PDA

View Full Version : The Coachella Board Republic Presidential Caucus



Pages : [1] 2

Yablonowitz
11-13-2007, 12:47 PM
Which retard should be the GOP nominee?

TomAz
11-13-2007, 01:00 PM
can we vote in both primaries?

Yablonowitz
11-13-2007, 01:05 PM
can we vote in both primaries?

The board is an open caucus affair.

Yablonowitz
11-13-2007, 01:05 PM
I forgot the "an".

weltschmerz
11-13-2007, 01:34 PM
This election is gonna suck.

miscorrections
11-13-2007, 01:41 PM
If you changed Mitt Romney to Mittens Romney I would vote for him. Make it happen.

amyzzz
11-13-2007, 01:47 PM
*chuckle*

jackstraw94086
11-13-2007, 01:48 PM
This board will pick ron paul vs. obama.

[/thread]

TomAz
11-13-2007, 02:51 PM
not gonna vote Jack?

fatbastard
11-13-2007, 02:53 PM
Who is most like Bush? That's the one everyone should stand behind. He made 2 terms so people must love him and his strategy.

ShyGuy75
11-13-2007, 02:56 PM
This board will pick ron paul vs. obama.

[/thread]

That is because this board consists of some of the greatest minds known to man

amyzzz
11-13-2007, 03:43 PM
Are y'all voting for the weak candidate, or the person you want to be President?

PotVsKtl
11-13-2007, 04:03 PM
I highly doubt anyone actually wants any of these people to be President.

jackstraw94086
11-13-2007, 04:21 PM
not gonna vote Jack?

I'll vote in the real election, as pointless as that is in California, but a poll on this board about who should be president is recock. I could have drawn up the results before it was posted.

full on idle
11-13-2007, 04:24 PM
/you're all so predictable and I'll dog you for it but I won't say a word about what I actually think.

jackstraw94086
11-13-2007, 04:35 PM
/you're all so predictable and I'll dog you for it but I won't say a word about what I actually think.

actually I did just tell you what I think.

arbouler
11-13-2007, 05:00 PM
ron paul, bitchez!

bmack86
11-13-2007, 05:58 PM
Mitt Romney has a funny name. He wins. I vote him.

miscorrections
11-13-2007, 06:39 PM
GO MITTENS GO!

All That I Am
11-13-2007, 06:51 PM
I want that evil fuck Guiliani to win the gop vote.

RotationSlimWang
11-13-2007, 07:09 PM
Republic or Republican?



Looks like Ron made the title of this thread. Add a couple apostrophes.

Wheres the beef?
11-13-2007, 07:35 PM
GO MITTENS GO!

I sense a viral video in the works....... i just had the funniest idea.

miscorrections
11-13-2007, 07:47 PM
Be careful, Mittens Romney is the name of my future cat. Lol rights reserved.

full on idle
11-13-2007, 07:48 PM
my old cat's name on the street was mittens, she had a proper name too, that's just what they called her on the block.

miscorrections
11-13-2007, 07:49 PM
She sounds like a g.

full on idle
11-13-2007, 07:50 PM
you did not step to mittens

Wheres the beef?
11-13-2007, 07:57 PM
Be careful, Mittens Romney is the name of my future cat. Lol rights reserved.

curses! :shakes fist in the air:

Yablonowitz
11-13-2007, 08:12 PM
Jack's very opinionated about other people's opinions.

miscorrections
11-13-2007, 08:12 PM
My opinion is pro-silence.

gaypalmsprings
11-13-2007, 08:30 PM
I love a good caucus.

Wheres the beef?
11-13-2007, 08:45 PM
I love a good cockus.

fixed.

Wheres the beef?
11-13-2007, 09:05 PM
Who is most like Bush? That's the one everyone should stand behind. He made 2 terms so people must love him and his strategy.

http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/empire-strikes-back.gif

drugks Gillespie
11-13-2007, 09:28 PM
Dose'nt "Caucus" specifically pertain to the DNC. Honest question.


I guess not.

Yablonowitz
11-14-2007, 03:25 PM
CFijzDyJnVE

rage patton
11-14-2007, 05:32 PM
When I was down in Vegas for Vegoose... what amazed me was how much support Ron Paul had. I saw bumper stickers, I saw signs, I saw pamphlets... I couldn't believe it. Las Vegas, supporting a republican candidate?


CFijzDyJnVE

Hahaha, thats from 2003?

xbnmx
11-15-2007, 01:47 PM
Nevada is a red state why does this surprise you? The only reason they continue to elect Harry Reid is for his seniority in the senate.

RotationSlimWang
11-15-2007, 01:48 PM
Yabs, fix the fucking title of this thread. It's rubbing my dick the wrong way. ADJECTIVE, MOTHERFUCKER.

Yablonowitz
11-15-2007, 01:53 PM
Yabs, fix the fucking title of this thread. It's rubbing my dick the wrong way. ADJECTIVE, MOTHERFUCKER.

You can't edit poll titles. Try it and find out yourself.


Sorry Randy's penis.

RotationSlimWang
11-15-2007, 01:57 PM
Hmm... well, boo.



Sorry, my penis.

EDIT: Next time try not to fuck it up.

Yablonowitz
11-15-2007, 01:58 PM
Hmm... well, boo.



Sorry, my penis.

EDIT: Next time try not to fuck it up.

Can you blame me? I was excited!!!

gaypalmsprings
11-15-2007, 10:21 PM
I can't blame you.

SojuGorae
11-15-2007, 11:01 PM
OxqP1O1_K4w&feature

Yablonowitz
11-23-2007, 11:21 AM
SPREAD THE WORD! ALAN KEYES!

_9BA7i3sgCU

PotVsKtl
12-02-2007, 07:50 PM
2yj_okz7ZwI

full on idle
12-02-2007, 08:19 PM
holy crap

PotVsKtl
12-11-2007, 11:34 AM
In August of 1998, Huckabee was one of 131 signatories to a full page USA Today Ad which declared: "I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention." What was in the family statement from the SBC? "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/12517/525/811/420237

wmgaretjax
12-11-2007, 11:40 AM
fuckin hell.

PotVsKtl
12-11-2007, 11:46 AM
Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee refused to retract a statement he made in 1992 calling for the isolation of AIDS patients.

Responding to an Associated Press questionnaire, Huckabee said steps should be taken to "isolate the carriers of this plague" during his failed run for a U.S. Senate seat from Arkansas 15 years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/huckabee.aids/?iref=mpstoryview

PotVsKtl
12-11-2007, 11:46 AM
Here's the punchline:


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International
12/6/2007
Iowa
Margin of Error = 5.8% [?]

Mike Huckabee 39%
Mitt Romney 17%
Fred Thompson 10%
Rudy Giuliani 9%
Ron Paul 8%
John McCain 6%
Tom Tancredo 2%
Unsure 8%
Other 1%


http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/iowa.html

Deviate_420
12-11-2007, 11:48 AM
Allen Keys was at a RATM show in 1999 I think......

summerkid
12-11-2007, 11:53 AM
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/12517/525/811/420237

honestly, who gives a fuck. If you are going to blast the man then take shots at his policies not his personal beliefs. This is almost as stupid as Republicans making an issue out of Bill Clinton's infidelity.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/huckabee.aids/?iref=mpstoryview

There is nothing wrong with this especially 15 years ago. Any other epidemic except AIDS/HIV the infected would quarantined.

luckyface
12-11-2007, 11:56 AM
There is nothing wrong with this especially 15 years ago. Any other epidemic except AIDS/HIV the infected would quarantined.

Just think, if we quarantined AIDS patients, then we wouldn't need to worry about AIDZ needles at Coachella.

PotVsKtl
12-11-2007, 12:04 PM
honestly, who gives a fuck. If you are going to blast the man then take shots at his policies not his personal beliefs. This is almost as stupid as Republicans making an issue out of Bill Clinton's infidelity.

Who gives a fuck? Who gives a fuck that a legitimate contender for the President of the United States openly stated that they believe a woman's place is to submit her will to her husband who is the Christ figure in a marriage? Are you going to stand by that?


There is nothing wrong with this especially 15 years ago. Any other epidemic except AIDS/HIV the infected would quarantined.

What in the fuck are you talking about? Do you know how HIV is spread? Because I'll let you in on some important information: We already knew it wasn't spread through casual contact in 1992, at the time Huckabee made those statements.

I'd appreciate it if you could also point out the times in our history we have quarantined carriers of a sexually transmitted disease that has been under study for 7+ years.

Fucking idiot.

J~$$$
12-11-2007, 12:07 PM
Last week, the mother of the woman DuMond killed in 2003 said she would actively campaign against Huckabee.

In an interview with CNN, Huckabee called it "heartbreaking" that the rape victims' deaths had become politicized.

"There are families who are truly, understandably and reasonably, grief-stricken," Huckabee said. "And for people to now politicize these deaths and to try to make a political case out of it rather than to simply understand that a system failed and that we ought to extend our grief and heartfelt sorrow to these families, I just regret politics is reduced to that."


Ummm he fucked up and he doesnt want to make an issue about it.....yet he is running for presi.

TomAz
12-11-2007, 12:09 PM
There is nothing wrong with this especially 15 years ago. Any other epidemic except AIDS/HIV the infected would quarantined.

15 years ago you were 5 years old, according to your profile. I am fairly confident in saying that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

summerkid
12-11-2007, 12:40 PM
Who gives a fuck? Who gives a fuck that a legitimate contender for the President of the United States openly stated that they believe a woman's place is to submit her will to her husband who is the Christ figure in a marriage? Are you going to stand by that?



What in the fuck are you talking about? Do you know how HIV is spread? Because I'll let you in on some important information: We already knew it wasn't spread through casual contact in 1992, at the time Huckabee made those statements.

I'd appreciate it if you could also point out the times in our history we have quarantined carriers of a sexually transmitted disease that has been under study for 7+ years.

Fucking idiot.

a. First off I think you are reading too much into that statement. As if the woman's role is to only stay at home. If this was the case I doubt is wife would have ran for secretary of state in Arkansas. But even overlooking that fact I just don't see how this information is relevant to his Presidential bid unless he plans on making some sort of mandate that restricts women's rights.

b.during world war I we quarantined prostitutes to stop the transfer of STDS and in 1945 we also quarantined people with syphilis and gonorrhea who refused penicillin treatment.

PotVsKtl
12-11-2007, 01:13 PM
a. First off I think you are reading too much into that statement. As if the womans role is to only stay at home. If this was the case I doubt is wife would have ran for secretary of state in Arkansas. But even overlooking that fact I just don't see how this information is relevant to his Presidential bid unless he plans on making some sort of mandate that restricts women's rights.

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

The information is relevant because Huckabee is a theocrat who apparently believes a woman's proper place is serving at her husband's whim. If you don't think that sort of backwards bullshit should come into play when deciding on a President, then you deserve to live under religious rule.


b.during world war I we quarantined prostitutes to stop the transfer of STDS and in 1945 we also quarantined people with syphilis and gonorrhea who refused penicillin treatment.

Thanks.


During World War I, American authorities incarcerate more than 30,000 prostitutes in an effort to curb the spread of venereal disease. The historian Allan Brandt has called this effort "the most concerted attack on civil liberties in the name of public health in American history."


In Baltimore, the mayor passes an ordinance giving health authorities the power to isolate at the city's hospitals those patients with syphilis or gonorrhea who refuse penicillin treatment. The ordinance is rarely invoked, however, as the treatment takes at most only a few days, and most patients willingly accept the assistance.

Now justify quarantining HIV patients in 1992, when we already understood the nature and substance of the problem. It can take up to 6 months for HIV to be detected. How does the idea of a quarantine even make sense? His statement was bigoted nonsense.

summerkid
12-11-2007, 01:37 PM
"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

The information is relevant because Huckabee is a theocrat who apparently believes a woman's proper place is serving at her husband's whim. If you don't think that sort of backwards bullshit should come into play when deciding on a President, then you deserve to live under religious rule.



Thanks.





Now justify quarantining HIV patients in 1992, when we already understood the nature and substance of the problem. It can take up to 6 months for HIV to be detected. How does the idea of a quarantine even make sense? His statement was bigoted nonsense.

In order to protect the healthy individuals in society you quarantine the infected carriers of a deadly virus. Just because there is a social stigma attached to HIV/AIDS because the way its transmitted (even though it is not just an STD). Those people are still infected after 6 months and some still are sexually active after 6 months. Then to say that its just bigoted nonsense is nonsense and jumping to conclusions based on your own prejudice. Quarantining people with AIDS would have accomplished two things that would have saved lives. A. obviously you isolate people so they can't pass the disease onto others. B. It would have provided awareness for HIV/AIDS.

J~$$$
12-11-2007, 01:43 PM
Lets round up all the japanese.

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 01:44 PM
... you realize you could never let them out of that quarantine, right, you fucking idiot?

summerkid
12-11-2007, 01:59 PM
Lets round up all the japanese.

c'mon. Not the same thing at all.


... you realize you could never let them out of that quarantine, right, you fucking idiot?

Well right, but correct me if I'm wrong but I believe in 1992 majority of the people only lived about 1.5-2 years after being diagnosed.

luckyface
12-11-2007, 02:11 PM
Well right, but correct me if I'm wrong but I believe in 1992 majority of the people only lived about 1.5-2 years after being diagnosed.

Yep. Magic Johnson died a long time ago.

J~$$$
12-11-2007, 02:11 PM
How is it not the same thing? Just because the US rounds up a bunch of people to stop a potential threat. Its not going to stop something that is affecting the entire world.

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 02:13 PM
Well right, but correct me if I'm wrong but I believe in 1992 majority of the people only lived about 1.5-2 years after being diagnosed.

What the fuck? Is your argument that we should have just quarantined all of them until they died? Are you fucking for real? What about new cases in that time? Quarantine the new fags until they're dead as well?

J~$$$
12-11-2007, 02:15 PM
I feel Godwin's law being applied soon.

PotVsKtl
12-11-2007, 02:19 PM
In order to protect the healthy individuals in society you quarantine the infected carriers of a deadly virus. Just because there is a social stigma attached to HIV/AIDS because the way its transmitted (even though it is not just an STD). Those people are still infected after 6 months and some still are sexually active after 6 months. Then to say that its just bigoted nonsense is nonsense and jumping to conclusions based on your own prejudice. Quarantining people with AIDS would have accomplished two things that would have saved lives. A. obviously you isolate people so they can't pass the disease onto others. B. It would have provided awareness for HIV/AIDS.

What?

TomAz
12-11-2007, 02:20 PM
In order to protect the healthy individuals in society you quarantine the infected carriers of a deadly virus. Just because there is a social stigma attached to HIV/AIDS because the way its transmitted (even though it is not just an STD). Those people are still infected after 6 months and some still are sexually active after 6 months. Then to say that its just bigoted nonsense is nonsense and jumping to conclusions based on your own prejudice. Quarantining people with AIDS would have accomplished two things that would have saved lives. A. obviously you isolate people so they can't pass the disease onto others. B. It would have provided awareness for HIV/AIDS.

quarantines have historically been generally applied only to people infected with an airborne, highly transmittable infectious disease. Where just being in the presence of an infected person can pose a health risk. Quarantines have historically not been declared for a virus that is not so readily transmittable, e.g., one you can get only by getting fucked up the ass by an infected person not wearing a condom.

PotVsKtl
12-11-2007, 02:21 PM
Seriously, none of those sentences appear to have any logical relation to their predecessors, much less to my own statement to which you were presumably replying.

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 02:24 PM
Also HIV/AIDS isn't dangerous enough to warrant a quarantine. It effected a very small number of people and doesn't have a quick mortality period.

J~$$$
12-11-2007, 02:25 PM
Your moms got AIDS.

PassiveTheory
12-11-2007, 02:30 PM
Your moms got AIDS.

He'd know since he infected her. =D

J~$$$
12-11-2007, 02:31 PM
His mom is dead thats uncool.

summerkid
12-11-2007, 02:33 PM
What the fuck? Is your argument that we should have just quarantined all of them until they died? Are you fucking for real? What about new cases in that time? Quarantine the new fags until they're dead as well?

Well this is what i was trying to get at: That this is a health issue not NOT a gay issue because my understanding is that the reason why this is brought up is to say look Huckabee hates gays.

PassiveTheory
12-11-2007, 02:34 PM
His mom is dead thats uncool.

So says the necrophiliac.

TomAz
12-11-2007, 02:36 PM
Well this is what i was trying to get at: That this is a health issue not NOT a gay issue because my understanding is that the reason why this is brought up is to say look Huckabee hates gays.

I think you're being disingenuous.

J~$$$
12-11-2007, 02:49 PM
So says the necrophiliac.

stop watching me masturbate.

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 02:51 PM
Dude, it is cause Huckabee hates gays. It was a GAY HEALTH ISSUE.

And to everyone that wants to say it was a straight health issue too--please. The number of heterosexual infections in America was marginal at best back then. Frankly it still is today.

J~$$$
12-11-2007, 03:05 PM
I dont get the fascination with Ron Paul.

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 03:15 PM
And to everyone that wants to say it was a straight health issue too--please. The number of heterosexual infections in America was marginal at best back then. Frankly it still is today.

I would actually like to see the statistics for that... too lazy though.

I used to like Huckabee a lot (before such incidents), now though because of those statements I don't think he has a shot against Obama.
On the other hand I don't think its right to ask an applicant about issues which do not pertain to the job they are required to fulfill. Even if Huckabee has "the crazies" on social matters, it has no effect on foreign or fiscal policy. On social issues like gay marriage it may come into conflict but i would much rather prefer a practical candidates platform is overall more appealing and not get hung up on such nuances which have no real impact on how he runs the country. These social issues (Red Herrings) that the media gets hung up on shouldn't pull the idealogical weight that they do.
Besides, running on more of a traditional foreign and domestic conservative platform i would assume Huckabee to take legislative action to re-enforce his beliefs.


I dont get the fascination with Ron Paul.
Care to elaborate? You don't understand why people are attracted to his message?

PotVsKtl
12-11-2007, 03:15 PM
Well this is what i was trying to get at: That this is a health issue not NOT a gay issue because my understanding is that the reason why this is brought up is to say look Huckabee hates gays.

Whatever type of issue you want to make it out to be, he was monumentally wrong. Advocating quarantining HIV carriers in 1992, long after we began to understand the virus, was an extremist, misinformed position. The fact that he refuses to acknowledge how idiotic it was just makes it worse. Let's be honest though, it was a gay issue.


I agree with the leadership of our military, who believe it is not in the best interest of the armed forces to have homosexuals serving on active duty. I believe to try to legitimize that which is inherently illegitimate would be a disgraceful act of government. I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle, and we now know it can pose a dangerous public health risk.

Yablonowitz
12-11-2007, 03:28 PM
There are two things that go through my mind while watching Huckabee's sudden rise to the top of the GOP race:

1. Joy because this sick fuck doesn't have a chance in a general election.
2. Doubt about #1 because we re-elected George W Bush in 2004.

Biden will stomp his ass.

J~$$$
12-11-2007, 03:36 PM
"Biden will stomp his ass."

giggles.... Biden.

Yablonowitz
12-11-2007, 03:52 PM
According to some obscure poll, he just jumped ahead of Richardson in Iowa. Up to 8% support! He's going all the way, baby!

J~$$$
12-11-2007, 03:58 PM
Care to elaborate? You don't understand why people are attracted to his message?

I don't understand why people are attracted to his message. If you are a supporter please tell me why.

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 04:19 PM
http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm

Total infected: 947,585
Total men infected from high-risk heterosexual contact: 61,914
Total women infected from high-risk heterosexual contact: 102,936
Total other risk/risk not identified: 20,542

"high-rish heterosexual contact" is sex with someone of the opposite sex who's been an IV drug user or had sex with a gay man. Basically, you get HIV from either being a gay man, an intravenous drug user, or from having sex with someone who has had sex with or shared needles with a gay man or intravenous drug user. Seriously. It's sad, but it's true. The only subsects to have any kind of notable HIV population besides those (in America) are minorities, which is even sadder. Short version: there are essentially no white straight people who don't use needles with HIV in America. I swear it's true, this isn't just Randy bullshit, the numbers are completely negligible.

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 06:29 PM
I don't understand why people are attracted to his message. If you are a supporter please tell me why.

I happen to be, and here is why:

I support his non-interventionist foreign policy, "Open commerce with all nations, alliance with none."

I support his decentralization of authority and power on issues like taxation, social issues (Gay marriage, abortion, legalization).

He is against the patriot act and illegal wiretapping, believes the administration has overstepped its constitutional duties.

He is anti-gun control. Something which I happen to agree very strongly with.

He is a Monetarist, advocating a constant annual growth of money supply instead of relying on the fed to print money to try and bring back our slumped economy.

Those are just some of the things off the top of my head, but if you ask more I will gladly tell you.

IWfIhFhelm8

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 06:32 PM
http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm

Total infected: 947,585
Total men infected from high-risk heterosexual contact: 61,914
Total women infected from high-risk heterosexual contact: 102,936
Total other risk/risk not identified: 20,542

"high-rish heterosexual contact" is sex with someone of the opposite sex who's been an IV drug user or had sex with a gay man. Basically, you get HIV from either being a gay man, an intravenous drug user, or from having sex with someone who has had sex with or shared needles with a gay man or intravenous drug user. Seriously. It's sad, but it's true. The only subsects to have any kind of notable HIV population besides those (in America) are minorities, which is even sadder. Short version: there are essentially no white straight people who don't use needles with HIV in America. I swear it's true, this isn't just Randy bullshit, the numbers are completely negligible.

NVM:


Around 47% of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 17% of the total.

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 06:43 PM
It's not literally none, but practically none. And if they did have sex with a woman odds are that woman was either an IV drug user or fucked a lot of bisexual men. Or was a minority. In truth it's not nearly as easy for a man to catch HIV from having sex with a woman as it is the other way around, as you can see from the ratio. Even then you're looking at one straight man for every fifteen or so gay men.

Anyone on the board know any straight white men with HIV who aren't IV drugs users or travel in circles of IV drug users? Anybody?

Alchemy
12-11-2007, 06:50 PM
I'm not understanding this whole Ron Paul stuff either. What is he going to do? Destroy the IRS and give power to the people? Do you know how many people will fight his silly ideas? People that can compromise his chance into becoming president, that's who.

Plus, Ron Paul will "free" America, but place it under a church.

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 06:57 PM
I'm not understanding this whole Ron Paul stuff either. What is he going to do? Destroy the IRS and give power to the people? Do you know how many people will fight his silly ideas? People that can compromise his chance into becoming president, that's who.

If you want to continue under a failing New Deal society, knock yourself out. America wasn't always this way, and if we cut out the IRS we would only go back to 2002 budget spending. People have caught on to his ideas and thats why he has such a large a large and fervent following.


Plus, Ron Paul will "free" America, but place it under a church.

Bullshit, thats unfounded speculation, don't give me that. Place some consolidated facts. Research him before you open up your mouth and spew slander, at least be more thoughtful than that.

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 07:02 PM
NVM:

Um, where'd you get your refuting statistic there? Cause it kinda doesn't match with the figures I posted at all. Please show your source.

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 07:04 PM
No no, i just posted something stupid before, and I corrected myself. That quote isn't a refuting attempt.

But it was the link you posted, right on the first page.

Alchemy
12-11-2007, 07:07 PM
If you want to continue under a failing New Deal society, knock yourself out. America wasn't always this way, and if we cut out the IRS we would only go back to 2002 budget spending. People have caught on to his ideas and thats why he has such a large a large and fervent following.



Bullshit, thats unfounded speculation, don't give me that. Place some consolidated facts. Research him before you open up your mouth and spew slander, at least be more thoughtful than that.

I'll spew slander on Ron Paul all I want.

Ron Paul is myspace masturbation. He's telling people a lot of fairy tales that he will never get done. Just because I don't want to vote for Ron Paul doesn't mean that I want to vote for Big Brother.

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 07:09 PM
No no, i just posted something stupid before, and I corrected myself. That quote isn't a refuting attempt.

But it was the link you posted, right on the first page.

Yeah, I had to go and look it up myself and find out I was making an ass out of myself. I don't give a fuck what they claim, there's no goddamn way only half of the people with AIDS acquired it through homosexual sex.

miscorrections
12-11-2007, 07:10 PM
Pretty much all I care about is that he's pro-life and wants to force that on everyone instead of letting people choose what they want. That's a big fat automatic NO in my book.

Also ending birthright citizenship is fucking retarded.

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 07:10 PM
Also, I'd probably vote for Ron Paul if only because I kinda believe he's legitimately principled and crazy enough about his principles to not let the other branches of government do shit I don't want them doing. I don't think he'd get anything done himself but he'd be a delightful stopgap to the rest of our gov.

Alchemy
12-11-2007, 07:13 PM
Although he is not republican, I sort of lean towards John Edwards. It seems like he would lend more of a hand toward science.

Probably not. I mean, it's never in the agenda. But if people think more scientifically, it means they are thinking without bias. And that is one way around the "Big Brother" stuff building up that Ron Paul is so against. Of course what I am saying is as idealistic as what he is saying.

But yeah, you are not going to get logical scientific thinking by shooting out this pro-life stuff.

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 07:13 PM
Monetarism and conservative fiscal policies aren't "fairy tales". Social liberty is one either. You state things as fact when it is quite the opposite. Stop name calling, seriously. I'm not saying your a fascist.

Even if some of the reforms he proposes do not pass congress, it is a step in the right direction.

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 07:17 PM
Although he is not republican, I sort of lean towards John Edwards. It seems like he would lend more of a hand toward science.


Are you saying that because you usually vote republican?

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 07:18 PM
Also, I'd probably vote for Ron Paul if only because I kinda believe he's legitimately principled and crazy enough about his principles to not let the other branches of government do shit I don't want them doing. I don't think he'd get anything done himself but he'd be a delightful stopgap to the rest of our gov.

I agree, except i think some of his ideas can do great good for our economy and our personal lives.


Pretty much all I care about is that he's pro-life and wants to force that on everyone instead of letting people choose what they want. That's a big fat automatic NO in my book.

Also ending birthright citizenship is fucking retarded.

No no Corinna he doesn't, and i don't know where you heard that. he wants this matter to be settled in state courts, where the constitution implicitly expresses.

People think that he wants to make federal mandates on social issues, but he wants people to decide for themselves.

Birthright citizenship is a sensitive issue. But i favor a system where the guest workers are able to work on the farms and earn credit towards a bond which they can pick up as they cross the border back to thier families. It's responsibility.

miscorrections
12-11-2007, 07:20 PM
No no Corinna he doesn't, and i don't know where you heard that. he wants this matter to be settled in state courts, where the constitution implicitly expresses.

Regardless, that means some states would overturn abortion. And I don't think any woman should have to leave her home state in order to have one. They ought to be readily accessible and safe and a viable option if it comes down to that.

Alchemy
12-11-2007, 07:21 PM
Monetarism and conservative fiscal policies aren't "fairy tales". Social liberty is one either. You state things as fact when it is quite the opposite. Stop name calling, seriously. I'm not saying your a fascist.

Even if some of the reforms he proposes do not pass congress, it is a step in the right direction.

Yeah but the problem is that it doesn't work that way. I'm not saying lets enjoy the trip from freedom to fascism. Hypothetically, Ron Paul become president. He will try doing all of these things, but there are so many people with influence that will be effected by his good-will. He is going to find it very hard to get anything done, or even get voted. Especially since a lot of his fans don't even vote in the first place. I think Ron Paul is a wasteful vote. Sorry for the name calling. I think the person who could get closer to his job is John Edwards. And yes I know that John Edwards had supported the Patriot Act and the war on Iraq and blah blah blah. But he also supports science. If we have a more science and logical thinking friendly president, than people might start thinking logically too. Then people could come up with better, more efficient ways of going from Big Brother to everybody's happy. Ron Paul wants to end the rules of a dictator president, but enforce the rules of our holy lord and savior. Hey, I like Jesus and all... But he isn't going to help us with shit.

And I don't mean enforce enforce God. But still... Ron Paul isn't going to side with scientists before he sides with his church.

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 07:22 PM
Regardless, that means some states would overturn abortion. And I don't think any woman should have to leave her home state in order to have one. They ought to be readily accessible and safe and a viable option if it comes down to that.

I guess that's where you and I differ. I don't want to get into abortion, so I won't. But what i will say is that the state should decide on issues like these, not the Fed.

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 07:24 PM
Seems to me that Paul's policies are rather directly the opposite of enforcing his faith on anyone. And Corinna, I'm not sure that any of the states would overturn it, but the fact is that if they would then that's how it should be. Having to leave your state isn't exactly the worst thing in the world. I mean it is fucking murder and all, for fuck's sake.

miscorrections
12-11-2007, 07:30 PM
You know you don't have the ability to get me worked up, right?

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 07:30 PM
Yeah but the problem is that it doesn't work that way. I'm not saying lets enjoy the trip from freedom to fascism. Hypothetically, Ron Paul become president. He will try doing all of these things, but there are so many people with influence that will be effected by his good-will. He is going to find it very hard to get anything done, or even get voted. Especially since a lot of his fans don't even vote in the first place. I think Ron Paul is a wasteful vote. Speculation... I beg to differ.

While I do think it will be very difficult to move past (I hate to sound cliche) the "establishment" it is a breath of fresh air to see candidates like these ideologically challenge neo-cons and blue dogs alike. That, in my opinion is what we need.



Sorry for the name calling. I think the person who could get closer to his job is John Edwards. And yes I know that John Edwards had supported the Patriot Act and the war on Iraq and blah blah blah. But he also supports science. If we have a more science and logical thinking friendly president, than people might start thinking logically too. Then people could come up with better, more efficient ways of going from Big Brother to everybody's happy. Ron Paul wants to end the rules of a dictator president, but enforce the rules of our holy lord and savior. Hey, I like Jesus and all... But he isn't going to help us with shit.

Please bring me proof man, I promise that he's not the right wing evangelist you try and make him out to be. I all of his actions and words i have never seen him in that light. Show me a video please to prove me wrong.
Comparing bush is invalid now, everyone knows he was probably the worst president we've ever had.


And I don't mean enforce enforce God. But still... Ron Paul isn't going to side with scientists before he sides with his church. Wrong, hes going to let the scientist do what they want. Libertarianism doesn't make exception for stem cell research. It's freedom of expression and choice all around. His federal funding wont reach stem cell for decentralization issues and decreased government spending, not because he is a man of faith.

miscorrections
12-11-2007, 07:33 PM
I'll have everyone know that where stem cell research is today is a joke. There are only twenty-three cell lines to work with, and some of these have been contaminated, and there's not enough genetic variance with twenty-three lines to really gauge how things work. There really needs to be a loosening of restrictions on this, it's a promising field that's currently crippled by bureaucracy.

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 07:33 PM
You know you don't have the ability to get me worked up, right?

But you work LGM up when you say that.

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 07:35 PM
Jesus Christ, woman, I don't give a flying fuck about you or whether or not you're worked up. The fact is that one of the good things our nation was founded on--unlike slavery and the subservience of women--was the complete lack of federal powers. My personal feeling about it aside from the philosophical beauty of states' rights? If some people want to have abortion legal and some don't, then good--let some of the states have it their way and some not. Want abortion? Live in one of the states that does or nearby it. And yes, it is motherfucking murder. I still support it, but let's not kid ourselves--you suck the little fetus out with a fucking vacuum. I just support it because the fact is that little baby is a parasite, and I don't think you should be able to make a law prohibiting anyone from murdering a parasite inside their body.

I would live in one of the pro-choice states. That doesn't mean everyone should necessarily have to.

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 07:35 PM
I'll have everyone know that where stem cell research is today is a joke. There are only twenty-three cell lines to work with, and some of these have been contaminated, and there's not enough genetic variance with twenty-three lines to really gauge how things work. There really needs to be a loosening of restrictions on this, it's a promising field that's currently crippled by bureaucracy.

I completely agree. Did you hear about this?

Skin cells converted to stem cells.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082101180.html

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 07:38 PM
Want abortion? Live in one of the states that does or nearby it.

I would live in one of the pro-choice states. That doesn't mean everyone should necessarily have to.

While I agree with your stance, I don't think people will move into states banking on getting an abortion. Thats the problem.

miscorrections
12-11-2007, 07:39 PM
Science is so neat. But embryonic stem cells need to be useable in the meantime.

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 07:41 PM
While I agree with your stance, I don't think people will move into states banking on getting an abortion. Thats the problem.

Then they can fucking drive to one. Maybe if getting an abortion required taking a bus people would make more of an effort to not get pregnant when they have absolutely no business being pregnant.

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 07:41 PM
Science is so neat. But embryonic stem cells need to be useable in the meantime.

Yuppers, especially ones which would be discarded otherwise. GB standing in front of 30 kids shouldn't influence the public in such a manner.

Alchemy
12-11-2007, 07:42 PM
A science coordinator got fired in Texas not too long ago for informing people about a talk on evolution. I think this was last week.

I think it was somebody sort of high up on the education board here too. I don't know where the story is though. My professor told me about it.

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 07:43 PM
Then they can fucking drive to one. Maybe if getting an abortion required taking a bus people would make more of an effort to not get pregnant when they have absolutely no business being pregnant.

All the while reducing greenhouse gases!

