2
Trafik Jamz;326421 wrote:
Part of the problem (I think) is that spending bills are not passed with built in triggers that say "If deficit > X, then reduction in spending = Y%"
A super committee was given a chance to find meaningful savings before cuts such as these take place in 2013.... It has been said over and over that very few of these will come to pass as congress will act before they take place. Built in triggers will only ruin people's chances of re-election.
DaveH;326419 wrote:
I didn't defend Santorums statement, I pointed out that Chuck only posted part of it.As Patrick Swayze said, "opinions vary"
You did point out that he only posted part of it but you proceeded to give us your biased analysis as to what it meant based on your "research." Again, fail to see the difference between quoting something incorrectly and trying to explain to everyone what a falsely quoted statement is supposed to mean - they both promote a lie.
Patrick Swayze also fucked a ghost and made g-rated sex to a "baby" on a dance floor. I fail to see how he could further your point of what should be considered socially acceptable. 
thrash;326413 wrote:
Basically, it comes down to this. if we don't elect Paul, we are fucked deep in every hole,
Ive learned how to quote correctly in this thread, and approve this message.
DaveH;326408 wrote:
I could really care less about the actual disagreement between Santorum and Obama. They are all politicians and they all twist what the other persons says to try to make their own points. My beef is with people posting part of someones quote, or taking it out of context, and trying to pass the quote off as the truth.
You posted a quote from Santorum in which he uses a partial Obama quote out of context and passed it off as the truth. You defended it by saying:
DaveH;326395 wrote:
Basically, he was sticking up for blue collar workers.Check out the so called "quotes" above a little deeper and see what he really said and not what some left wing douche says that he said.
He wasn't sticking up for blue collar workers, though. He was taking something Obama said out of context and edited it to make him sound like a snob. You didn't realize this because you found what you wanted to find and deemed it the truth. That is basically what you are encouraging all of us not to do. Chalk it up to me being hyper critical of your criticism, I suppose.
As far as Santorum actually wanting to make sodomy illegal...
SANTORUM: [I]f you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.
AP: Well, what would you do?
SANTORUM: What would I do with what?
AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe —
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Feel free to draw your own conclusions....
The fact that he associates consensual gay sex with polygamy, adultery, incest, and bigamy puts the nail in the coffin for me. Nine states (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia) still ban heterosexual sodomy. Fun Fact: While most people understand the term “sodomy” to mean anal intercourse, most sodomy laws also include cunnilingus and fellatio in the description of prohibited acts. Yes oral sex, even within the sanctity of marriage, is a crime in Alabama. Go figure.
DaveH;326395 wrote:
Again, you guys are taking crap off the loonie left wing sites that try to make him look bad by taking small parts out of context. If you actually see the whole thing in context it usually makes a bit more sense. Like the "snob" comment. Here is the whole thing:"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor that (tries) to indoctrinate them."
Basically, he was sticking up for blue collar workers.
Check out the so called "quotes" above a little deeper and see what he really said and not what some left wing douche says that he said.
The president’s actual call, made in his first address to Congress in February 2009, was: “tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma.”
Phew, thank goodness Rick came to the rescue. I am proud he had the gall to stand up for those disparaging remarks made by our current president.
Do some research dave instead of just listening to what some right wing douche has to say : D
thrash;322885 wrote:
Well, as much as I don't like it, war is a job of the federal government. Education isn't supposed to be. There was no DOE before Carter, and I don't think education has gotten better since then.It's not that I think education is unimportant. I do however, think federal invovlement is not only illegal but has made it worse for everyone.
I am against corporate handouts and graft and am entertaining the idea of eliminating corporate personhood and owner-immunity as a concession to the idea that corporations get special favor from the government that they wouldn't otherwise get. And I think that would alleviate much of the specter of unearned wealth in our society. But I'm not willing to say that the "separation of wealth" is a bad thing if you are talking about the "distribution of wealth". Some people simply contribute much, much more to society than others. THey should be rewarded accordingly.
As long as society is making wealth decisions using a voluntary process (i.e. buying what they want to buy, from who they want to buy from), the resultant distribution is inherently moral and ethical.
I am probably angrier about government giving unearned wealth to companies than I am about government giving unearned wealth to lazy people, but both should stop. Ron Paul is against both, of course.
No I dont mean the govt should send checks out to somehow regulate the level of disparity in this country. My gripe isnt with people making sane leves of money. My gripe is with the assholes making two hundred million dollars a year who invented something else to bet on/against.
Education cant be left to the private sector either. The Devry Institute, Pheonix, ect ect are proving just how much worse the education system could be. I dont think the states can handle it either or alabama will end up with two water fountains again.
DrifterExtreme;322893 wrote:
10 bucks says you have no idea what i know so assuming I'm so far removed from current events makes you look like a dumb ass. but continue.
You know me better than to call me racist. That is just absurd. The fact that I have zero faith in your ability to comprehend anything more than mt dew and honda tech, however, still stands. As I have said before just leave me alone and we can both live happily ever after.
thrash;322871 wrote:
You gotta start somewhere. If people are willing to cut spending of anything, that's a start. Instead, they "compromise" by increasing spending tit for tat.Shithead #1: "My district wants to give another no-bid contract to make government pencils for $200 each to MegaSuperCorp".
