0
0

Thread for orphaned comments


 invite response                
2005 Apr 11, 5:00pm   196,506 views  117,730 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (61)   💰tip   ignore  

Thread for comments whose parent thread has been deleted

« First        Comments 1,657 - 1,696 of 117,730       Last »     Search these comments

1657   Â¥   2010 Jan 25, 10:33am  

I’d be glad to be out of the city

Really? I miss riding my bike around a big city like I did in LA & Tokyo. Much fun.

Cities aren't so bad -- Chipotle, Target, Costco. . .

My go-to place is either Bellingham or up in the Santa Cruz mountains somewhere. I like trees. And Costco is easy to get to on Highway 9. Plus the ocean is real close.

One of my personal role models, an ex-Atari guy, sold up in San Jose and moved out into the Nevada boonies, 10 miles out of Reno. Awfully lonely out there, looks like.

1658   Bap33   2010 Jan 25, 10:59am  

I thought TOT's post said "boobies" and not "boonies" ... had to share the laugh. lol

1659   seaside   2010 Jan 25, 1:22pm  

Once I was online, I typed "I want 1800sf 3/2 home on 0.25 acre at $350K. No bigger than that because I hate to mow the lawn". The guy on the other side of screen typed back "WTF man. I paid 100K for 4000sf house, 10 acres of land. I love horse riding"

1660   elliemae   2010 Jan 25, 10:59pm  

Do you have water rights? Have you checked into the cost of drilling a well? Depending upon how deep you have to go, you would be amazed at how expensive it could be. As would be solar power.

1661   Tude   2010 Jan 25, 11:41pm  

Storage does not have to be under a homes roof. Storage can and should be a nice, steel building that requires little maintenance.

For true "homesteading" IMO one would be foolish to build too big a home. The bigger the home, the more fuel or energy you need to heat or cool, the larger the roof and roof maintenance, the more windows, doors and interior space that needs maintenance. A good homestead would have a smaller, energy efficient house with several outbuildings.

1662   nope   2010 Jan 25, 11:54pm  

A couple of things:

1. This won't change all that much. It just means the companies won't have to launder their money through quite as many PACs as they do today.

2. Who is going to gain power anyway? Wall Street banks and energy companies already control the government.

3. We've been here before, and when shit got bad enough we enacted the laws that the SCOTUS was ruling on in the first place.

We should be more concerned about the fact that 65% of people don't even vote than we are which giant media conglomorates (yeah, Fox is owned by News Corp, but CNN is owned by time warner and MSNBC is owned by Comcast). Do you guys even realize how few people actually even pay attention to so-called "mainstream" news outlets? People threw a shit fit because the state of the union speech was going to conflict with the season premiere of Lost.

Quite frankly, almost all politicians, whether they be Republican, Democrat, or one of the bullshit assholes that calls themselves "Independent" despite agreeing with 100% of the agenda of the major parties, neither know nor care about fixing problems in America.

What we need are term limits (I'm in favor of single, 8 year terms for congress and presidency), and a strong movement towards de politicizing the position of President (which will automatically de politicize the supreme court). The best way to de politicize the presidency is to remove some of the ridiculous powers accumulated since WWII and give them back to states and congress where they belong. Citizen funded elections might help here generally, though that's not going to fix everything.

Lastly, everyone really needs to settle down. Nobody is "ruining" the country nor are we all doomed. Please kill yourself now if you honestly think that's the case. We're in a very deep recession and shit will be bad until we get out of it. No politician has or will ever end a recession like this through domestic policy.

1663   Done!   2010 Jan 26, 1:18am  

Kevin, if you understand all of that, then what you need to understand is...

What we need is the politicians that gives all of the other politicians Mental Wedgies and makes them crap their pants. That person may not be perceived as the "best person" for the people and their media fabricated agendas. In fact that person would person would be antithesis of those agendas. Such as tough stance on Russia and Terrorists, they are not our threat, Corporate America Inc. is the biggest threat to America today.

Now ask your self, "Who fits that bill?"

Then Mention Sarah Palin around a bunch of Pig Men, then watch for puddles that collect around your feet.

1664   Brand1533   2010 Jan 26, 1:30am  

Was it raining, or did they wet themselves laughing at her? ;o

Sorry, couldn't resist...

1665   Done!   2010 Jan 26, 2:20am  

Joke all you want, she gives the standard politician in Washington hives.

If that doesn't attract you, then you deserve every bold faced lying politician that stole every nickle you bent over to give them.

