Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
They let retards vote?

How does one become a "former foster son". Did foster-pops divorce mommy? If so, why is he still hanging out with his ex former foster dad? I guess some kids really are that needy Couldn't help but think of a certain lizard that occasionally posts here when I read that.

He(a day late, I know)llo

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
How does one become a "former foster son".

I would imagine that if you're 19 and old enough to vote, you've reached the age of majority and don't need foster parents anymore. But you might still hang out with them.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I would imagine that if you're 19 and old enough to vote, you've reached the age of majority and don't need foster parents anymore. But you might still hang out with them.

If you're 19 and have to ask your former-foster-step-dads-next-door neighbor- whether or not you are eligible to vote - you are too stupid to live, let alone vote.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I would imagine that if you're 19 and old enough to vote, you've reached the age of majority and don't need foster parents anymore. But you might still hang out with them.

Gotcha. No wonder this country is going to hell in a handbasket. At the very least, people who don't "need foster parents anymore" certainly aren't the ones asking if its okay if they vote this year. My dad was a foster child most of his adult life. He ran away and joined the military when he was 15.

Turned out quite well I might add. I still called him "dad" after i reached the age of majority too.

That email should have started out with something like "yesterday, after binging on crack together, this kid I know asked me if he was old enough to vote".

ETA: I'm not changing this, only because its so freaking funny, but I didn't mean my "dad was a foster child most of his adult life". I meant, my "dad was a foster child most of his youth". Does anyone reading this ever just get used to this and think, I know what he meant to say?

[SlaveNoMore]

These are the people Kerry wants to bring to the table:

....from French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin. The head of the Figaro press group went to see him about the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq; Raffarin assured him they would soon be freed, reportedly saying, "The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
How does one become a "former foster son". Did foster-pops divorce mommy? If so, why is he still hanging out with his ex former foster dad? I guess some kids really are that needy Couldn't help but think of a certain lizard that occasionally posts here when I read that.

He(a day late, I know)llo

Remember the type of household that would hold writers to that blog. Maybe sexual reassignment surgery is complicating what "dad" calls "sonny?"

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The Right carries its burden in this country. Everyone else continually asks it to contribute more.

Hello

You suggested that it was somehow unpatriotic of people to drive gas-guzzlers and that people should pay a tax based upon their use of fossil fuels in order to help pay for the Iraq war. You then suggested that since these people were the ones who were in effect "causing" the US to be there to protect our access to Mideast oil that it was wrong to "externalize" those costs.

I was simply trying to figure out your logic. After all, we all use fossil fuels to generate heat and electricity. Public transportation consumes fossil fuels.

In addition, there is the terrorist factor. I'm sure we agree that that is a big part of our reason for being in Iraq. Should we just put the bill for that aspect of the war on the people of NYC, Washington, and Pennsylvania?

Your statement that you don't believe in making people pay for externalties is absurd. Such costs are born by society at large because nobody would pay individually for them, and yet they provide benefits that we all enjoy. That's why they're externalities.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
They let retards vote?

Don't you?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My 19 year-old (former foster) son,

He calls the kid his son. Makes me think that he has adopted the kid. If so, then it is just awful that he has to point out that the kid is not his biological child like that.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
About half an hour later he turned to me and said, "Dad, am I able to vote?".

What 19 year old is too fucking stupid to know that they can vote? Sounds like little Timmy's biological parents kicked him in the head one too many times before DHS was able to remove him from the home and put him in foster care.

Or maybe he was one of those crack babies.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You suggested that it was somehow unpatriotic of people to drive gas-guzzlers and that people should pay a tax based upon their use of fossil fuels in order to help pay for the Iraq war. You then suggested that since these people were the ones who were in effect "causing" the US to be there to protect our access to Mideast oil that it was wrong to "externalize" those costs.

I was simply trying to figure out your logic. After all, we all use fossil fuels to generate heat and electricity. Public transportation consumes fossil fuels.

That wasn't me. In fact, that was Not_Me who suggested the part about patriotism. I'm merely saying that the burden among Americans is unfairly distributed. Believe me, I'd be paying more in direct gas taxes along with anyone else who drives, but it would be fair. I suspect it would be far less per person to cover the costs associated with fuel if I were on the Blue Line than if I were in my car.

I don't know where you got the idea that I suggested its a war only for oil. Not even Not_Me believes that. She's on record saying its a defensive war that is only won when the Muslim world finds and embraces democracy.

Originally posted by taxwonk

In addition, there is the terrorist factor. I'm sure we agree that that is a big part of our reason for being in Iraq. Should we just put the bill for that aspect of the war on the people of NYC, Washington, and Pennsylvania?

