OT: Sarah Palin Gender Card- when the right is full of sh!t

Funny that the GOP wants to play up Palin's "Hockey mom" credentials. Any "hockey mom" I've met would be digusted at her childish smears of Obama to make herself look better as a Veep candidate. Great example of leadership and "reaching across the aisle," Mcbush and Palin. :- "We have a choice between a giant douche and a terd sammich."

Regardless of whom you, fellow Americans, support in this election (McCain or Obama)... you MUST think about this:

"We have a choice between a giant douche and a terd sammich." agreed. the baby killers will go left, the religious zealots will go right. mccain by a nose. at least palin is kinda hot.

Vote Ron Paul! lol

eh, libertarians are whackos too, I dont understand why we would put people in office who want to dismantle the very thing that keeps this country running. We're supposed to make it better, not take it apart... now, if you take it apart before building back up, that I can understand, but the end result of libeterairnism is pretty bleak... faceless corporations would literally run the country and the little guy would have to sue to get his fair share, and we know how well that works already... Ron Pauls honesty was/is refreshing though.

If by "keeping things running" you mean nationalizing the country to death. Thing is I don't see things running very smoothly.... One hell of a roller coaster over the last week. And now the GOV is bailing out these huge corporations. In my view its only going to be at the expense of the taxpayer. Also, it will likely, in the long run keep the housing prices artificially high... and keep the "American Dream" out of reach for most. And without market self-correction (a libertarian goal)... it will stay out of reach for most. One thing we're running into here because of the current state of things: Because we cannot afford inflated real-estate prices, we are renting a new place for our family. I'm friends with the landlord who showed us the place, which happens to have a current tenant. This tenant has FOUR children. Keep in mind she is able bodied, and could work... but does not. She is a baby machine. She has a fifth on the way. The GOVERNMENT pays for her existence, and it makes me sick. So we work hard to pay our bills and not rely on big brother... This person has to move out of this 3 bedroom place because it is not approved for 5 children. (Not to mention that this person has totally destroyed my friend's property and he has to spend thousands to redo it to make it livable again). I understand when someone needs a little help to get by, or has a disability... but this is blatant abuse of the system. Basically, the GOV is now moving her into a HOUSE! This is what our taxes are paying for? And we, a hard working family, like many others... cannot afford a house if we wanted to. And this is why my taxes are so high we barely make ends meet??? Not to mention the cost of illegally implemented war abroad. The GOV is just too damn big and too powerful... and rewards laziness to boot. Now it has nearly 80 percent control of the biggest insurer in the nation, and the 2 largest housing companies, which account for approximately. half of the nations mortgages. That's more scary to me than shrinking the bloated bureaucracy. The bailouts helped the markets in the short-term... but didn't help us as taxpayers in the long run, I fear.

If by "keeping things running" you mean nationalizing the country to death. Thing is I don't see things running very smoothly.... One hell of a roller coaster over the last week. Right, but thats an example of the effects of *BAD* governing. The system has been rigged, no doubt, but that doenst mean the system shouldnt exist, it should exist the "right" way. And the right way is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The current corporatist agenda and administration certainly does not have those goals in mind. A good government will create opportunity for its population, not take it away. And now the GOV is bailing out these huge corporations. In my view its only going to be at the expense of the taxpayer. Also, it will likely, in the long run keep the housing prices artificially high... and keep the "American Dream" out of reach for most. And without market self-correction (a libertarian goal)... it will stay out of reach for most. You say market self-correction like its something thats is definitely the end result of de-regulation. I simply dont buy that logic at all, indeed I think I completely disagree with it... Its kinda like telling a child to raise itself and teach itself the way to get along with everyone... Doesn't happen, children (and the market) need guidance and rules and structure otherwise its lord of the flies time with our economy (as apposed to the meathead big bully loan sharking economy we are in now). The market takes care of itself, not the population it feeds off of. And when corporations run the market, they take care of themselves. What we are seeing is the effect of de-regulation of the market, and the corporations taking care of themselves. If you have a scale, the goals of corporations (and the market) are on a different end than the population, hence, the reason the population regulates the market, to stop the corporations from taking everything. With a completely de-regulated market (a libertarian goal) theres no regulators to protect the public... Hey, real quick, do libertarians believe in child labor protection laws? Laws that protect borrows from predatory lenders? Laws that make it the same cost to manufacture outside the US as it does inside (so we can hire people back into the workforce again)? I was under the impression that Ron Paul and the libertarians want to take away all regulation... Dont get me wrong, I dont trust the government, and never will, but thats why we need to hold their feet to the fire and make them do the right thing (for us). One thing we're running into here because of the current state of things: Because we cannot afford inflated real-estate prices, we are renting a new place for our family. I'm friends with the landlord who showed us the place, which happens to have a current tenant. This tenant has FOUR children. Keep in mind she is able bodied, and could work... but does not. She is a baby machine. She has a fifth on the way. The GOVERNMENT pays for her existence, and it makes me sick. Im suprised to see you on this end of the class war Joe, shes taking quarters from your pockets, and the bailout and Iraq are taking hundreds. Anyways, I dont give a shit about lazy people, but her kids should have the opportunity to become healthy responsible productive members of the community. As much as I dont like the situation, what makes me sick is poor people fighting other poor people while the rich sit back and count their bills. You seem to understand who is *really* taking your money, and I guess the front lines nature of your situation makes your feelings inevitable maybe, but for me its the lazy people who are rich and get my money that piss me off. I feel sad for lazy poor people, angry at the rich lazy ones. And while its not an excuse for her actions, I dont see a single woman with 4 kids having the time to work and raise kids... It is her choice and her responsibility, but I dont buy that a woman taking care of four kids would have time to do it properly if she had to be out of the house 40 hours a week. *shrug* So we work hard to pay our bills and not rely on big brother... This person has to move out of this 3 bedroom place because it is not approved for 5 children. (Not to mention that this person has totally destroyed my friend's property and he has to spend thousands to redo it to make it livable again). I understand when someone needs a little help to get by, or has a disability... but this is blatant abuse of the system. I doubt the government is buying her a house, I imagine they are helping with assistance but would be very very suprised if she is getting it bought for her... Regardless, our community should insure her children, indeed every child, have every opportunity to be productive members of the community. My parents were pretty much useless, and Im lucky to be whitey and have many opportunities to get off welfare and become productive (though I run into the whole it takes money to make money problem all the time still)... In a strong country *every* child born under our protection should have the opportunity to be healthy and protected, *ESPECIALLY* if they have stupid lazy parents... If that mean insuring they have a reasonable roof over their head, then Im down for paying for it. Though, the other balance to paying to keep a kid healthy despite their parent(s) is we need to insure those kids a good education and opportunity to be productive. Then that family of 5 could produce 5 productive workers instead of 5 more lazy fucks. Im afraid the current system wants to keep us poor and stupid. Basically, the GOV is now moving her into a HOUSE! This is what our taxes are paying for? And we, a hard working family, like many others... cannot afford a house if we wanted to. And this is why my taxes are so high we barely make ends meet??? Not to mention the cost of illegally implemented war abroad. Well, you said it, add up the amount spent on section 8 and all the housing projects a compared to the massive corporate welfare and bailouts and then add on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and I'll be surprised if you ever complain about the poor taking your money again. Its the RICH that are taking your money and blaming the poorer (and convincing you to blame the poorer too). The GOV is just too damn big and too powerful... and rewards laziness to boot. Well, I agree that the government has overstepped it powers, and it rewards laziness and stupidity right from the very top. that doest mean government is bad, it means *this* government is bad. Now it has nearly 80 percent control of the biggest insurer in the nation, and the 2 largest housing companies, which account for approximately. half of the nations mortgages. That's more scary to me than shrinking the bloated bureaucracy. I agree to some extent, but like I said, dismantling a government to re-build it is my second choice (fixing whats broken seem a better choice in my opinion, there are a lot of mechanisms in our government that do work, or could work if implemented by people with the right goals...). But taking it apart and keeping it apart is no way to protect the American population, bringing us back to a state of nature is a way for the rich to take everything and not be culpable... The bailouts helped the markets in the short-term... but didn't help us as taxpayers in the long run, I fear Not at all, we really do need to fix this broken economy, that that will happen when we bring jobs back to America (its not paranoid isolationism to hire your own community to be the producers... its what makes a country strong enough to make money exporting quality instead of making a few rich by importing cheap shit. When we all have jobs that pay well and money in our pockets, then we spend it and keeping back into the economy which can grow from the wealth of the majority, not minority. We need to re-regulate the media so that no one person can control too much of the national discourse. I dunno, the government will create a stronger population if it want, or take advantage of it if it wants. Its our job to stack the government with people doing what we want, and that should be to give our community every opportunity to be productive members and be able to get ahead with hard work and talent (cultivated by education). De-regulation takes us farther from these goals I believe, we need regulation that protects the population, not regulation administered by industry lobbyists(which amount to just about the same result as a de-regulated market).

wow gabe, now thats a fair length feed lol.....

ha, yeah, no ones ever accused me of not talking alot... ha. cheers.

gabe can i get in contact with you via email, i would like to post an advertisement to this site on my site ?? is this poss ??