Shithead #2: "My district wants to provide more books about having 2 dads to all school children"
All 500+ Shitheads: "DEAL!"
the difference between spending money on govt contracts for war/pencils/wheelchair ramps to the beach/ect and attempting to broaden the horizons for children are sort of apples and oranges in my opinion. if playing the recorder for ten minutes in 3rd grade means one more kid wont be a world of warcraft enthusiast, i say victory.
i agree in that in order to make that happen, you have to buy votes by subsidizing the mining of coal. part of me wants to call that a necessary evil, but honestly, how do you proclaim that a priority list if one has to compliment the other? you cant. which is why i still say that war, debt, and gas prices shouldnt be the only things on the mind of the people. why? because to solve these we will either give up more liberties, cut programs which are paramount to the survival/success of many, or further enhance the separation of wealth in this country.
DrifterExtreme;322864 wrote:
Racist much??? :icon_salut:
ten bucks says you had to google who i was even talking about so stfu
thrash;322859 wrote:
Show me where in the constitution it says "take money from people and fund artists" ?
i guess heroin is legal and the govt doesnt subsidize energy,farmers, or student loans. good luck convincing even the staunchest of conservatives to revert to 1787.
id vote for magento, btw, before the guy that ran godfathers pizza
Kossick;322855 wrote:
I'm not one for politics but Mitch has my write in vote
you just made a lot of enemies
Rexwagon;322851 wrote:
here we go
moderation bro. the problem with america is the lack of attention span. look how fast obama's approval rating went from "socialist d-bag" to like 60%.
wht you think is important is different than the guy next to you. the worst part is that neither of you will feel it is important next week because there will be a new disaster unfolding.
we have been focusing on more important things for the last twenty years. look at the education, social security,and healtcare system. nobody deals with it because there are more important things going on. deciding that nobody needs to learn how to be creative and use their imagination, spend an hour in gym class, or speak a foreign language is just another thing that is going to come back and bite america in the ass. nevermind the future intellectual climate of this country, though, because gas is getting pricey.
btleier;322848 wrote:
good to see our priorities in order. with all the problems the country has this should definitely be at the top of the list.
an army of obese, uneducated, jersey shore worshipping turds would be your version of a fruitful america - as long as it was debt free? im scared.
DaveH;322740 wrote:
Wow, it seems like Jim is turning into a gun toting right-wing whacko.
thrash;322789 wrote:
Exactly what I thought... A tear welled up inside when I started reading this thread...
the lord works in mysterious ways.
Rexwagon;322684 wrote:
anyone else see LSS is building a brand new building by rasmussen college off of 42nd? Apparently they are getting plenty of funding. whoever decides that must be on crack. All I got to say is fucken jesus freaks.
fixt.
DrifterExtreme;322429 wrote:
Mitch stick to the weed smoking, your looking like an ignorant anti-war liberal. Regardless if you think the war was for no good reason don't sit here and armchair quarterback the situation like you knew better when everything went down. I'm sick of these "anti-war" types going crazy with there bs. Yeah your right Mitch we should have sat back and looked like a bunch of fucking pussies while thousands of our people were killed. No your right.:icon_scratch:
I was and still am against invading another country. I dont think anyone would dispute that. If that makes me an anti-war liberal ill own it.
I didnt know it would take a decade to kill bin laden but it doesnt make me any less right.
Plenty can be done without firing up the old war machine to put on a big show of force. Making it harder to hijack planes, plant bombs, and enter the country illegally have all done more to prevent terrorist attacks thn a full out ground invasion.
Take a step back and decide whether telling me to "stick to the weed smoking" is a road we should stroll down here. I realize at this point that there isnt much I could say about you that would surprise anyone but even I feel like some things are better left alone.
Thanks for refueling my lack of respect for you. I think I could make it another three years without acknowledging you now. Let us begin?
zbrown;322415 wrote:
I don't get the big deal about him being dead, what will or has changed from his death?Nothing
waaaaiiit a minute isnt he the reason mr bush led america to war? to bring him to justice? hold the one accountable for the slaughter of innocent americans? are you saying this entire endeavor was just a fools errand??????
bubba;322397 wrote:
Now obama is gonna try and take all the credit for it, so ppl like him again and try to weasel his way into office for another term... Pretty sure his involvement of the whole thing was like, "mr. president we found him and killed him", "cool"...
i seem to remember a huge argument on here about how bush stopped terrorist plots/attacks after 9-11. shouldnt you have said then that the skilled and noble tsa agents stopped terrorist plots/attacks? if bush kept america safe from terror after 9-11, obama killed bin laden. suck on that.
Gypsy gangsta;322176 wrote:
Yeah Just cause I dropped out doesnt mean Im stupid, and By that I ment Not hating all white people just for a couple white guys do something I dumb
no, this next quote makes you are stupid.
Gypsy gangsta;322166 wrote:
Yeah And look this is ur guys place and were doing better than you
stupid and ignorant.
Employers fuck bitches get money
Doggystyle · Fargo, North Dakota
DAMN!
Lives in Fargo, North Dakota
Studied BIG BUTTS at PIMPIN UNIVERSITY
Grad School PIMPIN UNIVERSITY
Highest · BIG BUTTS · pussy · Boobies
aaah to be young again.
