Analyzing Kerry's acceptance speech...
-
adonisv wrote: If teachers were highly paid, people would WANT to be teachers do you know what the pay scale is? I know junior high school teachers who make 60k - 75k per year. is that bad? the reason many qualified people don't teach is the politically correct nature of the classroom. discipline is not allowed and attempting to get rid of a problem kid that disrupts everything takes an act of God. It is a thankless job, if a teacher fails a kid the teacher gets into trouble. These, along with the fact that parents that don't do their job is the reason for school problems, not a lack of money. if parents do their job, kids can be taught in a tent with a lantern for light. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me Paraphrasing Kerry: I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are. Me
Mike Gaskey wrote: do you know what the pay scale is? Well I am no Chris Losinger :laugh: but even I could do this one ;P http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos069.htm[^] Median annual earnings of kindergarten, elementary, middle, and secondary school teachers ranged from $39,810 to $44,340 in 2002; the lowest 10 percent earned $24,960 to $29,850; the top 10 percent earned $62,890 to $68,530. Median earnings for preschool teachers were $19,270. According to the American Federation of Teachers, beginning teachers with a bachelor’s degree earned an average of $30,719 in the 2001–02 school year. The estimated average salary of all public elementary and secondary school teachers in the 2001–02 school year was $44,367. Private school teachers generally earn less than public school teachers.
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
-
Stan Shannon wrote: All of the progressive and populist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries owe a huge intellectual debt to Marx and other anti-Jeffersonian European thinkers. it is possible to use a philosophy as a way to reframe a debate without necessarily buying into that philosophy. and, new philosophies, even when proven wrong on their own, can easily lead to the discovery of non-wrong philosophies by reframing the debate. ex. Libertarianism and Randianism are basically impossible to implement and wouldn't work if you could, but they do provide ways of looking at politics which can yield benefits in non-impossible political philosophies. using what they dictate to reframe a debate does not require that you want to live in anarchy. unless you're saying Teddy Roosevelt was a communist wanna-be ... in which case we should stop right here because we don't even live on the same planet. Stan Shannon wrote: Just because the left found no way of implementing Marx in the pure sense, doesn't mean they are not still devoted to experimenting with the essential elements of that philosophy. no Democrats are interested in experimenting with the essential elements of Marxism because the essential elements of Marxism are absurd, alien and silly. Stan Shannon wrote: Jefferson was not reffering to income tax which didn't exist in his day leave the goalposts where they are: you weren't referring to "income tax" either. you said "Who do you think would be most comfortable with placing increased tax burdens on the "rich" Jefferson or Marx? ". the quotes i provided demonstrate that he was comfortable of the idea that those who could afford to pay more "should". Stan Shannon wrote: If you are suggesting we return to a pre-income tax, Jeffersonian, policy of funding the government, I'll be more than happy to comply. i'm not. this is the 20th century, not the 18th. Stan Shannon wrote: Marx himself would have probably made similar adjustments to his own philosphies had he lived to see the consequencies of the early experiments with it. well, ya got me there. i can't dispute the actions of a Marx from an alternate universe that exists only in your imagination. Software | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: it is possible to use a philosophy as a way to reframe a debate without necessarily buying into that philosophy. and, new philosophies, even when proven wrong on their own, can easily lead to the discovery of non-wrong philosophies by reframing the debate. ex. Libertarianism and Randianism are basically impossible to implement and wouldn't work if you could, but they do provide ways of looking at politics which can yield benefits in non-impossible political philosophies. using what they dictate to reframe a debate does not require that you want to live in anarchy. unless you're saying Teddy Roosevelt was a communist wanna-be ... in which case we should stop right here because we don't even live on the same planet. Of course, I agree with that. I'm merely trying to establish that there are two general political themes competing for supremacy today. One, growing out of a genrally Marxist set of principles, promotes the notion that centralized political power serves a positive good within human society. And another, arising primarily from the core Jeffersonian principles the U.S. was founded upon, promotes a decentralized, anti-federalist, pro-indiviualist, pro-private property set of principles. These two philosophies represent the current political extremes of left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative. I am an extremist in the sense that I believe the centralization of social and economic power in the hands of a federal politcal system is inherently dangerous and to be avoided at all costs. I vote for 'conservatives' and republicans, not because I agree with many of their principles, but merely because they establish a means of opposing the most dangerous politcal agenda on the planet today. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
