Wow. If I were your friend, I'd give you the cake and cut my losses.
stutefish
Furry , did you ever think to ask yourself why socialism is such a sore spot on the right? Or does the "why do they hate us?" thing only apply to people who don't agree with you? And while we're on the joint topics of socialism and personal invective, wasn't it Lenin who called Western apologists for socialism "useful idiots"?
Totally. I know! Let's take COL Gene's paycheck and give it to charity! After all, it's only money! I mean, it's not my money.
"Pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans," said Cindy Sheehan today. Never mind that up until this morning, her own faction's position was that we didn't "occupy" New Oleans enough . Or how about this, from the same <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/print.ph
TexasWhahine shames me with her thoughtful, reasonable, and humane response. If you want to find out more about what atheists really think and feel, ignore me and listen to her. Still, "they expect the Spanish Inquisition" was too good to pass up.
They expect the Spanish Inquisition. Or possibly a replay of the hundreds of thousands killed under Stalin, only it would be a God-powered genocide, and they'd be the first against the wall. And they hate having to share their planet/culture/city/neighborhood/democracy with anybody stupid and gullible enough to believe in God.
Gene , thank you for correcting my mistake. I was wrong to accuse you of not wanting a smaller budget. I am sorry. I apologize. It's very easy to talk about taxing the rich when you say "them them them" all the time. Would you be preaching the same sermon if it was "me me me" instead? Does your theory of progressive taxation change when it's applied to your own wealth? Are you convinced that your current tax rat
Gene , just because someone can afford to be robbed, that doesn't justify robbing them. Aren't you ashamed to live in a country that can't make ends meet without abusing its power to levy taxes? Should not you, like me, be clamoring for a budget that reduced taxes and reduced spending? And by now, shouldn't you really be explaining why George Bush is rich enough to be taxed extra, but you're not? I'm still wait
Gene , you're saying that even though you're not as poor as some people, you're still not rich enough to justify paying more in taxes, or giving more to charity. I disagree. As long as you aren't living in the projects, you're spending money on luxuries while the poor among us are starved for necessities. I still don't understand how you justify drawing the line so conveniently between you and President Bush. Is it that you deserve to
What always gets me about "getting racked" is the crippling nausea that sets in after a moment or two. It's not so much that getting racked is XXXtremely painful. It's more that the kind of pain involved is extremely crippling. I would say it's not the worst pain that a person can experience, and I wouldn't dare say that it's worse than anything a woman ever goes through. But I would say it is a special kind of pain, and that women p
Since Myrrander has recently adopted a policy of deleting my comments and blacklisting me, I thought I'd repost my comment on his most recent article as an article of my own. I'm replying to this article . The "our sonofabitch" foreign policy of the Cold War result
Gene, if it won't hurt the rich to take away their extra money, then please put yours where your mouth is: Buy all the food and clothing and other essentials you need, and then donate the rest of your income to charity and go live at the YMCA. Do that, and then let's talk some more about stealing from the rich to give to the poor.
Sounds fun! I seem to be one of the lucky few geeks whose wife is also a geek: I'm a sysadmin for a very large datacenter; she's an SA for a small web hosting company. So most of our conversations end up being "shop talk" anyway. We just started a CCNA course together, which is fun. It's nice being married to the best lab partner you could find for the subject you're studying. So... would I be allowed to bring my SO to an e
I believe in souls. I don't know when people get souls. My scriptures imply that souls may actually exist before the body does--possibly even predating time itself--but that may be a matter of interpretation. Logic suggests that a human's physical body is eligible for a soul from the moment it first exists as a human organism: i.e., immediately upon conception. If souls really do exist, and "ensoulment" is a
Thus, added revenue from higher rates on the wealthy and more agressive collections are essential to balance the budget and then produce the surplus needed to pay down the debt! I don't get it. You're saying that we're spending too much money, and that the solution is to find someone with a lot of money and take it from them. Man, I wish I could pay my bills this way! Just blow my entire paycheck luxuries, and then break i
We need to Pay for what we are spending. Balance the budget even if that means increasing taxes to the rates in effect PRIOR to Bush. Gene , are you saying that we should tax all income levels at the same rate we currently tax the rich? Or are you still saying we should punish the rich for being rich, and exploit them as a source of free money to fund the Utopia you dream of? On the other hand, I do agree with you that the current Administration is
Also, the first article Gene presents (and thanks for the supporting links, Gene! What a pleasant surprise!), says only that while everybody got a tax cut, the richest got the biggest tax cut. Could it be that the richest got the biggest tax cut because they were the ones most unfairly taxed by the previous tax schemes? The article also admits that "some rich people" are also included in the group of taxpayers paying a greater share of the tax burden. A
I am cranky, JoeUser. This post, expressing the crankiness, may be safely dismissed as a troll. So let me get this straight: For over a generation now, a central message of the Democratic party has been that Republicans hate the poor and wouldn't mind seeing them all dead (or enslaved in concentration camps, or both). For at least that
I guess I missed the part of the article where Gene provides any evidence at all to support his opening claim: "Sometime ago, Bush addressed a wealthy audience and put his finger on the problem with his policies. He said, some call you the haves and the wealthy, I call you MY BASE." And it looks like I also missed the part of dabe 's comment where he explains that while Bush has never actually badmouthed or rejected the opp
I think the two situations are totally different. Helms was talking about people in his home state who were angry about Bush policies, and who might be motivated to do violence to the President if the opportunity arose. The Secret Service rightly investigated, to determine if such people really existed, if they were particularly organized, and if they had the resources to accomplish anything serious. Since the person threatening
The U.S. military isn't responsible for maintaining emergency rescue equipment for the civilian population. Whatever rescue equipment the military is using in Iraq right now, it's part of the military's overall warfighting package. I promise you that each state and city in this country is responsible for maintaining its own disaster recovery gear, and that whatever gear New Orleans had, none of it was sent to Iraq.
Right, because the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana were totally powerless to manage their own flood control systems. The situation in New Orleans right now has been over thirty years in the making. It's a cute illustration, but a feeble and unrealistic argument.
When major storms threatened the Florida coast recently, Governor Jeb Bush had buses prepared ahead of time to evacuate people--poor people especially. Nothing similar to this advance preparation happened during Katrina's approach. Let's see dabe produce an editorial cartoon that examines the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana. You know: the elected officials who had a direct and immediate and exclusive responsibility t
I'll wager that the Dutch didn't just copy the NO drainage system, but integrated it into a centuries-old and time-tested system of their own. And let's be clear: the problem with New Orleans right now isn't the drainage, it's the flooding. It's all the water coming into the city. Clearly, no matter how good the drainage system is, it's not having any luck against the waters of Lake Ponchartrain. I don't think this drainage system from 1801 is the same system of dikes that the Dutch
We should rebuild it, but only if we can get one of those Dutch dike things, where a little boy with at least one finger is enough to keep out the entire sea.