They don't care about anything except growing the federal government. Other than bullshit rhetoric, what exactly would make you think they are the party of the working man?
Printable View
They don't care about anything except growing the federal government. Other than bullshit rhetoric, what exactly would make you think they are the party of the working man?
None of these niggas speak my voice.
99% of Twitter is public. They don't really need Twitter's permission to scrub that data.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
Which is ironic, considering it was a Republican who increased the size of the government more than any other president since Lyndon Johnson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The Democrats are the party of the working man like Republicans are the party of small government and fiscal responsibility.
You're splitting hairs. Both parties made landmark expansions of gov't power one right after the other. Repubs with Homeland Security and Dems with healthcare reform.
I have never said anything to the contrary, which is why I am 100% against Washington doing anything more than the bare minimum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
"bare minimum" is up for debate.
Not really. The DHS largely centralized a bunch of already-existing government operations into one crony-infested and ineffective bureaucracy. The federal government before the ACA contributed about 30% of health care spending in this country. Any increase in that number will come more from the Medicaid expansion, but of course Medicaid has been around a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
http://rt.com/usa/obama-president-or...nications-770/Quote:
US President Barack Obama quietly signed his name to an Executive Order on Friday, allowing the White House to control all private communications in the country in the name of national security.
President Obama released his latest Executive Order on Friday, July 6, a 2,205-word statement offered as the “Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions.” And although the president chose not to commemorate the signing with much fanfare, the powers he provides to himself and the federal government under the latest order are among the most far-reaching yet of any of his executive decisions.
“The Federal Government must have the ability to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions,” the president begins the order. “Survivable, resilient, enduring and effective communications, both domestic and international, are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate within itself and with: the legislative and judicial branches; State, local, territorial and tribal governments; private sector entities; and the public, allies and other nations.”
President Obama adds that it is necessary for the government to be able to reach anyone in the country during situations it considers critical, writing, “Such communications must be possible under all circumstances to ensure national security, effectively manage emergencies and improve national resilience.” Later the president explains that such could be done by establishing a “joint industry-Government center that is capable of assisting in the initiation, coordination, restoration and reconstitution of NS/EP [national security and emergency preparedness] communications services or facilities under all conditions of emerging threats, crisis or emergency.”
“The views of all levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the public must inform the development of NS/EP communications policies, programs and capabilities,” he adds.
On the government’s official website for the National Communications Systems, the government explains that that “infrastructure includes wireline, wireless, satellite, cable, and broadcasting, and provides the transport networks that support the Internet and other key information systems,” suggesting that the president has indeed effectively just allowed himself to control the country’s Internet access.
In order to allow the White House to reach anyone within the US, the president has put forth a plan to establish a high-level committee calling from agents with the Department of Homeland Security, Pentagon, Federal Communications Commission and other government divisions to ensure that his new executive order can be implemented.
In explaining the order, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) writes that the president has authorized the DHS "the authority to seize private facilities when necessary, effectively shutting down or limiting civilian communications."
In Section 5 of his order, President Obama outlines the specific department and agency responsibilities that will see through his demands. In a few paragraphs, President Obama explains that Executive Committee that will oversee his order must be supplied with “the technical support necessary to develop and maintain plans adequate to provide for the security and protection of NS/EP communications,” and that that same body will be in tasked with dispatching that communiqué “to the Federal Government and State, local, territorial and trial governments,” by means of “commercial, Government and privately owned communications resources.”
Later, the president announces that the Department of Homeland Security will be tasked with drafting a plan during the next 60 days to explain how the DHS will command the government’s Emergency Telecommunications Service, as well as other telecom conduits. In order to be able to spread the White House’s message across the country, President Obama also asks for the purchasing of equipment and services that will enable such.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...RJrreM.twitter
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1373162505
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1373162505
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1373162505
Land of the free.
Wait. This is from a year ago.
I cannot fathom how many rights are being trampled on when being killed by a terrorist plot is one of the least likely ways for Americans to die.
How the fuck do you roll back this ridiculous reach police and gov't have given themselves?
We can't.
With the second amendment sometime in the future. It's not there to protect our right to shoot squirrels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Good luck with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Since Newtown, 41 kids have been killed in 'accidental' shootings. Nothing can be done about this, it's a force of nature, like hurricanes.
There is lots than can be done, all involving holding the owners accountable for securing their firearms.
