Frankly, I don't see any bill that is worth it's weight making it out of the House. Granted, I see any bill that will fuck us up going through the House with flying colors.
So, basically, no I don't think that anything will be done with the Deficit, not with this Congress, not with the current make-up of the House, not with two and a half (Pakistan anybody?) wars going on.
On the note about pot legalization, I find it hilarious that tobacco and alcohol are both legal while pot is illegal.
I wish a hardened badass with a backbone would come out of the Green Party and put all these fuckers to shame.
/my wildest dream
Edit: I think that, when it comes down to it, how one consumes pot relates to their maturity and their sense of responsibility. A lack of both, in my eyes, creates a deadbeat.
I'm all for legalizing and I am very much aware of the prejudice that people have towards marijuana. I know a friend of mine who won't even touch it, hates it, and has never tried. I would never, ever try to make her use it because I don't believe in forcing anything on anybody.
And, yes, deadbeats are a nuisance. I hate the guys who are just all about weed. It's annoying and it's draining on the mind, it's just ugly, childish behavior. I haven't smoked it in a year (since two days ago), but I still feel like it's something that I'd like to do. Even before I "stopped," I only smoked it like 4 times. I have been offered many times and I have turned down many offers because I know that I had obligations to attend to.
I think, in that sense, if you want to have legal marijuana, you have to put a lot of faith in the idea that people won't be idiots with it. People are idiots with alcohol too, so I guess they're one in the same in that aspect that they are easily abused by people who don't fucking know better.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
That will never happen. The American people either A) Understand that with the FPTP voting system, voting for the Green Party would essentially be a vote for the Republicans, or don't give a shit. And without getting into office in the first place, it doesn't matter how much of a badass with a backbone you are, you cannot do much of anything.
Well, I hope this country cuts off the deadliest of both tumors before it's too late.
I can't trust Democrats the way I used to. I take everything that Obama says now with a grain of salt. I take everything a Republican says with a pound of arsenic though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Frankly, I don't see any bill that is worth it's weight making it out of the House. Granted, I see any bill that will fuck us up going through the House with flying colors.
So, basically, no I don't think that anything will be done with the Deficit, not with this Congress, not with the current make-up of the House, not with two and a half (Pakistan anybody?) wars going on.
I wish a hardened badass with a backbone would come out of the Green Party and put all these fuckers to shame.
/my wildest dream
Where have you been? Ralph Nader always put fuckers to shame. He told it like it was and he spoke very plainly on the truth and that's why everyone else in politics hated him and portrayed him in the media as a liberal whacko.
I think, in that sense, if you want to have legal marijuana, you have to put a lot of faith in the idea that people won't be idiots with it. People are idiots with alcohol too, so I guess they're one in the same in that aspect that they are easily abused by people who don't fucking know better.
This is a bit of an idealistic approach to policy. The best way to examine whether it should be legal is from a cost/benefit analysis of whether the positive effects will outweigh the detriments. As things stand, making alcohol illegal would cost the government way more than its highly regulated legal form now. But there are also lobbyists who work hard to keep pot illegal because there are things to be gained politically by it remaining that way and that is sad to me.
When I was in Czech Republic a few months ago, people could sell pot on the streets and you could smoke it in the park. It was considered rude to do so, but for the most part, I think people were quite mature about it. They're weren't all getting high and going crazy all over the city or anything like that. Americans are more hypocritical about drugs though, more neurotic.
Where have you been? Ralph Nader always put fuckers to shame. He told it like it was and he spoke very plainly on the truth and that's why everyone else in politics hated him and portrayed him in the media as a liberal whacko.
Aye, forgot about Nader.
I wish more people voted for Nader. He did great things in the 60s that people today take for granted (safety regulations for automobiles), many people should take this into account and realize that there are people who truly care about the wellbeing of Americans.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Where have you been? Ralph Nader always put fuckers to shame. He told it like it was and he spoke very plainly on the truth and that's why everyone else in politics hated him and portrayed him in the media as a liberal whacko.
Aye, forgot about Nader.
