patrick.net

Dan8267 says

lostand confused says

A liberal is the conservative's boogeyman for all things wrong with this country. A conservative is the liberal's boogeyman for all things wrong with this country.

As a liberal, I won't say that conservatives are responsible for everything wrong with the country, just 80%. Leftist are responsible for 18% as well. The remaining 2% is all our fault.

The vocabulary has been blurred nearly to incoherence. The neoconservatives who promote war all over the world are not really conservative, they spend every penny they can get on the military industrial complex in exchange for campaign finance. The neoliberals who insist on mandatory insurance (and now even bombing Syria) are not really liberal, they require everyone to spend every penny they can "afford" (with subsidies) on the medical industrial complex, in exchange for campaign finance. The "centrists" agree with both, in exchange for the most campaign finance of all.

Neoconservatives and neoliberals blaming each other are a sad spectacle, and they have less than three weeks left to sort out their differences on Capitol Hill and enact a CR to avoid partial government shutdown. Most people are too deluded or distracted or divided to see through it anyway, stuck in their "team left" vs "team right" fight fight fight false dichotomy.

I don't know how to resolve it. I like PatNet because it brings a mix of people who might not otherwise communicate at all, but I've seen that some (e.g. Bop69, Forthood, Homefool) are locked into their patterns for internal reasons and I don't see much hope. The millenials are perhaps the nicest generation, but they haven't been around long enough to see through the game.

Call it Crazy says

Liberals aren't allow to think for themselves. They must have the government tell them what to do....

Actually, liberals are rebels who mistrust the government and want to keep it under control, particularly by using transparency. That's why we liberals support the heroes Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, and Julian Assange. We also believe there should be no victimless crimes, which means that government should not have the ability to "tell us what to do" when we're not hurting anyone. That's why we support marriage equality, legalization of pot, nudism, human cloning, flag burning, and free speech even when we venomously disagree with what is being said. That's also why we are against unwarranted searches, wiretapping, gag orders, strip searches, imprisonment before conviction unless a public safety threat can be firmly established, and not letting convicts vote.

But hey, don't let the fact that the truth is exactly the opposite of what you believe make you change those beliefs.

bob2356 says

Urban decay of the 60's was the result of white flight of the greatest generation to the suburbs combined with the mass movement of manufacturing to the south.

In Detroit and a few other places, yes, but not in New York City. Plenty of white folk there. And NYC doesn't have suburbs unless you include New Jersey, upstate New York, and Nassau County (which is pretty urban).

Dan8267 says

Actually, liberals are rebels who mistrust the government and want to keep it
under control, particularly by using transparency.

lmao .... hillarious

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

Actually, liberals are rebels who mistrust the government and want to keep it

under control, particularly by using transparency.

lmao .... hillarious

Come on bap, you read enough of my posts to know that I strongly advocate transparency and accountability in government including criminal prosecutions of those who use governmental power to commit crimes.

Dan8267 says

For their entire lives, Millennials were told to get a college degree or they'll be flipping burgers at McDonald's, and now those same people are bitching that
the Millennials with college degrees won't take a job flipping burgers at McDonald's. It's hard to accept that refusal as a sense of entitlement.

True that!

Dan8267 says

My vote would be for the doctor to decide.

Problem is that it's easy enough to find enough doctors to sign your note for a cash payment.

Dan8267 says

I've circled total warfare spending and total welfare spending for your convenience.

Even if you are right, and I have my doubts about it since your source is a liberal one, you forgot to include how much of my state and local taxes go for local welfare programs.

zzyzzx says

Even if you are right, and I have my doubts about it since your source is a liberal one, you forgot to include how much of my state and local taxes go for local welfare programs.

It's easy to pick on the weak.

Who is it that's making your life miserable? The "welfare bums" or the sociopaths in the top 0.1%?

The violent crime wave is best correlated to demographics. When the Oldest Boomer passed 30, the crime wave dropped. That was the early 90s.

BTW, the prediction around 1990 was that Gen X would turn into "Superpredators" and violence would skyrocket. The opposite happened. The advocates kept trying to insist it was around the corner as crime continued to drop off steadily:

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/superscapegoating/

As the article above tracks, the tougher sentencing wave happened AFTER crime started to decline. Private Prison booms happened AFTER crime started to decline.

"Community Policing" is often cited as the reason. It's nonsense, because Canada also had a crime drop about the same time; both the US and Canada have similar age demographics. The Canadians didn't build a shitload more prisons, toughen sentencing, or enact widespread "Community Policing" policies.