What is laughable is that you would have no problem if all 41 of them were aborted by their selfish, irresponsible parent(s).
oh you
Ah, you are of that persuasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Should you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
lol fetuses.
Consistent? Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
(Nearly) anyone can own a gun and have sex. Everyone should be held 100% accountable for choosing to do either.
So you would prosecute the parents for criminal negligence? Manslaughter? Murder?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I would.
I wouldn't have the slightest problem with that.Quote:
What is laughable is that you would have no problem if all 41 of them were aborted by their selfish, irresponsible parent(s).
neither have kept me awake at night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The 9000 something nonwhites that shoot each other each year bothers me a little. Also the fact that I lose privacy rights everyday, but I don't really gain anything for it. Like, you know, stopping those 9000 nonwhites from shooting each other.
if this happened, I wouldn't lose sleep either. At least it would make some margin of sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeve
I have no problem with abortion as I think it is necessary, especially with the way fucktards are shitting babies out these days.
But let's call a spade a spade. If a chick has an abortion, she is killing a baby. It sucks, but it's what it is.
When I was a kid I used to drive tractors around my grandfather's farm. One day I was fairly wreckless and broke branches full of blossoms off of the apple trees as I raced through the orchards. He spanked the tar out of me. Those weren't just dumb flowers to him. Those were future apples and I cost him money.
I didn't read the details, but I'm absolutely open to the possibility, depending what they did or didn't do. If my daughter is at a friend's house and gets killed because the parents were negligent, they better hope they get locked up.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeve
edit: Warning: I feel the need to pontificate further on this. The reason I think parents should be able to be prosecuted in a case like this is very much the same reason I'm against abortion. Children are not property. Breaking your possessions, whether intentional or by accident is fine. Hurting your children isn't.
This same logic applies to abortion for me. Bodies don't have two heads, two hearts, etc., so the baby being part of the mother's body is unmitigated bullshit pretty early on. By complete coincidence, I align with the religious there. However, I also think this logic should apply to negligence in the form of not getting kids medical attention and relying on faith healing. You're welcome to practice any bat shit religion you want, but that freedom does not extend to your children. They can make their own choice in that area. In the meantime, it's a parent or guardian's job to protect them in the most effective way possible.
What's the infraction and what's 'accountable' mean to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Accountable means you take full responsibility for your actions. Abortion is a selfish, irresponsible act and the antithesis of this. In both cases, a person's responsibility, once they choose the action, is to ensure the well being of everyone else. What they do to themselves is their business. This applies to both the man and the woman in the case of sex.
But the fetus does use the mother's kidneys, which is why dialysis patients almost exclusively have miscarriages and premature births.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Dinosaur, gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It still doesn't really bother me. But I don't believe all killing is wrong. I realize that it isn't my job to be the judge. But if someone has to go, maybe unwanted babies that won't receive enough love or proper upbringing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
This just sounds like splitting hairs to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
IMO, aborting the kid is their way to taking responsibility and ensuring the well being of everyone else. The selfish thing would be to have the kid and unleash it upon the world after years of neglect and bad raising.
Shit like this is why I hate that our perspective on law is almost completely puritan. We've all got it in our heads that allowing something under the law, and regulating it is the same thing as giving it approval. It doesn't have to work that way. We can regulate things AND still find them socially unacceptable.
I have an idea, let's tax it!
Most of our sin taxes are aimed at the poor anyway, let's take it all the way!
Aww, Yoshi loves babies.
You should check out his youtube channel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2ZnivQLw1c
Well at least until after they're born. As long as 'some whore' gets to feel the pain of childbirth, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
Let's not start this shit again.
I'm wondering when he's gonna go off the rails and suggest we incarcerate any poor or premarital (but really we mean poor) person for having sex cuz they MIGHT have a baby that they MIGHT abort or ask for welfare for.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
Basically, he's a hilarious walking GOP contradiction where the poor are really fucked either way unless they can Randian superman (but really Randian Wonder Woman since we cannot force men to be fathers) their way outta trouble.
Bringing a kid in to a fucked up situation is far more irresponsible. Also, put your adoption cock away. Cute white kids get adopted, that's pretty much it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
If you're a celeb, the Asians and blacks are the way to go.
Common folk like us? Yeah, cute white kids.
Oh, I bet Yoshi would adopt plenty of black kids. Then he'd have a good reason to...<offensive racist joke here>Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Fucking tapatalk.
I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
I bet Adam was adorable as a baby.
