Both Davy and Whitney gone, *
but think of this, if you please.
There's only two of them:
death always comes in threes.


Wednesday, February 29, 2012 -Erthona

*Davy Jones and Whitney Houston

I could give death some suggestions. Politicians for example any party--I'm not partisan, and why stop at three...live a little (and don't worry about the irony).

(03-01-2012, 01:18 PM)Erthona Wrote:  Both Davy and Whitney gone, *
but think of this, if you please.
There's only two of them:
death always comes in threes.

Justin Bieber
split with clieber
typhoid fieber
great relieber

Yea Ray, and Jerry will turn it over to Steven!!

Hey Serah. Gary Coleman (different strokes) died in 2010, unless this is some other Gary you are talking about?

Todd, If "pro" is the opposite of "con", is progress the opposite of Congress? So yes, more politicians. Let's see, what politician would bother me not being in office anymore...hmm, none! I never vote for incumbents. I figure if you like one enough to reelect him, then you like him too much! I have yet to see anyone make it very high in office and not become a slime-ball. It appears to be a job requirement. Either winning is everything, or your values are. Only the first types congress!
Government is an evil necessity, without it, we could not do certain things that we must be able to do. However, it should not be encouraged to grow beyond those things that only it can do. Right now it is about fifty times bigger than it should be. Congressman is supposed to be a part time job. Now it is a full time job with multiple staff members. To buy into the idea that government is the answer is to become Esau.



Dale

Be careful what you wish for: If government were to be reduced in size,
the first 1/50th to go would be the 1/50th you wanted to keep.

P.S. Personally, I think government is too large in the areas I don't like
and too small in the ones I do. Being a liberal, of course, this means
weapons procurement is too big and health care is too small.

P.P.S. To buy into the idea that government isn't the answer is to
fall for Rebekah's deceptions.

"To buy into the idea that government isn't the answer is to
fall for Rebekah's deceptions."

So you are saying that to believe that the individual is the answer to his problems is the same as being deceived by someone who wants to hurt you? So I am assuming that person who wants to hurt you is you. In other words, "Ray" wants to hurt "Ray" and so "Ray" needs the government to provide him the answers to his problem of wanting to hurt himself? In that case I guess we do need government


To a liberal, belief in government is a religion. I simply believe that people are more adapt than government at managing their own lives. A single individual is just that, an individual. A bunch of them is a mob!


Dale

"Rebekah's deceptions" was (intended as) a biblical metaphor for politicians
who use boogie-men/woman governments to scare people into voting for them.
(Lee Atwater anyone?)

Individuals formed governments in the first place and it is up to individuals
to try to keep them functioning properly. This isn't helped by vilifying
governments as a whole; they have functional pieces and corrupt ones.
Distinctions have to be made.

While I don't want government limiting my right to free speech, I sure
as hell am willing to give it money to build roads, test air quality, etc. etc.
I am way to lazy to build my own roads.

""Rebekah's deceptions" was (intended as) a biblical metaphor for politicians
who use boogie-men/woman governments to scare people into voting for them."

Maybe you need to go read the story!
------------------------------------

"While I don't want government limiting my right to free speech, I sure
as hell am willing to give it money to build roads, test air quality, etc. etc.
I am way to lazy to build my own roads."

Building roads is one of the things government is good for. Telling you what you can ingest is not. Protecting you from yourself is not. Redistributing wealth is not (BTW, the first time that happened is when Davy Crockett resigned as a congressman).
Government is a very large, dangerous beast, and should not be confused with your mother (unless of course she is also a large dangerous beast)! Government is dangerous in direct proportion to the laziness of the people who gave it power to do what it does. I believe the original constitution outlines what powers "of the people" were being ceded to the government and for what purpose. The current government in no way resembles that idea.

Dale

Abra cadaver? :\ You'd best not be going nowhere Dale, I want moar pomes :O.

You got it wrong: Esau be the cool one, dude.
------------------------------------
Government should keep wealth from being redistributed in the first place,
not redistribute it after-the-fact. Mother IS dangerous! And yes, we
need to go back to the original constitution: the one with slavery and
without all those damn amendments, especially the first ten.

Esau was a fool who fell prey to a conniving younger brother. In that story there was no "cool" one. What is the moral of that story, if you take advantage of others when they are weak you'll get all the goodies? It is a very odd story. A very odd story. Not at all what it appears.

Well that's where Jefferson screwed us up. If he had written slavery out of the constitution to begin with Lincoln never would have had to break it, and except for that part it is a damn fine document. It is a shame that abject stupidity had to break it.

Even God in the Bible only required 10%. If government has money to spend, it will. Since it's inception, this government has only gotten larger.

I have paid for my house, however, if I do not pay my taxes each year, the government will come and size my house. So in reality, I do not own my house, I am only renting from the government. No one owns land anymore, it is all owned by the government. This was made obviously plain by the last ruling on imminent domain by the Supreme Court which basically said that if the government can make more tax revenue off of the property by seizing it and selling it to someone else, it can. We are no longer secure in our person, or our property. We have long since stopped being a free country. Pretty soon we will no longer have the right to have weapons, and that is when all pretense will end.

Dale

Esau was a cool fool. I appreciate his devil-may-care attitude.
Stories like that are the product of way-too-many edits.

Without the slavery compromise, there wouldn't have been a constitution.
Original sin.

Don't really care how big government is, or how high taxes are as long
as I'm getting something for my money. That's why healthcare expense
doesn't bother me, but 'defense' does. I don't think there's that much
democracy in the USA, but I don't think there ever was. Our government
is still more responsive than a large corporation. Reducing the size of
government doesn't increase freedom, it makes it easier for the 'forces
of wealth' to control you directly. As my dad used to say:
"Republicans: The party of the rich and the gullible."

I have this AK47 (Chinese copy) that I'm holding for a neighbor of mine
until he gets some legal problems squared away. He used it at work for
several years and it's a real beat-up piece of shit... lots of character.
It's what I've always pictured one should look like. I've never bought
a single firearm in my whole life, but I seem to have quite a few. Maybe
it has something to do with living in Texas?

(03-06-2012, 11:01 PM)rayheinrich Wrote:  Esau was a cool fool. I appreciate his devil-may-care attitude.
Stories like that are the product of way-too-many edits.

Without the slavery compromise, there wouldn't have been a constitution.
Original sin.

Don't really care how big government is, or how high taxes are as long
as I'm getting something for my money. That's why healthcare expense
doesn't bother me, but 'defense' does. I don't think there's that much
democracy in the USA, but I don't think there ever was. Our government
is still more responsive than a large corporation. Reducing the size of
government doesn't increase freedom, it makes it easier for the 'forces
of wealth' to control you directly. As my dad used to say:
"Republicans: The party of the rich and the gullible."

I have this AK47 (Chinese copy) that I'm holding for a neighbor of mine
until he gets some legal problems squared away. He used it at work for
several years and it's a real beat-up piece of shit... lots of character.
It's what I've always pictured one should look like. I've never bought
a single firearm in my whole life, but I seem to have quite a few. Maybe
it has something to do with living in Texas?

Pip pip, old bean. Seem a bit, you know, well, not best pleased. Pop over to 'ol Blighty, why don't you? Lots of jolly capers here, don'cha know?Always got a brace or two of champers chillin (sic) for our American cousins. You liked it well enough last time you were over here, according to great Aunt Maisie,that is. Dead now, Gawd rest her, but her boy Abe, still asks about his father.
Best,
Tectak

"as I'm getting something for my money."

Hey if you like what you're getting with that ponzi scheme called social security (which was originally voluntary) then more power to you, "Onward into the fog!"

Dale

gary glitter would
make a good third
or a bad third
just so long as he went slowly

Gary Glitter,
ate my fritter,
so I outted him
via twitter!
Now what will he do?
He's serving ten,
to ten times two!

gary glitter, not a quitter
found a fitting for his fritter
many pictures, no pinch hitter
twitter titter, oh so schlitter!
prison knit or spark transmitter?


P.S. The real Ponzi schemes are the ones that purport to
'privatize' Social Security. But hey, anyone that can
convince poor people that rich people need more money
should find those an easy sell. And it's a win-win as
our poor houses (we call them prisons down here in Tejas)
have already been privatized.

Oh, wait, almost forgot, I got me an AK47 now:

"From each according to her/his ability,
to each according to his/her need."

I got your back Karl (and even corrected your politically
incorrect genderage while I was at it).

SS is a ponzi scheme because you never get back anything close to what you put in.

(03-08-2012, 06:27 AM)Erthona Wrote:  SS is a ponzi scheme because you never get back anything close to what you put in.

Not true. You get back all you put in plus a modest amount of
interest IF you live until you reach your average life expectancy.
Of course, it's like any annuity: Those that live longer get more
and those that die sooner get points in heaven for giving it to them.

P.S. You'd think women would come out ahead because they live
longer, but if you factor in how much less they're paid for the same
work they still end up behind. Also: people at the lower end of the
income scale would actually end up coming out a bit ahead if it
wasn't for their lower life expectancies caused by poorer medical
care.

Like I said, a ponzi scheme!