Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Dennis Kucinich's poll numbers track Ron Paul's favorably. Of course, when Slave or someone else here posts shit he says "we are focusing on some irrelevant extreme.

You should go find some David Duke stuff to post next week.

Actually, David Duke did as well as Dennis Kuccinich last night - both got zero.

Paul, on the other hand, had 10%.

Let's face it, the Republican party needs to cater to no end of batshit looney constituencies out there.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
There are no Ethopian style-famines here, but there is plenty of hunger in America.

Sorry, SAM but if there is a hunger, the hungry family is not taking advantage of a zillion programs to feed the family. You can't home invade and drag the residents out to food pantries or make them sign up for assistance. If you're unintentionally starving in America, you are either stoopid/have mental issues or in the care of someone stoopid/having mental issues.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It's time for all us Democrats to do what Hank thinks we do best: suck Islamofacist cock. So, in my continuing quest to pander to overseas extremism in my choice of presidential candidates, I have to ask, which is worse for inflaming hatred of us overseas? Unveiled lesbian? Or Muslim apostate? We gotta think defensively here.

Until someone issues a fatwa against plaintiff-side PI lawyers, it seems Edwards is the safest choice overall, no?

dude, you're fucked no matter where you turn. do you think John's leaving interest from the injury date on the table?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Sorry, SAM but if there is a hunger, the hungry family is not taking advantage of a zillion programs to feed the family. You can't home invade and drag the residents out to food pantries or make them sign up for assistance. If you're unintentionally starving in America, you are either stoopid/have mental issues or in the care of someone stoopid/having mental issues.

Indeed, the batshit loony Republicans can be seen on this board quite regularly.

Anyone talked to Penske lately?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Actually, David Duke did as well as Dennis Kuccinich last night - both got zero.

Paul, on the other hand, had 10%.

Let's face it, the Republican party needs to cater to no end of batshit looney constituencies out there.

yours is the sort post where a wiser man would have decide not to hit "POST"

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Putting aside that I have no problem dealing if I was King with the schizos and the psychos, what is your solution; i.e where do you draw the line? I realize this is a metaphor, but at what point do I have to pay for the fuck-up from my high school to sit at home with his 42-inch TV doing meth because he has "ADHD?" Put another way, at what point do I have to stop paying for a 400-pound person's mobile chair to get around the Mall of America?

If your point is that Libertarians, if elected, would immediately agree to keep all of the GOOD government programs that alleviate human suffering, I don't doubt it.

I just enjoy pointing out that Libertarians and hard-right Republicans who use "Government" as some kind of third-person bogeyman are not intellectually honest. This is a democracy. Government provides exactly what a majority of people are willing to pay for it to provide. Some of us will always be frustrated at what that majority commands, and it's your God-given right to rail against any individual government subsidy as absurd or unfair (in fact, I would often join you in that), but to pretend that Libertarianism elevates individuals over "Government" from a principled standpoint (and I doubt you really do) is naive. It, like all political parties, advocates a set of collectivist programs that should stay and a set of collectivist programs that should go. It's not a pristine or abstract political philosophy. Neither is, I should add, "Democrat" or "Republican."

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Sorry, SAM but if there is a hunger, the hungry family is not taking advantage of a zillion programs to feed the family. You can't home invade and drag the residents out to food pantries or make them sign up for assistance.

I think we lost the thread of the argument here. The question is whether those programs are really necessary, or whether radical individualism (tempered as always by the steadfast Christian Faith, Hope, and Charity of the American radical individualist) could produce an adequate safety net without coercive taxation. "Our present government programs already succeed in alleviating poverty" is not good news for libertarian philosophy. In fact, it's a Randian nightmare.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Icky Thump
Do you know which way to face to pray to Mecca? Obama does.

Through the miracles of modern technology, when I look at that page I see an ad for singlemuslim.com ("Find A Muslim Marriage Partner").

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
That's not even a good joke.

And that's not what the market sez because that's not even close to a free market transaction.

ETA: The only way for that to be a free market transaction would be to allow me to purchase services ala carte, or not at all. Then you'd gets what you pays for.

Not true. I checked the Constitution, and where you live inside of America is actually a free market transaction. Government imposes no cost on your moving. You're simply saying there are externalities. To the extent the wife says she won't move because she doesn't want to live in an area with even shittier schools, even higher crime, and even bumpier roads, that's all part of the transaction. To the extent she says she doesn't want to move away from her family, that's just a short way of saying they don't want to move to your idea of an "optimal" tax-service balanced community either.

"A la carte" government services are not the only solution. If the 50 states provide a diversity of service levels and a diversity of tax rates, you are free to pick the one that strikes the right balance for you. But to complain that your taxes are too high while living in a community that provides services to you with the taxes you and your neighbors are paying now is a bit like saying you'll help pay to pave the roads, but only the ones between your home and your work, yes?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Not true. I checked the Constitution, and where you live inside of America is actually a free market transaction.

this explains a lot. you guys got a constitution with more stuff in it that we do. can we exchange versions, cause I'm still wondering why those judges see the right of privacy in so many different places. maybe there are mulitple versions?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this explains a lot. you guys got a constitution with more stuff in it that we do. can we exchange versions, cause I'm still wondering why those judges see the right of privacy in so many different places. maybe there are mulitple versions?

Ours has a penumbra. It's visible only when the text is eclipsed by an intervening object. Avert your eyes to avoid permanent retinal damage.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
How does that make for losing the lower cap gains rate pre-retirement?

You ignored the first part of my post. The money that taxpayers have already paid tax on is called "basis." They recover that tax-free. Capital gains are only the amount received above basis. As far as I'm concerned that is the same thing as "income." It should be taxed accordingly.

As for incentives for saving and investing, I think the opportunity to earn dividends, interest, capital gains, and not have to eat cat food when you retire is incentive enough. I don't think we need a big, intrusive government paying us to save and invest. That's not how I roll.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
If this keeps up he's going to have to get himself a platform one of these days. I like the guy's somewhat centrist vibe, but "hope" and "change" are a little vague.

Problem here, Seb, is that his centrist vibe is - his voting record in DC is [last I checked] 98% liberal.

If he really was a centrist that believed this bipartisan schtick - you'd think he'd vote a bit differently.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I never thought Kerry's military service was a reason to vote against him -- that was Slave.

Nice phrasing, Esquire.

It was his contempt of military service, not his actual service.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Huh. That's odd, because I've now heard about six candidates speak tonight about having excellent coverage and low premiums.

For the record, I'll take the low premiums.

For obvious reasons, I'll take maximum coverage, please.