing up orders or wasting patrons time.
Californians pay more attention to how they look and speak rather than doing their damn jobs. No wonder the state is broke. People collect thier paychecks but sure as hell don't work for them.
They use big proper words that apparently fool themselves into thinking that they know what they're talking about. Not!
The weather sucks. It rained twice in 3 months, each time raining for 10 minutes. No wonder your dry ass state burns.
Law enforcement is like a scene from every bad movie you see on TV. Cops busting meth heads or wanna be gang members. Even worse, "profiling" must have been created in CA. It happened to me!
All I can say is this, I honestly thought I might be pleasantly pleased with the "plastic people" of this Dry ass state. I was waaay wrong!
California: Where the women act like men and the men talk and sound like little girls. Look at Jesse James of West Coast Choopers. He sounds like a fucking lil pussy girl! Men here sound just like him!
F.U.C.K. Y.O.U. SOCAL ! Burn or Fall into the Ocean soon, PLEASE!!!
I'm with Radar here, not that he needs my support.
However, I think the ad-hominem attacks tend to misdirect the discussion. Both by his throwing the "cunt" word around, and by the people making jabs at "Americans" based on his comments and bringing past conflict into new discussion, among other things.
If you haven't done so yet, I highly recommend every single person interested in the United States Constitution to go to google video and search for Michael Badnarik Constitution Class.
Even if you don't agree with what he's saying, it's a clear, concise, logical explanation of Libertarian views.
I'm with Radar here, not that he needs my support.
However, I think the ad-hominem attacks tend to misdirect the discussion. Both by his throwing the "cunt" word around, and by the people making jabs at "Americans" based on his comments and bringing past conflict into new discussion, among other things.
If you haven't done so yet, I highly recommend every single person interested in the United States Constitution to go to google video and search for Michael Badnarik Constitution Class.
Even if you don't agree with what he's saying, it's a clear, concise, logical explanation of Libertarian views.
Thread is 2 freaking years old dude.....:rolleyes:
Radar is long gone. Do you drag up shit arguments you have with your family that are 2 years old just to comment on them and take a side? I usually find it counter productive. But hey, there are a lot of people who love to drag up shit from the past to make a point. Just my thoughts....
Actually, Florida bumped the post, and TBH, I read the thread through from the beginning and didn't look at the date. The argument to me seemed very relavent to right now, and had no real commentary that "dated" the posts to alert me that it was older than perhaps a week.
And since you're being a dick, I'll just mention that a few years ago, I really liked your style, and generally agreed with you on things. You weren't so ... mean spirited. So quick to anger, frustration and annoyance. Then I went away and came back, and went away and came back, and I'm now I'm noticing with "fresh" eyes the way things have changed here. It's not just this post, which was, in fact, a fuck up on my part for not looking at the date. You really didn't HAVE to respond like you did, but you chose to come at me that way for no fucking reason. What have I done to you to warrant such a response?
I hadn't noticed Radar was long gone, because again, I've been gone for some time as well, but then again, I didn't bump the thread.
My bad.
So, sorry that I didn't check the dates.
Not trying to be a dick man nor am I trying to be mean spirited. But I get a lot of that around here, someone dragging up some BS that I said in a pointed exchange with another poster and trying to make some point with it. I did not mean for it to sound like I was coming after you for it, other than sharing my thoughts on another example of dragging something up from the past... Peace dude.
Actually, Florida bumped the post, and TBH, I read the thread through from the beginning and didn't look at the date. The argument to me seemed very relavent to right now, and had no real commentary that "dated" the posts to alert me that it was older than perhaps a week.
And since you're being a dick, I'll just mention that a few years ago, I really liked your style, and generally agreed with you on things. You weren't so ... mean spirited. So quick to anger, frustration and annoyance. Then I went away and came back, and went away and came back, and I'm now I'm noticing with "fresh" eyes the way things have changed here. It's not just this post, which was, in fact, a fuck up on my part for not looking at the date. You really didn't HAVE to respond like you did, but you chose to come at me that way for no fucking reason. What have I done to you to warrant such a response?
I hadn't noticed Radar was long gone, because again, I've been gone for some time as well, but then again, I didn't bump the thread.
My bad.
So, sorry that I didn't check the dates.
Put him on ignore - you'll be happier.:)
@Merc: I'm a chick, dude. :)
And I honestly wasn't trying to bring anything up. I thought it was a current discussion. I'm not out to get anyone here, I have no agenda. I'm not the kind of person that likes hurting people. Even people I don't like.
I don't like putting people on ignore, Spexx...but that new Cherri person went straight on the ignore feature with the first post I saw. Merc brings something to a discussion, while that person doesn't. I'm not down with people who post shit like that and whore for a different board. It disrupts my internal "how one should behave in an established community" compass.
I've noticed with Merc that sometimes he's on the ball, and sometimes he isn't. I think some of his posts are in the middle of working a double or triple shift, he's bored, has half an hour to kill, and he comes into the Cellar and spreads a bunch of crappy posts all over the place, and then he leaves. Other times he posts coherently. ymmv
@Merc: I'm a chick, dude. :)
And I honestly wasn't trying to bring anything up. I thought it was a current discussion. I'm not out to get anyone here, I have no agenda. I'm not the kind of person that likes hurting people. Even people I don't like.
I don't like putting people on ignore, Spexx...but that new Cherri person went straight on the ignore feature with the first post I saw. Merc brings something to a discussion, while that person doesn't. I'm not down with people who post shit like that and whore for a different board. It disrupts my internal "how one should behave in an established community" compass.
Sorry about that dude comment....
I've noticed with Merc that sometimes he's on the ball, and sometimes he isn't. I think some of his posts are in the middle of working a double or triple shift, he's bored, has half an hour to kill, and he comes into the Cellar and spreads a bunch of crappy posts all over the place, and then he leaves. Other times he posts coherently. ymmv
Says more about my mood and current state of "what is pissing me off at the moment", but yea, I should avoid posting after those 48 and 57 hour shifts....
But I get a lot of that around here, someone dragging up some BS that I said in a pointed exchange with another poster and trying to make some point with it.
Meanwhile, what has changed since then? Did someone mention naked breasts?
BOOOOBIES!!!!!!!!!!
We now return you to your regular viewing.
Which was probably boobies anyway.
BOOOOBIES!!!!!!!!!!
Only viewers of BBC's "Coupling" would understand.
Only viewers of BBC's "Coupling" would understand.
orly? ys@?
Thats why I live in Colorado!