I guess I disagree that libertarian ideas are do "dismantle" the whole works. I feel they're more about limiting the role of government in our lives. Leave the complete dismantling ideology to the anarchists. I agree that there should be obvious common sense regulation, such as child labor laws... and ones against bad lending practices that got us into this mess. As far as the raising of five kids... thats fine and good as long as they're getting raised. I was there... all four were simply running amok. Mountains of wet mouldering clothes, food all over the place... like something you would see on a bad episode of COPS. "As much as I don't like the situation, what makes me sick is poor people fighting other poor people while the rich sit back and count their bills. You seem to understand who is *really* taking your money, and I guess the front lines nature of your situation makes your feelings inevitable maybe, but for me its the lazy people who are rich and get my money that piss me off. " EXACTLY. Thats why corporations that make bad decisions (i.e. investing in bad debt) should be left to fail, not bailed out. I feel that both over regulation AND bailouts simply delay the inevitable. I'd like to see housing prices adjust so people can, through hard work, afford to purchase a home. People like myself and this mother I'm talking about included. Then we could actually afford property tax for decent services such as health care and education. No, I'm not railing against poor folks of this country as a whole... only ones that get a free government ride by making babies they don't give a sh!t about, while us other poor folks are out there busting our ass (and struggling to raise one or two).

...holy shit...

Andrew J. Bacevich for President.

Kandyman, I was under the understanding that Libertarians want to do away with regulations, and pretty much anything that wasnt explicitly included in the constitution. Ron Paul wants to get rid of most government agencies (which regulate) including the department of education. Get rid of, dismantle, only provide for the population what is guaranteed in the constitution written 200 years ago. I thought they argued that "common sense regulation" is what got it into this mess, because "common sense" means different things to different people... Like its common sense for CEO's to want to move jobs overseas so they dont have to pay so much. Its common sense to me to keep jobs in america so americans get paid so much. Does the Libertarian party really want a regulated market? I thought the main agenda called for massive *deregulation*...??? Because the 5 kids dont have a good parent, either the community has to take the initiative to insure they are educted and responsible, otherwiasse you get 5 kids who are a drain on society. Well, maybe 3-4 cause kids can succedd despite shitty parents. Id like to see houseing prices adjust too, but that doenst happen in a "free" or deregualted market. Regulation is supposed to protect the population from greedy fucks. Now, the greedy fuck bought the regualtors, they had their way, and now we see the result. Its not like all the money vanished, we know where it went, to the top! All the money went to the tope and there are people who still defend these practices... amazing. People who make babies they dont give a shit about have their own karma to pay off. The government assistance she gets is a drop in the bucket of wasted spending, and if her kids have a roof over their heads so they get a chance to be productive despite the crappy parent, then Im down for investing in that kids future. Id pay more to make sure the kid gets a good education too, unfortunately kids with bad parents are growing up and learning in a corrupt culture... ah, the futures so bright I gotta wear shades... Andrew is a pretty smart guy... from wikipedia... In an article of the The American Conservative dated March 24, 2008, Bacevich depicts Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as the best choice for conservatives in the fall. Part of his argument includes the fact that "this liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative revival." [5] He also goes on to mention that "For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion." I dont know much about his econimic policies, but his foreign policy seems right on...

My POV is that returning to the roots of the constitution IS limited "common sense" regulation. And if something like child labor protection is needed (and I agree with) then it should be amended into the constitution. But you're also debating child labor with someone who has both worked and attended school since he was 15. And yes, I know getting an ammendment passed is easier said than done. Noting the interview of Balevich on Bill Moyer's show, he also states that not much will change whomever is elected , dem or GOP, due to the imperial nature and use of the military by the president since LBJ. And now Obama is turning his military focus to Afghanistan. We should have dealt with that in 2001, not 7 or 8 years later. And should we REALLY invade yet ANOTHER country an thin out our military even more? Yes, Obama is certainly the lesser of two evils... but evil is still evil. I applaud Balevich, who considers himself conservative, for voting democratic in the congressional elections. He states he did that because Dems "said" they were going to put a stop to Bush's war. (In fact its also what I did.) Dems lied, and they failed. And I fear because of their failure, the resources we need to carry out Obama's plan (to deal with the problem we should have taken care of years ago)... simply won't be there.

The topic of the post is after all "when the right is full of sh!t" I'm only trying to say that BOTH sides of the aisle are full of sh!t, not just the right... I don't believe for a second that the GOP in its current state, represents the REAL conservative ideas anyway. Like crappy parents of the world... greedy, irresposible CEO's that lead their companies into failure, who take advantage of the poor and middle class, will have their own karma to pay off as well. IMO it has very little to do with regulation... because shady people will just find ways around regulation.