I wish more people voted for Nader. He did great things in the 60s that people today take for granted (safety regulations for automobiles), many people should take this into account and realize that there are people who truly care about the wellbeing of Americans.
The only thing I agree with Ron Paul on is ending the War on Drugs.
I'm all for social libertarianism, but a lot of his economic policies just don't click with me and nobody in the house or senate will risk ending the war on drugs at the risk of their political career.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
I mean, the war on drugs should of been ended a long time ago, and the war of on terror should of been ended after Bush left office, it's common sense. I'm personally not voting for somebody who will cause me to wake up in the middle of the night for the next four years in a cold sweat checking to see if America is gone, or if we are in World War 3, or some other crazy shit, just so we can get out of the middle east and stop harassing civilians for smoking pot.
I'm personally not voting for somebody who will cause me to wake up in the middle of the night for the next four years in a cold sweat checking to see if America is gone, or if we are in World War 3, or some other crazy shit, just so we can get out of the middle east and stop harassing civilians for smoking pot.
Considering how rabid both parties are, I don't know there is any such candidate who DOESN'T fit those criteria. Bad qualities in a short list:
1. Libertarians:
-No safty net of any kind
-No regulation to keep corporations from becoming the plutocratic dictators we already accuse them of being
-No foreign policy outside of non-intervention
-LOLGOLDSTANDARD
-Many, many, lunatics support this party.
-Did I mention the lolgoldstandard?
2. Democrats:
-Can't tell granny that medicare and social security are going to make the young broke, but don't have the balls to nationalize healthcare.
-Clearly bent on forging ahead with green energy even though North American fossil fuel reserves are an easy ticket out of the poor house.
-Can't seem to end wars that republicans start.
-Won't tell Sharpton and Pelosi to shut up.
-Obvious Corruption
-DRONES
3. Republicans:
-Haven't had an original idea since Regan was in office and still have a fetish for his drug war
-Want to hand over healthcare to private companies (retail price for a kidney, inc)
-Actively seek to denegrate the rights of Gays, Women, non-christians, and people of lower socio-economic status.
-Are not willing to compromise on taxes and have insane tax reform ideas (see: 999).
-Fillibuster everything just because they can.
-Obvious Corruption
-WAR
Lesser of evils? I'm having a hard time seeing one. You know shits hitting the fan when the gay liberal progressive can't decide who is worse.
-No safty net of any kind
-No regulation to keep corporations from becoming the plutocratic dictators we already accuse them of being
-No foreign policy outside of non-intervention
-LOLGOLDSTANDARD
-Many, many, lunatics support this party.
-Did I mention the lolgoldstandard?
I don't agree with everything the libertarians stand for, for example we all know corporations left to their own devices will do what's best for their bottom line and piss on anything that cuts into it just to be more competitive. Anyone who has been in the workforce will eventually see this first hand when they are encouraged to skirt certain restrictions or simply look the other way. I would also argue private property which should be public leads to extortion, the Golden Gate bridge is perfect example of modern day troll bridges where the owning company charges criminal rates just to cross vs. the far less expensive public Oakland Bay bridge.
However, I would point out our country operated for nearly 200 years quite successfully in a system that more closely resembles the libertarian ideals then what the democrats or republicans have morphed into the abominations they are today. We had no safety net, few regulations, and no foreign policy outside non-intervention. OK granted the world is more complex, we're no longer running out into the woods and shooting dinner, and retirement savings plan is probably a good thing.
I would however argue that the government and Wall Street should not be able to touch our retirement, but at present they can and do. Most peoples 401/K's are wrapped on mutual funds chasing public companies on the stock market, that's f***ing insane. Social Security is and has been getting robbed for years by the government, by law they take our money and buy into the largest bubble in history, the US T-Bill bond market, and worse yet they take the surplus income and use it to pay for other government expenses. For those who doubt this read point 17 our GAO's own documentation:
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM Answers to Key Questions - May 2005
On Page 17 http://www.gao.gov/n...ms/d05193sp.pdf
I submit your point on the gold standard is not entirely accurate; for nearly 200 years, spare times of war when the government borrowed to pay for the wartime efforts, the US didn't operate on a gold standard. Gold and silver was money, all currency back then were simply claim checks to redeem for physical gold or silver. Over time the fractional gold standard (which I agree sucks) slowly replaced gold and silver as money. People really misunderstand what function gold and silver actually perform in money, all this Keynesian education is to blame. Money is just an idea and it's not the metal that makes the difference, it's what the metal does that makes the difference.
