Somewhere, a baby cries when Mustafa Topaloğlu sings.




(man, should we mention "ğlu" when horse is around? He is pretty sensitive.)

ptah13 wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Wow... Ptah n Horse Together Again:

C'mon man.

What did I ever do to you?

Nevermind. Let's take this discussion over to the new chat room.

chatroom?

Hey Equine Deity!  Find any mares lately?

Sooooo, I finally got a chance to get back in here and was all set to bitch slap HKG a little and I see that I ended up on the wrong $8 Billion dollar rail corridor as this thread has apparently moved on to another track.

I am happy to see Horse is back.  Welcome back, H.

If someone will buy Dirck a space bar and an enter key I might be persuaded to keep fobbing off in here.  Jesus tits people.

Dmtdust wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

Wow... Ptah n Horse Together Again:

C'mon man.

What did I ever do to you?

Nevermind. Let's take this discussion over to the new chat room.

chatroom?

Hey Equine Deity!  Find any mares lately?

It was a joke on Horse.

I vividly remember him emailing the crap out of me to find the location of "the secret Cruel Chat room" where all they do is talk about Horse....

I wonder if I still have those emails? Nah... Horse might be off his rocker but I don't violate like that anymore.

Scotty wrote:

Sooooo, I finally got a chance to get back in here and was all set to bitch slap HKG a little and I see that I ended up on the wrong $8 Billion dollar rail corridor as this thread has apparently moved on to another track.

I am happy to see Horse is back.  Welcome back, H.

If someone will buy Dirck a space bar and an enter key I might be persuaded to keep fobbing off in here.  Jesus tits people.

I'm still waiting for you to point out the section that supports your position.

ptah13 wrote:

Horseonovich wrote:

You back on the meth again (yes, I heard all about it).

I've never taken meth in my life, retard.

As I don't read past a sentence or two in your responses, I would have missed this one had Ptah not quoted you (And, I generally don't read more than the first sentence or two of his responses either {Sorry, Dude; But, you have to admit that you've failed to provide the laughs of late}).  Look here, Pony-Boy, judging by your "stature" (To be kind), I'm guessing that you know no more about methedrine than the bull-shit that the corpora . . .  Er, liberal press has fed you.  Now, I'm a rather tolerant person (What?  I am, too!); But, don't go knocking chemical compounds that you obviously know no-thing about if you don't want me editing every posting of yours to read a-long the lines of ". . .  I tongued my Mother's gaping anus and I liked it."

Stupid, Tea-Bagging, Cunt wrote:

Cut taxes not defense

How dare the corpora . . .   Liberal media go out of their way to make that poor woman appear a moron holding an ironic sign.  She should sue.

Decadence wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Scotty wrote:

. . . Jesus tits people.

I'm still waiting for you to point out the section that supports your position.

I just want to see these tits of Jesus to which he constantly refers.  I'd imagine that they must be spectacular.

Jesus tits leak the milk of superhuman kindness.  They are productive manboobs and quiver 'neath the hand of god.

Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, whatever. Labels and finger-pointing, ignoring larger realities if you ask me. I think the United States may be heading pell-mell toward a sort of serfdom and possibly---unless you're in the small minority who are rich and influential---a Third World existence for many of us. I hope I'm wrong in these predictions, but given the present course of decline, our country's social and political structure could eventually look like Mexico's, with a wealthy, privileged ruling class and a low-income, disenfranchised class, and nothing in-between. The rich enjoying lives of luxury and entitlement, the poor toiling in sweatshops and barely eking out an existence in crime-ridden slums.  Maybe we should forget the conventional, tired paradigm of liberal-vs.-conservative and instead weigh everything on a control-vs.-liberty scale, OUR liberties being the ones currently in jeopardy. Don't be surprised if the general public gets raped in every way imaginable by its "leaders"/masters in the next several years, usurious taxes being among the assaults.

At the extremes of liberalism and conservatism, you end up with the same thing: tyranny. Both---BOTH---major political parties are serving the purposes of a plutocratic overclass, manipulating us, hoarding money at the top, incrementally taking away the liberties and assets of us "little people." Big corporations and government as one. We're seeing our life savings and properties being whittled away. Homes foreclosed, jobs sent overseas, tent cities popping up, mom-and-pop businesses going under. And I predict that power grabs over food and water resources will be next.

On the subject of potential food and water grabs: Many cities are selling municipal water districts to private interests as we speak. If the water profiteers use the same marketing model as the oil companies---manufacture real or artificial shortages/"crises," charge out the ass for "limited resources"---we'll have to pay dearly just for basic water distribution. Corporations playing pricing games, with us as the marks. Meanwhile, Big Agriculture is doing what it can to squeeze out small players ('small' meaning family farms, independents) so it can raise prices through the roof and monopolize the food distribution pipeline. These days, the Democrats and Republicans create and exploit perpetual crises to force their spoken and unspoken agendas on the public---witness the trillion-dollar bailout bill that was pushed through before anyone had time to read the damned thing---so why shouldn't we expect greedy corporations to pull similar tricks of extortion and overcontrol with their business operations?

Last edited by scarydog (2009-04-18 20:12:29)

Dmtdust wrote:

Love that photo. It's amazing how many other items paid for with tax money weren't listed: pollution emission standards for the vehicles on the road, for example, as well as the safety standards that often have to be forced upon automakers; zoning that protects small businesses and homes from the construction of, say, medical waste incineration facilities or the opening of scrap yards in inappropriate areas (two real life examples from my days covering planning and land use in Alaska); public education that made it possible for the idiots in the protest to know how to write protest signs; the regulations for clothing manufacturers that prevents manufacturers from using carcinogenic or flammable materials in clothing; labor laws that help level the playing field between employers and employees (presumably there are a number of both in that crowd, unless any of them are on disability or are retired. Woops! There are two more services paid for with tax money.); licensing and regulation of medical providers such as optometrists who provided the eyeglasses worn by several of the protesters...

Isn't someone supposed to compare someone else to a nazi now? Isn't that a cyber rule somewhere?

Back on topic...


The rest of the gallery

George Orr wrote:

Back on topic...
http://www.jossip.com/wp/docs/2009/04/teaparty4.jpg

The rest of the gallery

But, the webpage, George, THE WEBPAGE tells you what the tea parties were all about.  Who are you going to believe?  Your lying eyes or THE WEBPAGE?

The teabaggers are for the most part idiots and don't know what they are rallying against.  I think you could ask any of them for specific reasons what they are against and they couldn't give you an intelligent answer.  I'm not knocking Conservatism here because the leftist protesters were just as stupid when they rallied against Bush and Cheney.  What I'm saying is that people are an unreasonable and irrational species and are ultimately fucked in the long run.  George Bush was not a modern Adolf Hitler and Obama is not a modern Karl Marx.  The only solution I see is to strip the power away from the Federal government and let people live in like minded communities.  If someone wants to be a commie, let them be a commie and protect that right for them with the Constitution.  If someone else wants to live in a theocracy let them and protect them with the Constitution.  The exact rules apply for any group be it conservative or liberal.  I don't give a flying fuck what anyone believes as long as they aren't a threat to me or my rights.  Any successful modern business has succeeded by breaking itself down into smaller and smaller districts to handle the unique needs of each area.  The government has chosen the opposite approach and look how well that is working for them.  They need to quit centralizing and let people choose to live their own lives.

Dirckman wrote:

The teabaggers are for the most part idiots and don't know what they are rallying against.  I think you could ask any of them for specific reasons what they are against and they couldn't give you an intelligent answer.  I'm not knocking Conservatism here because the leftist protesters were just as stupid when they rallied against Bush and Cheney.  What I'm saying is that people are an unreasonable and irrational species and are ultimately fucked in the long run.  George Bush was not a modern Adolf Hitler and Obama is not a modern Karl Marx.  The only solution I see is to strip the power away from the Federal government and let people live in like minded communities.  If someone wants to be a commie, let them be a commie and protect that right for them with the Constitution.  If someone else wants to live in a theocracy let them and protect them with the Constitution.  The exact rules apply for any group be it conservative or liberal.  I don't give a flying fuck what anyone believes as long as they aren't a threat to me or my rights.  Any successful modern business has succeeded by breaking itself down into smaller and smaller districts to handle the unique needs of each area.  The government has chosen the opposite approach and look how well that is working for them.  They need to quit centralizing and let people choose to live their own lives.

How small is small enough and how small is too small?

Sorry dude, that's some 9th grade bullshit right there

tojo2000 wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

The teabaggers are for the most part idiots and don't know what they are rallying against.  I think you could ask any of them for specific reasons what they are against and they couldn't give you an intelligent answer.  I'm not knocking Conservatism here because the leftist protesters were just as stupid when they rallied against Bush and Cheney.  What I'm saying is that people are an unreasonable and irrational species and are ultimately fucked in the long run.  George Bush was not a modern Adolf Hitler and Obama is not a modern Karl Marx.  The only solution I see is to strip the power away from the Federal government and let people live in like minded communities.  If someone wants to be a commie, let them be a commie and protect that right for them with the Constitution.  If someone else wants to live in a theocracy let them and protect them with the Constitution.  The exact rules apply for any group be it conservative or liberal.  I don't give a flying fuck what anyone believes as long as they aren't a threat to me or my rights.  Any successful modern business has succeeded by breaking itself down into smaller and smaller districts to handle the unique needs of each area.  The government has chosen the opposite approach and look how well that is working for them.  They need to quit centralizing and let people choose to live their own lives.

How small is small enough and how small is too small?

I don't think you can go small enough.  People don't need their lives dictated to them in the name of common good.  The technology is finally in place that people are able to make their own decisions without representation.  I believe the internet is the tool which could allow us to be the first truly individualistic free market government in the history of the world.  The fucking tribal system is dead, it was necessary in its time, but now all it's doing is holding us back.

He has taken the Red Pill!

Dirckman wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

I don't think you can go small enough.  People don't need their lives dictated to them in the name of common good.  The technology is finally in place that people are able to make their own decisions without representation.  I believe the internet is the tool which could allow us to be the first truly individualistic free market government in the history of the world.  The fucking tribal system is dead, it was necessary in its time, but now all it's doing is holding us back.

Okay, then, for example, you'd be fine with private ownership of the roads?

I would be fine with private ownership of the roads and every other concievable thing.  I don't expect anyone letting me use their roads for free and would be more than willing to pay a toll to use those roads.

Well I don't think it would come as any surprise that I disagree with you, but I do wish you'd take the time to think about why that just might turn into a logistical nightmare for all involved.

tojo2000 wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Okay, then, for example, you'd be fine with private ownership of the roads?

I would be fine with private ownership of the roads and every other concievable thing.  I don't expect anyone letting me use their roads for free and would be more than willing to pay a toll to use those roads.

Well I don't think it would come as any surprise that I disagree with you, but I do wish you'd take the time to think about why that just might turn into a logistical nightmare for all involved.

I think you underestimate the power of the free market.

tojo2000 wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

I'm sure your system of forcing people to pay for the same roads whether or not they use them must be far superior in your mind.  The whole concept of stealing from people simply by voting in someone to make laws still leaves a bad taste in my mouth though.

Dirck, I don't believe you've actually partaken of that much of the Kool-Aid quite yet.  Think about it.   Also consider what the inevitable result of a society where each family makes its own rules really is.

That's an incredibly arrogant statement.  I suppose YOU know what is best for each individual out there and YOU chose what is best for them by voting into power a person who would take THEIR money and spend it in the best way possible for THEM.  I'm sorry, but I feel as if anyone who tries to dictate to me my moral and financial responsibility is the enemy.  Go ahead now, in all your wisdom, tell me what is right and wrong and what I should do with my cash?  PLEASE tell me!!!  I'm far too fucking stupid to make my own decisions.

Dirckman wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

I'm sure your system of forcing people to pay for the same roads whether or not they use them must be far superior in your mind.  The whole concept of stealing from people simply by voting in someone to make laws still leaves a bad taste in my mouth though.

Dirck, I don't believe you've actually partaken of that much of the Kool-Aid quite yet.  Think about it.   Also consider what the inevitable result of a society where each family makes its own rules really is.

That's an incredibly arrogant statement.  I suppose YOU know what is best for each individual out there and YOU chose what is best for them by voting into power a person who would take THEIR money and spend it in the best way possible for THEM.  I'm sorry, but I feel as if anyone who tries to dictate to me my moral and financial responsibility is the enemy.  Go ahead now, in all your wisdom, tell me what is right and wrong and what I should do with my cash?  PLEASE tell me!!!  I'm far too fucking stupid to make my own decisions.

Do you want another amazingly arrogant statement?  When I told you that the beliefs you were describing were "libertarianism", I knew we'd have this conversation.  In fact, I predicted as much in writing on this board.  Here's the ultimate in arrogance:  I think a lot of people here went through their libertarian phase, mostly in college.

Anyway, if you still want to take this up, I'll take you up on it tomorrow.  I need to get some shuteye.

Arrogantly yours,

tojo

headkicker_girl wrote:

Taint wrote:

Love that photo. It's amazing how many other items paid for with tax money weren't listed: pollution emission standards for the vehicles on the road, for example, as well as the safety standards that often have to be forced upon automakers; zoning that protects small businesses and homes from the construction of, say, medical waste incineration facilities or the opening of scrap yards in inappropriate areas (two real life examples from my days covering planning and land use in Alaska); public education that made it possible for the idiots in the protest to know how to write protest signs; the regulations for clothing manufacturers that prevents manufacturers from using carcinogenic or flammable materials in clothing; labor laws that help level the playing field between employers and employees (presumably there are a number of both in that crowd, unless any of them are on disability or are retired. Woops! There are two more services paid for with tax money.); licensing and regulation of medical providers such as optometrists who provided the eyeglasses worn by several of the protesters...

But the website says it's not about taxes.  What about Ptah's very cogent posts are you not getting?

And, again, based on your logic, Obama then must believe Jews are Nazi's, as this is a Pro-Obama rally:



Yep, that proves it. Obama is out to kill the Jews. That's the proof, right there! Did you read the signs?
Did you see the signs?

You just don't get it. You can't say "Tea Parties are about Not Paying Taxes" because a few tards have anti-tax signs. Is that what the speakers are talking about???? I love your "A to B to L" logic.

I'm gonna have to believe what the people who started, organzed, spoke at, produced and attended say the parties are about, not what your propoganda machine tells me I should think. Sorry...

Nice try, though!

ptah13 wrote:

WTF? Where did I "knock" your precious meth?

All I said was that I've never taken it in my life.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Sorry - I guess that wasn't clear.  I was addressing Tommy - Not you.  I only quoted you as that's where I saw his quote.  I don't read his postings; So, I would have missed that comment had you not quoted him.

tojo2000 wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

orangeplus wrote:

So you would countenance a region of the United States being subject to Sharia law?

I don't give a shit...  If a group of people want to practice Sharia law within an area that's their choice.  The second they try forcing Sharia law on other people by force or through political means they should all be shot.  I've seen the small like-minded community in action locally with a lot of success....  My state has the highest population of Hutterites in the United States.  The Hutterites are a purely Communistic structured society and solidly theocratic to boot.  I also happen to live in a red state.  How can a large population of Communists live in a red state without any trouble?  They can do it because they don't force their ideologies on other people.  I can put up with anyone believing whatever they want to believe as long as they respect what I believe and don't get in the way of me living my life.  The Republicans and Democrats don't respect what I believe and attempt to force me to change by law.  I'm more than willing to put up with Communists, Muslims, and any other system of belief as long as they respect mine.

So what happens when the children of the people who created their own small region that adheres to Sharia law decide that they don't want to be subject to Sharia law?

Iraq and Yugoslavia come to mind.  As soon as you have ethnic (or whatever) enclaves, people want autonomous states.  It then takes a dictatorship to keep the country together.  Dirck's ideas, like most libertarians, are philosophies.  They cannot stand as a valid means of government.  I would have tacked thid on to someone else's post, but I gotta run.

headkicker_girl wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

I don't give a shit...  If a group of people want to practice Sharia law within an area that's their choice.  The second they try forcing Sharia law on other people by force or through political means they should all be shot.  I've seen the small like-minded community in action locally with a lot of success....  My state has the highest population of Hutterites in the United States.  The Hutterites are a purely Communistic structured society and solidly theocratic to boot.  I also happen to live in a red state.  How can a large population of Communists live in a red state without any trouble?  They can do it because they don't force their ideologies on other people.  I can put up with anyone believing whatever they want to believe as long as they respect what I believe and don't get in the way of me living my life.  The Republicans and Democrats don't respect what I believe and attempt to force me to change by law.  I'm more than willing to put up with Communists, Muslims, and any other system of belief as long as they respect mine.

So what happens when the children of the people who created their own small region that adheres to Sharia law decide that they don't want to be subject to Sharia law?

Iraq and Yugoslavia come to mind.  As soon as you have ethnic (or whatever) enclaves, people want autonomous states.  It then takes a dictatorship to keep the country together.  Dirck's ideas, like most libertarians, are philosophies.  They cannot stand as a valid means of government.  I would have tacked thid on to someone else's post, but I gotta run.

In order to remain "fair and balanced", I have to admit this is a fairly brilliant analogy, HKG.

Not that you need or want my approval, I just thought I'd post my thoughts.

Talk about "fucked up areas of the Earth", southeastern Euro's take the cake. They are about as neighborly as your average sub-Saharan African nation.  I'd have loved to have faulted Clinton more for his "wag the dog-bombing" deal, there, but part of me was all for it.