Those Wacky Republicans
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
If some of you brethren know inwardly that you've been on the wrong side of this life, just go to your mirror, look into it and say out loud:
I know I'm a loser.
I know I been a shithead when it comes to politics and what's real.
I know as soon as the bookstore opens, I'm gonna find me a copy of the Harry Browne book: "How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World".
I know that I want to stop being a loser and start being a winner.
I know that I no longer want to be hypnotized by a bunch of Washington, D.C. whores, who only look out for their own asses.
I wanna free my mind.
I wanna think for myself, for a change.
Even though my so-called friends will be shocked, I'm gonna find a new and better way of life.
I truly want to be like brother BSAM says: ADDICTED TO FREEDOM!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can find the courage to look in that mirror and make that change, break those chains, no longer have to depend on Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and all the others like them to provide the twisted guidance that has kept you defeated all your life.
Good luck!
I know I'm a loser.
I know I been a shithead when it comes to politics and what's real.
I know as soon as the bookstore opens, I'm gonna find me a copy of the Harry Browne book: "How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World".
I know that I want to stop being a loser and start being a winner.
I know that I no longer want to be hypnotized by a bunch of Washington, D.C. whores, who only look out for their own asses.
I wanna free my mind.
I wanna think for myself, for a change.
Even though my so-called friends will be shocked, I'm gonna find a new and better way of life.
I truly want to be like brother BSAM says: ADDICTED TO FREEDOM!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can find the courage to look in that mirror and make that change, break those chains, no longer have to depend on Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and all the others like them to provide the twisted guidance that has kept you defeated all your life.
Good luck!
So who out there thinks people should be allowed to use welfare benefits on ocean cruises?
I saw an article in the WashPost today that was critical of some state for introducing a law that would prohibit using foodstamps on steak and other high dollar food items. The article was written from the perspective that this is one step from reintroducing slavery.
Who thinks it is good policy to give tax money to people to buy lobster tails? Why can't they just do like Jameis Winston and steal them?
I saw an article in the WashPost today that was critical of some state for introducing a law that would prohibit using foodstamps on steak and other high dollar food items. The article was written from the perspective that this is one step from reintroducing slavery.
Who thinks it is good policy to give tax money to people to buy lobster tails? Why can't they just do like Jameis Winston and steal them?
Last edited:
Piezoe,
Regarding your lack of affinity for Justice Scalia, why do you need to personalize it? At least he has a discernible legal philosophy, originalism, that is intellectual defensible. Unlike say, the philosophies of Obama's appointees, which seem to be largely outcome-oriented, ie vote for the Democrat position and twist the Constitution as necessary to make it fit.
There is a recognized maxim of legal construction that introductory clauses establish factual understandings. Youa re reading this introductory clause as though it were what is called in law a condition. Conditions are typically preceded by the language "provided that..."
The Drafters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were well-educated intellectuals and knew how to parse phrases, unlike say the idiot political hacks who wrote the 14th Amendment. If they had intended the roight to keep and bear arms to be limited to militias, they would have added a proviso along the liunes of, "provided that all such arms be used in the service of a state-regulated militia."
They didn't, but merely tipped their hats at the obvious utility of having a well-armed populace who could muster as needed. Additionally, the term "people" or "we the people" is a term of art in the Constitution and invariably was intended to mean the entire citizenry.
If advances in weaponry have somehow rendered the Second Amendment obsolete, the remedy is amendment.
Regarding your lack of affinity for Justice Scalia, why do you need to personalize it? At least he has a discernible legal philosophy, originalism, that is intellectual defensible. Unlike say, the philosophies of Obama's appointees, which seem to be largely outcome-oriented, ie vote for the Democrat position and twist the Constitution as necessary to make it fit.
There is a recognized maxim of legal construction that introductory clauses establish factual understandings. Youa re reading this introductory clause as though it were what is called in law a condition. Conditions are typically preceded by the language "provided that..."
The Drafters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were well-educated intellectuals and knew how to parse phrases, unlike say the idiot political hacks who wrote the 14th Amendment. If they had intended the roight to keep and bear arms to be limited to militias, they would have added a proviso along the liunes of, "provided that all such arms be used in the service of a state-regulated militia."
They didn't, but merely tipped their hats at the obvious utility of having a well-armed populace who could muster as needed. Additionally, the term "people" or "we the people" is a term of art in the Constitution and invariably was intended to mean the entire citizenry.
If advances in weaponry have somehow rendered the Second Amendment obsolete, the remedy is amendment.
Like "corporations are people"?
1. piezoe... why do you write with such lefists blinders... why not work from a standpoint of truth and work your way out. for instance...
why not use your prodigious powers of govt excuse making to think of a clause that would account for temporary borrowing? or emergency borrowing in time of war. (especially if it is not tied to debt.)
next...
2. if you are not going to control govt borrowing... why not untie it from debt. what good is the debt doing. (especially since we started "monetizing" it.)
hence... you act like we need and IRS or income taxes... that is pure massive govt loving bullshit. We don't need to steal from those who earn it. there are other ways. we should look to those other ways first before we steal it from those who earn it. Just a first thought to consider.. printing more money would be more equitable than theft via IRS.
3. why do we need an IRS... I already showed you that we have no idea how much money the federal reserve is creating. Remember --- we had no idea they created 13 trillion during the debt crisis. your examples of some of the Fed self reporting are just red herrings.
Until we know how many dollars are being created... taxing income is a heinous attack of govt cronies on the hard working. It prevents future competition from accumulating wealth to buy politicians.
And even if you do wish to collect revenue... there are much better ways to do it than stealing it from the non cronies who work for it.
4. and finally for some creative thinking...
If you wish to have campaign finance reform... tax the shit out of the cronies. they will have less to money to buy the politicians with. (not my advice but it is the solution for income inequality.... you should be taxing those with the big income and big assets not the 99.5%.
why not use your prodigious powers of govt excuse making to think of a clause that would account for temporary borrowing? or emergency borrowing in time of war. (especially if it is not tied to debt.)
next...
2. if you are not going to control govt borrowing... why not untie it from debt. what good is the debt doing. (especially since we started "monetizing" it.)
hence... you act like we need and IRS or income taxes... that is pure massive govt loving bullshit. We don't need to steal from those who earn it. there are other ways. we should look to those other ways first before we steal it from those who earn it. Just a first thought to consider.. printing more money would be more equitable than theft via IRS.
3. why do we need an IRS... I already showed you that we have no idea how much money the federal reserve is creating. Remember --- we had no idea they created 13 trillion during the debt crisis. your examples of some of the Fed self reporting are just red herrings.
Until we know how many dollars are being created... taxing income is a heinous attack of govt cronies on the hard working. It prevents future competition from accumulating wealth to buy politicians.
And even if you do wish to collect revenue... there are much better ways to do it than stealing it from the non cronies who work for it.
4. and finally for some creative thinking...
If you wish to have campaign finance reform... tax the shit out of the cronies. they will have less to money to buy the politicians with. (not my advice but it is the solution for income inequality.... you should be taxing those with the big income and big assets not the 99.5%.
Last edited:
Jem, I can't help but like your response because unlike several others here, you are at least thinking about these things, and I can't say I entirely disagree with you.
1.To begin, I don't look at policy and U.S. politics as left or right. I look at it as good or bad from my personal perspective. So I don't have an automatic spasm depending on whether Mitch, Harry, Nancy, or Barack proposes something. (There is only one Republican name in there because lately they are just blocking without proposing much of anything helpful.) I just try my best to look dispassionately and see whether what's being done makes more sense then not to me personally.
It is theoretically possible for the government to be self insured and save up such a large rainy day surplus by taxing in excess of current needs that no matter what the crisis there would be sufficient excess funds to fall back on so no borrowing would be needed. But that would depress the economy and what would be gained? How would the surplus be invested if the government did not borrow. Would there be any more efficiency, any less corruption? Looking selfishly at such a prospect, would we be wasting our current reserve currency advantage.
