Voting is the best revenge! (Election results 2012)

[jmervyn]

Some of us would rather rip the band-aid off quickly.

At this point, I say give the left everything they ask for. And when parents begin eating their children because Dear Leader has ****ed the market up so badly that nobody produces anything anymore, maybe then we can have an adult discussion about important things like economics and the benefits of free and voluntary trade, instead of focusing our attention on some douchebag who can peddle a bike really fast or some skank who is famous for nothing but being skanky.

I can kinda agree with that in principle, but there is a bit of a practical problem with the idea. When it gets that far gone, they usually just shoot anyone they even suspect of not believing Dear Leader is doing a really good job and that the country is wonderful and prosperous.

Well, if you're lucky they shoot you. If you're not so lucky, they send you to a nice summer camp where they can politely explain to you why you're mistaken in your perception that things might not be all happy rainbows, purple unicorns and cuddly teddy bears.

Glurin is correct, here, Saro - on the way to ruin, the fascist Left is rarely content with just looting the treasury; they also concoct wonderful innovations in the process.

Spoiler

You're putting far too much faith in the ability of people like Steve to recognize that they're nothing more than trained seals applauding such people; they've been raised on Armstrong, Kardashians, and CAAARRRRING!! so while they may like to imagine themselves as intelligent and moral they rarely have the inner core required to look at the situation with their eyes wide open. Germany's citizens weren't even as far gone as ours are, and look what happened there. That's why I'm so convinced that we're in for a worse crash than anyone imagines; as Mark Steyn quips, we're the Brokest Nation in History.

Note that I'm using Steve as the perfect example because he still finds fault almost exclusively with the "Right" (as if there's such a thing) and believes that the Christians are far & away a greater threat than Progressives. He's a truly modern young American man. I wonder if he carries a murse as the Huffpo suggests?

See I agree with you about that as the cause though from older sources than her book, which I have not read.

Ben Franklin?

[Stevinator]

So, by that logic, there's no reason not to despise the NSDAP or the KKK, since their roots were from so long ago.

The difference is that no one at PP is trying to ethnically cleanse anyone today, whereas the groups you mention still support such goals. I'm not even convinced the organization was ever really for such a purpose.

There are two areas that queer marriage has direct detrimental fiscal effects, and neither has to do with what people actually do with their genitalia. The first, and foremost, is that the reason the entire issue is being pushed is in order to create another "protected class" of sexual preference. Given how deeply you hate and despise the protection of religious preference, I think it's feckin' hillaryous that you're such a strong advocate of this one. The first immediate effect, already felt, is that queers sue over the newly created category of discrimination. The second immediate effect is that you're adding a massive number of new Gov't dependents based on who's screwing whom, because the provable criteria for marriage is already quite low (and again funnels money to the lawyer class). Wealth funneled to lawyers is not very different from the "churn" of Gov't spending; it is not direct investment nor is it being used for the betterment of society (except in the most vague sense). America still leads the world in the production of lawyers, last I knew...

I've had this discussion with you multiple times. I don't support forcing churches to host *** marriages (or interracial ones if they're so inclined). The first amendment allows you to be an asshat if you want, so i can be pro-*** marriage, and still support and eat at chic-fil-a, and sleep at night. YOu have trotted out several examples of this "protected class" and I haven't backed one of them. This is classic slippery slope. If you let them get married, soon farmers will marry sheep, kids will catch the ghey, and frogs will rain from the skies.

Reality check, none of that will happen.

I'm not sure how the number of new dependents could be "massive" if you think gays are such a small percentage of the population. Proving you are married is a matter of producing a marriage certificate. I'm not sure what you think they'll sue about. Sexual orientation is already a protected class in various ways. It really has nothing to do with *** marriage.

Wrong, as always. Most inner-city problems can be traced back to the assorted programs of Gov't welfare begun by Progressives as methods to "manage" the black population; they were far closer to mainstream American trends (and stable families) prior to that. Ann Coulter even wrote a feckin' book about it, and the fascist Left hates her because they can't prove her wrong: ghetto culture and the accompanying problems result directly from the Great Society as applied with a racist brush by the Progressive Democrats.

What you said has nothing to do with what I said.

Did you have an extra helping of stupid this morning? Insurance, Gov't-directed or not, ALSO takes wealth out of effective use; when the Gov't demands a mandatory insurance it causes direct and harmful effects on the activity. Easy example is automobiles, but there's plenty of others.

The usual dose of stupid.

Seriously, I don't think the demand curve for the pill is as elastic as you think it is. I know if I suddenly had coverage for it, I don't think I would start taking it. Second, we both agree in the perfect world, it would not be covered. I'm merely saying getting worked up about the pill being covered is completely missing the point. it's a very very small amount of money, and worrying about it instead of the giant unfunded program it's attached to is like Godzilla trashing a city, and you're all upset because in the carnage, your favorite hot dog stand guy closed his stand.

i am a little intrigued as to why you think liability insurance on cars is so detrimental to drivers. You do realize that insurance is to protect others on the road from your bad behavior, right? While Obamacare is bad because it does not address the problem of incenting people to be more discerning with their healthcare choices, liability insurance is good because it does not incent people to drive differently. I think the difference is obvious.

It must be in your water or something. Obamacare is going to impact 1/5th of the American economy; what exactly do you find negligible?

nice try. The thing that is negligible is the effect of the pill being insured. Obamacare is an entirely separate issue. The medical insurance industry was already screwed up, and it will remain screwed up with obamacare. I've gone on and on about how I'd fix it. I'm not repeating myself here.

A real solution would be to eliminate mandatory insurance, and bring back harsher penalties such as debtor's prison. Then again, as I recall you also support the current form of health insurance, which is essentially the same as buying gas with your auto insurance because you can't be trusted to fill your own tank.

Are you seriously supporting a debtors prison? Don't we already have too many people in prison? I prefer letting the market do what it can when it can, and only step in where it fails. So basically we need MORE supply and demand for the little stuff, and focus state intervention at the life threatening stuff. Let people pay for their own doctor visits and maybe they won't go so much. Let's just have the state worry about people that can't afford their cancer treatment, or whatever it is.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "the current form". I supported separating employers from insurance (removing tax deductions for them) and incenting movement to permanent individual insurance that can be sold across state lines. I support large cuts to medicare and an eventual transition to private permanent insurance for the elderly. Conversely, I do support having some bottom level of coverage for those who find themselves unable to pay for healthcare, but I don't think we have the funds to have it trickle up to the middle class.

I'd also allow hospitals to turn away patients from the emergency room for non-emergencies.

[Stevinator]

You're putting far too much faith in the ability of people like Steve to recognize that they're nothing more than trained seals applauding such people; they've been raised on Armstrong, Kardashians, and CAAARRRRING!! so while they may like to imagine themselves as intelligent and moral they rarely have the inner core required to look at the situation with their eyes wide open. Germany's citizens weren't even as far gone as ours are, and look what happened there. That's why I'm so convinced that we're in for a worse crash than anyone imagines; as Mark Steyn quips, we're the Brokest Nation in History.

Note that I'm using Steve as the perfect example because he still finds fault almost exclusively with the "Right" (as if there's such a thing) and believes that the Christians are far & away a greater threat than Progressives. He's a truly modern young American man. I wonder if he carries a murse as the Huffpo suggests?

LOL, no murse. Mostly just keys and wallet. i don't even like having my phone on me, but people insist on calling me and texting me so I catch a bunch of crap if I leave it at home.

Anyway, I'll throw out my usual "Phooey" to your gross mischaracterization of me, as per usual. Seriously, if you're not going to read my posts why do you reply?

[BobCox2]

LOL, no murse.

Yeah I don't think you could carry Bortaz

[jmervyn]

The difference is that no one at PP is trying to ethnically cleanse anyone today,

False. Then again, you would ignore that particular truth, since it rips the nuts off your high horsie.

whereas the groups you mention still support such goals.

Yeah, the NSDAP and KKK are SOOOO mainstream - I imagine they, too, have their noses deep in the taxpayer trough.

I'm not even convinced the organization was ever really for such a purpose.

Again, direct quotes from Sanger, et. al. bounce off your impermeable skull.

I don't support forcing churches to host *** marriages (or interracial ones if they're so inclined).

False, because your support for Federal policy is designed to enforce precisely that end. Already happened, but then again you wouldn't have read the evidence.

YOu have trotted out several examples of this "protected class" and I haven't backed one of them.

I've backed EVERY one, you simply reject them because they're not in line with your beliefs. Something about "to the skeptic, no proof is possible" comes to mind.

Reality check, none of that will happen.

Check yourself; why wouldn't farmers be allowed to marry their livestock? Once you decide that a 7000-year-old social convention doesn't mean what it means, you're able to redefine meaning at will. Plus, you become an open hypocrite for attacking both sex slavery and polygamy, since those are simply different marital arrangements as well.

I'm not sure how the number of new dependents could be "massive" if you think gays are such a small percentage of the population. Proving you are married is a matter of producing a marriage certificate.

See, this is what you Progressives always claim, and then are SHOCKED that graft and corruption are the result. Once anyone can be married to anything, the dependency culture will skyrocket. My 90-year-old father already supports his lover, her daughter, the daughter's son, and partially supports another daughter and the first daughter's lover. Why shouldn't he just marry them all and get some reimbursement?

I'm not sure what you think they'll sue about. Sexual orientation is already a protected class in various ways. It really has nothing to do with *** marriage.

Sexual orientation is conflated with civil rights by the Left because it helps their cause. It is in no way an actual protected class. The several lawsuits already in play are all about refusing to grant services due to sexual orientation, and are being brought by the ACLU in order to pave the way.

What you said has nothing to do with what I said.

Your claim was that of a buffoon - that our out-of-control bastardy rate has negligible effects.

I'm merely saying getting worked up about the pill being covered is completely missing the point.

Again, you're following your heroine's claim, "What difference at this point does it make?" The difference is that with a billion here and a couple of million there, you're eventually talking about actual money. [/sarc]

liability insurance is good because it does not incent people to drive differently.

I don't hate auto insurance; I was pointing out that by decoupling medical insurance from responsibility you remove the incentives. However, auto insurance <DOES> decouple responsibility; it is just to a far lesser degree than other-party systems.

nice try. The thing that is negligible is the effect of the pill being insured.

No "try" involved; you weren't clear. The pill being a taxpayer gift will probably be of minimal effect, agreed. What won't be minimal are the debilitating effects of Gov't interference and subsequent lawyering-up - as per my reference to the Great Society.

Are you seriously supporting a debtors prison?

In some form, most definitely. People don't behave responsibly because they don't really accept that they can ruin their lives - some do after their second bankruptcy.

Don't we already have too many people in prison?

For smoking weed, and because of the lasting effects of the Democrat soft-on-crime mentality regarding minorities.

Let people pay for their own doctor visits and maybe they won't go so much. Let's just have the state worry about people that can't afford their cancer treatment, or whatever it is.

That isn't going to follow, simply because the reason the State wants to be involved is the punitive power it gives over the actions of the citizenry. Why else do you think Obama had Obamacare designed with Socialized Medicine as the end objective?

Anyway, I'll throw out my usual "Phooey" to your gross mischaracterization of me, as per usual. Seriously, if you're not going to read my posts why do you reply?

What makes you think I don't read your posts? You're the one who confessed to rarely checking the links I provide. If you'll recall, you're ALSO the one who imagines Gov't are just puppets being manipulated by the EEEEBILLLL XXXXIANS!!ONE!

FYI, fire can melt steel.

[Stevinator]

False. Then again, you would ignore that particular truth, since it rips the nuts off your high horsie.

Phooey.

Yeah, the NSDAP and KKK are SOOOO mainstream - I imagine they, too, have their noses deep in the taxpayer trough.

What, are they 501c3's or something. I certainly hope we're not paying them.

Again, direct quotes from Sanger, et. al. bounce off your impermeable skull.

I think she died when my parents were kids (50-60s? something like that). So a lot has happened since then.

False, because your support for Federal policy is designed to enforce precisely that end. Already happened, but then again you wouldn't have read the evidence.

scare tactic, conflating two separate issues. Recognizing *** marriage would not force any church to marry anyone. Heck, I have a some straight friends that had to jump through hoops to get married at their church of choice. It's apparently pretty easy for them to say no to anyone. (they wee both catholic, and it was a catholic church)

I've backed EVERY one, you simply reject them because they're not in line with your beliefs. Something about "to the skeptic, no proof is possible" comes to mind.

You don't get to decide what i support. I can just say, I don't back that, and until you catch me changing my mind, you'll have to just take me at my word.

Check yourself; why wouldn't farmers be allowed to marry their livestock? Once you decide that a 7000-year-old social convention doesn't mean what it means, you're able to redefine meaning at will. Plus, you become an open hypocrite for attacking both sex slavery and polygamy, since those are simply different marital arrangements as well.

Slippery slope.

See, this is what you Progressives always claim, and then are SHOCKED that graft and corruption are the result. Once anyone can be married to anything, the dependency culture will skyrocket. My 90-year-old father already supports his lover, her daughter, the daughter's son, and partially supports another daughter and the first daughter's lover. Why shouldn't he just marry them all and get some reimbursement?

Again not talking about polygamy. slippery slope.

Sexual orientation is conflated with civil rights by the Left because it helps their cause. It is in no way an actual protected class. The several lawsuits already in play are all about refusing to grant services due to sexual orientation, and are being brought by the ACLU in order to pave the way.

again, different issue to *** marriage.

Again, you're following your heroine's claim, "What difference at this point does it make?" The difference is that with a billion here and a couple of million there, you're eventually talking about actual money. [/sarc]

Forest and trees again. The pill is a distraction. It was also the wrong direction to go, because it hurt the GOP in the election. You're serving up the lady parts crap for low info voters. i don't know why the GOP even wants to talk about things like this.

I don't hate auto insurance; I was pointing out that by decoupling medical insurance from responsibility you remove the incentives. However, auto insurance <DOES> decouple responsibility; it is just to a far lesser degree than other-party systems.

in my state it's required to have liability of 25k (iirc). You're not insuring your car, but the one you might hit. i thought it waslike that everywhere, unless you don't drive?

No "try" involved; you weren't clear. The pill being a taxpayer gift will probably be of minimal effect, agreed.

It's like pulling teeth with you sometimes...

In some form, most definitely. People don't behave responsibly because they don't really accept that they can ruin their lives - some do after their second bankruptcy.

Yikes. Some might say that the bankruptcy system we have was a major step forward in creating our modern financial system, funny, i can't see you wanting to go back to merchantilism. It's very governmental control-y. I feel like you're about to give me a lecture about something.

For smoking weed, and because of the lasting effects of the Democrat soft-on-crime mentality regarding minorities.

I was going to praise our argeement on something again (quit locking up weed smokers) until I noticed you think there are too many people in prison because we're soft on crime, and I was struck with the incongruency of it all.

That isn't going to follow, simply because the reason the State wants to be involved is the punitive power it gives over the actions of the citizenry. Why else do you think Obama had Obamacare designed with Socialized Medicine as the end objective?

The lack of a public option should keep that at bay for a while, but we're still stuck with the terrible system we have now. You're right that we're going that way eventually, but that doesn't mean you and I have to like it.

What makes you think I don't read your posts? You're the one who confessed to rarely checking the links I provide. I

Actually, i try to read your links, but sometimes you have so many....i admit it when i don't. part of why I enjoy your fisking is that you do track down interesting info.

I DO read links people provide with a critical eye (yours especially). I teased you about the blaze because it seemed so obviously biased.

[BobCox2]

Forest and trees again. The pill is a distraction. It was also the wrong direction to go, because it hurt the GOP in the election. You're serving up the lady parts crap for low info voters. i don't know why the GOP even wants to talk about things like this.

Just mention Airport Mens Rooms and Anti-*** GOP Congressmen, and they run away with their *** hanging out.

[jmervyn]

What, are they 501c3's or something. I certainly hope we're not paying them.

Yet you don't mind paying for PP, and they kill millions more. Why so choosy? They're all from the "Left".

I think she died when my parents were kids (50-60s? something like that). So a lot has happened since then.

Fallacy of novelty. Or for you, "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

Recognizing *** marriage would not force any church to marry anyone.

Again, an example of your rejection of proof when not aligning to your feelings. The proof is the number of cases already brought under state laws claiming civil rights violations for not marrying or accommodating queers. You're in the wrong on this one, but you're unwilling to admit it; by changing queer status to a protected class, it allows them to legally "trump" freedom of association in the 'business' world. You can't refuse to serve someone because they're queer, but normally it's not disclosed.

You don't get to decide what i support. I can just say, I don't back that, and until you catch me changing my mind, you'll have to just take me at my word.

I've demonstrated repeatedly that no matter how much proof I provide, you're unwilling to accept it because you're a true believer.

Slippery slope.

So? It remains true, and I already provided evidence.

Again not talking about polygamy. slippery slope.

Again, "So?" If you redefine one extremely novel and perverse interpretation of marriage, how can you refuse an extremely ancient and traditional one? On what grounds?

Forest and trees again. The pill is a distraction. It was also the wrong direction to go, because it hurt the GOP in the election. You're serving up the lady parts crap for low info voters. i don't know why the GOP even wants to talk about things like this.

I'll type slowly, and maybe you can follow along.

Obama and the Democrats were the ones who brought up the pill, lady parts, binders full of women, and all the rest
BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT COULD HURT THE GOP WITH LOW INFO VOTERS
LIKE YOU.

Thanks, Steve. Thanks for four more years. Remember that when you're part of the gang robbing grocery stores in Oakbrook.

i thought it waslike that everywhere, unless you don't drive?

It remains a mandate rather than personal responsibility. It would be far superior to have the States allowed to issue licenses only to those they want to allow on the road, and there would need to be agreements between them to allow driving on the other side of the border - that way the lunacy about allowing illegal aliens licenses wouldn't be entertained.

It's like pulling teeth with you sometimes...

Because I'm not a low-information voter?

Yikes. Some might say that the bankruptcy system we have was a major step forward in creating our modern financial system, funny, i can't see you wanting to go back to merchantilism. It's very governmental control-y. I feel like you're about to give me a lecture about something.

Why bother? You don't learn.

I was going to praise our argeement on something again (quit locking up weed smokers) until I noticed you think there are too many people in prison because we're soft on crime, and I was struck with the incongruency of it all.

Again, you're a low-information voter. We're soft on crime, therefore we stack prisoners rather than execute them. Given that the criminal class is for the very large part a recidivist, repeat-offense group, if we go back to actual punishment (which the ACLU considers "cruel and inhumane") you automatically see the prison populations drop way down. The reason Texas doesn't follow that pattern is that you have a massive increase in the criminal populations which normally would be incarcerated outside of the state being caught there instead.

You're right that we're going that way eventually, but that doesn't mean you and I have to like it.

I think I already made it clear that I think we're going to collapse instead.

I DO read links people provide with a critical eye (yours especially). I teased you about the blaze because it seemed so obviously biased.

That begs so many zinger responses about bias that I don't know where to begin. So I won't.

[jmervyn]

Just mention Airport Mens Rooms and Anti-*** GOP Congressmen, and they run away with their *** hanging out.

Again, Bob, do you REAALY want to talk about relative morality?

[Stevinator]

Yet you don't mind paying for PP, and they kill millions more. Why so choosy? They're all from the "Left".

i disagree. PP offers health services, often to poor poeple. it's also often the only place available to get an abortion--a legal procedure based on 40 year old settled law. I reject any comparisons, because they're not valid.

Fallacy of novelty. Or for you, "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

That's not what fallacy of novelty means. The fallacy is that new things are better because they're new. This is an old thing that never was the way you say it was, but had one kooky person help set it up. It's like saying I'm a bad person for wearing a cotton shirt because slaves used to pick it.

Again, an example of your rejection of proof when not aligning to your feelings. The proof is the number of cases already brought under state laws claiming civil rights violations for not marrying or accommodating queers. You're in the wrong on this one, but you're unwilling to admit it; by changing queer status to a protected class, it allows them to legally "trump" freedom of association in the 'business' world. You can't refuse to serve someone because they're queer, but normally it's not disclosed.

First, that has nothing to do with *** marriage. Second you provided one link once to a marriage planned for a public park, where the city or town or something wouldn't let them have a park next to a church that opposed *** marriage and they sued. We don't even know who won.

We've had civil unions in IL for a while now. The world didn't end. I'd love to see an example of a church that opposes *** marriage that the state Forced to host the marriage anyway. Please, google forth.

Again, "So?" If you redefine one extremely novel and perverse interpretation of marriage, how can you refuse an extremely ancient and traditional one? On what grounds?

Slippery slope actually is a fallacy, and i'm using it properly. The argument is specious--at best. I didn't say anything about polygamy, or bestiality, or any of the other stuff you want to throw in. I'm on about *** marriage. Not about protected classes, not about farmer mcdonald and his sheep, not any of that. I'm talking about two consenting adults.

I'll type slowly, and maybe you can follow along.

Obama and the Democrats were the ones who brought up the pill, lady parts, binders full of women, and all the rest
BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT COULD HURT THE GOP WITH LOW INFO VOTERS

Of course they did, all this getting worked up about the obamacare covering the pill and other insanity basically set them up for it. You can't run a campaign on attacks that don't stick. That whole line of the campaign wouldn't have worked if everytime it came up the GOP said, that's not what's important. this is what's important. Instead you get "legitimate rape" and the whole mess with rush thinking you have to take the pill everytime you have sex. It doesn't matter that Rush really does know how that all works. The GOP served that narrative up on silver platter and Most moderates don't like that talk.

LIKE YOU.

oh please, this conversation is proof that's not true.

Thanks, Steve. Thanks for four more years. Remember that when you're part of the gang robbing grocery stores in Oakbrook.

Don't blame me, I voted for someone else.

And if the grocery stores in oakbrook are as expensive as everything else there, I can understand why thieves would target them. Probably a bigger take than the banks out in the sticks.

It remains a mandate rather than personal responsibility. It would be far superior to have the States allowed to issue licenses only to those they want to allow on the road, and there would need to be agreements between them to allow driving on the other side of the border - that way the lunacy about allowing illegal aliens licenses wouldn't be entertained.

wait that's two different things. Everyone in IL has to have car insurance. If they allowed illegals licenses, they would also have to have insurance. My brother was the victim of a hit and run, that we suspect may have been an illegal, who was driving a family members car, uninsured. If they had to go through the driver's training process, and register their address, and carry insurance, stuff like that would just be handled regularly, and he wouldn't have been stuck having to decide it it was worth going to small claims.

Why bother? You don't learn.

So was that a thumbs up or thumbs down on merchantilism?

Again, you're a low-information voter. We're soft on crime, therefore we stack prisoners rather than execute them.

I know it's a few years old, but which of these categories (other than murder and perhaps sexual abuse) would you impose the death penalty on?
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub...fjs08st502.pdf
Even if you took all the violent crime and killed those people, that's only 3%.

Also, a disproportionate amount of prisoners are black, so if you kill them, and a higher percentage of blacks are executed, are you ethnically cleansing? Sounds an awful lot like your stance on abortion.

Given that the criminal class is for the very large part a recidivist, repeat-offense group, if we go back to actual punishment (which the ACLU considers "cruel and inhumane") you automatically see the prison populations drop way down. The reason Texas doesn't follow that pattern is that you have a massive increase in the criminal populations which normally would be incarcerated outside of the state being caught there instead.

What do you mean, actual punishment? This time I'm asking seriously, I've never had the opportunity to see what it's really like in prison. I'm wondering if you have a real issue here or you're just ignoring the 8th amendment and want to put them on racks or waterboard them or whatever.

That begs so many zinger responses about bias that I don't know where to begin. So I won't.

You won't because you know better than to defend the blaze. It's so off in right field, you could never scoff at the times or some other center left media. You know damn well it's out as far as say, think progress or similar.