1666   nope   2010 Jan 26, 3:13pm  

Tenouncetrout says

Kevin, if you understand all of that, then what you need to understand is…
What we need is the politicians that gives all of the other politicians Mental Wedgies and makes them crap their pants. That person may not be perceived as the “best person” for the people and their media fabricated agendas. In fact that person would person would be antithesis of those agendas. Such as tough stance on Russia and Terrorists, they are not our threat, Corporate America Inc. is the biggest threat to America today.
Now ask your self, “Who fits that bill?”
Then Mention Sarah Palin around a bunch of Pig Men, then watch for puddles that collect around your feet.

You think Sarah Palin is a threat to Corporate America? She's working for one of the largest, most politically active corporations in the world. Nothing that she has ever done suggests that she's any different from any of the other 600 lying, conniving bastards that run the country.

I imagine that politicians are afraid of her in the same sense that any sane person would be -- that she might get mad that someone made fun of her and start WWIII over it.

1668   Done!   2010 Jan 29, 12:11am  

America's Health Plan... "It's better than Nothing." I miss the hell out of Critical thinkers in Washington.
1669   RayAmerica   2010 Jan 30, 12:38am  

Constitutional rights granted to terrorists. What a brilliant idea! That should make the Islamofacsists see we care and are willing to be nice. If that doesn't change them from heartless, beheading, torturing, drooling murderers into Obama fainters that love the good old USA, nothing ever will.
1670   elliemae   2010 Jan 30, 1:50pm  

Let's blame President Obama for holding a trial for the people responsible for killing over 3,000 innocent Americans. This, too, is yet another example of how anything can be manipulated into being the president's fault. For example, the memo entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" that was given to President Bush on August 6, 2001 while he was on yet another vacation in Crawford, Texas (where he spent the majority of his presidency) was really Obama's fault, because he should have anticipated the attacks and somehow stopped them. The terrorist attacks of 911 were horrible. There needs to be a trial. People who anonymously criticize the current administration on the interweb for the way anything to do with 911 is handled are spineless. Put your money where your mouth is - get an am radio show of your own and broadcast your ignorance to the world.
1671   elliemae   2010 Jan 30, 3:25pm  

I'm not bitter, just tired of you. I'm sure you're used to that - that's probably why you're here now.
1672   PeopleUnited   2010 Jan 30, 5:54pm  

elliemae says
just tired of you.
and yet here you are talking back. Must be getting under your fur?
1673   Liz Pendens   2010 Jan 31, 1:28am  

RayAmerica says

Constitutional rights granted to terrorists. What a brilliant idea!

Doesn't US law require all people be given this, regardless of how distasteful?
1674   RayAmerica   2010 Jan 31, 2:48am  

Liz Pendens says
Doesn’t US law require all people be given this, regardless of how distasteful?
We are at war. The terrorists are enemy combatants that were engaged in attacking America and therefore should be tried as such in a military court. As enemy combatants, they have no constitutional rights or protection whatsoever. Case in point: when German spies were captured here in the USA, FDR had them tried by a military tribunal. There were found guilty and subsequently executed.
1675   tatupu70   2010 Jan 31, 3:43am  

RayAmerica says
We are at war. The terrorists are enemy combatants that were engaged in attacking America and therefore should be tried as such in a military court. As enemy combatants, they have no constitutional rights or protection whatsoever. Case in point: when German spies were captured here in the USA, FDR had them tried by a military tribunal. There were found guilty and subsequently executed.
So we can declare war on any grouping we see fit now? I didn't know that. Let's declare a war on organized crime--then we don't have to afford gangsters any rights. And on gangs for that matter. Lock up all the bangers without a trial. Where do you draw the line?? For someone who talks about following the letter of the Constitution, you are pretty quick to dismiss it when it suits your needs...
1676   Liz Pendens   2010 Jan 31, 7:20am  

RayAmerica says

Liz Pendens says

Doesn’t US law require all people be given this, regardless of how distasteful?

We are at war. The terrorists are enemy combatants that were engaged in attacking America and therefore should be tried as such in a military court. As enemy combatants, they have no constitutional rights or protection whatsoever. Case in point: when German spies were captured here in the USA, FDR had them tried by a military tribunal. There were found guilty and subsequently executed.

Should they have lawyers, and how to deal with the torture they were subject to before hand? I believe that's against US military law.
1677   RayAmerica   2010 Jan 31, 7:48am  

Liz Pendens says
Should they have lawyers, and how to deal with the torture they were subject to before hand? I believe that’s against US military law.
The problem with civilian trials for these people are numerous. If tried in a military court, they are provided with legal counsel. Their charge of "torture" provides them with a defense that they would not have in a military court. Civil court also provides for the legal discovery process, along with subpoenas of government documents & officials, endless calling of witnesses, and numerous appeals, etc. This could go on for years, and it will be used by the terrorists for propaganda, etc. against us. Our intelligence apparatus can potentially be exposed as well, endangering agents in the field and further diminish our national security.
1678   Liz Pendens   2010 Jan 31, 9:50am  

RayAmerica says

Their charge of “torture” provides them with a defense that they would not have in a military court.

So if they were indeed tortured, as apparently documented by more than one source, they won't have any recourse, right? RayAmerica says
Our intelligence apparatus can potentially be exposed as well, endangering agents in the field and further diminish our national security.

Valerie Plame was outed. What to make of that situation?
1679   ErikK   2010 Jan 31, 12:33pm  

RayAmerica says
We are at war. The terrorists are enemy combatants that were engaged in attacking America and therefore should be tried as such in a military court.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America, in their reading of the Constitution disagrees with you. We have not had a constitutional declaration of War by congress. We are not at war without such a declaration. If you want a legitimate war, get your congressional representatives to put forth and vote on a war resolution.
1680   tatupu70   2010 Feb 1, 4:39am  

staynumz says
Either way, on one side we have aggresive interogation. On the other we have miranda and the ACLU. Pick a side. I will go for VERY aggressive interogation. What about you?
It's a false choice. VERY aggressive interrogation methods work no better than traditional methods. Jack Bauer is fiction. Hard core terrorists lie when they are being tortured.... We have gained zero useful intelligence from torture despite Dick Cheney's lies.
1681   tatupu70   2010 Feb 1, 5:20am  

staynumz says
Also, what type of information are we getting from the panty bomber since he was read his “rights”?
The same amount that we would have gotten if he were tortured.
1682   grywlfbg   2010 Feb 1, 11:20pm  

SPAM
1683   RayAmerica   2010 Feb 2, 3:02am  

tatupu70 says
Jack Bauer is fiction.
You can always count on a Liberal to post deep .... very very deep thoughts.
1684   RayAmerica   2010 Feb 2, 3:05am  

tatupu70 says
Hard core terrorists lie when they are being tortured….
Do all terrorists lie when they are being torutured?
1685   RayAmerica   2010 Feb 2, 3:08am  

Question for Liberals: if a known terrorist knew a city in the USA was soon to be nuked, would you be in favor of .... horrors I know ... water boarding to find out the who, what & where’s? Or do we sit by and just let it happen??
1686   tatupu70   2010 Feb 2, 3:21am  

RayAmerica says
Question for Liberals: if a known terrorist knew a city in the USA was soon to be nuked, would you be in favor of …. horrors I know … water boarding to find out the who, what & where’s? Or do we sit by and just let it happen??
Like I said. It's a false choice. Water boarding doesn't work.
1687   RayAmerica   2010 Feb 3, 12:48am  

Just for the record: I'm AGAINST water boarding terrorists, but if there's a slight chance it would help Liberals think, I'd be worth trying it on them.
1688   ErikK   2010 Feb 3, 1:14am  

According to the news today the Christmas day wanna-be airline bomber is talking again. You think it's because they got around to torturing him? Or maybe the psy ops worked, as has been decided by the military long before 9/11, Jack Bauer, and Cheney.
1689   elliemae   2010 Feb 3, 11:09am  

RayAmerica says
Question for Liberals: if a known terrorist knew a city in the USA was soon to be nuked, would you be in favor of …. horrors I know … water boarding to find out the who, what & where’s? Or do we sit by and just let it happen??
You mean like 911, when the president was briefed about the impending danger yet nothing was done? Or was that okay, because he was a "conservative?" The world isn't black & white. While ya'll waste your time affixing labels to people you don't understand and hate because they believe differently than you, people who aren't considered to be liberals or conservatives continue to commit horrible acts of aggression & terrorism. But I guess it's okay, 'cause they aren't liberals. Nuke the gay baby liberal whales for jesus. yep, that'll do it.
1690   RayAmerica   2010 Feb 3, 12:12pm  

ErikK says
RayAmerica says Question for Liberals: if a known terrorist knew a city in the USA was soon to be nuked, would you be in favor of …. horrors I know … water boarding to find out the who, what & where’s? Or do we sit by and just let it happen?? You mean like 911, when the president was briefed about the impending danger yet nothing was done? Or was that okay, because he was a “conservative?” The world isn’t black & white. While ya’ll waste your time affixing labels to people you don’t understand and hate because they believe differently than you, people who aren’t considered to be liberals or conservatives continue to commit horrible acts of aggression & terrorism. But I guess it’s okay, ’cause they aren’t liberals. Nuke the gay baby liberal whales for jesus. yep, that’ll do it.
So what you're really saying is that you'd rather see an entire U.S. city destroyed by a terrorist nuke than you would seeing a terrorist get a little wet. As far a "gay baby liberal whales" you really should take your meds before posting.
1691   RayAmerica   2010 Feb 3, 12:14pm  

Who needs parking anyways? We're all going to be riding Obama Trains to Nowheresville.
1692   Done!   2010 Feb 3, 12:31pm  

Well where will I park my Unicorn fart powered Egg, they made me trade in my 4X Canyonaro for?
1693   kentm   2010 Feb 3, 12:47pm  

staynumz, I had a longish post to write in here but I really can't be bothered so I'll cut to the chase: I think you're an idiot. Thats rude I know, pardon me, but I really don't see any other way to cut it. "Libs dont like “cheap” parking." "Nothing like taking some freedoms away from the citizens." What are you even talking about? What does that even mean? Do you even have any idea yourself? What do you think is happening in CA right now, budget-wise? And where do you think the money for your police and firemen is going to come from, pixie dust? And I just have to interject here with an observation that will be news to no one, and I don't mean to wear the high hat but I really am so tired of knee jerk reactions to news and ideas communicated in ways that describe absolutely nothing and have no context whatsoever to anything outside of communicating the reactor's personal preference of the moment. Politics isn't anything other than a team sport for some of you people anymore. The issues don't matter, beyond an immediate gut response based on simple selfishness ("ugh, don't like that. It bad, it evil, EVIL. Ugh."), and any action taken by one particular party or other is prejudged to be either bad or good depending on the association with one party or the other. - And: "Obama Trains to Nowheresville." And what the hell does THAT even mean? I think it means absolutely nothing, except you're trying in some awkward way to tell us you're one more person who doesn't like the current gov, for... some reason or other that I'm sure you don't even know, beyond the fact that you probably think (and I'm guessing here so forgive me) of yourself as a conservative free thinker. Pfft. Can't write more here. Too long already.
1694   Â¥   2010 Feb 3, 1:55pm  

#include "comment-666630.inc" If we're going to get into the politics of it like Staynumz wants, Republicans are traditionally business owners, and business owners love externalities like government-provided free parking for their customers, efficient public roads that bring their customers to them, and public buses for their employees to come to work on. But iF you want my opinion on this, I look at the larger problem, with a Georgist analysis of where is the land value and who is pocketing it, and the belief that good government can do much good, and bad government can do much bad. The whole thing about casual traffic causing excess congestion is stupid, really. The roads are built to attempt to handle rush hour, and people soon learn to avoid peaks for casual car use. Yeay freedom. If government wants to push people to use the commons more wisely, it should first work to provide those public transit resources, not just blindly tax and destroy parking infrastructure without creating the alternative transit utopia first. Where I am buses run every 30 minutes. This is retarded. 10 minutes should be the standard. But poor people don't have any power in this system so /they/ get the 2 hour commute no matter the time of day. I guess the theory with this is if more normal people are incented to take mass transit then it will both have the ridership and the clout to get more money and investment. I lived for 8 years in Tokyo without a car (parking there IS expensive), I really can't say my freedom was impacted on the whole. Having a totally walkable city gives you a different kind of freedom. Freedom from car payments, fill up costs. Then again I was in my 20s, healthy, with a bicycle; plus, the difficulty of raising more than 1 kid at a time in Tokyo is one of the main reasons why they have so few kids. The public policy issues here are subtle. Doctrinaire libertarians might disagree, but I think we'd be a better nation if we could walk and take the bus more. For me, to get there from here is the question. The free market itself isn't going to get us there, it just seeks profit maximation, which is far, far from what was described in the general welfare clause of the Constitution.
1695   Â¥   2010 Feb 3, 2:31pm  

Stopping the crackdown on legal grow ops here in California. Yeay, I think.

Dialing down the religious nut nonsense. Yeay!.

Not getting into a war, even a war of words, with Iran. Yeay!

Doing the Nixonian thing and drawing us down out of the wars he was presented with. Yeay!

Moving to allow open homos in the military . . . Yeay (if you're a homophobe just think of all the lesbians who'll be able to serve. Warms your cold little heart a little, no?)

Moving to reinstate Clintonian taxes on the top 5% or so . . . BIG YEAY!
(I thought the Bush tax cuts sorta made sense for the lower 3 brackets, but the immense top bracket cut was just offensive).

We're not out of the woods and I don't really have much trust that the American people will either be in better shape this November, November 2012, or particularly willing to fight for a centrist Dem like Obama.

~40% of the country is socially conservative. For anything to get done they have to be triangulated into the policy-making.

1696   LandShark2847   2010 Feb 3, 3:05pm  

i dont think house price will sky rocket if there is an inflation.

yes, government is printing money now. but it does not mean every one is getting a raise.

also, the price of food, cloth and some other essential product's prices will increase.

the current housing situation is that some people were not supposed to be home owners. they borrowed above their meaning.

when inflation is happening, people, who are not supposed to be home owners, will think about how to survive first.

after all, the supply is greater than demand.

inflation =/= pay raise, at least for main street

« First        Comments 1,657 - 1,696 of 117,730       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste