|
Thews about: we
Speak for yourself Voit, I trust the gov't way less than the free market, I trust privitized entities to do a more efficient job than the gov't, and I pay my mortgage. I have more outrage when the gov't trips over it's own feet because pussy-ass nanny-state proponents want commissions and agencies made to make sure I don't use my hairdryer in the shower. It's not the job of the government to protect stupid people from themselves.
Jul 20, 2010 5:10:23 am
wes about: we're whiney hypocrits
true
Jul 20, 2010 4:06:59 am
Berg about: really interesting read
this article is interesting... China's Human experiment
Jul 8, 2010 4:05:53 am
bub about: Debate?
i will fully agree that the internet probably hasn't helped the political situation in america. giving every slack-jawed moron a public forum for their dip-shit thoughts might be the internet's biggest flaw. bdc excluded, obviously. i'm quite over the political bullshit. i just hope a viable third party pops up before these two back-room-dealing parties take us down like the titanic. hyphen.
Jul 7, 2010 2:23:41 am
wes about: Debate?
I'm not an economist, I have no clue what will happen nor do I care to wagger on it. I cannot attest that current policies will work, I like most reasonable people, are going to wait and see. It's not more of the same so maybe we'll see a turnaround, maybe not. So far unemployment has slowed. What I won't do is read muckracking psuedo-politicians who made their money ripping people off on sports betting line scams and consider it at all a valid critique of fiscal policy.
Thews, I honestly can't believe you dismiss Moody's as a reliable source of information over some dipshit w/ a laptop. The Idiocracy is here. I think the internet just jumped the shark.
Jul 7, 2010 2:09:39 am
Thews about: Debate?
Care to put a wager on some guys anecdotes vs. some firms charts? Say a night of drinking on net US job loss or gain at the close of FY '10? Think about it, I'm thirsty.
Jul 6, 2010 10:56:53 am
Thews about: Debate?
Well, fancy graphs and charts give me no reason to think we're suddenly going to break out of negative growth just because Moody says so.
Jul 6, 2010 10:15:32 am
wes about: Debate?
Probably not as concrete as that guy's anecdotes. refute
Jul 6, 2010 8:54:51 am
Thews about: Debate?
Would anyone like to refute this view? Killah
Jul 6, 2010 8:43:34 am
Thews about: Food for Thought
Some thoughts on July 4th from Newt.
Jul 2, 2010 3:59:31 am
bub about: Stossel strikes again!
pshaw!
Jun 25, 2010 7:14:33 am
Abby about: Stossel strikes again!
I've had that exact same problem with Brian since he put on his ring!!! ;)
Jun 25, 2010 7:13:42 am
meng about: Stossel strikes again!
The oil spill has stopped. BP tried a new method that worked. They put a wedding ring around the leak and it stopped putting out.
Jun 25, 2010 6:55:44 am
wes about: Stossel strikes again!
I don't have an opinion on that other than O'Reily is a jack ass and I like it when people disagree w/ him. "Shakedown?"...I would say the $20b is reparations. But whatever, the entire argument about it is just partisan crap. I can't get all worked up about our gov't demanding cash from BP considering how much they've made, and will make, in this country. $20b is pennies to them. If that's all they have to pay to avoid lawsuites, they probably got off easy.My opinion on the spill - this is one area I wish we had more gov't regulation (off-shore drilling). But other than those middling/generic thoughts I don't have an opinion on the spill becuase none of us know enough about any of it to have a reasonably educated opinion.
Here's what a local blogger has to say about it. I think he's spot-on. If you feel like reading it, consider this - to date the TOTAL amount of oil that has spilled into the gulf, and created the biggest ecological disaster of our lifetime (ever?), is LESS than 4 hrs of the US's daily consumption.
Jun 24, 2010 3:39:19 am
Thews about: Stossel strikes again!
Just for you Wes. Stossel puts O'Reily in the cross-hairs about this.
Jun 23, 2010 10:33:02 am
wes about: Stossel strikes again!
I remember when he asked Hulk Hogan if wrestling was fake and he got the shit slapped out of him. I don't know which Fox network it was on. Probably the extra shitty one.
Jun 22, 2010 6:22:18 am
Thews about: Stossel strikes again!
Was it on Fox or Fox Business? I'll look for it to DVR. Stossel gets me wet. Ever since his days at 20/20. He's just too common sense to marginalize. Even Hannity gets to me Wes, he harps on one talking point each episode and does not allow derivation from it, so you can sum up his show in the first segment. I prefer O'Reily more than SH but Stossel puts them all to bed. And he never comes across as condenscending or a meanie, he just asks questions and lets the answers speak for themselves. Thews = gay for Stossel.
Jun 22, 2010 6:16:12 am
wes about: Stossel strikes again!
Not so sure about that one. But I did watch your boyfriend Sunday night Thews. He did a show on the legalization of all drugs. I had to agree w/ just about 100% of his logic. He pwned Hannity and O'Reily so that made everything that came out of his mouth imediatley credible in my mind. His one guest, some nerdy smartypants guy, called out Hannity for distorting and making up facts to serve his argument, thus demonstrating his weak logic. ummm, really Mr.Smartypants? On "fair and balanced" Fox News?!?
Jun 22, 2010 3:46:19 am
Thews about: Stossel strikes again!
Hungary gets it.
Jun 17, 2010 9:21:46 am
wes about: Dougums gone conservative . . .
I like to have some plastic bags on hand at the house to clean up the poo garden with. so once in awhile I ask for them (we, along w/ most Wegman's shoppers, normaly use reusable bags) and I get looks from the cashiers like I just killed a baby seal. fucking hippies.
Jun 8, 2010 1:53:53 am
derek about: Dougums gone conservative . . .
charge for plastic bags. outlaw bottled water. and get over the "hideous" windmills "ruining" your view.
Jun 7, 2010 10:57:35 am
Brad about: Dougums gone conservative . . .
I am fine with companies charging you for it... but a law? common on. I am surprised companies didnt think of the Italian model years ago. one more way to stick to their customers.
Alicia got us using these reusable bags for stuff. The first time I whipped it out to bag a bunch of crap at Lowes, the creepy self check attendant dude looked at me like I was on crack. Next week they started selling their own style bag right at the counter.
Jun 7, 2010 10:25:30 am
wes about: Dougums gone conservative . . .
the socialist italians did that when we lived there (presumably still do). we used our hiking packs for groceries cuz we were super cheap.
Jun 7, 2010 8:17:56 am
Uncle Dougums about: Dougums gone conservative . . .
I think I reached my Nanny State limit today when I heard that California was passing a law making it illegal for stores to give grocery bags for free to customers. As in there will now be an added 10 cents to your grocery bill for every plastic bag you get. I'm okay with grocery stores giving a discount for using reusable bags because it helps their bottom-line in the end, but this seems a little much.
Jun 7, 2010 7:47:51 am
wes about: food for thought
Well seeing as we've solved porhibition, is this an answer for illegal immigration?
Jun 4, 2010 6:00:48 am
wes about: food for thought
gotcha. I was hoping you weren't advocating fed over state's rights and more gov't regulation on your behavior. It would've made future rant board pissing matches far less exciting.
Jun 4, 2010 5:58:06 am
Thews about: food for thought
Wes- obviously prohibition didn't work, I wasn't including that in my analysis. Yes all those points are valid, I guess I was comparing the control of booze to the control of illict drugs, which is the real bang up job. I think if you were to compare booze to cigs/ tobacco you'd find on a comparative basis, I'm somewhat correct. Obviously I'm not for extra taxes on vice, the silly age restrictions or the fed twisting the states' arms, but that what you get when then gov't runs stuff.
Jun 4, 2010 5:02:50 am
derek about: food for thought
well, it beats the mob in this case, no? although the speak-easy thing was pretty cool. i'm out to watch some music in the park and drink some government booze.
Jun 4, 2010 4:38:44 am
wes about: food for thought
"I don't think the gov't does a bad job of controlling booze..."
Seriously? Maybe from an adminstrative standpoint (I have no clue how efficient the ATF is or isn't). But from a "gov't dictating my life" or "high taxes" point of view I have to disagree. I would think you would too. Archaic blue laws, ridiculously high taxation, hypocritical age limit (rammed down states' throats by the fed), that whole prohibition fail...yeah I'd say they do a bang-up job.| I can't believe you of all people Thews wrote that.
Jun 4, 2010 4:10:16 am
derek about: food for thought
now if only we could get beer sales at PA gas stations!
Jun 4, 2010 4:02:59 am
Thews about: food for thought
I don't think the gov't does a bad job of controlling booze, it's mostly handled by the states, but it's also been part of business as usual for 80 some years.
Jun 4, 2010 3:48:41 am
derek about: food for thought
i read that article and came to this conclusion: when it comes to controlling drugs, you can either have your government do it or armed cartels. clearly, in this country we don't trust our government with much of anything so we let the cartels do it. that is the wisdom of our morally founded country. i say present it like this: legalize drugs to support small business owners! you gotta use a catch-phrase to get anywhere in the US.
Jun 4, 2010 2:17:55 am
Thews about: food for thought
I do agree with the pro arguement points too. I recall 20+ years of law enforcement and all I've seen as a concrete result is the left coast making it legal. You guys have to watch the Wire.
Jun 3, 2010 9:25:40 am
bub about: food for thought
the argument for legalization is that fewer people will get hurt/use/etc. personally, i couldn't give two sh!ts. if you want to take meth whether it's legal or not, you're a dolt...have at it.
Jun 3, 2010 9:16:37 am
Thews about: food for thought
Newsflash! I don't care if the stupid people with no willpower overdo the smack or meth and wither up and die, more for us responsibles!!
Jun 3, 2010 8:55:54 am
bub about: food for thought
from an article relating to the studies...."I think we can learn that we should stop being reflexively opposed when someone else does [decriminalize] and should take seriously the possibility that anti-user enforcement isn't having much influence on our drug consumption," says Mark Kleiman, author of the forthcoming When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment and director of the drug policy analysis program at UCLA. Kleiman does not consider Portugal a realistic model for the U.S., however, because of differences in size and culture between the two countries.
Jun 3, 2010 8:50:03 am
Aaron about: food for thought
Lindsay's hometown of Louisville, OH can't fund their annual Constitution Parade because usually they rely on local business contributions which are slim right now because of the economy. So the inovative Constitution Parade committee decided to raise funds with a beer garden during the annual car show. Good idea right? Well there was enough complaining (probably by a vocal minority) that the committee quit and the Constitution Parade was going to be cancelled. Another group decided they would pick up the pieces because the C.P. must go on!... but then they realized there was no money duh. Bottom line is: Is a beer garden fund raiser at the local car show so immoral? I've either read in the bible or heard in a pew that alcohal is not immoral. Immoral things you MIGHT be more apt to do are the problem.
Jun 3, 2010 8:23:32 am
wes about: food for thought
the article argues that legalization does not equal increased use (and cites studies). i think that's what you don't beleive and are basing your opinion on.
Jun 3, 2010 8:03:17 am
wes about: food for thought
Did you read the whole article? Legalization does equal greater responsible use. It's a fact asproven by the studies it references. In your example, the outliers who would always chase the stronger, unregulated version of drugs are the same who chase moonshine now (ie - few who will always be abusers regardless). If meth can be used responsibly (not the point of the article, but we all use it responsibly now in small dosages - cough medicine, diet suppliments, etc) their would be far less "abusers". Some people constantly chase the the "high" of alcohol yet it's legal. You're arguing facts w/ morality. Not the point of the article. It discusses facts and data and argues that the problems will never go away unless we eliminate morality (which, as the article points out is historically misplaced anyways) from the discussion.
Jun 3, 2010 7:58:38 am
bub about: food for thought
legalization doesn't necessarily equal responsible use. look at booze. in america, it's rarely used responsibly. and when it comes to the harder drugs, is it possible to use meth responsibly? also food for thought...if you're regulating it, will people not try to get the unregulated stuff? considering the nature of a lot of the harder drugs, they'll constantly be chasing that high. i'm not ignorant of the fact that prohibition causes more dangerous versions of drugs, etc. it's a very tricky issue. pot, whatever...not as tricky. i just think "legalize it and people won't do it as much" is a bit too simplistic.
Jun 3, 2010 7:01:57 am
wes about: food for thought
The article cited studies that show the legalization produces less overuse. If you don't want people addicted to smack, you should legalize and regulate it.
Jun 3, 2010 6:26:59 am
Thews about: food for thought
But that's the thing, Bub, I don't think it necessary would. I don't know if a giant segment of the populace would become junkies just because spank was "legal". Furthermore, I think our resources are better spent on helping junkies than funding anti-narco-terrorists or an endless stream of urban youth peddling crack. Plus, I could get bent more.
Jun 3, 2010 6:21:48 am
bub about: food for thought
i think the "war on drugs" label is a bit too broad. legalizing pot is a far different story than legalizing meth or heroin. i think that's pretty obvious. i honestly don't care one way or the other if they legalize pot or not. i'd prefer heroin not become commonplace.
Jun 3, 2010 5:44:41 am
wes about: food for thought
legalize? glib wishful thinking over a hard scrutiny of reality
Jun 3, 2010 5:14:01 am
bub about: the psyche of the teabaggers
I think we can all agree that individual liberties decrease as government regulation increases. I had to get government approval (permit) to have a dumpster to haul away my garage. I need government approval to build a new one if I want. I need approval to renovate my attic, add on to my house, and have a security system. I have to pay an extra 10% on my draft beers in allegheny county now. I lost all sorts of individual liberties after September 11th. I have to buy insurance whether I want it or not. Some places it's illegal to smoke in public, regardless of whether anyone is around. (I'm a fan of the no smoking in public thing, though) there are all sorts of things that you must or must not do that didn't used to be, that really aren't necessary. Plus, add in the ridiculous things like "why can't I buy a six pack, instead of a case?" (my state is a treasure-trove of ridiculous regulations) "I can't put a pretzel into a bag in Philly". I'm sure a tea partier would have far more than I do.
May 14, 2010 10:52:23 am
wes about: the psyche of the teabaggers
well put Brad, it's a macro commentary on what he percieves as misplaced logic. I don't think it was really even critical of the teabagger's positions, however unclear they are, just misaligned anger.
May 14, 2010 9:45:54 am
Brad about:
I must just not get it...what individual freedoms do you want back? smoking? texting while driving? I just see what the huff huff is all about.... who's is forcing? nobody is forcing anything. you are using the proverbial "they". What he is saying isn't a knock on individual freedom. its a reflection of who america has become in the last 3 decades. More and more people feel like rather than trust someone like a doctor that has spent their life studying a subject, they can just go to the internet and treat themselves. Don't trust the school system, teach your own kids....thats your choice yes, but its not always entirely logical.
May 14, 2010 9:40:59 am
wes about: the psyche of the teabaggers
i think you miss the point of the article. which is fine, you only read half of it.
May 14, 2010 9:30:18 am
bub about: the psyche of the teabaggers
and when it comes to being experts...you don't need to be an expert at everything to want to live your life the way you want. if beer was suddenly taken away because it causes car accidents/deaths/alcoholism/etc., i'd be pissed. i know it's not good for me, but i am capable of making those decisions. i'm not health expert, but i should be afforded the right to make those decisions for myself. if this digresses into some tangential conversation about what laws should come off the books and what shouldn't, then you're missing my point. what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander...and what experts say is best isn't always best for me. i'd like less of them forcing that down my throat.
May 14, 2010 8:50:51 am
bub about: the psyche of the teabaggers
that last passage couldn't be more wrong. maybe i need more context, but to say that a more tolerant society = more out-of-wedlock births or any of the other things in that sentence is ridiculous. one is not necessarily the end result of the other. because one came first, doesn't mean all that follows is the necessary end. the people that want more individual freedom (obviously i can't speak for everyone like that) generally want it because they don't want to be forced to live a certain way. a lot of these freedoms they want, are freedoms they want BACK. there's no denying the gov't has regulated more and more of our lives, resulting in less choice for us. that pisses a lot of people off. i haven't heard a single tea party person asking for total anarchy. so his last sentence completely misses the point. and his point out being "free from politicians that don't talk or look like they do" also pigeon-holes an entire group into a small minority who dislike obama because of his race, completely missing the point of the movement as well. from the rallies i've seen in market square (right by my closest primanti's), these people are sick of the gov't taking more of their money instead of balancing the budget/cutting spending/etc (regardless of party). i don't pay much attention to them, because they seem a bit over-blown and shouty for my taste, so i may miss some of their finer details, but the "tea" in tea party stands for "taxed enough already" based on the signs i read.
May 14, 2010 8:44:39 am
|