The decline is simple: Any country that has a large supply of young people disproportionate to the other age cohorts experiences crime waves, religious fanaticism, and other goodness. Note the Arab World has a massive youth bulge, and in Northern Ireland their babyboom coincided with a an increase in Orange and Catholic terror.

John Bailo says

3) Make each country liable for the actions and welfare of their citizens while abroad. So we would charge back Mexico for criminals, social services and so on, and make them pay from their oil money.

And how much is this going to cost when we have to send in an army to collect?

thunderlips11 says

The decline is simple: Any country that has a large supply of young people disproportionate to the other age cohorts experiences crime waves, religious fanaticism, and other goodness.

Makes sense. Old people are too weak/sickly to bust a cap in yo' a$$.

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

I've circled total warfare spending and total welfare spending for your convenience.

Even if you are right, and I have my doubts about it since your source is a liberal one, you forgot to include how much of my state and local taxes go for local welfare programs.

1. I am right. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. The data is verifiable.

2. The Government Printing Office is not a "liberal" source. It is completely nonpartisan and apolitical. And really? This is coming from a guy who quoted Fox News. 'Nuff said.

3. The data is a matter of public records.

4. The lie from Fox News that welfare spending is far larger than warfare spending is talking about federal spending, not state spending.

5. If you want to see state spending or total spending including federal/state/local, once again, you should go to my source as it spells out the spending precisely. And warfare spending is still more than welfare.

6. Most importantly of all...

There comes a point when the best thing you can do to save face is to simply admit that you were fooled by the lies of Fox News and demonstrate that you have learned something and won't listen to their lies anymore. To express doubt that the lie is really a lie, is to tell the world that you are still so stupid as to believe the lie even after it has been thoroughly exposed.

It's understandable to be fooled by lying "journalists" once or even a few times. But you look retarded if you keep getting fooled by the same damn liars even though their lies have been exposed in such a painfully obvious manner.

So show the world that you are not retarded by boldly claiming: Fox News lied to me, and I fell for it. But now I am on to their manipulation, and I will not listen to their lies anymore!

That would make you look respectable.

edvard2 says

If there were anyone who 'should' be complaining about taxes, it should be me because about 30% of my income goes to paying taxes while I can almost guarantee a lot of those complaining about taxes are either paying very little, or no taxes at all.

I pay way more then 30% of my income to taxes. 30% might just cover federal income taxes for me.

zzyzzx says

I pay way more then 30% of my income to taxes. 30% might just cover federal income taxes for me.

And Warren Buffett pays a much lower %. Why do you think that is?

freak80 says

And Warren Buffett pays a much lower %. Why do you think that is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett

Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes (due to their being from dividends & capital gains), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less money.

Actually I thought that his % was much lower because of income from tax free municipal bonds. Perhaps I was confusing him with someone else???

zzyzzx says

Buffett stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes (due to their being from dividends & capital gains), while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less
money.

So you acknowledge that Buffett is paying a significantly lower tax rate than you are?

freak80 says

So you acknowledge that Buffett is paying a significantly lower tax rate than you are?

Yes, of course!

Dan8267 says

5. If you want to see state spending or total spending including federal/state/local, once again, you should go to my source as it spells out the spending precisely. And warfare spending is still more than welfare.

Using your chart, welfare is 19 + 9 = 28% welfare, and only 13% for defense. And this is only at the federal level. At the state level there is almost no defense spending and boatloads of welfare spending. I'm sure that Obamaphones aren't in the welfare section of your pie chart either.

zzyzzx says

Yes, of course!

So who are the freeloaders? The "welfare bums"? Or Buffett and friends who do nothing but collect the profits reaped from the labor of the rest of us?

Welfare folks might be freeloaders, but at least they don't have the $ to buy politicians (and thus laws) to enslave us.

freak80 says

So who are the freeloaders? The "welfare bums"? Or Buffett and friends who do nothing but collect the profits reaped from the labor of the rest of us?

Someone who pays 25% federal income taxes and a bunch more for state income and property taxes is not my definition of a freeloader.

Nobody said they were.
If one is 'needy' due to being too 'lazy' to work, they should not benefit from government handouts.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Full Definition of NEEDY


1: being in want : poverty-stricken

dead·beat noun \ˈded-ˌbēt\


1: a lazy person : a person who does not work

That's one of the problems with society today. Everybody wants to redefine words.

1. Those two definitions are not mutually exclusive.

So according to you almost 100% of the population does not work.
You'll have to provide your definition of 'almost' as the generally accepted meaning renders your statement blatantly false.

And, as an aside, I did not 'preented' anything...

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Full Definition of NEEDY


1: being in want : poverty-stricken

dead·beat noun \ˈded-ˌbēt\


1: a lazy person : a person who does not work

That's one of the problems with society today. Everybody wants to redefine words.

2. Almost 100% of the population meets the definition of "lazy" you preented.

Again, it's not 'my' definition of lazy.
Take it up with Ms Merriam.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Full Definition of NEEDY


1: being in want : poverty-stricken

dead·beat noun \ˈded-ˌbēt\


1: a lazy person : a person who does not work

That's one of the problems with society today. Everybody wants to redefine words.

3. Your definition of needy provides no means testing.

zzyzzx says

Someone who pays 25% federal income taxes and a bunch more for state income and property taxes is not my definition of a freeloader.

What about someone who makes the vast majority of their income from ownership of assets (including your labor) rather than productive work?

No, Marriage used to mean just one thing.
A modern day photoshop generated chart stuffed with left wing dogma constructed by the Maddow-O'donnell-MrEd trilogy during commercial breaks does not change history.

Dan8267 says

1. Marriage used to mean a hell of a lot of things.

freak80 says

What about someone who makes the vast majority of their income from ownership of assets (including your labor) rather than productive work?

Doesn't matter, they still pay income taxes just like everyone else. I know I will still be paying taxes when I retire (if I ever retire).

Dick jokes are being warehoused here.
http://patrick.net/?p=1229249
Try to keep up....

Dan8267 says

2. You cannot marry a canary under any adopted or proposed marriage equality laws. As for mating with your canary, well, I wouldn't be surprised if you were size-appropriate for that.

I never stated that.
Assumption Is The Mother Of All Fuckups.

Dan8267 says

3. Just because you want only men and women to have recognized marriages does not mean that there is any material secular difference between opposite-sex and same-sex marriages.

No, it's simpler to come up with a different word and not disenfranchise a billion marriages based on the original interpretation of the word.

Dan8267 says

Instead of immediately dispelling hundreds of thousands of laws and causing utter chaos on the federal, state, and local level, it makes much more sense simply to update the legal interpretation of the word marriage to include same-sex marriages.

zzyzzx says

Doesn't matter, they still pay income taxes just like everyone else. I know I will still be paying taxes when I retire (if I ever retire).

You don't care that the ultra-rich are paying a lower tax rate than you are? Why not?

Is it Stockholm Syndrome?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

I never said I had any religious beliefs.
You are simply becoming more hysterical as you try to defend the indefensible.
Assumption is the Mother of All Fuckups, and you are on a roll!

Dan8267 says

6. Whether or not your stupid, incorrect, religious beliefs say that homosexually is bad is irrelevant to the state and secular law.

SoftShell says

Marriage used to mean just one thing.

Which one of the Romney wives told you that?

Neither is there to discriminate against people married under the original definition of the word.
You disenfranchise billions by hijacking the word.

Dan8267 says

7. There is no legal justification to discriminate against homosexuals.

Whoa, how did this thread turn into a "gay war" thread?

I never suggested they were. That thought emanated from your mind, not mine.
My reference to 'marrying a canary' goes to the hijacking of the word "marriage". Once you attempt to redefine the word, the door is open for anyone to redefine it.
Words have meaning. People make decisions and perform actions based on word definitions. That's why it is important to preserve word definitions.
There's a billion sounds as yet undefined eminating from the mouth of humans. Pick one, or better yet, sew together a catchy phrase that means marriage between two men, or two women. It's doable if you try.
Don't be a dickhead and disenfranchise a billion marriages entered into based on the original meaning.
Dan8267 says

8. Homosexuality and bestiality are not the same thing. Suggesting that they are is both stupid and bigoted.

freak80 says

Whoa, how did this thread turn into a "gay war" thread?

One of Dan8267's posts a page back.

Someone 'dared' to disagree with Uncle Dan, and once he gets started it usually ends up here....
freak80 says

Whoa, how did this thread turn into a "gay war" thread?

So this thread appears to be a perfect example of how (relatively) trivial stuff distracts us from the formation of a global plutocracy that wants to enslave us all.

My two cents: voluntary homosexuality is better than involuntary homosexuality, a.k.a. getting f*cked in the a$$ by a permanent aristocracy.

You don't update 'hundreds of thousands of laws'.
You simply enact one new law that states wherever 'marriage' is used in law, it can be substituted with 'Marriage/GayMarriage/MilfMarriage/CanaryLove', or whatever pushes your button.

Dan8267 says

Instead of immediately dispelling hundreds of thousands of laws and causing utter chaos on the federal, state, and local level, it makes much more sense simply to update the legal interpretation of the word marriage to include same-sex marriages.