I don't consider a fetus at most levels where abortions are legal babies. And much as I did like the story (I actually did!), potential to become something does not make it already that. Lines must be drawn ect. as to where the "child" begins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
Having a job that has me look at the internal workings of the larger banks is certainly pushing me towards the view that the banks as they are, are not a necessary evil, but just plain evil.
And for Yoshi: Thank motherfucking god there is some sort of government oversight on this.
Yes, there's nothing I like better than paying for the privilege of having roosters in the hen house. Imagine how crooked those banks would be without their kickbacks to Joe Biden!
Some people dont consider alcolhol or pot to be drugs. They are. But like I said, people can rationalize shit however they want. It doesn't really bother me
And coffee and chocolate right? Processed sugar too while we are at it really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
HOLY SHIT HUMAN BEINGS ARE JUST BAGS OF CHEMICAL INTERACTIONS
I have pics ... yes. Yes I was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite
I agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
Last I checked there are no withdrawal symptoms with processed sugar (Diabetic). Most people I have read kicked both coffee and sugar. They confuse the symptoms of caffeine withdrawal with sugar withdrawal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
also: Hypoglycemia.
Just because we have the ability to understand what a thing is, or what it is made of, does not mean that said thing is less amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
We really really need to stop believing in magic. Like, we all know it isn't real, but it is still part of how we think. Its like people only think something is amazing when they don't understand it.
This sounds interesting, you should make a. S&B thread about it sometime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
WHAT THE FUCKQuote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
oh christ ... not this shit again.
I still <3 Opaque though.
I love that Cheeks said that but I also love, even more, that Opaque caught it. They both win this thread in my eyes.
Maybe I'm long winded.
Shit doesn't have to be fucking Disney Magic at Epcot for it to still matter or be amazing. Sometimes the real science is just as amazing or more.
I get tired of stupid people that barely understand science or math writing shit off as "well science" or "well chemicals" or "well biology"
Fuck you. Its still awesome. Don't write it off, you jaded fuck.
A cluster of cells is as much of a person as all of the sperm you all swallow. Its not like a baby suddenly appears when a sperm reaches an egg.
Part of the issue is how the English speaking world views individuality. To varying degrees, depending on what nation you are in, we've put it ahead of all other things, with the US being the flagship of this perspective.
We see the baby and the parent as individuals. We find the death of babies to be monstrous because we are subverting the baby's indivudality. We are snuffing it out via abortion.
But there are other ways to look at this. We can also look at it as families being threads that make up society. A quilt or tapestry if you will. Maybe an angry sock monkey. Or maybe we should look at families like a chain, with each person being a link. And all the chains work together to hold something great together. Maybe to hold a great ship to ground?
If we focus on the interconnecting relationships and not individuality, abortion is less abhorrent. It is probably for the greater good that unwanted children are not born. And if one strand is producing horrible things, or is horrible enough to want to end its own chain, why reword it by forcing it to? Why force it to go on being a part of the tapestry of society? It knows it is horrible and we know it is horrible.
Is it because we feel we can redeem that strand? Correct its path? Strengthen it? Make the tapestry better for keeping it?
Then why do the same people that refuse to let the family strand be ended, refuse almost all forms of aid that might make these improvements?
No matter how you look at, both sides are going to have to budge. Either allow abortion and not give handouts, or take away abortion and give full assistance in making the child a better person than the parent.
love it or leave it, pinko.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbkQuote:
Originally Posted by arjue
In typical Obama fashion, he's again used current events to further a largely unrelated agenda. The Zimmerman case had nothing to do with Stand Your Ground, because he was on his way back to his car when the altercation began; it was purely a self defense case, which is legally significantly different. But facts have never mattered to Obama, so he's jumped at the chance to apologize for the ridiculous reaction of the black community and to try to further control gun ownership and usage.
edit: Do I even need to mention "I saved Detroit"?
His comments were very reasonable.
There really is no evidence this is true - it's what Zimmerman said, but he could easily be lying and there's no way to disprove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Obama could donate his blood to dying orphans and Yoshi would find fault with it somewhere somehow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Of course he would. That's blood socialism.
Reasonable would have been denouncing anyone who acted like a hooligan, regardless of color, and not basically making excuses for anyone. I guess it's ok to apologize for the US but not for the black community.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
The actual court case was based on self defense and not stand your ground. That is fact, regardless of what really happened. But that wouldn't fit in Obama's anti-gun agenda as well, so he chose to ignore that fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
How much are we talking?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
This is your first day in politics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Even David Brooks thought it was Obama at his absolute best and he said it made him reevaluate his stance on Stand Your Ground laws when the idea of Trevon shooting first because he was scared of being followed didn't sit right with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
"Even" a Canadian who went to the University of Chicago, worked at NPR, and now writes for the NY Times.
To be fair David Brooks might be the least "2013 Republican" conservative on the planet and is less concerned about politicizing things than he is about policy.
He's not that conservative at all. It has nothing to do with politics vs. policy.
Martin wasn't acting like a hooligan. Be careful, your bias is showing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
He's pretty conservative.
He's just not one of the "conservatives".
See? If he gave a pint, you'd bitch that he shoulda given two. Or that he's only doing it to secure a democrat vote when the kid turns 18.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I was thinking about 2.5 liters.
You claim that Zimmerman was walking back to his car when he was attacked; there is no evidence for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I wasn't talking about him. I was talking about the people reacting to the verdict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
If he gave 2.5 liters you'd bitch he was just pandering to republicans to keep his mid term numbers good.
That is what the court case's arguments were based upon, which is why stand your ground did not apply and was not argued. It makes absolutely no difference what really happened in terms of the court case or Obama's power plays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
LOL power plays.
He's never going up for election again, he's already President. Why would he possibly need to play games? He said what he said because it felt like the right thing to do and he identified with the situation. Reading into it any more than that is ridiculous.
I commend you for living up to your name.
Only reference to stand your ground in the WSJ article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Yea, sounds like a real harsh power play. Nobody dare question sacred stand your ground laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by WSJ
YOU'RE JUST NOT SEEING IT DIFF DUH
It's exactly like gun control that would do nothing to address Sandy Hook being trotted out under politically convenient circumstances. Stand your ground has zero to do with current events, but he sure doesn't miss a chance to capitalize on people too stupid to realize that.
Better watch out, Obama is personally going to take away our right to shoot people we perceive as threats.
Won't anyone think of the children?
I'm surprised none of you wanted to talk about Detroit (0:50):
edit:LinkQuote:
Originally Posted by Chris Stirewalt
I'M NOT DONE TALKING ABOUT STAND YOUR GROUND YET YOSHI OK
Listen, someone breaks into my house and tries to rapemurder my wife or children? I'm going to defend us to whatever extent is necessary up to and including killing said intruder. I think that's something that should be legal. Someone threatening your life shouldn't have a limitation on response if they initiated it. The whole idea that you have to try and flee first is debatable, but if someone is going to kill you if you don't kill them your choices shouldn’t be life in prison or dying.
That being said, as much as I agree with the ruling of the court that the prosecution didn't remove any doubt that he acted in self-defense, there is something wrong with that fact that the person who is still alive and on trial is the person that started the whole thing. If someone breaks into my house and tries to rapemurder my wife or children and kills me in "self defense" because I was going to kill them in self-defense that's total bullshit. Somewhere in these laws it needs to address instigation better. Zimmerman should have walked away when the police told him to, had he done that a teenager would still be alive, because he didn't there should be some ramifications.
Also this Detroit thing is retarded. The whole not paying pensions thing is maybe illegal in Michigan and now it's being held up in the state courts. This is going to be messy as fuck.
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, manQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
You can't talk about stand your ground through the Zimmerman trial, because legally the two have nothing to do with each other.
Re: Detroit, a city can't print money. How do you propose the pensions for the overpaid, over-benefited workers be funded by a bankrupt city?
edit: It couldn't happen to a better place though. A city that's run by unions and has elected nothing but Democratic mayors forever and is in a blue state finally got to be such a mess that even Obama wouldn't bail them out anymore. It's as if all those entitlement policies don't really work...
edit2: If you're arguing politics at 10pm on a Friday night... you just might be old. :(
I never said they should, I just said the whole thing is retarded, which it is. I then referenced one of the most dysfunctional aspects i.e. they have no money and literally can't pay pensions but a court is saying they can't do that like it's some kind of option to spend money they don't have. It's messy as fuck.
Totally agree. I hope it's a giant warning sign to every other state and city.
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Detroit is basically a gigantic abandoned mining town after the mine has run out. No amount of left or right policy is gonna get them outta their jam.
Replace Obama with "government" It's always shit, no matter who the figurehead is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Lets spread the blood around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca