by Patrick ➕follow (61) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 1,657 - 1,696 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
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.
I thought TOT's post said "boobies" and not "boonies" ... had to share the laugh. lol
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Was it raining, or did they wet themselves laughing at her? ;o
Sorry, couldn't resist...
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.
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?â€
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.
just tired of you.and yet here you are talking back. Must be getting under your fur?
Doesn't US law require all people be given this, regardless of how distasteful?Constitutional rights granted to terrorists. What a brilliant idea!
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.
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...
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.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.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.
So if they were indeed tortured, as apparently documented by more than one source, they won't have any recourse, right? RayAmerica saysTheir charge of “torture†provides them with a defense that they would not have in a military court.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Jack Bauer is fiction.You can always count on a Liberal to post deep .... very very deep thoughts.
Hard core terrorists lie when they are being tortured….Do all terrorists lie when they are being torutured?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 « Previous Comments 1,657 - 1,696 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,249,783 comments by 14,904 users - anniecoyote, WillyWanker online now