So what's the deal? Did you major in Political Science or something? You have more facts about American Politics than I have about... uhh ME! :) Or maybe you have a Cray in your bedroom? :laugh::laugh:
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
palbano wrote: Did you major in Political Science or something? hell no. i majored in Computer Science! the only science that matters. :) palbano wrote: You have more facts about American Politics than I have about... uhh ME one positive (???) effect GWB has had on me is to get me deeply interested in current politics. four years ago i didn't give a crap about it, didn't pay attention, didn't think there was any real difference between the two major parties as far as my everyday life was concerned, would've voted for Nader if he was on the NC ballot just cause I thought it'd be fun to shake things up. i knew about the old stuff from high school and college, but wasn't really interested in the current stuff because it seemed so removed from my daily life. 9/11 and W's actions afterwards got me to pay attention. palbano wrote: Or maybe you have a Cray in your bedroom? just IE. those blogs can really teach you a lot. some of them are pretty serious discussions by pretty smart people: Josh Marshall (foreign policy from a left-leaning journalist) Tacitus (military and foreign policy with a rightward slant) Calpundit/Political Animal (lefty politics) Volokh (legal analysis from the right) Crooked Timber (serious philosophy from the left) Max Sawicky (serious economics with a lefty political slant) Matt Yglesias (philosophy and centrist politcs) Whiskey Bar (lefty politics) some of them are just red meat/hot topics: Atrios, KOS. excellent for learning about the outrage of the day. and some are brutally funny shredding of rightwing nonsense: tbogg, World O' Crap, Pandagon of course, there are rightwing equivalents to all of those, too. start with Instapundit. and, of course Google. but mostly... i love to argue, and that means i need to have facts in my quiver. if you go into a place like Tacitus or Yglesias unarmed, you get ripped up pretty quickly :) Software | Cleek
-
Stan Shannon wrote: "What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. Stan Shannon wrote: Jefferson was not reffering to income tax which didn't exist in his day. We can surmise he would have been opposed to it based on this: Maybe you can surmise that from those two quotes, the one you posted from 1801 and the one Chris posted from 1811. But in my opinion your supposition makes no sense. Those two quotes in chronological order would seem to indicate the Jefferson was talking exactly about what Kerry proposed for a Tax Plan. Of course you have to also account for the difference in time. I mean life in 1811 vs life in 2004. Jefferson was talking about infrastructure of the day, roads and schools etc. Our needs are vastly more and complex today in comparison and I for one believe that unlike you Jefferson would be smart enough to understand that. I see no proof of your hypothesis in the quotes offered in this thread. If anything it is easier to surmise that he would have eventually conceded to the necessity of income tax in modern times to enable the government to continue supplying the infrastructure support that he clearly favored in 1811.
Hate is not a family value.
-pete
If it were merely a question of infratstructure, I, and probably Jefferson, would agree that is an entirely prudent rationale for acquiring and using public funds. However, Jefferson was staunchly anti-federalist. The modern federal government of the U.S. stands as a nearly complete repudiation of the core principles Jefferson ,et al, struggled so hard to establish. Those principles were universal and are as relavent in 2004 as in 1811. It is really not so much a matter of how taxes are raised, it is how government translates taxation into the ability to influence the direction of society in ways that it has no strictly stated constitutional authority to do. For example, consider prayer in school. There is nothing in the constitution that makes any school any where in the country an extension of the federal government, so obviously any prayer said in a public school cannot possible violate the wording of the first amendment. However, because schools are dependent upon funds raised from taxation they become, by default, an extension of the state and thus can be controlled, via the courts, by constitutional prohibitions upon the government including the first amendments prohibition on establishing a religion. Thus the power to tax becomes the power to coerce and influence social institutions at the local level and that violates the most basic principles of Jeffersonian federalism. Thats the problem and not taxation itself. That logic, taken to its ultimate conclusion, gives the government a monopoly on setting and maintaining the social agenda for the entire country, which, ironically, violates the very rational for having the First Amendment in the first place which was specifically to prohibit the federal government from having any such power. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
Jason Henderson wrote: Oops. I was wrong. Freakin Liberal... piss off you idiot :laugh::laugh:
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
-
palbano wrote: Did you major in Political Science or something? hell no. i majored in Computer Science! the only science that matters. :) palbano wrote: You have more facts about American Politics than I have about... uhh ME one positive (???) effect GWB has had on me is to get me deeply interested in current politics. four years ago i didn't give a crap about it, didn't pay attention, didn't think there was any real difference between the two major parties as far as my everyday life was concerned, would've voted for Nader if he was on the NC ballot just cause I thought it'd be fun to shake things up. i knew about the old stuff from high school and college, but wasn't really interested in the current stuff because it seemed so removed from my daily life. 9/11 and W's actions afterwards got me to pay attention. palbano wrote: Or maybe you have a Cray in your bedroom? just IE. those blogs can really teach you a lot. some of them are pretty serious discussions by pretty smart people: Josh Marshall (foreign policy from a left-leaning journalist) Tacitus (military and foreign policy with a rightward slant) Calpundit/Political Animal (lefty politics) Volokh (legal analysis from the right) Crooked Timber (serious philosophy from the left) Max Sawicky (serious economics with a lefty political slant) Matt Yglesias (philosophy and centrist politcs) Whiskey Bar (lefty politics) some of them are just red meat/hot topics: Atrios, KOS. excellent for learning about the outrage of the day. and some are brutally funny shredding of rightwing nonsense: tbogg, World O' Crap, Pandagon of course, there are rightwing equivalents to all of those, too. start with Instapundit. and, of course Google. but mostly... i love to argue, and that means i need to have facts in my quiver. if you go into a place like Tacitus or Yglesias unarmed, you get ripped up pretty quickly :) Software | Cleek
You must have a hell of a lot of time on your hands. I barely have time to poke in here on occassion... "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
Work harder. When I was a child in the 50's and 60's my parents were poor and there were no government programs or insurance to help us and we were easily able to avail ourselves of health care. They had to work hard, but they did it (with some help from local churches and on one occasion the Lion's club) The more government helps, the harder it is to get it. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
Stan Shannon wrote: And, yes, the rich would have better education than the poor. The poor would have to work harder. Being poor sucks. The only responsibility the government has to the poor is to maximize their opportunities to work their way out of it. And that means a healthy, growing economy, with low taxes across the board. Stan Shannon wrote: Work harder Stan, well said. I have always known that this was the center of the modern Republican philosophy. However you are the first one to come right out and say it. Good for you. Of course, this makes you a Heartless Profiteer rather than a Patriotic American but I am sure that is a distinction that is lost on you. So even though I am completely wasting my time, hey it is my time to waste right, I will point out why it is so. In other posts you reference Jefferson and his disapproval of income tax. Instead Jefferson proposed that government be funded with property taxes. This was in a time when you could become a property owner by walking out on land that was not already claimed by another and saying, THIS IS MY PROPERTY. I think we can all agree that times have changed. If you can’t agree with that just stop reading. Therefore it is logical to believe that in modern times Jefferson might have had a different opinion on income tax, obviously we will never know. Of course since he was a slave owner, which of course makes him a Heartless Profiteer BY DEFINITION, I personally don’t put any credence in anything he had to say about anything, period. The fact that you seem to adore him so much certainly gives me pause regarding your mental stability but that is neither here nor there. So we form a government and fund it to be responsible for the infrastructure of our new country, as per our beloved Jefferson. We do so because we realize the simple fact that it is in our own best interests to work together to build our own future in this new land of abundance an opportunity. So ordinary (not rich) Americans get jobs building the infrastructure. Take the case of Stanley who gets a job building American Roads. The same roads that many businesses use to their advantage to make themselves rich. Now 20 years later technology is taking a lead in the world and road builders are not needed so much and Stanley can not find any work. Tough shit for him right? After all we have all the roads that he built so we don’t need him anymore right? Piss off Stanley, you should have become the Vice Duke
-
-
I guess your asking me? Yeah that's why I called you a liberal, real Rebublicans never admit they made a mistake. :-D Also, the laughing faces traditionally mean ur joking. :)
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
>> Yeah that's why I called you a liberal, real Rebublicans never admit they made a mistake. Ah, OK. Hey, you never know. In order of importance for me: God Family Country Ideology Party And party may even be further down. I make mistakes, not many, but occasionally. Kidding. I make them often.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Hmmm, I bet health care wasn't as expensive back then as it is now. But that shouldn't matter...nawww. I somewhat agree with you that "choices" reflect whether you are poor or not. Like if you make diddly squat, don't have eight kids! My objections to conservatism are cutting funding for education, raping the environment and a refusal due to a conflict of interest to move us toward alternative fuels. Although I somewhat blame the public for not putting their money behind green products. I also dislike the Christian Faith being shoved down my throat and a blind devotion to Israel...
adonisv wrote: Hmmm, I bet health care wasn't as expensive back then as it is now. But that shouldn't matter...nawww. Did it ever occur to you that the more the government spends on health care the more expensive it becomes? adonisv wrote: cutting funding for education Didn't happen... adonisv wrote: , raping the environment The environment will let us know when its tired of being raped... adonisv wrote: a refusal due to a conflict of interest to move us toward alternative fuels. Conservatives didn't invent oil. There is no 'alternative fuel' that is going to be able to compete in the market place with oil until it becomes a lot more expensive than it is now. That is simply a fact and is not the fault of W or any othre conservative. President Kerry will not be able to do a damned thing about it ether, any more than Clinton did. adonisv wrote: I also dislike the Christian Faith being shoved down my throat and a blind devotion to Israel... The only faith being shoved down anyone's throat in this country is that of the Secularist left. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
Stan Shannon wrote: And, yes, the rich would have better education than the poor. The poor would have to work harder. Being poor sucks. The only responsibility the government has to the poor is to maximize their opportunities to work their way out of it. And that means a healthy, growing economy, with low taxes across the board. Stan Shannon wrote: Work harder Stan, well said. I have always known that this was the center of the modern Republican philosophy. However you are the first one to come right out and say it. Good for you. Of course, this makes you a Heartless Profiteer rather than a Patriotic American but I am sure that is a distinction that is lost on you. So even though I am completely wasting my time, hey it is my time to waste right, I will point out why it is so. In other posts you reference Jefferson and his disapproval of income tax. Instead Jefferson proposed that government be funded with property taxes. This was in a time when you could become a property owner by walking out on land that was not already claimed by another and saying, THIS IS MY PROPERTY. I think we can all agree that times have changed. If you can’t agree with that just stop reading. Therefore it is logical to believe that in modern times Jefferson might have had a different opinion on income tax, obviously we will never know. Of course since he was a slave owner, which of course makes him a Heartless Profiteer BY DEFINITION, I personally don’t put any credence in anything he had to say about anything, period. The fact that you seem to adore him so much certainly gives me pause regarding your mental stability but that is neither here nor there. So we form a government and fund it to be responsible for the infrastructure of our new country, as per our beloved Jefferson. We do so because we realize the simple fact that it is in our own best interests to work together to build our own future in this new land of abundance an opportunity. So ordinary (not rich) Americans get jobs building the infrastructure. Take the case of Stanley who gets a job building American Roads. The same roads that many businesses use to their advantage to make themselves rich. Now 20 years later technology is taking a lead in the world and road builders are not needed so much and Stanley can not find any work. Tough shit for him right? After all we have all the roads that he built so we don’t need him anymore right? Piss off Stanley, you should have become the Vice Duke
Well, you're just plain wrong. A trully capitalisitc society offers the poor the best chance to improve their lot in life. All government help provides them with is more of the same poverty. But of course that doesn't bother you any, as long as there are plenty of poor you can pander to you will be more easily able to force your socialist, secularist agenda down the throats of Americans. You don't want to help the poor, you want to keep them dependent and use them for promulgating your completely unrelated agenda. The Democrats have never helped the poor, and never will. If they did, they would no longer have a base of power to stand on. The U.S. was established to be a place where indiviudals are afforded the opportunity to stand on their own two feet and live their own lives in their own way. Anyone who cannot accept that simple social contract should not live here. That is what we are and have always been. I am not in anything togther with anyone outside of my own immediate family. I don't need you or anyone else, and I only need the government to kill terrorist for me so that I don't have to waste my own money on ammo. That is how I was raised by my father who was raised the same way by his for many, many generations - that is the America we bought into when we fought and won the Revolution. The principles and values established than are universal and eternal. That is the American I intend to leave to my children. I do not intend to let it become a Euro-esk social welfare state dedicated to the brotherhood of humanity or other Marxist nonsense. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
You must have a hell of a lot of time on your hands. I barely have time to poke in here on occassion... "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
If it were merely a question of infratstructure, I, and probably Jefferson, would agree that is an entirely prudent rationale for acquiring and using public funds. However, Jefferson was staunchly anti-federalist. The modern federal government of the U.S. stands as a nearly complete repudiation of the core principles Jefferson ,et al, struggled so hard to establish. Those principles were universal and are as relavent in 2004 as in 1811. It is really not so much a matter of how taxes are raised, it is how government translates taxation into the ability to influence the direction of society in ways that it has no strictly stated constitutional authority to do. For example, consider prayer in school. There is nothing in the constitution that makes any school any where in the country an extension of the federal government, so obviously any prayer said in a public school cannot possible violate the wording of the first amendment. However, because schools are dependent upon funds raised from taxation they become, by default, an extension of the state and thus can be controlled, via the courts, by constitutional prohibitions upon the government including the first amendments prohibition on establishing a religion. Thus the power to tax becomes the power to coerce and influence social institutions at the local level and that violates the most basic principles of Jeffersonian federalism. Thats the problem and not taxation itself. That logic, taken to its ultimate conclusion, gives the government a monopoly on setting and maintaining the social agenda for the entire country, which, ironically, violates the very rational for having the First Amendment in the first place which was specifically to prohibit the federal government from having any such power. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
Stan Shannon wrote: There is nothing in the constitution that makes any school any where in the country an extension of the federal government, so obviously any prayer said in a public school cannot possible violate the wording of the first amendment. :confused: does that mean that, because the EPA isn't defined in the Constitution, that nothing it does can violate any amendment? can the EPA put you in jail indefinitely without a trial, quarter soldiers in your house and subject you to cruel and unusual punishment? Software | Cleek
-
Well, you're just plain wrong. A trully capitalisitc society offers the poor the best chance to improve their lot in life. All government help provides them with is more of the same poverty. But of course that doesn't bother you any, as long as there are plenty of poor you can pander to you will be more easily able to force your socialist, secularist agenda down the throats of Americans. You don't want to help the poor, you want to keep them dependent and use them for promulgating your completely unrelated agenda. The Democrats have never helped the poor, and never will. If they did, they would no longer have a base of power to stand on. The U.S. was established to be a place where indiviudals are afforded the opportunity to stand on their own two feet and live their own lives in their own way. Anyone who cannot accept that simple social contract should not live here. That is what we are and have always been. I am not in anything togther with anyone outside of my own immediate family. I don't need you or anyone else, and I only need the government to kill terrorist for me so that I don't have to waste my own money on ammo. That is how I was raised by my father who was raised the same way by his for many, many generations - that is the America we bought into when we fought and won the Revolution. The principles and values established than are universal and eternal. That is the American I intend to leave to my children. I do not intend to let it become a Euro-esk social welfare state dedicated to the brotherhood of humanity or other Marxist nonsense. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
Stan Shannon wrote: I am not in anything togther with anyone outside of my own immediate family. Really? Your life would not change if you woke up tomorrow and all the rest of us had left the country? Stan Shannon wrote: that is the America we bought into when we fought and won the Revolution Right, all those Americans came together to fight and die for the purpose of not being in anything together. Stan it is going to be difficult to converse with you if you insist on contradicting yourself. I mean if you don't stick to your own side of the conversation there is not anything for me to say right? Now I know that we are all used to Chris posting quotes and dates and such to place facts into evidence. However not all facts are have dates or are quotes, you know like for example... gravity.
Hate is not a family value.
-pete
-
There is no liberal Democrat alive who can get anything by me - or any other thinking human being. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
Stan Shannon wrote: And, yes, the rich would have better education than the poor. The poor would have to work harder. Being poor sucks. The only responsibility the government has to the poor is to maximize their opportunities to work their way out of it. And that means a healthy, growing economy, with low taxes across the board. Stan Shannon wrote: Work harder Stan, well said. I have always known that this was the center of the modern Republican philosophy. However you are the first one to come right out and say it. Good for you. Of course, this makes you a Heartless Profiteer rather than a Patriotic American but I am sure that is a distinction that is lost on you. So even though I am completely wasting my time, hey it is my time to waste right, I will point out why it is so. In other posts you reference Jefferson and his disapproval of income tax. Instead Jefferson proposed that government be funded with property taxes. This was in a time when you could become a property owner by walking out on land that was not already claimed by another and saying, THIS IS MY PROPERTY. I think we can all agree that times have changed. If you can’t agree with that just stop reading. Therefore it is logical to believe that in modern times Jefferson might have had a different opinion on income tax, obviously we will never know. Of course since he was a slave owner, which of course makes him a Heartless Profiteer BY DEFINITION, I personally don’t put any credence in anything he had to say about anything, period. The fact that you seem to adore him so much certainly gives me pause regarding your mental stability but that is neither here nor there. So we form a government and fund it to be responsible for the infrastructure of our new country, as per our beloved Jefferson. We do so because we realize the simple fact that it is in our own best interests to work together to build our own future in this new land of abundance an opportunity. So ordinary (not rich) Americans get jobs building the infrastructure. Take the case of Stanley who gets a job building American Roads. The same roads that many businesses use to their advantage to make themselves rich. Now 20 years later technology is taking a lead in the world and road builders are not needed so much and Stanley can not find any work. Tough shit for him right? After all we have all the roads that he built so we don’t need him anymore right? Piss off Stanley, you should have become the Vice Duke
All I have to say is what a great fuckin' post! And one more thing: Stan, Mike G, Jason H, all you nutcases, fuck you!! Why don't you go move to greenland and start your "every man for himself" tribe or some stupid bullshit! You don't need the gub'ment, you don't need the rest of us lib'ruls gettin' in your way! You can take care of yourselves right? :laugh: Real Americans can't stand assholes like you, and that's the reason you guys hate real Americans so much! I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for
-
Well, you're just plain wrong. A trully capitalisitc society offers the poor the best chance to improve their lot in life. All government help provides them with is more of the same poverty. But of course that doesn't bother you any, as long as there are plenty of poor you can pander to you will be more easily able to force your socialist, secularist agenda down the throats of Americans. You don't want to help the poor, you want to keep them dependent and use them for promulgating your completely unrelated agenda. The Democrats have never helped the poor, and never will. If they did, they would no longer have a base of power to stand on. The U.S. was established to be a place where indiviudals are afforded the opportunity to stand on their own two feet and live their own lives in their own way. Anyone who cannot accept that simple social contract should not live here. That is what we are and have always been. I am not in anything togther with anyone outside of my own immediate family. I don't need you or anyone else, and I only need the government to kill terrorist for me so that I don't have to waste my own money on ammo. That is how I was raised by my father who was raised the same way by his for many, many generations - that is the America we bought into when we fought and won the Revolution. The principles and values established than are universal and eternal. That is the American I intend to leave to my children. I do not intend to let it become a Euro-esk social welfare state dedicated to the brotherhood of humanity or other Marxist nonsense. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
Stan Shannon wrote: The U.S. was established to be a place where indiviudals are afforded the opportunity to stand on their own two feet and live their own lives in their own way. Anyone who cannot accept that simple social contract should not live here. That is what we are and have always been. Stan, you're are so far up yourself I'm surprised you can see daylight! The US was established because a bunch of rich men objected to taxation without representation. They fought a war against the taxing authority and dressed it up with a whole lot of bullshit about freedom. Obviously you swallow that 228 year old propoganda whole and unsalted. I'm sorry to hear you have so little intellectual backbone (but not surprised given your posting history). How can you have so little regard for your own history? For the fact that joining the United States is a one way street? Once you're in that's it baby - forget any idea of future independence. Contrast that with Singapore which was once a member state of Malaysia but chose independence. I don't recall reading news about a civil war in Malaysia in 1965. How can you ignore the fact that much of the history of the US consists of slim majorities lynching those who disagree? How it must gall you to know that it's just over a year until I can become a US Citizen - holding opinions about what the US could be so diametrically opposed to yours. I don't buy your bullshit. Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++
-
i thought his speech was pretty good. i'd never seen much of him speaking before - i'd only heard the GOP spin that he was wooden and fake and condescending. i didn't see any of that. he seemed sincere and honest and even likeable. he's certainly not as much of a speaker as the other three stars (Clinton, Obama and Edwards), but few are. most importantly, he gave me a reason to vote for him other than Anyone-But-Bush . Software | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: only heard the GOP spin that he was wooden and fake and condescending. Isn't that what they used to say about the last guy who won the election too? :')
-
Stan Shannon wrote: There is nothing in the constitution that makes any school any where in the country an extension of the federal government, so obviously any prayer said in a public school cannot possible violate the wording of the first amendment. :confused: does that mean that, because the EPA isn't defined in the Constitution, that nothing it does can violate any amendment? can the EPA put you in jail indefinitely without a trial, quarter soldiers in your house and subject you to cruel and unusual punishment? Software | Cleek
I suppose I'm equally confused. The EPA is a federal agency, established by an act of congress, congress is clearly subject to constitutional restraints, so obviously is the behavior of the EPA, an extension of congress. The public school system became a component of the federal state merely because it receives federal funds. Why do they recieve federal funds? Because the government took that money away from people, gave it to the schools and thereby took effective control of those schools away from the very people who were forced to give the money in the first place. Neat plan. That clearly demonstrates the government's anti-Jeffersonian abuse of power, of confiscating the wealth of the people, and using that very wealth as a means of regulating and coercing behavior from them via intrinsically locally controlled institutions such as the public school system. Such abuse of power by the government far exceeds such issues as the silly 'patriot act'. And the fact that those on the left seem to believe that such abuse is a good thing makes all of your protests against Bush, et al, ring very hollow indeed. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." James Madison, "Father of the U.S. Constitution"
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The U.S. was established to be a place where indiviudals are afforded the opportunity to stand on their own two feet and live their own lives in their own way. Anyone who cannot accept that simple social contract should not live here. That is what we are and have always been. Stan, you're are so far up yourself I'm surprised you can see daylight! The US was established because a bunch of rich men objected to taxation without representation. They fought a war against the taxing authority and dressed it up with a whole lot of bullshit about freedom. Obviously you swallow that 228 year old propoganda whole and unsalted. I'm sorry to hear you have so little intellectual backbone (but not surprised given your posting history). How can you have so little regard for your own history? For the fact that joining the United States is a one way street? Once you're in that's it baby - forget any idea of future independence. Contrast that with Singapore which was once a member state of Malaysia but chose independence. I don't recall reading news about a civil war in Malaysia in 1965. How can you ignore the fact that much of the history of the US consists of slim majorities lynching those who disagree? How it must gall you to know that it's just over a year until I can become a US Citizen - holding opinions about what the US could be so diametrically opposed to yours. I don't buy your bullshit. Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++
So my family's 300+ years of building America, of fighting, and bleeding and dieing to perfect the insitutions of democracy and liberty taken for granted by those of you skulking into the country today to enjoy those principles, are really a shameful history of greed and inhumanity? And that we sad heirs of those American traditions need to be led into the light by those of you who have decided to grace us with your liberating presence? Is that kind of your point? No thanks, I think I'll stay committed to my mythology if your's is the only alternative. I'm confident of my mythology because I learned it at the feet of those who had lived it. Unadulterated by Hollywood or centers of higher education. It was the truth they had carried with them across the frontier for all those generations. They knew who and what they were. I'm pretty sure they knew their reality by living it more than you do by reading some revisionist history book by some Marxist historian somewhere. Rob Manderson wrote: How can you ignore the fact that much of the history of the US consists of slim majorities lynching those who disagree? Ignore it? Hell, in my family we used to set around laughing our asses off about it. We kicked butt, didn't we? I make no excuses for what my people were. They were tough, mean, brutal SOBs who's history is one long bloody smear across this continent. They neither asked for or gave quarter to those they encountered. They were exactly the kind of people it took to build this nation. They lived their lives as individuals and as free men. I'm proud as hell to share their blood. Go peddle your secularist moral agenda somewhere else. Rob Manderson wrote: How it must gall you to know that it's just over a year until I can become a US Citizen - holding opinions about what the US could be so diametrically opposed to yours. I don't buy your bull****. It doesn't gall me at all. You're simply ignorant, I can forgive you for that. I'm sure that otherwise you are an honest, decent, hard working and welcome addition to the American family. The only thing I worry about is that you, unlike previous generations of emigrants who came here intent on beating those Americans already here at their own game, come at a time when there is a general disreaged and disrespect for the principles that made this country great not only around the world, but here as well. It is really very sad. But being wrong, you will lose, and the o