We do, and we have, monetized a portion of the debt. And this of course cheats those who hold it, which is all of us because we all contribute to Social Security, and many of us have investment or retirement portfolios partly invested in U.S. Treasuries. It also cheats the Germans, the Chinese, and anyone else who holds our debt. And we all buy things at the inflated price caused by monetizing. It's a balanced cheating! When we find that milk is now 4$ /gal when it used to be 2.50$ we recognize that's how we pay for killing Iraqis, at 7 million per each man women and child blown to bits. We've freed them from their evil dictator by killing them, and surely they have got to appreciate THAT!
But by no means do we monetize all of the debt. And please don't forget that the government can borrow at substantially less cost than any of us as individuals can. In fact, when the Fed finances government deficits the cost is just the operating cost of the Fed plus any inflation created. (All Fed income minus expenses flows back to the Treasury.)
2. I am not sure what you mean by untying borrowing from debt. You seem to be suggesting printing. That's what Zimbabwe did! I think we also did it during the revolutionary and civil wars. Even though people refer to QE as printing, even some economists do!, of course it isn't, not really. Every dollar created is created out of debt, not out of nowhere as in the case of "true printing." That's a BIG distinction. And might I point out that most of the TARP money used to rescue private business has already been paid back with interest!
3. Do you want our government to stop doing most of the things it does? That would allow it to shrink back to the form it was in before the income tax. I don't think you would like the result of that. If you don't want to shrink the government that much how do you want to pay for it and who do you want to administer the collection of operating costs?
1.To begin, I don't look at policy and U.S. politics as left or right. I look at it as good or bad from my personal perspective. So I don't have an automatic spasm depending on whether Mitch, Harry, Nancy, or Barack proposes something. (There is only one Republican name in there because lately they are just blocking without proposing much of anything helpful.) I just try my best to look dispassionately and see whether what's being done makes more sense then not to me personally.
It is theoretically possible for the government to be self insured and save up such a large rainy day surplus by taxing in excess of current needs that no matter what the crisis there would be sufficient excess funds to fall back on so no borrowing would be needed. But that would depress the economy and what would be gained? How would the surplus be invested if the government did not borrow. Would there be any more efficiency, any less corruption? Looking selfishly at such a prospect, would we be wasting our current reserve currency advantage.
We do, and we have, monetized a portion of the debt. And this of course cheats those who hold it, which is all of us because we all contribute to Social Security, and many of us have investment or retirement portfolios partly invested in U.S. Treasuries. It also cheats the Germans, the Chinese, and anyone else who holds our debt. And we all buy things at the inflated price caused by monetizing. It's a balanced cheating! When we find that milk is now 4$ /gal when it used to be 2.50$ we recognize that's how we pay for killing Iraqis, at 7 million per each man women and child blown to bits. We've freed them from their evil dictator by killing them, and surely they have got to appreciate THAT!
But by no means do we monetize all of the debt. And please don't forget that the government can borrow at substantially less cost than any of us as individuals can. In fact, when the Fed finances government deficits the cost is just the operating cost of the Fed plus any inflation created. (All Fed income minus expenses flows back to the Treasury.)
2. I am not sure what you mean by untying borrowing from debt. You seem to be suggesting printing. That's what Zimbabwe did! I think we also did it during the revolutionary and civil wars. Even though people refer to QE as printing, even some economists do!, of course it isn't, not really. Every dollar created is created out of debt, not out of nowhere as in the case of "true printing." That's a BIG distinction. And might I point out that most of the TARP money used to rescue private business has already been paid back with interest!
3. Do you want our government to stop doing most of the things it does? That would allow it to shrink back to the form it was in before the income tax. I don't think you would like the result of that. If you don't want to shrink the government that much how do you want to pay for it and who do you want to administer the collection of operating costs?
Last edited: