Maria Cantwell’s drug policy… um, not so great.
The youth vote in Western states is killer. Killer good for Democrats.
State GOP leaders, beaten like a bad dog in recent elections, resort to whining. You’d think they might accidentally learn something.
Stahl is dead-on:
In order to make good public policy decisions, one must consider all the options, all the facts, fairly and without prejudice. It is clear that everyone who has approached the Viaduct thus far has done it with strongly preconceived notions and wishful thinking, and that has prevented an open, honest discussion about a critical decision for our city’s future.
Bush wants to “win” on Social Security. I hope our Democrats show the same backbone they did last time when they told Bush to go to hell.
Andrew’s got THE power.
I don’t support Kucinich For President, so according to one diarist, I’m a coward. Ladies and gents, let’s go to the Primary Season Rule Book. Can we all agree to cool it with that stuff for a while now? Just a little while?
Regarding Cantwell’s drug policy:
She is deliverying exactly what Democrats are elected to deliver: a big increase in government spending that creates slew of new unionized, government jobs.
What’s that? You wanted a libertarian drug policy? Silly voter! Why didn’t you elect a libertarian? (And accept a libertarian policy on social security?)
Silly Will — Only a pro-lifer can best represent the Democratic party. Obviously, if you’re pro-choice, you’re not “progressive enough” for the whackivists.
The author was talking about you? Hmm, he referred to “cowardly DLC strategists” and “Demo leadership in our state(who) kept their fingers on the safe button rather than check the breezes.”
I sure felt cheated, as a Dean delegate, when a cautious Democratic party leadership looked like it went deliberately out of its way to kill Dean’s chances in 2004 for a “safer” Kerry. I didn’t blame my friends, the grassroots Kerry supporters for that — I blamed the national Democratic leadership — and people like Toricelli from my home state of NJ.
David Wright, I’m not up with your analysis of what Democrats are elected to do. The facts on the ground show it’s the Republican party that plays that role. I think Libertarians have it pretty right on the drug policy, though.
Noemie: Actually, it would appear that the Republicans want big increases in government spending that create a slew of new non-union, private-sector jobs.
Noemie, what I actually should have said was: The “facts on the ground” show that the Republicans want big increases in government spending that create a slew of new private-sector, goverment-contractor profits.
Really, the Republicans and Democrats have the same strategy, just different clients: union bosses vs. government-contractor bosses.
Bastiat said it best: “Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”
Meth addicts have always been stealing from you to buy their dope. This is not Cantwell’s fault. I’m failing to see how providing more money to combat meth is a bad thing; in fact, it’s a good thing. Rather than criticizing Cantwell for this, we should be applauding her.
What the fuck do you expect from someone who lies about minimum wage?
One somebody decides they want to do meth, gummint should give them all they want. They’ll be dead within a month. Good riddance.
I am damn tired of the “do nothing” approach to SS. The system will be paying out more than it’s taking in by 2020.
Which means that we either pay HIGHER TAXES, LOWER BENEFITS, or fundamentally CHANGE THE SYSTEM. I for one would like the opportunity to take all the SS taxes witheld on my paycheck to invest independently. I know that I can realize a better return than the gov. with MY OWN MONEY.
I whole heartedly accept the responsibility for my own retirement.
The myths have to be broken.
1. There is a trust fund
2. There is a pool of money set aside for each citizen, an individual account.
3. the govt is investing the money.
the truth must be accepted.
1. the govt has already spent the money
2. their are basically IOU’s in place where the funds should be
3. the system will be upside down by 2020. The years leading up to 2020 will see desperate attempts at funding each years commitments.
@1 A wingnut whining about big increases in gummint spending? LOL!!!
Mirror mirror on the wall, who’s the biggest spender of them all?
Wanna reduce the deficit and cut taxes at the same time? Kick the corporate welfare bums off the dole!!!
@7 — What the fuck do you expect about someone who lies about offering to pay off a debt, then welshes again?
@8 Drop dead by 2019 and it won’t be a personal problem for you.*
(* Ann Coulter humor)
@8 Wrong Again: 98% of the U.S. money supply consists of electronic blips in computer hard drives, so the economy obviously collapsed years ago.
Don’t ya just love these gold standard guys?
Who the fuck ever dreamed up the notion that gold is “money” anyway? You can’t eat gold. It isn’t good for anything, except for ornamentation and a few specialized industrial and space applications. It might make good fishing sinkers because of its density, though.
ROGER RABBIT POLL
Which is more valuable?