It sets a hard monetary base
It restrains the Treasuries printing presses from printing too much currency.
It controls interest rates
It very simply controls trade imbalances between countries
It is difficult to extract from the ground making it rare, it is also not easy to forge
It is non corrosive fungible, divisible, and easy to store
It is a store of wealth
It keeps the corrupt paper manipulators in check better (not perfect but better)
Just so everyone understands my position here, I'm not a gold bug, if chocolate bunnies could do that, I'd be all for chocolate bunnies. I'm for any solution that accomplishes the above, I just don't know of any other solution right now that does.
The Euro is falling apart now and all the kings horses and all the kings men are hopelessly and desperately trying use paper currency trickery to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. This economic entire crisis is a result of the corrupt playing paper manipulation games in an unfettered paper currency environment. If gold were still in our money this crisis could not have ever gotten this far out of whack. For those who argue we can't bring it back, not true, all the Treasury has to do is revalue it to cover every dollar ever printed, it still sits on the FED's books at $35 dollars and ounce despite the street price of around $1800 an ounce. Gold has in fact been revalued through the markets to cover every dollar ever printed twice in the US alone in just the last 100 years. I think we'll see history repeat.
I didn't read through every single post, but ill add in here that Norway already has a system with regulation of how much you earn. Everything from 10% taxes to 50-60% depending on your salary, and you know what? Norway is actually said to be the happiest place to live
People here gain money for free if your sick, and healthcare is free. Basically as long as you work, you earn the right to live a healthy life.
People here complain about the taxes, but in the end. I would totally agree that the rich should pay a much higher amount of taxes. Whats the point in having millions of dollars alone, really?
I'm SO glad Rick Santorum is concerned about my genitals and what I do with them in the privacy of my home. I mean if laws aren't made to stop me, who knows what I'll do!
Rick Santorum declares war on pornography: I will ban hardcore porn if I’m elected President
"America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography," the former Pennsylvania senator writes. "It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."
He demands a crackdown on the distribution of hardcore pornography on the Internet, in addition to material on cable/satellite TV, hotel/motel TV, retail shops and through the mail.
Rick Santorum is possibly one of the biggest idiots I've ever heard of. Right up there with Mitt Romney
Was it Rick Santorum that said "rape victims shouldn't be allowed abortions, they need to make the best of a bad situation - life is life"
Also. throwing away all those tax dollars to some other country that allows porn
Can't believe you guys over there the U.S like... vote for these guys and stuff.
On a side note. Why is it that U.S candidates and runners always ''declare war'' on shit. I thought by now they'd have learnt to stay away from that style of rhetoric.
It's weird because there are things that will most likely never go away; terrorism, unfortunately, will never go away. Poverty, unfortunately, will never go away. Drug use, unfortunately, will never go away.
These efforts are seemingly futile. We're only putting bandages on weathered scars.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
On a side note. Why is it that U.S candidates and runners always ''declare war'' on shit. I thought by now they'd have learnt to stay away from that style of rhetoric.
I wish I could explain that. But every president since like the 60's has declared war on something. Whether it be drugs, poverty, terror, etc.
And yeah Santorum has said some pretty ridiculous stuff. Part of it is because I think he really does believe some of it. The other part though is just him trying to distinguish himself from Romney.
Terrorism is only terrorism if you keep using the word terrorism though... If you stop saying terrorism every damn 5 minutes, people don't feel terrorized =P
Well I think it's hardly just a word at all. It's not a buzzword especially. It's a real thing that really affects people. Sure, a part of it is a state of mind in which you are afraid, but there are real things that actually do happen which cause that fear. And the level of that threat fluctuates even, but we shouldn't pretend terrorism is simply in our minds. Nor should we overestimate the threat of terrorism either.
So, basically, no I don't think that anything will be done with the Deficit, not with this Congress, not with the current make-up of the House, not with two and a half (Pakistan anybody?) wars going on.
On the note about pot legalization, I find it hilarious that tobacco and alcohol are both legal while pot is illegal.
/my wildest dream
Edit: I think that, when it comes down to it, how one consumes pot relates to their maturity and their sense of responsibility. A lack of both, in my eyes, creates a deadbeat.
I'm all for legalizing and I am very much aware of the prejudice that people have towards marijuana. I know a friend of mine who won't even touch it, hates it, and has never tried. I would never, ever try to make her use it because I don't believe in forcing anything on anybody.
And, yes, deadbeats are a nuisance. I hate the guys who are just all about weed. It's annoying and it's draining on the mind, it's just ugly, childish behavior. I haven't smoked it in a year (since two days ago), but I still feel like it's something that I'd like to do. Even before I "stopped," I only smoked it like 4 times. I have been offered many times and I have turned down many offers because I know that I had obligations to attend to.
I think, in that sense, if you want to have legal marijuana, you have to put a lot of faith in the idea that people won't be idiots with it. People are idiots with alcohol too, so I guess they're one in the same in that aspect that they are easily abused by people who don't fucking know better.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
I can't trust Democrats the way I used to. I take everything that Obama says now with a grain of salt. I take everything a Republican says with a pound of arsenic though.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Where have you been? Ralph Nader always put fuckers to shame. He told it like it was and he spoke very plainly on the truth and that's why everyone else in politics hated him and portrayed him in the media as a liberal whacko.
This is a bit of an idealistic approach to policy. The best way to examine whether it should be legal is from a cost/benefit analysis of whether the positive effects will outweigh the detriments. As things stand, making alcohol illegal would cost the government way more than its highly regulated legal form now. But there are also lobbyists who work hard to keep pot illegal because there are things to be gained politically by it remaining that way and that is sad to me.
When I was in Czech Republic a few months ago, people could sell pot on the streets and you could smoke it in the park. It was considered rude to do so, but for the most part, I think people were quite mature about it. They're weren't all getting high and going crazy all over the city or anything like that. Americans are more hypocritical about drugs though, more neurotic.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Aye, forgot about Nader.
I wish more people voted for Nader. He did great things in the 60s that people today take for granted (safety regulations for automobiles), many people should take this into account and realize that there are people who truly care about the wellbeing of Americans.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
I doubt he'll run again though. Which is fine.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
If the Green Party got a new face, that could possibly make the public a little more... public?
And I wouldn't be surprised if Nader didn't run. Guy's older than McCain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHhgllqSKro&NR=1
Edit: Here's a good read.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
I'm all for social libertarianism, but a lot of his economic policies just don't click with me and nobody in the house or senate will risk ending the war on drugs at the risk of their political career.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
But many of Ron Paul's ideas are scary as shit.
I mean, the war on drugs should of been ended a long time ago, and the war
ofon terror should of been ended after Bush left office, it's common sense. I'm personally not voting for somebody who will cause me to wake up in the middle of the night for the next four years in a cold sweat checking to see if America is gone, or if we are in World War 3, or some other crazy shit, just so we can get out of the middle east and stop harassing civilians for smoking pot.Considering how rabid both parties are, I don't know there is any such candidate who DOESN'T fit those criteria. Bad qualities in a short list:
1. Libertarians:
-No safty net of any kind
-No regulation to keep corporations from becoming the plutocratic dictators we already accuse them of being
-No foreign policy outside of non-intervention
-LOLGOLDSTANDARD
-Many, many, lunatics support this party.
-Did I mention the lolgoldstandard?
2. Democrats:
-Can't tell granny that medicare and social security are going to make the young broke, but don't have the balls to nationalize healthcare.
-Clearly bent on forging ahead with green energy even though North American fossil fuel reserves are an easy ticket out of the poor house.
-Can't seem to end wars that republicans start.
-Won't tell Sharpton and Pelosi to shut up.
-Obvious Corruption
-DRONES
3. Republicans:
-Haven't had an original idea since Regan was in office and still have a fetish for his drug war
-Want to hand over healthcare to private companies (retail price for a kidney, inc)
-Actively seek to denegrate the rights of Gays, Women, non-christians, and people of lower socio-economic status.
-Are not willing to compromise on taxes and have insane tax reform ideas (see: 999).
-Fillibuster everything just because they can.
-Obvious Corruption
-WAR
Lesser of evils? I'm having a hard time seeing one. You know shits hitting the fan when the gay liberal progressive can't decide who is worse.
I don't agree with everything the libertarians stand for, for example we all know corporations left to their own devices will do what's best for their bottom line and piss on anything that cuts into it just to be more competitive. Anyone who has been in the workforce will eventually see this first hand when they are encouraged to skirt certain restrictions or simply look the other way. I would also argue private property which should be public leads to extortion, the Golden Gate bridge is perfect example of modern day troll bridges where the owning company charges criminal rates just to cross vs. the far less expensive public Oakland Bay bridge.
However, I would point out our country operated for nearly 200 years quite successfully in a system that more closely resembles the libertarian ideals then what the democrats or republicans have morphed into the abominations they are today. We had no safety net, few regulations, and no foreign policy outside non-intervention. OK granted the world is more complex, we're no longer running out into the woods and shooting dinner, and retirement savings plan is probably a good thing.
I would however argue that the government and Wall Street should not be able to touch our retirement, but at present they can and do. Most peoples 401/K's are wrapped on mutual funds chasing public companies on the stock market, that's f***ing insane. Social Security is and has been getting robbed for years by the government, by law they take our money and buy into the largest bubble in history, the US T-Bill bond market, and worse yet they take the surplus income and use it to pay for other government expenses. For those who doubt this read point 17 our GAO's own documentation:
I submit your point on the gold standard is not entirely accurate; for nearly 200 years, spare times of war when the government borrowed to pay for the wartime efforts, the US didn't operate on a gold standard. Gold and silver was money, all currency back then were simply claim checks to redeem for physical gold or silver. Over time the fractional gold standard (which I agree sucks) slowly replaced gold and silver as money. People really misunderstand what function gold and silver actually perform in money, all this Keynesian education is to blame. Money is just an idea and it's not the metal that makes the difference, it's what the metal does that makes the difference.
The Euro is falling apart now and all the kings horses and all the kings men are hopelessly and desperately trying use paper currency trickery to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. This economic entire crisis is a result of the corrupt playing paper manipulation games in an unfettered paper currency environment. If gold were still in our money this crisis could not have ever gotten this far out of whack. For those who argue we can't bring it back, not true, all the Treasury has to do is revalue it to cover every dollar ever printed, it still sits on the FED's books at $35 dollars and ounce despite the street price of around $1800 an ounce. Gold has in fact been revalued through the markets to cover every dollar ever printed twice in the US alone in just the last 100 years. I think we'll see history repeat.
People here gain money for free if your sick, and healthcare is free. Basically as long as you work, you earn the right to live a healthy life.
People here complain about the taxes, but in the end. I would totally agree that the rich should pay a much higher amount of taxes. Whats the point in having millions of dollars alone, really?
Was it Rick Santorum that said "rape victims shouldn't be allowed abortions, they need to make the best of a bad situation - life is life"
Also. throwing away all those tax dollars to some other country that allows porn
Can't believe you guys over there the U.S like... vote for these guys and stuff.
On a side note. Why is it that U.S candidates and runners always ''declare war'' on shit. I thought by now they'd have learnt to stay away from that style of rhetoric.
These efforts are seemingly futile. We're only putting bandages on weathered scars.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
And yeah Santorum has said some pretty ridiculous stuff. Part of it is because I think he really does believe some of it. The other part though is just him trying to distinguish himself from Romney.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Siaynoq's Playthroughs