Your statement that you don't believe in making people pay for externalties is absurd. Such costs are born by society at large because nobody would pay individually for them, and yet they provide benefits that we all enjoy. That's why they're externalities.

Holy Shit dude. Its like you are listening to my album backwards. No wonder you thinks its absurd. I do believe in making people pay for externalities. We might not agree always about what the externalities are, but where society identifies costs, society should fairly impose the costs on the individuals responsible for accruing them, where feasible.

What's weirder though, is that you then seem to argue against placing the burdens for externalities on the people who place the orders. Your car belching a cloud of smoke is not something I enjoy. You can't compense me for breathing your fumes (nor I you), but government can impose some cost. Similarly with roads in a miles-travelled gas-guzzled annual tax. The thing is, these are externalitis that people will pay for. I hope you aren't suggesting nobody will buy $5.00 gas. Maybe fewer people will, but not nobody.

And a correction to the wording of your logic. The reasons they are externalities is because their costs are placed on others, period. THere isn't a condition in there saying its "because nobody would pay individually for them, and yet they provide benefits that we all enjoy". Many government projects actually create externalities. Some public housing and welfare recipients would work if not for the checks from the G. People would drive less, but they would still drive with $5.00 gas.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you're 19 and have to ask your former-foster-step-dads-next-door neighbor- whether or not you are eligible to vote - you are too stupid to live, let alone vote.

2. I felt strongly enough about this that I'm almost convinced that the email had the punch line backwards.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Don't you?

Yes. I let retards vote. I don't know why you keep thinking I'm trying to limit your rights.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Yes. I let retards vote. I don't know why you keep thinking I'm trying to limit your rights.

Here is the Democratic nominee, literally trying to stick his head up his ass

[Say_hello_for_me]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Oct1.html

Gotta admit, this is sorta funny in context. Fairfax county VA, home of the NRA. Falls Church (local) gov't drafts a policy that municipal employees should call the police whenever someone walks into a gov't building carrying a firearm. Nothing more req'd.

THe thing is, Virginia has an open-carry law for some types of guns, and a concealed carry law (which I favor, at least in comparison). So 30 gun-types go to the next city council meeting openly carrying guns. Good times ensue!

They make a point, not strong, but a point. Their point is, they agree that gov't employees and all others should call the police whenever they see something that they believe is truly suspicious (which I agree with, its way better than waiting for crimes to occur, and locals are often the best judge of what is suspicious). But carrying a gun is not, in and of itself, suspicious.

Virginians seem to think that Northern Virginia is not really part of the rest of the state (and the rest of the state is pretty hard-core old school conservative and law-abiding I'd add). So I'm sure the rest of the state is getting a good kick out of the Falls Church city council being quoted in this article. Stuff like, "it was scary" (paraphrase, I think), etc....

Yes, watching citizens fulfill their constitutional and state-granted rights must be scary to liberal politicians. I know some of y'all won't see the humor in this, but I thought it was pretty funny.

Hello

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
That wasn't me. In fact, that was Not_Me who suggested the part about patriotism. I'm merely saying that the burden among Americans is unfairly distributed. Believe me, I'd be paying more in direct gas taxes along with anyone else who drives, but it would be fair. I suspect it would be far less per person to cover the costs associated with fuel if I were on the Blue Line than if I were in my car.

I don't know where you got the idea that I suggested its a war only for oil. Not even Not_Me believes that. She's on record saying its a defensive war that is only won when the Muslim world finds and embraces democracy.




Holy Shit dude. Its like you are listening to my album backwards. No wonder you thinks its absurd. I do believe in making people pay for externalities. We might not agree always about what the externalities are, but where society identifies costs, society should fairly impose the costs on the individuals responsible for accruing them, where feasible.

What's weirder though, is that you then seem to argue against placing the burdens for externalities on the people who place the orders. Your car belching a cloud of smoke is not something I enjoy. You can't compense me for breathing your fumes (nor I you), but government can impose some cost. Similarly with roads in a miles-travelled gas-guzzled annual tax. The thing is, these are externalitis that people will pay for. I hope you aren't suggesting nobody will buy $5.00 gas. Maybe fewer people will, but not nobody.

And a correction to the wording of your logic. The reasons they are externalities is because their costs are placed on others, period. THere isn't a condition in there saying its "because nobody would pay individually for them, and yet they provide benefits that we all enjoy". Many government projects actually create externalities. Some public housing and welfare recipients would work if not for the checks from the G. People would drive less, but they would still drive with $5.00 gas.

Well, it's possible I was reading you wrong. At least that would explain why someone who is usually cogent was making no sense. Must have been the meds.