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 07:44 PM
What does "informing people about a talk on evolution" mean?

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 07:45 PM
All the while reducing greenhouse gases!

If they can figure out how to make a car run on vacuumed-out fetuses then let's fucking do it.

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 07:45 PM
A science coordinator got fired in Texas not too long ago for informing people about a talk on evolution. I think this was last week.

I think it was somebody sort of high up on the education board here too. I don't know where the story is though. My professor told me about it.

I think the Kansas statewide school board is now embroiled over another intellegent design debate. :nono

Alchemy
12-11-2007, 07:45 PM
What does "informing people about a talk on evolution" mean?

I think she sent a forward about a lecture that was going to be given.

Alchemy
12-11-2007, 07:46 PM
I think the Kansas statewide school board is now embroiled over another intellegent design debate. :nono

Yeah, Texas is next.

miscorrections
12-11-2007, 07:47 PM
Then they can fucking drive to one. Maybe if getting an abortion required taking a bus people would make more of an effort to not get pregnant when they have absolutely no business being pregnant.

Speaking of making more of an effort: why the hell can't they roll back the need for prescriptions for birth control? I don't get why I, as an informed adult, can't just fucking pick up a pack of pills without getting a prescription. And I don't understand why my prescriptions expire after one year. Yeah, I get that exams are important but christ almighty make this shit readily available.

Alchemy
12-11-2007, 07:47 PM
Here it is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03evolution.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 07:48 PM
Speaking of making more of an effort: why the hell can't they roll back the need for prescriptions for birth control? I don't get why I, as an informed adult, can't just fucking pick up a pack of pills without getting a prescription. And I don't understand why my prescriptions expire after one year. Yeah, I get that exams are important but christ almighty make this shit readily available.

Um... because birth control is medication with occasionally life-long side effects?

Aren't you supposed to be becoming a doctor or a scientist or some shit? See, this is why suffrage was a mistake. Even when we let you go to college you still say dumb shit like this.

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 07:52 PM
Speaking of making more of an effort: why the hell can't they roll back the need for prescriptions for birth control? I don't get why I, as an informed adult, can't just fucking pick up a pack of pills without getting a prescription. And I don't understand why my prescriptions expire after one year. Yeah, I get that exams are important but christ almighty make this shit readily available.

60 minutes had that special of that readily available over the counter morning after pill, but its been hit hard with lawsuits, stuck in medical limbo.


Here it is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03evolution.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Sweet jesus, that's sad.

miscorrections
12-11-2007, 07:53 PM
So what if it has side effects? So do stupid allergy medications. I get that there's a difference in intensity of side effects (in extremely rare cases), but for the majority of women the side effects aren't anything more inconvenient than anything other non-prescription meds create. The pharmacy should just not be liable if someone take birth control and ends up with issues, because no one should be going on medications without being informed in the first place.

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 07:55 PM
People should stop enjoying sex, problem solved.

miscorrections
12-11-2007, 07:55 PM
60 minutes had that special of that readily available over the counter morning after pill, but its been hit hard with lawsuits, stuck in medical limbo.

That's the thing, though. You shouldn't have to take the ec pill in the first place. If condoms are readily available birth control pills should be too.

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 07:56 PM
Yeah, quite hypocritical.

miscorrections
12-11-2007, 07:59 PM
I'm done with my sex talk. Y'all can get back to talking about whatever you were talking about before.

bballarl
12-11-2007, 08:01 PM
Sex can wait. Masturbate.

thelastgreatman
12-11-2007, 08:34 PM
So what if it has side effects? So do stupid allergy medications. I get that there's a difference in intensity of side effects (in extremely rare cases), but for the majority of women the side effects aren't anything more inconvenient than anything other non-prescription meds create. The pharmacy should just not be liable if someone take birth control and ends up with issues, because no one should be going on medications without being informed in the first place.

I think I should be able to get painkillers without a prescription too. Strangely the lawmakers have this weird preoccupation with not making readily available pills that can possibly kill you or end up making you barren.

Yablonowitz
12-11-2007, 10:56 PM
The fact is that one of the good things our nation was founded on--unlike slavery and the subservience of women--was the complete lack of federal powers. My personal feeling about it aside from the philosophical beauty of states' rights? If some people want to have abortion legal and some don't, then good--let some of the states have it their way and some not. Want abortion? Live in one of the states that does or nearby it. And yes, it is motherfucking murder. I still support it, but let's not kid ourselves--you suck the little fetus out with a fucking vacuum. I just support it because the fact is that little baby is a parasite, and I don't think you should be able to make a law prohibiting anyone from murdering a parasite inside their body.

I would live in one of the pro-choice states. That doesn't mean everyone should necessarily have to.

So the fact that the women who would most be harmed by a state abolishing abortion are poor, who could not afford to move or drive to another state let alone pay for the abortion, doesn't concern you.

Fuck state's rights. States are retarded concepts.

Without a federal government, we would still have segregation (if not slavery), high levels of air and water pollution, a number of areas with poor health standards, and poor schools who couldn't even pay a tenth of the salary of a rich school. We'd also have a sweet ass highway infrastructure.

Yablonowitz
12-11-2007, 10:58 PM
Then they can fucking drive to one. Maybe if getting an abortion required taking a bus people would make more of an effort to not get pregnant when they have absolutely no business being pregnant.

Wow, you've suddenly become really stupid. How did that happen?

theburiedlife
12-11-2007, 11:08 PM
Fuck state's rights. States are retarded concepts.

Without a federal government, we would still have segregation (if not slavery), high levels of air and water pollution, a number of areas with poor health standards, and poor schools who couldn't even pay a tenth of the salary of a rich school. We'd also have a sweet ass highway infrastructure.

I disagree, states respond to markets and local societies much faster than the time lags and dis-connectivity of a federal government. Infrastructure are payed for by local externalities and indirect taxes anyways, not the fed. With a failing school system anyways i wouldn't look to our Department of Education as a model. Even on a federal level, pork barrel spending ensures that some districts receive more federal funding than others and inequality remains a constant nuisance.

Don't get me wrong we do need a small central authority for some congruity. But god forbid local populations have different opinions about issues in different regions of the country. Hell, why not homogenize our views so it makes it easier to consolidate power on a federal level?

thelastgreatman
12-12-2007, 02:17 AM
So the fact that the women who would most be harmed by a state abolishing abortion are poor, who could not afford to move or drive to another state let alone pay for the abortion, doesn't concern you.

Fuck state's rights. States are retarded concepts.

Without a federal government, we would still have segregation (if not slavery), high levels of air and water pollution, a number of areas with poor health standards, and poor schools who couldn't even pay a tenth of the salary of a rich school. We'd also have a sweet ass highway infrastructure.

Without a federal government we would still have segregation? Seriously? C'mon. And we don't have high levels of air and water pollution? Do explain to me the good the fed is doing in that area with the discussion of Kyoto going on in the other thread.

And please do explain to me how the federal government is helping poor schools. Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about there? I mean even if we put aside the horrors of No Child Left Behind for a moment, schools still derive almost all of their funding from property taxes, the federal subsidies are not a tremendous amount and are given with the condition that they devote half their year to forcing the kids to study for one test. The fed isn't making inner city schools better, they're just making sure that none of the kids can get a decent education.

Yes, there are some jobs that are big enough that only the federal government can handle them, but I personally don't think that divisive moral/ethical issues should always be one of them. To me, abortion isn't a moral issue, it's a health issue, and that's why I'd never want to live somewhere that had it illegal. But I also don't actually think that any states would overturn Roe v. Wade even if it was possible. The pro-choice establishment acts like it would happen but it wouldn't. And if we went to states' rights on the issue and a few did, well I'm fucking sorry but their side of the argument isn't exactly COMPLETELY without justification. It's not slavery, for example. I support the right to euthanize too, but I recognize that there's a legitimate argument against it, and I think local variations in things like that are just the chance you take for a greater variation in freedoms.

summerkid
12-12-2007, 04:49 AM
Without a federal government we would still have segregation? Seriously? C'mon. And we don't have high levels of air and water pollution? Do explain to me the good the fed is doing in that area with the discussion of Kyoto going on in the other thread.



Not just segregation Randy, we might also still have slavery :rolleyes:, but honestly I don't know what is worse his assertion that the department of education is actually worth a damn or that we would still have slavery if it weren't for the federal government. And didn't California just sue the federal government for not having clean air?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-warm9nov09,0,6632855.story?coll=la-home-center

omg yabs would you look at that? A state doing more about pollution and the environment than the feds are. and not only that, but the federal government is impeding the state from doing so. mmmm big federal government mmmm.

Fuck a big federal government! More power back to the states is more power back to the people.

thelastgreatman
12-12-2007, 04:57 AM
Hahaha, Yabs just got FACED by a guy named Summerkid.

I'm so happy right now.

Yablonowitz
12-12-2007, 06:14 AM
Research Title 1 school funding randy, you douche. I have a child that goes to a title 1 school and kids who normally wouldn't get money for school lunches and other core services because of low property values are assisted by the FEDERAL government. Why are you guys retarded?


The EPA regulates air and water pollution creating standards that apply to all states, the fact that they are being limited in their authority and undermined by the Bush administration is not an argument for state's rights.

Brown v the Board of Education. Also, research federal government involvement into segregation in the South. Slavery - I mean whatever. We fought a war over state's rights and whether or not they should be the ones to determine if slavery were legal or not. Yes...probably over time it would have been abolished. But it certainly would have gone on for a much longer time.

Are you guys fucking retarded? I got faced by a couple of nimwits who don't understand how our federal government works or what it does?

Also Randy, you sudden dumbass, read about what women did before abortion was legal. The number of botched abortions, deaths and child abandoment...if you think fewer women will get pregnant if abortion were illegal, you are far more retarded than I was led to believe.

thelastgreatman
12-12-2007, 06:25 AM
Now now Yabs, cool your jets. First of all of course I'm familiar with Brown v. B of E, you schmuck. But to say that we'd still have slavery or segregation TODAY is rather a stretch.

And Bush is the federal government, so you kinda can blame federal government for the things he does. Part of the problem with giving someone that much freedom to exercise this authority has some pretty hefty implications, doesn't it? If he was held to the original powers granted the executive branch he probably wouldn't have gotten the votes in Congress to go to war in Iraq. Just sayin'.

Would Title 1 be private school vouchers? If so--and I support the program--but I still think it's a little funny that you say it's obviously a good thing that the fed has done by grant a limited number of private school grants while dooming the poor kids actually stuck in the poor schools to a guarantee of shitty education via No Child.

And I know about black-market abortions. I don't seriously think that abortion should ever be illegal--like I said, it's a health issue for me. But I also do actually believe that any state could successfully pass a referendum to make abortion illegal. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right if the pro-lifers actually did win the vote in their state. It's Utah's right not to sell real alcohol for stupid reasons also, and it's Cali's right to have medical marijuana, and there IS a legitimate argument that abortion is kinda fucked up. I like the pragmatist view that society is better off with it legal too. But it's also a bit depressing how many couples are waiting for years to adopt a baby.

TomAz
12-12-2007, 06:31 AM
Speaking of making more of an effort: why the hell can't they roll back the need for prescriptions for birth control? I don't get why I, as an informed adult, can't just fucking pick up a pack of pills without getting a prescription. And I don't understand why my prescriptions expire after one year. Yeah, I get that exams are important but christ almighty make this shit readily available.

because physicians need to see you to make money.

TomAz
12-12-2007, 06:43 AM
Not just segregation Randy, we might also still have slavery :rolleyes:, but honestly I don't know what is worse his assertion that the department of education is actually worth a damn or that we would still have slavery if it weren't for the federal government. And didn't California just sue the federal government for not having clean air?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-warm9nov09,0,6632855.story?coll=la-home-center

omg yabs would you look at that? A state doing more about pollution and the environment than the feds are. and not only that, but the federal government is impeding the state from doing so. mmmm big federal government mmmm.

Fuck a big federal government! More power back to the states is more power back to the people.

citing one example of one state on one subject does not prove your point.

"State's Rights" was the rallying cry of the segregationists in the 50s and the 60s. I am suspicious of anyone advocating more power to the states for that reason.

Another reason is that state legislatures are the most corrupt governmental entities in the US. You think lobbyists have a lot of influence in Washington? look at Austin or Sacramento or Tallahassee. where you have low-rung, minor-league politicians with lots of ambition and with very little funding. If you want to give more power to these fucktards then you might as well invite Monsanto and Exxon and Lilly and Anheuser Busch to just write their own laws.

J~$$$
12-12-2007, 06:52 AM
Is Dr.Ron Paul working with any special interest groups?

Yablonowitz
12-12-2007, 07:48 AM
Now now Yabs, cool your jets. First of all of course I'm familiar with Brown v. B of E, you schmuck. But to say that we'd still have slavery or segregation TODAY is rather a stretch.

And Bush is the federal government, so you kinda can blame federal government for the things he does. Part of the problem with giving someone that much freedom to exercise this authority has some pretty hefty implications, doesn't it? If he was held to the original powers granted the executive branch he probably wouldn't have gotten the votes in Congress to go to war in Iraq. Just sayin'.

Would Title 1 be private school vouchers? If so--and I support the program--but I still think it's a little funny that you say it's obviously a good thing that the fed has done by grant a limited number of private school grants while dooming the poor kids actually stuck in the poor schools to a guarantee of shitty education via No Child.

And I know about black-market abortions. I don't seriously think that abortion should ever be illegal--like I said, it's a health issue for me. But I also do actually believe that any state could successfully pass a referendum to make abortion illegal. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right if the pro-lifers actually did win the vote in their state. It's Utah's right not to sell real alcohol for stupid reasons also, and it's Cali's right to have medical marijuana, and there IS a legitimate argument that abortion is kinda fucked up. I like the pragmatist view that society is better off with it legal too. But it's also a bit depressing how many couples are waiting for years to adopt a baby.

No, doofus, Title 1 is not vouchers. It's federal assistance to schools in low income neighborhoods. (http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html) Basing school funding on property taxes has always seemed to me to be inherently wrong - if the ideal of the nation is to provide equality of opportunity to all, than you should not have an educational funding system that allows such wide variations in school quality. At least Title I does help remedy this inequality to some degree. It certainly wouldn't be across the board in every state if it were not up to the federal government to help.

And it's an interesting contradiction that the states that most frequently bash the federal government and assert state's rights are the ones that receive the most federal funding.

I'm not arguing for a federal government in which direct administration is centralized to the degree that it has under Bush (illegally to my eyes), I think the separation of powers is probably the most enlightened governmental concept (in theory) that we have. It's not working now, but that's because of failures in the other two branches of government.

J~$$$
12-12-2007, 07:54 AM
RON PAUL~
My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate.

Returning control of education to parents is the centerpiece of my education agenda. As President I will advance tax credits through the Family Education Freedom Act, which reduces taxes to make it easier for parents to home school by allowing them to devote more of their own funds to their children's education.

I am committed to guaranteeing parity for home school diplomas and advancing equal scholarship consideration for students entering college from a home school environment.

We must have permanency in the Department of Defense Home School Tier 1 Pilot Program, providing recruitment status parity for home school graduates. I will use my authority to prevent the Department of Education from regulating home school activities.

I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students. I also believe that, as long as No Child Left Behind remains law, it must include the protections for home schoolers included in sec. 9506 (enshrining home schoolers’ rights) and 9527 (guaranteeing no national curriculum).

Federal monies must never be used to undermine the rights of homeschooling parents. I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to encourage a culture of educational freedom throughout the nation.

summerkid
12-12-2007, 08:01 AM
citing one example of one state on one subject does not prove your point.


It proves my point that the federal government has far too much power when the State of California isn't even allowed to regulate their own pollution in the way they see fit and that States are fully capable of regulating their own pollution.

J~$$$
12-12-2007, 08:09 AM
It proves my point that the federal government has far too much power when the State of California isn't even allowed to regulate their own pollution in the way they see fit.


Tomaz nailed it though.

"Another reason is that state legislatures are the most corrupt governmental entities in the US. You think lobbyists have a lot of influence in Washington? look at Austin or Sacramento or Tallahassee. where you have low-rung, minor-league politicians with lots of ambition and with very little funding. If you want to give more power to these fucktards then you might as well invite Monsanto and Exxon and Lilly and Anheuser Busch to just write their own laws."

Big business and lobbying interests would hold all the cards. If they wanted the could go sue happy to force out small business.

From Ron Pauls website

In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems. Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards. Those who depend on the land for their health and livelihood have the greatest incentive to be responsible stewards.

I agree with this to a point but who is to say that this policy wont be abused by state lawmakers and special interest groups.

Yablonowitz
12-12-2007, 08:11 AM
It proves my point that the federal government has far too much power when the State of California isn't even allowed to regulate their own pollution in the way they see fit and that States are fully capable of regulating their own pollution.

Oh yes, that's why we had acid rain, after all. State's knew best.

TomAz
12-12-2007, 09:00 AM
It proves my point that the federal government has far too much power when the State of California isn't even allowed to regulate their own pollution in the way they see fit and that States are fully capable of regulating their own pollution.

No, it's one anecdote that proves nothing. dipshit.

jackstraw94086
12-12-2007, 09:16 AM
Nothing California does should be cited as an example for anything.

This place is not like any other state for many reasons.

theburiedlife
12-12-2007, 11:46 AM
Is Dr.Ron Paul working with any special interest groups?

See for yourself. Looks like dear hilary is thristy for lobbyist funding. Can't wait for 08 to roll around. :rolleyes

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp

theburiedlife
12-12-2007, 11:55 AM
I'm not arguing for a federal government in which direct administration is centralized to the degree that it has under Bush (illegally to my eyes), I think the separation of powers is probably the most enlightened governmental concept (in theory) that we have. It's not working now, but that's because of failures in the other two branches of government.

Why do you think that is?


citing one example of one state on one subject does not prove your point.

"State's Rights" was the rallying cry of the segregationists in the 50s and the 60s. I am suspicious of anyone advocating more power to the states for that reason.

Another reason is that state legislatures are the most corrupt governmental entities in the US. You think lobbyists have a lot of influence in Washington? look at Austin or Sacramento or Tallahassee. where you have low-rung, minor-league politicians with lots of ambition and with very little funding. If you want to give more power to these fucktards then you might as well invite Monsanto and Exxon and Lilly and Anheuser Busch to just write their own laws.

Did you mean the 1850's and 1860's?

Yes, corruption takes hold on all levels of government, but hand more power over to the states and you will loosen the grip of lobbyists. Look at Enron and what they did to California during the energy crisis, that was directly due to the Fed. The point is to take out the say of the government in economic affairs and not let conglomerate abuse the law for their own advantage. Monopolies can only flourish under government cooperation.

TomAz
12-12-2007, 12:00 PM
Did you mean the 1850's and 1860's?{

No. the 1950s and 1960s. In 1964, Barry Goldwater (for example) said he opposed the Civil Rights Act not on principle, but because he thought it should be left up to the individual states to decide.


Yes, corruption takes hold on all levels of government, but hand more power over to the states and you will loosen the grip of lobbyists. Look at Enron and what they did to California during the energy crisis, that was directly due to the Fed. The point is to take out the say of the government in economic affairs and not let conglomerate abuse the law for their own advantage. Monopolies can only flourish under government cooperation.

Your first sentence is naive. The second sentence is factually incorrect. the third and fourth sentences are asinine.

amyzzz
12-12-2007, 12:00 PM
I see a lot of editing in your posts, buriedlife.

kreutz2112
12-12-2007, 12:05 PM
thats the first time I have seen someone leave a reason for their edit. maybe I just havent noticed in the past.

amyzzz
12-12-2007, 12:07 PM
I've left an editing note on occasion. It's always been there.

Yablonowitz
12-12-2007, 12:10 PM
Why do you think that is?


The main reason for the legislative branch is that Democrats are pussies. Mostly. Judicial branch has actually been the most effective at curbing the excesses of the Bush administration. But, having pussy Democrats approve judges they shouldn't and an attorney general who abused his powers by firing judges that didn't agree with the administration didn't help either. Again, that goes back to pussy Democrats not standing up to stupid nominations like Alberto Gonzales.

theburiedlife
12-12-2007, 12:15 PM
No. the 1950s and 1960s. In 1964, Barry Goldwater (for example) said he opposed the Civil Rights Act not on principle, but because he thought it should be left up to the individual states to decide.

Your first sentence is naive. The second sentence is factually incorrect. the third and fourth sentences are asinine.

No, its a subjective view, not naive.

So Enron didn't ask the execitive branch for help in controlling their fraudulent activities? How is what i said incorrect? Show me otherwise.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/5/26/enron_played_central_role_in_california


GREG PALAST: Even before he takes the presidential oath, Bush forms a secret task force, including Enron’s Ken Lay to rewrite America’s environmental and energy laws.

CRAIG McDONALD: He put the very people who funded him in the room to devise a clean air policy. They wrote the policy. He enacted the policy and the policy was strictly voluntary, did nothing to clean up the air, yet he touted it as a major accomplishment.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Instead of the government telling utilities where and how to cut pollution, we will give them a firm deadline and let them find the most innovative ways to meet it.

CRAIG McDONALD: These same funders were sick and tired of trying to play by the environmental rules and regulations. George Bush gave them an environmental clean air policy that any corporation would lust after.

CRAIG McDONALD: Ken Lay, got almost total complete energy deregulation out of George Bush.

JIM HIGHTOWER: What did the Bush administration do? It refused to impose price controls to put a cap on those utility prices, meaning a company like Enron could set its own prices to consumers.

CORPORATE EXECUTIVE: Show me the money! Show me the money!

CRAIG McDONALD: He was delivering a favor in a policy that the donors who put him in that office want.

JIM HIGHTOWER: Consumers in California were being stiffed, and Enron was raking in hundreds of millions of dollars during that period in corrupt profits. So that’s a pretty good payback.

GREG PALAST: But Enron squandered their California windfall in a series of spectacular frauds which imploded, leaving thousands jobless and pensioners bankrupt. Now, George tried to downplay his links with Enron’s Ken Lay and other corrupt bosses.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: By far, the vast majority of CEOs in America are good honorable, honest people. In the corporate world, sometimes things aren’t exactly black and white when it comes to accounting procedures, and the SEC’s job is to rev—is to look and is to determine whether or not, whether or not, whether or not the decision by the auditors was the appropriate decision.

JIM HIGHTOWER: Ken Lay, whom George W. fondly called “Kenny Boy,” was the major campaign contributor to George W. Bush, and they exchanged Christmas cards with each other. Ken Lay was very personal, very close with the Bush family.

J~$$$
12-12-2007, 12:16 PM
The main reason for the legislative branch is that Democrats are pussies. Mostly. Judicial branch has actually been the most effective at curbing the excesses of the Bush administration. But, having pussy Democrats approve judges they shouldn't and an attorney general who abused his powers by firing judges that didn't agree with the administration didn't help either. Again, that goes back to pussy Democrats not standing up to stupid nominations like Alberto Gonzales.

Careful not to throw all democrats under the bus.

ruetheday
12-12-2007, 12:17 PM
politics are lame.

theburiedlife
12-12-2007, 12:18 PM
The main reason for the legislative branch is that Democrats are pussies. Mostly. Judicial branch has actually been the most effective at curbing the excesses of the Bush administration. But, having pussy Democrats approve judges they shouldn't and an attorney general who abused his powers by firing judges that didn't agree with the administration didn't help either. Again, that goes back to pussy Democrats not standing up to stupid nominations like Alberto Gonzales.

I wish the democrats had backbone to reverse the damage caused by the Bush administration, but now the republicans are going to use their inability to act as ammunition.


Careful not to throw all democrats under the bus.

Kucinich 08'

theburiedlife
12-12-2007, 12:21 PM
I see a lot of editing in your posts, buriedlife.

I really should spellcheck, but I submit before I do so.

thelastgreatman
12-12-2007, 12:29 PM
politics are lame.

Rue has won this argument for me.

TomAz
12-12-2007, 12:30 PM
No, its a subjective view, not naive.

So Enron didn't ask the execitive branch for help in controlling their fraudulent activities? How is what i said incorrect? Show me otherwise.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/5/26/enron_played_central_role_in_california

a subjective view. yes. a dumb subjective view. and naive as hell. What are you, 17?

and that article you linked to shows no evidence, that I can see, of the federal government's involvement in abetting Enron. what the article does not mention at all was that it was the State of California that chose to deregulate its energy markets in the first place, which is what made the whole Enron thing possible.

J~$$$
12-12-2007, 12:31 PM
Rue has won this argument for me.

Drugs are totally sweet.

ruetheday
12-12-2007, 12:33 PM
I find it funny you used an article from democracy now. I bet you fault republicans when they use The Weekly Standard or The National Review to help their arguments.

theburiedlife
12-12-2007, 12:38 PM
a subjective view. yes. a dumb subjective view. and naive as hell. What are you, 17? I'm not responding to this, you dont have to insult someone to disagree with them everything you have said about state level politicians is speculative and unfounded. You have shown no evidence.


and that article you linked to shows no evidence, that I can see, of the federal government's involvement in abetting Enron. what the article does not mention at all was that it was the State of California that chose to deregulate its energy markets in the first place, which is what made the whole Enron thing possible.

While deregulation occurs to a small degree on the state level it was the administration which did all the dirty work.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=103

EDIT: Ok, ill add another source

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/eveningnews/main620626.shtml

ruetheday
12-12-2007, 12:41 PM
wow, now you are using publicintegrity.org you have some great reliable sources there.

TomAz
12-12-2007, 12:45 PM
I'm not responding to this, you dont have to insult someone to disagree with them everything you have said about state level politicians is all speculative and unfounded. You have shown no evidence.

My statement is based on experience. Reality, not stuff I read in class.




While deregulation occurs to a small degree on the state level it was the administration which did all the dirty work.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=103

you do realize you just linked to an article that demonstrates my point? Enron lobbied at both the national and state levels for deregulation. Your article says: "Backers of deregulation were, however, more successful in states. Virtually every state considered deregulation at some point, and, so far, nearly half the states have restructured their power markets to varying degrees. According the Department of Energy, 18 states and the District of Columbia have restructured their power market. Enron won contracts worth several million dollars in many of these states."

What happened in California was, Enron lobbied extensively for deregulation, got it, then manipulated the market to its advantage, causing the 2000/01 crisis. What happened in DC was, Enron lobbied extensively for deregulation on the federal level, and didn't have much success. How you can twist this into a "give more power to the states" argument is beyond me.

theburiedlife
12-12-2007, 12:48 PM
It was the Bush administration which blocked Davis' attempt to stop Enron from exploiting the crisis, but it was blocked by the executive branch.

Yablonowitz
12-12-2007, 12:51 PM
you do realize you just linked to an article that demonstrates my point? Enron lobbied at both the national and state levels for deregulation. Your article says: "Backers of deregulation were, however, more successful in states. Virtually every state considered deregulation at some point, and, so far, nearly half the states have restructured their power markets to varying degrees. According the Department of Energy, 18 states and the District of Columbia have restructured their power market. Enron won contracts worth several million dollars in many of these states."

What happened in California was, Enron lobbied extensively for deregulation, got it, then manipulated the market to its advantage, causing the 2000/01 crisis. What happened in DC was, Enron lobbied extensively for deregulation on the federal level, and didn't have much success. How you can twist this into a "give more power to the states" argument is beyond me.


Montana deregulated and now we're paying 50% more on our energy bills than we were before deregulation. This is thanks to Marc fucking Racicot who this state somehow adores. I hope he never returns here because he fucked us in the ass and is now working for the law firm that helped Enron lobby for deregulation.

Definitely a case study on why state's rights is problematic at best.

theburiedlife
12-12-2007, 12:52 PM
I think there was a story on 60 minutes about that.

theburiedlife
12-12-2007, 12:58 PM
My job and responsibility now as vice president, as chairman of the president's energy task force--we've been at it a little over 100 days, so obviously we're in the early phases of it--is to try to make good public policy and to make recommendations to the president based on what makes sense for the country. Sometimes a particular energy company will like it, and sometimes they won't like it.

-Dick Cheney

...But Bush's former head of Energy Nominee Kennith Lay liked their precedents, especially in California.

thelastgreatman
12-12-2007, 01:01 PM
Drugs are totally sweet.

What I mean is that I'm now supporting Rue in the Republican Presidential Caucus.

ruetheday
12-12-2007, 01:09 PM
I'm not running

Yablonowitz
12-12-2007, 01:17 PM
I'm not running

Write in. I'll accept late write-ins for Rue. In fact, fuck it.

Rue versus Obama.

thelastgreatman
12-12-2007, 01:32 PM
I wanna be the VP candidate that drags his campaign crashing into the ground and gets Kucinich in office.

TomAz
12-12-2007, 02:06 PM
It was the Bush administration which blocked Davis' attempt to stop Enron from exploiting the crisis, but it was blocked by the executive branch.

Please explain how, precisely, they managed to do this. What legal mechanism did the White House use to prevent a state governor from exercising his statutory authority?

theburiedlife
12-12-2007, 04:26 PM
Please explain how, precisely, they managed to do this. What legal mechanism did the White House use to prevent a state governor from exercising his statutory authority?

Money:
Gov. Davis pleaded with President George Bush to enact much needed price controls on electricity sold in the state, which skyrocketed to more than $200 per megawatt-hour. Davis said that Texas-based energy companies were manipulating California’s power market, charging obscene prices for power and holding consumers hostage. Bush agreed to meet with Davis at the Century Plaza Hotel in West Los Angeles on May 29, 2001, five days after Lay met with Schwarzenegger, to discuss the California power crisis.

At the meeting, Davis asked Bush for federal assistance, such as imposing federally mandated price caps, to rein in soaring energy prices. But Bush refused saying California legislators designed an electricity market that left too many regulatory restrictions in place and that’s what caused electricity prices in the state to skyrocket. It was up to the governor to fix the problem, Bush said. However, Bush’s response appears to be part of a coordinated effort launched by Lay to have Davis shoulder the blame for the crisis.

Wheres the beef?
12-12-2007, 04:49 PM
OOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Archie Bunker
12-12-2007, 08:48 PM
I love these "Bush was out to get Gray Davis" conspiracy theories related to the power crisis.

Davis messed up big time and hit the panic button at the first sign of an energy "crisis", roping the state into long-term contracts at horrendous prices in order to fill a short-term need.

Bush was right. This was California's problem (that they somewhat created) and it was their to solve, as opposed to dropping it in the lap of the federal government.

Davis' negotiation "skills" would make any used car dealer salivate if he were in a 5-mile radius of their lot.

ruetheday
12-13-2007, 12:00 AM
I wanna be the VP candidate that drags his campaign crashing into the ground and gets Kucinich in office.

If Kuninich took office I would kill myself. That midget isn't fit to run his own household.

TomAz
12-13-2007, 05:01 AM
It was the Bush administration which blocked Davis' attempt to stop Enron from exploiting the crisis, but it was blocked by the executive branch.


Money:Gov. Davis pleaded with President George Bush to enact much needed price controls on electricity sold in the state, which skyrocketed to more than $200 per megawatt-hour. Davis said that Texas-based energy companies were manipulating California’s power market, charging obscene prices for power and holding consumers hostage. Bush agreed to meet with Davis at the Century Plaza Hotel in West Los Angeles on May 29, 2001, five days after Lay met with Schwarzenegger, to discuss the California power crisis.

At the meeting, Davis asked Bush for federal assistance, such as imposing federally mandated price caps, to rein in soaring energy prices. But Bush refused saying California legislators designed an electricity market that left too many regulatory restrictions in place and that’s what caused electricity prices in the state to skyrocket. It was up to the governor to fix the problem, Bush said. However, Bush’s response appears to be part of a coordinated effort launched by Lay to have Davis shoulder the blame for the crisis.

can you read? The Money article you quoted does not describe Bush "blocking Davis' attempt to stop Enron". It describes Bush being unwilling to bail Davis out from his own fuck up.

You will get no argument from me that Bush is an incompetent asshole. But remember the context here: your case is, essentially, that since Davis fucked up and Bush wouldn't bail him out by adopting soviet-style market controls, that states should have more political authority and the federal government should step back and be less involved. wtf? think how much damage Davis could have done if he had real power!

thelastgreatman
12-13-2007, 05:17 AM
I kinda like Goldwater's version of conservativism, even though he argued it to block the Civil Rights Act. I honestly don't think he was against the act, but the man was seriously principled about his rights stuff. The man almost saved the Republican party from burning in hell before fucking Reagan had to come and destroy it all, whoring the conservative ideal out.

theburiedlife
12-13-2007, 08:11 AM
can you read? The Money article you quoted does not describe Bush "blocking Davis' attempt to stop Enron". It describes Bush being unwilling to bail Davis out from his own fuck up.

You will get no argument from me that Bush is an incompetent asshole. But remember the context here: your case is, essentially, that since Davis fucked up and Bush wouldn't bail him out by adopting soviet-style market controls, that states should have more political authority and the federal government should step back and be less involved. wtf? think how much damage Davis could have done if he had real power!

No, you're right Davis was incompetent as well, but when you let Kennith Lay shut down a fourth of the power plants on the west coast to artificially drive up the cost of electricity and then not act upon those actions is becomes apparent crony ism.

thelastgreatman
12-13-2007, 08:24 AM
I'd be amazed if Ken Lay's buddy status with the administration wasn't somehow helpful, although I can't say I have any idea exactly how nor do I care. Allow me to posit a purely theoretical idea for how a dominantly states' rights oriented system might fix its own shortcoming in this respect:

If the fed's power was dramatically restricted to only matters in which it was truly necessary--FEMA (done better than Katrina of course), the fed banks, war administration but ONLY if passed by say a 2/3 majority in both houses, and otherwise it was permitted to extend aid and resources to situations only when authorized to do so by a 3/5 majority in both houses, effectively neutering it for any purpose that isn't an overwhelmingly good idea--well... don't you think that these changes would mean public interest in local government would increase?

I mean, you look at American politics today and there's SO MUCH emphasis on the President. Because he has a ton of power he shouldn't, of course, it's only natural, but he has been made into the elected king that the founders always feared. But if his powers were dramatically decreased and people couldn't blame the President for whatever they don't like, they would probably get more knowledgable and aware about their local representation, yes?

And if local government is so overwhelmingly corrupt, maybe that could be a very good thing. In local government you COULD theoretically see some actual impact from the will of the people--much easier for constitutents to make their voices heard if all the focus was on the Congresspersons and their smaller delegation could give them hell. As it is right now, I don't think most people pay attention to local government at all, which is a shame because that's where the majority of legislation that really effects their daily life happens.

Discuss.

TomAz
12-13-2007, 08:32 AM
No, you're right Davis was incompetent as well, but when you let Kennith Lay shut down a fourth of the power plants on the west coast to artificially drive up the cost of electricity and then not act upon those actions is becomes apparent crony ism.

you continue to amaze me.

The authority to regulate the power companies lies with the states, not the federal government. California chose to deregulate its market. Enron, being crooks and assholes, manipulated the deregulated market to its own gain. so when you say "when you let Kenneth Lay shut down a fourth.." I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting Bush should have sent in the Army to physically prevent Enron from doing this? Because the statutory authority to regulate those markets lies with the states. Not the federal government.

To top it all off, not only are you struggling to grasp the basic facts, you take it a step further and use it as an argument for giving the states more authority. You criticize the federal government for not doing more (when they had no right to do so) and then say therefore, the federal government should do even less. Have you gone with Alice and chased the rabbit down the hole and entered Wonderland?

TomAz
12-13-2007, 08:39 AM
I'd be amazed if Ken Lay's buddy status with the administration wasn't somehow helpful, although I can't say I have any idea exactly how nor do I care. Allow me to posit a purely theoretical idea for how a dominantly states' rights oriented system might fix its own shortcoming in this respect:

If the fed's power was dramatically restricted to only matters in which it was truly necessary--FEMA (done better than Katrina of course), the fed banks, war administration but ONLY if passed by say a 2/3 majority in both houses, and otherwise it was permitted to extend aid and resources to situations only when authorized to do so by a 3/5 majority in both houses, effectively neutering it for any purpose that isn't an overwhelmingly good idea--well... don't you think that these changes would mean public interest in local government would increase?

I mean, you look at American politics today and there's SO MUCH emphasis on the President. Because he has a ton of power he shouldn't, of course, it's only natural, but he has been made into the elected king that the founders always feared. But if his powers were dramatically decreased and people couldn't blame the President for whatever they don't like, they would probably get more knowledgable and aware about their local representation, yes?

And if local government is so overwhelmingly corrupt, maybe that could be a very good thing. In local government you COULD theoretically see some actual impact from the will of the people--much easier for constitutents to make their voices heard if all the focus was on the Congresspersons and their smaller delegation could give them hell. As it is right now, I don't think most people pay attention to local government at all, which is a shame because that's where the majority of legislation that really effects their daily life happens.

Discuss.

The American public has demonstrated repeatedly that it is too stupid to know when it's been assraped. So I'm not sure what advantage would be gained from your suggestion.

J~$$$
12-13-2007, 08:45 AM
The American public has demonstrated repeatedly that it is too stupid to know when it's been assraped. So I'm not sure what advantage would be gained from your suggestion.

too stupid,
lazy,
unwilling,
and accepting (most applied the lube themselves)

TomAz
12-13-2007, 08:55 AM
but they sure know what's up with Paris and Lindsay and Britney!

J~$$$
12-13-2007, 09:06 AM
I do too. I love me some TMZ, but honestly there is no excuse for being uneducated or misinformed about what your local, state, and federal government are up to and voting on. This goes hand in hand with business dealings in your back yard. Pick up a business journal and skim the headlines if anything. The internet is your friend, some people need to use it for more than seeking crotch shots of their favorite celebs. Im not trying to preach anything or talking to anyone in general.

By no means am I the smartest person but I make damn sure I know what is going on in my backyard.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
12-13-2007, 09:31 AM
too stupid,
lazy,
unwilling,
and accepting (most applied the lube themselves)

Truer words couldn't be said...

Yablonowitz
12-13-2007, 09:50 AM
By no means am I the smartest person but I make damn sure I know what is going on in my backyard.

What're Casa Bonita's specials tonight?

J~$$$
12-13-2007, 09:54 AM
You dont want to eat there homes. Just go for the sopapilla and margaritas and muscley cliff divers, and the cave, and the mariachi band, and the skee ball prizes.

Yablonowitz
12-13-2007, 09:55 AM
You dont want to eat there homes. Just go for the sopapilla and margaritas and muscley cliff divers, and the cave, and the mariachi band, and the skee ball prizes.

You're skirting the issue. You don't know what's going on in your backyard.



ps - I remember loving the sopapillas.

J~$$$
12-13-2007, 09:59 AM
The only thing they are serving up is a fried butthole. You will get dysentery. bet.

Yablonowitz
12-13-2007, 10:01 AM
Again. You keep proving over and over that you are a hypocrite! You don't even know the basics of Denver! YOU'RE A LIAR!



btw - I'm not going to eat there in the near future.

J~$$$
12-13-2007, 10:05 AM
You really want to know what the specials are? One of the guys I work with has a brother that is a line cook there Ill find out for you.

Yablonowitz
12-13-2007, 10:27 AM
No, it's too late. You've already proven that you DON'T know what's going on in your backyard. Too late. No wonder Denver's going to shit.

J~$$$
12-13-2007, 10:33 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v682/yablonowitz/100_1573.jpgEzlNKPC4KLc

Yablonowitz
12-13-2007, 10:34 AM
I can't see the video, but that penis PROVES that I know what's going on in MY backyard.

J~$$$
12-13-2007, 10:36 AM
Yeah we do too, and its going to shit for reals.

J~$$$
12-13-2007, 10:38 AM
Is the homeless guy still using your alley as his personal restroom?

Yablonowitz
12-13-2007, 10:39 AM
Tell me about it, brah.

Yablonowitz
12-13-2007, 10:40 AM
Is the homeless guy still using your alley as his personal restroom?

Are you joking? We seriously have problems like that. Homeless guys get into our trash on a weekly basis. They eat our old food. I used to think it was dogs. But...um...no.

J~$$$
12-13-2007, 10:41 AM
You should chase them off with the hose, Or bottle rockets, atleast the kids could have fun.

theburiedlife
12-13-2007, 01:19 PM
The American public has demonstrated repeatedly that it is too stupid to know when it's been assraped. So I'm not sure what advantage would be gained from your suggestion.

Our district did for Duke Cunningham... You're quite a pessimist.


you continue to amaze me.

The authority to regulate the power companies lies with the states, not the federal government. California chose to deregulate its market. Enron, being crooks and assholes, manipulated the deregulated market to its own gain. so when you say "when you let Kenneth Lay shut down a fourth.." I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting Bush should have sent in the Army to physically prevent Enron from doing this? Because the statutory authority to regulate those markets lies with the states. Not the federal government.

To top it all off, not only are you struggling to grasp the basic facts, you take it a step further and use it as an argument for giving the states more authority. You criticize the federal government for not doing more (when they had no right to do so) and then say therefore, the federal government should do even less. Have you gone with Alice and chased the rabbit down the hole and entered Wonderland?

You continue to misinterpret the meaning. Bush should not have stopped the governor from inciting the price ceilings and going after Kennith lay for the way he fucked California over. The fact that bush and Kennith Lay were bed buddies pre-energy crisis should say something about how much the federal government can befuddle state affairs, especially when the governor is trying to avoid getting scammed into buying overpriced energy.


In a speech at UCLA on August 19, 2003, Davis apologized for being slow to act during the energy crisis, but then forcefully attacked the Houston-based energy suppliers: "I inherited the energy deregulation scheme which put us all at the mercy of the big energy producers. We got no help from the Federal government. In fact, when I was fighting Enron and the other energy companies, these same companies were sitting down with Vice President Cheney to draft a national energy strategy."

-Gray Davis

TomAz
12-13-2007, 01:22 PM
You continue to misinterpret the meaning. Bush should not have stopped the governor from inciting the price ceilings and going after Kennith lay for the way he fucked California over. The fact that bush and Kennith Lay were bed buddies pre-energy crisis should say something about how much the federal government can befuddle state affairs, especially when the governor is trying to avoid getting scammed into buying overpriced energy.

you have yet to offer one iota of evidence that Bush "stopped" Davis from doing anything. I asked you yesterday, what mechanism did Bush use to keep Davis from exercising his statutory authority? Is the distinction between "getting no help" and "stopping" too subtle for you to grasp?

J~$$$
12-13-2007, 01:25 PM
They became "bed buddies" because of business dealings and lobbying in Texas while bush was governor there.

state level corruption.

Just sayin.

J~$$$
12-13-2007, 01:31 PM
hahahaha a letter from kenny.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay8.html


heres 'nother

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay10.html

oooops.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay12.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay15.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay13.html

GOOOOOOO ASTROS!

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlayc4.html


This is why business journals in my opinion are invaluable sources of info.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlayc6.html

theburiedlife
12-13-2007, 01:45 PM
you have yet to offer one iota of evidence that Bush "stopped" Davis from doing anything. I asked you yesterday, what mechanism did Bush use to keep Davis from exercising his statutory authority? Is the distinction between "getting no help" and "stopping" too subtle for you to grasp?
No need to be condescending about it. I'm having a discussion, yet all you feel the need to do is demean and belittle.

Denying a request for intervention is bringing Davis' motions to a halt. Sure, he might have been against price ceilings, but it was apparent Kennith Lay had no incentives for encouraging Bush to allow former Governor Davis to save the state from a potential economic crisis.

http://www.mises.org/images4/lifesaver.jpg

TomAz
12-13-2007, 01:48 PM
Davis: Bush, could you move this rock for me? I can't do it myself.

Bush: No.

Davis: Bush stopped me from moving that rock!!

theburiedlife
12-13-2007, 01:53 PM
Davis: Hey Bush, hand me that gun so i cant fight off these thieves stealing stuff out of my house.

Bush: Thieves? oh, you mean those guys, I'm actually friends with them, just give a year or so, then I'm sure they'll go away.

Davis: But you can help me now!

Bush: Nah, I'm afraid my hands are tied.

TomAz
12-13-2007, 02:01 PM
I swear it's like I'm speaking japanese to you. I give up.

PotVsKtl
12-13-2007, 02:04 PM
oZrmfv0J15k

J~$$$
12-13-2007, 02:09 PM
GIANT GAY FLESH EATING RATS!!!! NOOOOO!!!!!!

TomAz
12-14-2007, 05:02 AM
this site (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) is kinda cool. if you scroll down the page a bit you will see poll results by state for each party, sorted in date order from most recent to oldest.

theburiedlife
12-14-2007, 01:00 PM
That's cool, I would have expected Oregon to be a bit more democratic leaning than "Barely".

Yablonowitz
12-14-2007, 01:06 PM
this site (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) is kinda cool. if you scroll down the page a bit you will see poll results by state for each party, sorted in date order from most recent to oldest.

They don't even include the eventual nominee for the Dems on that poll.

TomAz
12-17-2007, 07:01 AM
another example of corruption at a state legislature:

Blue Cross to pay $20 million in probe

PROVIDENCE, R.I., Dec 14, 2007 (AP via COMTEX) -- Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island will pay $20 million, but avoid criminal charges following a federal investigation into whether its executives improperly lobbied state legislators for political favors.

The deal, announced Thursday by U.S. Attorney Robert Clark Corrente, will also require the state's largest health insurer to cooperate with prosecutors in the continuing investigation, be monitored for two years and accept responsibility for the conduct of its executives.

Four Blue Cross executives left the company on Tuesday.

Corrente described the agreement as a "substantial resolution of the conduct in question but, at the same time, I think it's responsive to Blue Cross's position in the community."

Prosecutors say Blue Cross executives lobbied three former state lawmakers for legislative favors at the same time the company was doing business with them by paying the politicians, in total, several hundred thousand dollars.

The three legislators include former House Majority Leader Gerard Martineau and former Sen. John Celona, who have both pleaded guilty to corruption charges for supporting bills the insurer liked and working to defeat legislation the company opposed.

Corrente identified the third as a former Senate president who received more than $400,000 in monthly commissions from Blue Cross as an insurance broker. Former Senate President William Irons is the subject of an ethics complaint for his work as a broker on a CVS-employee health insurance policy provided by Blue Cross. His attorney did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

The allegations detailed in the agreement span the years 1997 to 2003.

Jim Purcell, who was named president and CEO of Blue Cross in December 2004, said the company has already made some significant reforms, including requiring its board of directors and each employee to attend training on ethics and integrity. Certain members of the executive management team also have been replaced.

"We're very satisfied that no criminal charges have been brought against us," Purcell said in a telephone interview. "We're hoping to focus now on the future rather than the past."

But Christopher Koller, the state's health insurance commissioner, blamed Blue Cross executives for a "gross betrayal" and said the company needed to do more to restore the public's trust.

"I remain concerned that Blue Cross has not sufficiently addressed the culture of indifference to the public interest that led to today's settlement," he said in a statement.

The $20 million payment will be placed into a trust fund and used to support affordable health care services, Corrente said. The insurer has agreed to take the money out of its reserves and will not seek a rate increase to cover the cost of that payment. The fund will be administered by the Rhode Island Foundation, a private charitable organization.

The agreement, which could be in effect for up to three years, does not protect individual Blue Cross executives from eventually being indicted, Corrente said. Blue Cross could still face criminal charges if prosecutors determine that the company provided false or misleading information or committed any crime, according to the agreement.

Federal prosecutors say Blue Cross financed a cable access television program hosted by Celona, who in turn supported Statehouse bills favorable to the health insurer. Celona pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges in 2005 and is now in prison.

Last month, Martineau, who had a contract to sell Blue Cross paper prescription bags, admitted receiving roughly $175,000 from the insurer while using his power at the Statehouse to kill bills the health insurer opposed. He also pleaded guilty to a similar business deal with the CVS pharmacy chain and is due to be sentenced in February.

Irons, who resigned from the General Assembly in 2004, has not been charged with any wrongdoing. An ethics complaint filed by a government watchdog group accuses Irons of having a conflict of interest when he voted on pharmacy "freedom of choice" bills, which would have essentially given consumers more choice in where they could get their prescriptions filled.

Federal prosecutors are conducting a broad influence-peddling investigation, dubbed Operation Dollar Bill, that they have said involves more than a dozen politicians and corporations.

Besides plea agreements with Celona and Martineau, the probe has led to convictions of two former executives of the Roger Williams Medical Center who illegally hired Celona and criminal charges against two former vice presidents of CVS, who have pleaded not guilty and are awaiting trial.

Also last year, federal prosecutors agreed to dismiss charges against Roger Williams after the hospital promised to make major ethical reforms and provide additional free medical care.

Under the deal, Blue Cross has agreed to continue cooperating with federal prosecutors by turning over any relevant documents and information and by providing other help.

The deal restricts the relationships between Blue Cross and elected officials, barring executives from lobbying any politicians or government employees with whom the company does business.

The agreement also requires Blue Cross to appoint a government-approved monitor, who will serve for at least two years and make sure that the insurer complies with the terms of the deal.

J~$$$
12-17-2007, 07:11 AM
"Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul's supporters raised more than $6 million Sunday to boost the 10-term Texas congressman's campaign for the White House."

Yablonowitz
12-20-2007, 11:03 AM
Here's a good case study in favor of state's rights. Our own fucking EPA...what a disgrace:


WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday denied California and 16 other states the right to set their own standards for carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.

The E.P.A. administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, said the proposed California rules were pre-empted by federal authority and made moot by the energy bill signed into law by President Bush on Wednesday. Mr. Johnson said California had failed to make a compelling case that it needed authority to write its own standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks to help curb global warming.

The decision immediately provoked a heated debate over its scientific basis and whether political pressure was applied by the automobile industry to help it escape the proposed California regulations. Officials from the states and numerous environmental groups vowed to sue to overturn the edict.

summerkid
12-20-2007, 11:04 AM
I already brought that up.

Yablonowitz
12-20-2007, 11:32 AM
I already brought that up.

Oh, excuse me. I'm very sorry for this then. OLD NEWS.

summerkid
12-20-2007, 11:34 AM
Oh yes, that's why we had acid rain, after all. State's knew best.

this is what you had to say on the matter that's why I'm confused.

TomAz
12-20-2007, 11:42 AM
just because one EPA administrator is making a power grab doesn't mean the best long term solution is to give more authority to the governor of Alabama.

Yablonowitz
12-20-2007, 12:32 PM
this is what you had to say on the matter that's why I'm confused.

I'm not really changing my opinion. I was pointing it out as a potential case for your dumb argument.

The greater joke here is that this is coming from an administration that supposedly adheres to the notion of state's rights when the reality is that they are firmly pursuing the interests of wealth and power over the public good through the federal government.

This just further my concerns with the centralization of federal power within the executive branch. But not my general belief that the federal government should be the main vehicle for making policy regarding health, safety, equality, and education.

thelastgreatman
12-21-2007, 05:10 AM
Um... where else would federal power be centralized, exactly, Yabs? Executive = federal. It's not just that the power is centralized there, it's that the fed in its entirety is an outgrowth of the executive branch. I don't see how you could change it. You could lessen the amount of power the fed has, which is a good idea, but one you claim to not advocate.

ADrunkPoet
12-21-2007, 05:26 AM
In the wake of the GOP realizing the beast it created in humoring Christian fundamentalists for far too long (i.e. the rise of Mike Huckabee), it is my opinion that John McCain will win the Republican nomination.

He has all of the momentum in NH right now, and a close loss in second to Huckabee in Iowa is all the media blitz he will need (remember, his campaign was declared dead over the summer). The Washington conservative press will anoint him the winner after NH, and there will not be any "Karl Rove tricks" against him this cycle. That being said, McCain is also the best candidate in beating all three Dem candidates, as his "no surrender in Iraq" rhetoric will resonate with the American public who is both unaware of how the "surge" has done little than arm local guerrrilla groups, but continues to perceive this policy as a success because our corporate media has dropped the conversation regarding Iraq for months now.

Oh, and by the way, I am not a Republican. I am a very, lefty Political Science student. I happen to support Barack Obama, but my true political leans push me farther to the left than Dennis Kucinich is running on.

thelastgreatman
12-21-2007, 05:35 AM
Wow, that's an absolutely horrible prediction. Tell me, do you actually pay attention to who ends up getting the nomination every four years?

TomAz
12-21-2007, 05:37 AM
I find ADrunkPoet's analysis to be astute. I think he's right.

thelastgreatman
12-21-2007, 05:38 AM
McCain gets the nom? Anybody want to bet 500 dollars on that? Please, I could use the dough.

TomAz
12-21-2007, 05:40 AM
that would be a stupid bet straight-up. unless you want to take another candidate and we'll go head to head and if neither gets the nomination the bet's a push.

thelastgreatman
12-21-2007, 05:43 AM
Guiliani. You need odds?

TomAz
12-21-2007, 05:47 AM
you got $500?

thelastgreatman
12-21-2007, 06:22 AM
Indeed I do, I make pretty decent money now.

TomAz
12-21-2007, 06:27 AM
you still gonna be employed come August?

thelastgreatman
12-21-2007, 06:29 AM
Yes sir, I've got a bright future here. I'm the only smart person.

TomAz
12-21-2007, 06:39 AM
i don't wanna do $500 but i'll bet you $50.

Yablonowitz
12-21-2007, 07:25 AM
Um... where else would federal power be centralized, exactly, Yabs? Executive = federal. It's not just that the power is centralized there, it's that the fed in its entirety is an outgrowth of the executive branch. I don't see how you could change it. You could lessen the amount of power the fed has, which is a good idea, but one you claim to not advocate.

Greater separation of power within the federal government. More congressional oversight and a weakening of "executive privilege" would be a good start. Also, limiting the scope and/or changing the manner in which executive orders can be delivered. Elimination of the pardoning rights of the president, elimination of the electoral college, and a justice department that is removed entirely from executive control in determining leadership positions are just a few of the things I'm spouting out my ass that could help. I haven't really thought all of them through, but I'm trying to make a point that the executive branch of the federal government could be run differently.

J~$$$
01-10-2008, 12:45 PM
I want the GOP to voice their opinion. There has to be more than Paul supporters here.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
01-10-2008, 12:46 PM
Ron Paul is fucking Crazy!























GOD BLESS THE MAN.....

bug on your lip
01-10-2008, 12:50 PM
EAiQicOBd2g


McCain
HOLLA

J~$$$
01-10-2008, 12:52 PM
lol.

canexplain
01-10-2008, 12:59 PM
posts on this board are running half of the dems thread .... shape of things to come? canx**

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
01-10-2008, 12:59 PM
that was pretty funny....

TomAz
01-10-2008, 01:23 PM
I want the GOP to voice their opinion. There has to be more than Paul supporters here.

you and your rock and roll music are going to hell, coachella.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
01-10-2008, 01:24 PM
posts on this board are running half of the dems thread .... shape of things to come? canx**

Nah, I think it has more to due with where the political views of the board lay...

canexplain
01-10-2008, 01:35 PM
Nah, I think it has more to due with where the political views of the board lay...

yep i know you are right, or is that left :) i am always surprised how many young people are repubs but then that is what makes america great, the diversity ... i just wish in this case the diversity would slide to the dems .... canx**

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
01-10-2008, 01:38 PM
I have a feeling that it will....