When liberals get their way ...

“LOL chili the fun part is yet to come.

Shortly we will begin seeing "fairness" as identified by the UN. When Tilty comes out of the basement to find he is paying a tax for "imputed income" and LushO gets a bill for something else (LOL). And they find it will go to allegedly pay some thrid world waste of skin....only to have it embezzled by some UN goof...yeah then the fun will begin.”

“Kinda like Animal Farm.”

“silly libbies”

“Let's let the church and the military decide what is or isn't fair and get rid of government. Wait a minute, those two things would die without the government. Infact, so would XLs blackberry.”

“Somebody is smoking to much weed.”

“Uncliff....my fear is not especially the PrezBOterians or their actions. It is the long term effect. This nation (for those of you who were Government School Trained) is based on "Precedent law" meaning if one administration was able to do it there is a really good chance the next may be able to carry it off.

When you study the PrezBO and his administration's incredible extention of Federal Government power it has to frighten you. What if this power were put in the hands of a "church" say an ultra Conservative religious nut (um it has happened in other countries) during a crisis. Does not the chance that we would face our own little taliban scare you?


To wit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051303014_pf.html



In February, California's Democratic-controlled Legislature, faced with a $42 billion budget deficit, trimmed $74 million (1.4 percent) from one of the state's fastest-growing programs, which provides care for low-income and incapacitated elderly people and which cost the state $5.42 billion last year. The Los Angeles Times reports that "loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester."

But the Service Employees International Union collects nearly $5 million a month from 223,000 caregivers who are members. And the Obama administration has told California that unless the $74 million in cuts are rescinded, it will deny the state $6.8 billion in stimulus money.

Such a federal ukase (the word derives from czarist Russia; how appropriate) to a state legislature is a sign of the administration's dependency agenda -- maximizing the number of people and institutions dependent on the federal government. For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is.

The SEIU says the cuts violate contracts negotiated with counties. California officials say the state required the contracts to contain clauses allowing pay to be reduced if state funding is.


Or

Anyway, the Obama administration, judging by its cavalier disregard of contracts between Chrysler and some of the lenders it sought money from, thinks contracts are written on water. The administration proposes that Chrysler's secured creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them but that the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11 billion in claims -- and 55 percent of the company. This, even though the secured creditors' contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing than the union.

Among Chrysler's lenders, some servile banks that are now dependent on the administration for capital infusions tugged their forelocks and agreed. Some hedge funds among Chrysler's lenders that are not dependent were vilified by the president because they dared to resist his demand that they violate their fiduciary duties to their investors, who include individuals and institutional pension funds.

The Economist says the administration has "ridden roughshod over [creditors'] legitimate claims over the [automobile companies'] assets. . . . Bankruptcies involve dividing a shrunken pie. But not all claims are equal: some lenders provide cheaper funds to firms in return for a more secure claim over the assets should things go wrong. They rank above other stakeholders, including shareholders and employees. This principle is now being trashed." Tom Lauria, a lawyer representing hedge fund people trashed by the president as the cause of Chrysler's bankruptcy, asked that his clients' names not be published for fear of violence threatened in e-mails to them.

Or

The Troubled Assets Relief Program, which has not yet been used for its supposed purpose (to purchase such assets from banks), has been the instrument of the administration's adventure in the automobile industry. TARP's $700 billion, like much of the supposed "stimulus" money, is a slush fund the executive branch can use as it pleases. This is as lawless as it would be for Congress to say to the IRS: We need $3.5 trillion to run the government next year, so raise it however you wish -- from whomever, at whatever rates you think suitable. Don't bother us with details.

This is not gross, unambiguous lawlessness of the Nixonian sort -- burglaries, abuse of the IRS and FBI, etc. -- but it is uncomfortably close to an abuse of power that perhaps gave Nixon ideas: When in 1962 the steel industry raised prices, President John F. Kennedy had a tantrum and his administration leaked rumors that the IRS would conduct audits of steel executives, and sent FBI agents on predawn visits to the homes of journalists who covered the steel industry, ostensibly to further a legitimate investigation.


In School we were taught to evaluate each Government action from both sides.

So here is a scenario.

2011 We suffer a horrifying attack on this nation. The nation as a whole plunges into chaos. In the election a Southern Baptist leaning bible thumper arises offering to bring control and organization. The sheeple have already been taught to believe that all safety and security comes from Washington.

As usually happens following an attack the nation as a whole turns to the "churches". Groups like the Moral Majority (but 10 Xs more bizarre) spring up.

In the interest of "saving the nation" rules about "improper behavior" are instituted.

It could happen. It HAS happened in other nations. I could see Lusho going into a bank to get a loan with his spouse. The good government Banker looks at the application and asks about alcohol or drug consumption in the household. BOOM Lusho's privately protected right to destroy his life now overrides the fact that his wife can make the payments.

What liberals totally miss in their one dimensional Cocker Spaniel approach to life is that all this if turned around would be onerous indeed.”

“Your alcohol problem permeates nearly every post and is a constant reference point.

You are projecting, Mr. Coholic.

Did you wife kick you out for cheatin', beatin' or was it boozin'?

Perhaps she caught you shaggin' the neighbor's dog.”

“If Liberals got their way, perhaps interrogations of captured terrorists would be performed by professionals instead untrained inexperienced "contractors".

Let's have someone doing it who knows WTF they're doing instead of following the Bush-Palin model.”

“LOL...if we could hook these two up to a generator...we could power most of the North East for years.”

“Okay Lusho and Rev Tilty, here is a question... We go ahead and prosecute the "interrogators" and go after the Bush Administration.

During the investigation we discover that Princess Nancy not only KNEW but APPROVED. Will you Libbies be your usual hypocritical selves and just give her a pass?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124226863721018193.html

When questions were raised last month about these statements, Mrs. Pelosi insisted at a news conference that "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." Mrs. Pelosi also claimed that the CIA "did not tell us they were using that, flat out. And any, any contention to the contrary is simply not true." She had earlier said on TV, "I can say flat-out, they never told us that these enhanced interrogations were being used."

The Obama administration's CIA director, Leon Panetta, and Mr. Goss have both disputed Mrs. Pelosi's account.

In a report to Congress on May 5, Mr. Panetta described the CIA's 2002 meeting with Mrs. Pelosi as "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on [legal] authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed." Note the past tense -- "had been employed."

Mr. Goss says he and Mrs. Pelosi were told at the 2002 briefing about the use of the EITs and "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission." He is backed by CIA sources who say Mr. Goss and Mrs. Pelosi "questioned whether we were doing enough" to extract information.
last edited: 5/14/09 7:07:33 AM”

“Sadistic ex-cops are a lousy cliche.”

“Essentially the translation form Tilty is "we will overlook the charges"...”

“Make a fourth arm of government--the press--everything will be up from then on.

Let's go back to page 32, where it states that sleeping bag hoods should be able to rotate 270* in both directions...”

“Keep up that lunatic stuff Mr. Al Coholic and the Rubber Room attendants might take away your Animal Farm Board Game.”

“XL needs a couple a weeks on either Maggies or Joe Arpaio's Farm.”

“People who defend war criminals deserve no consideration.   They'd lie about anything.

Anything and everything.”

“Yup, it's worse than I expected.

”

“What is it....like 3,500 Combat deaths in the War on Terror....

Well the libbies lie about Global warming and the need to raise mileage....

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA546CAFEStandards.html


An extensive 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data found that since CAFE went into effect in 1978, 46,000 people died in crashes they otherwise would have survived, had they been in bigger, heavier vehicles. This, according to a 1999 USA Today analysis of crash data since 1975, roughly figures to be 7,700 deaths for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards.14

* The USA Today report also said smaller cars - such as the Chevrolet Cavalier or Dodge Neon - accounted for 12,144 fatalities or 37 percent of vehicle deaths in 1997, though such cars comprised only 18 percent of all vehicles.15

* A 1989 Harvard-Brookings study estimated CAFE "to be responsible for 2,200-3,900 excess occupant fatalities over ten years of a given [car] model years' use." Moreover, the researchers estimated between 11,000 and 19,500 occupants would suffer serious but nonfatal crash injuries as a result of CAFE.16”

“Your newspaper is ten and twenty years old, Rip Van Tinkle.

Perhaps we should turn back the clock and all car can be GIGANTIC again.

Fuel consumption is no matter...........burn it all.”

“That's the dumbest excuse for not improving fuel mileage that I've ever read. What a puff piece.”

“Marky, are you saying that 3,500 combat deaths in a war to protect us all is unacceptable, but 46,000 deaths to save some gas is ok?”

“The reason these people die in their cars is because they get slammed by some other big tank on the road.

NoPrb still believes the Iraq lie. Hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

STFU!”

“I said nothing of the kind, NoProd.
What I said is what I said and not what you said I said.


There.........
You want to pick another fight with me?
Go ahead, I will flog you like a red-headed step child and then throw you naked in the street and set wild dogs on you.
With what is left I will make mud pies, dry them in the sun and use them for clay pigeons.

STFU!
last edited: 5/21/09 11:35:11 AM”

“Well, obviously neither rosey nor marky got the brain today.

Can't argue your position, so it goes straight to name calling and insults. Same as always.

How proud your mothers must be!

5
last edited: 5/21/09 11:57:49 AM”

“Worse than you guys acting like you really give a flying #&%!$ about 3 water boarded terrorist? Now that's a puff piece.

BTW with all the hype over American Idol and the terrorist wannabe's funny how little reporting there is regarding the latest economic projections; dismal.
last edited: 5/21/09 12:17:17 PM”

“Amazing how little reporting there was when Bush and crew steamrolled their way into Iraq without the press asking a gddam question as to what proof there was.

Jeeze, they're so scared the torture stuff they did is so heinous that it'll incite the entire Middle East into a jihad that they won't even release the photographic evidence to the press to print. How's that for strangling freedom of the press and Freedom of Information?
last edited: 5/21/09 12:27:55 PM”

“Or maybe they won't release it because it would show just how much they had blown it out of proportion and it would show just how far afield they had gone to spread hatered for the previous administration.”

“Riiiiight.

Duck! Black helicopters!”

“No Prod, you started the name-calling.

Suggesting that I would approve of thousands of deaths is just a bit of an insult, you stupid kcufing puzzy.

Go ahead, pull my chain again.
last edited: 5/21/09 1:20:16 PM”

“Didn't know you had a chain? I try hard not to be too hard on liberals. I know they are very weak in the mental capacity area and I know it's not nice to pick on you.
last edited: 5/21/09 1:42:02 PM”

“This is the problem with partisanship. Each side can't find a single fault in their own representatives, and throw a fit when the other side points out any fault (whether false, inflated, or 100% true). Similarly, no member of one side would ever dare admit that a government official from the other side is actually doing a good job, even if just in one miniscule area. Partisanship gives everybody an "us vs. them" attitude when, in reality, liberal or conservative, bush or obama, every politician has the hand of big business so far up his/her cornhole that all you can see is elbow.

How one political party can call the other a kool-aid drinking sheep is just stunning to me. You're all being fooled. Bush was a steaming pile of corrupt schit, and, though he's a little less obvious, I would be more shocked if, when all is said and done, Obama doesn't turn out to be an equally large steaming pile. That's politics for you. By projecting the country's problems onto one political group or the other, not only do you remain completely blind to the real cause of the problem, but you also remain completely impotent and ineffective in resolving it. Rather than fighting one another about which puppet is better, turn that vitriol on the people who really deserve it”

“Well, pepsi, I think Pelosi is a POS and quite frankly, I think McCain has done a fair job.”

“pepsis pwns failtalk”

“well, yeah, Pelosi is definitely dirty... that's pretty clear at this point.

I think there should be a twelve step program for curing people of partisanship.

1. Admit that my political party is also incurably corrupt
2. Accept it when people point out the inadecuacies, fallacies, and corruption of my party and leaders.
3. Admit that, far from being evil, wrong, or misguided, members (as in the average laypeople, not the politicians) of the opposing political party also want what they feel is best for America.
4. Don't be afraid to admit fault in your party and its leaders
5. Take off the party-tinted glasses

... what else?”

“then again, this is all coming from a misanthropic anarchist. If I really let loose with my views, I think MarkO and XL would link hands to burn me down... which would at least unite TT for... like... an hour...”

“i'd stand with you pepsis. i agree, they're pos.”

“I used to think McCain had some sense.”

“Sure, it all comes down to the lesser of two evils, and which side you come down on is pretty much defined by:

1. Who should die.
2. Who should get money.”

“my view of it isn't that limited rosey”

“agreed... but isn't that pretty messed up, that those two points should be more or less all we have... that the lesser of two evils is the best we've got?

yikes, I'm sounding like Strat here... we surround them! good lord, I think it's time for some coffee”

“Sure, there are nuances and other factors involved, but those are major definers, at their core, of the differences between the parties. The tentacles from those two points are long and numerous, with many, many levels including ideologies, belief systems, etc.

If you remove greenbacks from the equation, you get to commonground a lot faster. Not realitic, I know, but I'm just saying that many decisions are made not because they are the best, or help the most people, or advance us spritually, intellectually or otherwise, but because they generate the most revenue.

That sucks.”

“well, the truth is that both political parties are business-driven. That's no generalization or exageration and you'll hear members of both sides constantly saying as much. I'd say most political decisions made by Bush and Obama were with the thought "what's best for business?" in mind. As to WHAT business and WHAT interpretation of what's best, THAT is where the only difference is. America is a capitalist society and, in short, that means our government will always act first with money in mind. And this, in a nutshell, is why I disagree with the whole fukken thing
last edited: 5/21/09 3:17:22 PM”

“'well, the truth is that both political parties are business-driven. ' pepsico2 the 'United World of Corporate America' is here.”

“LOL..Tough times ahead for LushO

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05212009/news/nationalnews/bid_for_145__beer_tax_hike_170336.htm

WASHINGTON -- Drunk on power and dazed by ambition, members of Congress have stumbled upon a novel way to keep their spending binge rolling -- and leave American taxpayers with the hangover.

Under a Senate proposal, Congress would raise the federal excise tax on beer by 145 percent to more than $3 a case.

Uncle Sam also would snatch an additional $7 on a case of wine -- a staggering increase of 233 percent and an additional 20 percent on hard liquor sales”

“'Uncle Sam also would snatch an additional $7 on a case of wine' XL

Drug war money. That tax may pay.000000000005% of the cost each year.”

“Pepsi, does that mean you aren't employed by a business?”

“I see violink is being his usual ...”