[ ] 1. $1,000 of gold
[ ] 2. $10,000 of U.S. government IOUs
Rabbit, I’m actually thinking about my children…..and their kids etc.
Personally I don’t expect SS to be available to me, as promised, by the time I retire. Yet all the witholding will continue to be taken..
Both parties are to blame for this BS.
Don’t worry, Stuffed Green Pepper, we’ll make SURE the IOUs are paid and we get our Social Security — even if we have to pull it out of your ass.
And, of course, it’s totally lost on the stupid wingnut that Bush is paying for his bungled military adventure in Iraq with IOUs … if it works for bombing foreigners, it should also work when granny buys her dog food* at Safeway.
* granny doesn’t have a dog
18 I’m actually thinking about my children
Actually, you’re not, or you would never vote Republican.
@18 (continued) Both parties are to blame for this BS.
Nice try, but doesn’t fly.
Rabbit, sure does since the math is irrifutable, yet every administration passes the buck on reform.
@21 President Bush is a far better altnernative to John Kerry or John Edwards.
Did you know that Kerry served in Vietnam?
@24 You’re nuts.
@25 I don’t plan to go into depth explaining that. If you don’t know by now, you’re intentionally close-minded. Executive summary: Violating oath of office; violating federal law; violating Constitution; corrupt, ineffective, fiscally irresponsible — and wrong … every time, on every issue.
@23 How is the “math irrefutable?” Do you understand that trying to project SS revenues and benefit payments 40 or 50 years in the future is guesswork? That those numbers depend on unpredictable variables such as population growth, death rates, economic growth, inflation, employment, and so on? No, you don’t.
Maybe you can explain how the math of private accounts works — because Bush can’t explain it. How do you take $1 trillion to $2 trillion out of the SS revenue stream and maintain SS benefits without raising taxes? It’s impossible. You either have to raise taxes or cut benefits, and Bush isn’t known for wanting to raise taxes, so to senior citizens like me this looks like a benefit cut. I paid SS taxes all my life, and now you assholes want to take my benefits away to give yourselves stock portfolios? Fuck you.
@6
Meth addicts have always been stealing from you to buy their dope. This is not Cantwell’s fault.
This is absolutely incorrect. When people could just buy cold medicine and a few other ingredients and make it in their basement, it was easier and more affordable for meth users and addicts. Now that it’s much more difficult to get, the prices have also gone up. In addition, Mexican meth producers are able to make it more pure, so it’s even more addictive.
I’m failing to see how providing more money to combat meth is a bad thing; in fact, it’s a good thing. Rather than criticizing Cantwell for this, we should be applauding her.
No, it’s a waste of taxpayer money unless you do it right. You’ve just demonstrated a very big reason why people don’t trust Democrats, because they too often believe that simply spending money on a problem means that it will be fixed, rather than taking the time to make sure that what the government is doing will actually work. Maria Cantwell’s policy on meth (which was passed as part of the Patriot Act) is a disaster and it’s one of the biggest reasons why we’re seeing such a large increase in property crimes this year.
@1
What’s that? You wanted a libertarian drug policy? Silly voter! Why didn’t you elect a libertarian? (And accept a libertarian policy on social security?)
There’s no such thing as a libertarian policy on social security. Libertarianism is the belief that government, or any other power, can not impose a particular morality on an individual. It’s a philosophy of justice, not economics. Whether or not an individual believes that the better path towards retirement security lies through a government-provided safety net or through unfettered market forces is a moral choice that each of us make. If that moral choice is dictated to us, that’s by definition anti-libertarian.
Yeah but we haven’t been attacked since 9/11.
We are killing/chasing/prosecuting terrorists all over the world…..
Primary job of the fed is to keep the citizens safe, which is precisly what has happened.
I know you can’t stand the guy, and I disagree with him on many, many issues, however the primary responsibility is being addressed.
@23 (continued) I’m sure it flew way over the head of a simpleton like you that Bush used one set of future economic projections* to “prove” SS has a problem, and a completely different set of economic projections to “solve” the “problem.”
If the economy did well enough for Bush’s private accounts to work, there not only would be no SS problem, but SS would have perpetual surpluses so large that politicians would struggle to cut SS taxes fast enough.
In other words, Bush used fantasy numbers to claim there’s a “problem” and to justify private accounts.
* Ridiculously pessimistic
** Wildly optimistic
@23 (continued) And do you really think the rest of us believe for one instant that if people like you make bad investments or have bad luck in the investment markets that leave you destitute in old age, you won’t come running to the taxpayers for a bailout?
When corporate Republicans who knew they hadn’t funded their companies’ pension obligations couldn’t pay their pension obligations, they couldn’t line up at the public trough fast enough, like a bunch of pigs jostling and shoving at the feed trough.
@27 so I see now.
let the hammer drop on my generation, or my kids….But not yours? Since your generation created this mess why not have it fall on your head?
I say, in lieu of private accounts, we cut benefits.
28 So now the righty ideologues are against spending money to stop crime? Of course, we Democrats have known that all along. It was obvious when Bush came into office and immediately cut the money Clinton gave states and cities to put more cops on the streets — then saddled states and cities with unfunded homeland security mandates that took even more cops off the streets. Not surprisingly, the FBI released a report last week showing large jumps in crime rates, especially violent crimes. Once again, Republicans fucked over our communities and compromised our safety.
Let’s review: Here’s the GOP’s record on protecting us from terrorist attacks.
Nov. 14, 2001: Senate Democrats propose $15 billion for homeland security; the White House warns against “permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with stimulus and that will only expand the size of government.”
Dec. 4, 2001: Senate Appropriations Committee votes 29-0 in favor of $13.1 billion for homeland security; the next day, Bush threatens to veto it.
Dec. 6, 2001: Senate Republicans reduce homeland security funding by $4.6 billion.
Dec. 19, 2001: Under pressure from White House, House-Senate conferees eliminate another $200 million of funding for airport security, port security, nuclear facility security, and postal security.
June 7, 2002: Senate votes 71-22 for $8.3 billion of homeland security funding; the next day, Bush’s advisors recommend a veto.
July 19, 2002: Under White House pressure, homeland security funding is further reduced by cutting money for food security, cyber security, nuclear security, airport security, port security, drinking water security, coordination of police and fire radios, and lab testing to detect chem-bio weapons.
Aug. 13, 2002: Bush decides not to spend $2.5 billion appropriated for homeland security on the grounds of “fiscal responsibility.”
Jan. 16, 2003: White House reacts to Democratic efforts to increase homeland security funding by stating, “The Administration strongly opposes amendments to add new extraneous spending.” Later that day, Senate Republicans vote against funds for smallpox vaccine.
Jan. 23, 2003: Senate Republicans cut security funding for the FBI, FEMA, INS, TSA, Coast Guard, and National Nuclear Security Administration.
Feb. 3, 2003: Bush submits a 2004 budget cutting homeland security funding by nearly 2 percent.
Feb. 14, 2003: Senate Democrats request money for smallpox vaccine, police and fire radios, and public transportation security; no Republicans support it.
March 21-25, 2003: Republicans defeat 7 amendments to bolster homeland security.
April 2, 2003: Senate Republicans reject Democratic amendment to provide $1 billion for port security.
April 3, 2003: Republicans reject protection of commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles and four other pro-homeland security amendments.
June 2003: House Republicans reject Democratic proposal to raise $1 billion for homeland security by reducing tax cuts for 200,000 millionaires by an average of $5,000 each (from $88,000 to $83,000).
Source: James Carville, “Had Enough?” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003), pp. 41-43.
The Gay Black Jew Fight Song
They say gays cause hurricanes
And blacks cause crime
Jews killed Jesus
It’s Gay Black Jew time!
You see I’m Jewish, I’m black and I’m gay
Just listen to what I have to say
Bigots on the right, bigots on the left
But The Gay Black Jew is here to stay
3 black lesbian Jews:
Unless you’re a gay black Jew…
You just don’t understand
Unless you’re a gay black Jew…
You just don’t understand
They call me a n*gger, a f*ggot
Hate me cause I’m a Jew
What the f*ck am I supposed to do?
Pretend I’m Christian? And wear J Crew?
Fuck that sh*it, I’ll tell you what I’ll do
I got a site now, The Gay Black Jew
You got a problem, you’re welcome to sue
Cause The GBJ don’t care what you do
Unless you’re a gay black Jew…
You just don’t understand
Unless you’re a gay black Jew…
You just don’t understand
Hey, I know I’m gay–
And you know I’m black
My mom is Jewish–
She can’t take that back
You may expect–
For me to conform
Conformity–
Should not be the norm
Unless you’re a gay black Jew…
You just don’t understand
Unless you’re a gay black Jew…
You just don’t understand
Oye vey, yo—and welcome to
What I like to call The Gay Black Jew
Let’s review: If terrorists ever sneak a nuclear bomb into the U.S. and blow up an American city with it, the bomb almost certainly will have entered the country via a cargo container. Nuclear bombs aren’t exactly carry-on luggage and don’t fit in shampoo bottles, know what I mean? Currently, less than 1% of cargo containers entering U.S. ports are inspected. Democrats want to fund 100% inspection, but Republicans think giving more tax cuts to people who already have more money than they know how to spend is higher priority than inspecting cargo containers.
I wouldn’t brag about voting Republican, if I were you. This may come back to bite you in the ass someday.
@33
try this….
Looks like crime trends overall continue to drop. prison populations increase, longer sentences, violent crime down…….try again
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm
I guess you need reminding that the country is AT WAR and during this time of war, we haven’t had any attacks here at home….
@32 Social Security isn’t a “mess” — that’s a wingnut lie. Even if NOTHING is done to change SS, future retirees will receive MORE benefits (adjusted for inflation) than today’s retirees. But diverting more than $1 trillion of SS taxes to private accounts WOULD create a mess — and require benefit cuts in real terms for you, your children, and your grandchildren — unless you replace that revenue by raising taxes. Which taxes are you willing to raise?
Explain to me, again, how increasing the alleged SS shortfall by trillions of dollars IMPROVES the solvency of the system?
Why don’t you fucking liars just admit the obvious — you hate Social Security and want to destroy it. You may as well, because everyone sees through you and Bush anyway.
@37 What about the terrorist attack at LAX in July 2002 in which two Israelis were killed?
so, in georgia, a 17yr old received oral sex from a 15yr old and was sentenced to 10 years + sex offender status. naturally, the common idiot sees this as extreme and unjust, and they assert that this was a “harmless” situation that deserves leniency.
so I come back at them with, “OK, if that’s the case – then shouldn’t we do the same for drunk drivers who don’t harm anyone? If a person drives drunk without incident, why throw the book at him?”
you can’t be OK with leniency for a “harmless” sex offender and not be OK with leniency for a “harmless” drunk driver without hypocrisy.
Re: A thread expressing contempt that two kids, ages 13 and 14, are being criminally prosecuted for statutory rape because they were caught having sex under a Utah law that makes it criminal to “have sex with anyone under the age of 16”. Most of the contempt comes from the idea that, because it’s consensual, it shouldn’t be a big deal. My reply:
Jesus Christ.
Are you people listening to yourselves? Why are you people in favor of things that encourage TWELVE YEAR OLDS to have sex? Surely you people can’t be on board with the idea that CHILDREN should be getting hot and sweaty under the covers and flinging their DNA at each other.
“A responsible sex education” (brought to you by, of all people, the public school system… [shudder]) isn’t what fucking PRE-TEENS need. It’s what 16 and 17yr olds need. The CHILDREN need a fucking backhand and to be told NO.
If a 12yr old was joyriding in his parents car, he’d be punished. Because 12yr olds shouldn’t be joyriding in their parents car.
If a 12yr old was knocking back his dad’s Jack Daniels, he’d be punished. Because 12yr olds shouldn’t be drinking JD.
If a 12yr old was dumping $20s into a video poker machine, he’d be punished. Because 12yr olds shouldn’t be gambling.
There are some things that children SHOULD NOT BE DOING. Having sex is one of them.
You can sit there and blather about it being “a symptom of a culture that idolizes sex” but that’s TOTALLY beside the point. We can idolize it and glorify it all day long, that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with telling your child, “No. Do not do that.” There is nothing wrong with a parent telling their child, “Do as I say, not as I do.” Nor is there anything wrong with SOCIETY telling them that and/or punishing them for it.
I drink and I gamble. I smoke the occassional cigarette and cigar. I’ve tried drugs. If I ever have a kid (God forbid), I will CONTINUE to smoke and drink and gamble. And I will prohibit, under threat of punishment, my child from smoking and drinking and gambling and doing drugs until I DECIDE he is of a mature age to make that choice. Why? BECAUSE 12YR OLDS SHOULDN’T BE DRINKING AND SMOKING AND GAMBLING.
Or having sex.
It’s NOT UP TO the kids to decide when they’re mature enough or something. Kids are fucking stupid. They blow their hands off with fireworks, they huff paint thinner, they jump off the roof, they ride their bikes over ramps into moving traffic, they do all kind of idiotic shit at ages some of you are saying they’re “mature” enough to start having sex.
Maybe they shouldn’t be criminally punished. Maybe this law is being incorrectly and ridiculously applied to them. But I have ZERO problem with these kids being punished in some way shape or form. Why?
Because children shouldn’t be having sex.
How ANY of you can disagree with that is beyond me.
Well as a matter of principle, yes. I would love to see the SS system go away.
I know for a FACT that I can manage MY MONEY better than the govt. and given the chance, would have much much greater return on that money than what I would realize from SS.
So the answer is yes. I would like the LIE of “social security” to be known.
Fortunately for libs, you have a huge media machine to keep the myth of SS alive…
@37 “violent crime down”
Are you a liar, or just stupid?
“FBI Says Violent Crime Still on Rise in 2006
“By LARA JAKES JORDAN
“AP
“WASHINGTON (Dec. 18) – Murders and robberies continued to rise across the country during the first six months of 2006, on pace for an increase in violent crime for a second straight year, preliminary FBI data released Monday show. …
“The numbers reflect what police across the country have been saying for months: that the lull in crime between 2001 and 2004 appears to be over.
“‘This is a concern we’ve been focused on,’ said Gene Voegtlin, legislative counsel for the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which represents an estimated 20,000 law enforcement officials and has been pushing for more crime-fighting funding. ‘A lot of (police) agencies are really stretched thin when it comes to the budget and their ability to aggressively combat crime.’ …
“The early data show:
“- Murders rose by 1.4 percent, felony assaults by 1.2 percent and robberies by a whopping 9.7 percent in 2006, compared to the first six months of 2005. …
“- Arsons rose by 6.8 percent. …”
Quoted under fair use; for complete story and/or copyright info, see http://tinyurl.com/vg6xf
@37
Hey, did Congress declare war? Did I miss it?
@40 Who’s encouraging 12 year olds to have sex? You wingnuts should listen to yourselves sometime — you might see how ridiculous you sound, and understand why you have no credibility. But throwing a 17-year-old kid in prison for 10 years for having consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl? C’mon … are you going to tell me that no 15 year old girls in your high school were sleeping with guys? I’ll bet you went to high school with a bunch of criminals. 10 years is more than some adult rapists get. How about cracking down on rapists, and keeping teen sex in perspective — that makes more sense than the bullshit you wingnut ideologues spew.
And, of course, the wingnuts on this board are already bitching about Gregoire’s budget that includes MORE MONEY FOR PRISONS.
Throwing kids in prison for 10 years for having consensual teen sex — refusing to pay taxes to lock up murderers, rapists, and robbers — does anyone need to wonder why voters elected Democrats in two thirds of our state’s legislative districts?
Hint: Because voters realize wingnuts are fucking idiots.
Nationwide, the GOP lost nearly 300 seats in state legislatures last month. Anyone wondering why? Does it need to be explained?
The Republicans also lost 6 governors on Nov. 7 — any questions about why?
Instead of quoting a LIB AP story, why not look at the link I posted from the USDOJ – a govt agency.
Gee what happened in 2005? that we might see an increase in crime? federal spending? etc… uhhmmmmmm(scratching head)
OH YEAH, Katrina… but that one was easy to forget. Not to mention Dennis and Rita…..
If you look at the stats HONESTLY, then you have to come to the conclusion that overall, crime is down, incarceration is up…
ROGER RABBIT POLL
Republicans are getting their asses kicked in elections because:
[ ] 1. They’re fucking idiots
[ ] 2. They’re too stupid to get laid, but manage to fuck up government at all levels
[ ] 3. Violent crime is going up because they cut funding for cops
[ ] 4. Voters are fed up with their stupidity
[ ] 5. All of the above
I love libs quoting other libs to legitimate silly arguments….
” look what MSNBC says”……..
” look what CNN is saying on the 45th day of coverage on War on the middle class”….
@48 Oh, I see. When a news story quoting government sources proves you either don’t know what you’re talking about or you’re a liar, or both, your response is the Associated Press is “liberal.” I suppose your intent is to imply the news story isn’t true. Whatever. You’re dismissed.
So we’re supposed to believe Bush administration propaganda, and not believe the independent press? Whatever. The kool-aid drinkers are in form today.
What this demonstrates is that wingnut strategy depends on getting people to believe lies. What Nov. 7 demonstrated is that getting people to believe their lies is becoming increasingly difficult.
@50 Please blow into this pipe. I think my car might run on your gas. The methane content appears high enough.
I don’t quote a news story from a LIB source. I submit real statistics…
Why look at a news story about what someone says the FBI says, when you can look at the USDOJ stats yourself?
Once again. Lib quotes story of other lib to support their lib agenda.
When confronted with hard stats, agenda falls apart…
“Here endeth the lesson”
48 If you look at the stats HONESTLY, then you have to come to the conclusion that overall, crime is down, incarceration is up…
How is an increase in murder, robbery, an arson an improvement?
Wrong One just doesn’t want to admit that our communities are more dangerous because Bush cut funding for cops to give tax breaks to billionaires.
That’s understandable, because nobody would vote for these assholes if they understood what they’re actually doing.
@52 independent press……
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
good one.
@44: So then you have no problem with letting drunk drivers who haven’t harmed anyone off the hook?
Also, I’m curious. It’s a given that minors are having sex. That’s beside the point. My question is: do you WANT minors having sex? If the answer is no, then why would you support programs that have repeatedly been shown to encourage and increase sexual activity amongst minors?
And for that matter, take a look at your post. You just defended statutory rape. In case you didn’t know (forgive me if I’m being presumptuous, but you don’t seem like the most educated guy so I’m going to assume you don’t know what statutory rape means) statutory rape means strict criminal liability for sex with a minor. Doesn’t matter what the circumstances are – if you’re of the age of majority, having sex with a minor, it is statutory rape.
Now, your post implies that it’s not a big deal if the guy is 17. So, what if he’s 18? Or 19? Or 20? Or 21? Or …(continued in fashion) 55? What’s the magic age at which you stop finding it OK to have sex with a 15yr old?
(ps, you should really consider thinking out your posts and consolidating them. It makes you look like an insane, knee-jerk reactionary when you just slam that “Submit” button over and over.)
-AD
41 Well as a matter of principle, yes. I would love to see the SS system go away.
At least you’re honest enough to admit what your real objective is, which is more than anyone can say for Bush, who has the same objective as you but tries to cloak it and mislead the public with his phony talk of “reform.”
I like SS. I think I’ll vote to keep it, and vote against any politician who wants to make it go away. Shove THAT up your ass.
AS a matter of principle I think that I am a much better administrator of my own money…..
You are obviously of the mind that the government should manage yours.
I’ll just let that speak for itself.
55 Why look at a news story about what someone says the FBI says, when you can look at the USDOJ stats yourself?
Because you linked to data through 2003 that’s out of date. Those 3-year-old charts don’t show the recent surge in crime. As news stories have pointed out, violent crime began rising in 2006 after dipping in 2001 – 2005.
Read a newspaper once in a while, so you aren’t so fucking ignorant about what’s going on in the world around you.
62 I’m perfectly happy to settle this argument at the ballot box as many times as you Republicans wish to take a run at repealing Social Security. Be my guest!
Noemie:
Arthur’s post title is: “Do progressives rally for a real progressive …or play the coward again?” – how does anyone who considers themselves a “progressive” but doesn’t support Kucinich in his quixotic run not consider this a personal insult?
60 @44: So then you have no problem with letting drunk drivers who haven’t harmed anyone off the hook?
No. I’m for locking up all drunk drivers, every time they’re caught, no exceptions. If someone got hurt, they should do additional time for that as a separate offense, to be served consecutively.
you have to go further than just my linked page and actually “click” on some of the stats. They go thru 2005.
believe me I read plenty.
@64
If the truth about SS was reported honestly, then you bet.
But of course it is not. Nor will it ever be…
Why not make Fed tax day the same as election day?
No witholding, yearly payments on the first tuesday of Nov.?
Hmmm?
66: So, you’ll punish (with extreme prejudice, mind you) one harmless criminal act, but you’ll express contempt when another harmless criminal act is similarly punished?
And you don’t find that to be the least bit hypocritical?
Most of the time, drunk drivers never hurt anyone. Just like this 17yr old wasn’t hurting this 15yr old who was giving him oral sex. So, why punish them? And more importantly, why treat them different?
anti-liberal makes a good point in 40 (albeit with poor grammar and sentence structure). It is quite the double standard to complain about the punishment for one ‘harmless’ crime; but be A-OK with the punishment for another.
-AD
What really pisses me off about politicians talking about meth is that they use it as an excuse to keep from dealing with the desirable legalization of pot, especially for medical reasons, but recreationally, too. Everytime you mention the possibility of liberalizing drug laws they bring up meth, which has about as much to do with marijuana as ethyl alcohol has to do with beer.
The fact that I cannot even buy Sudafed without being treated as a criminal is ridiculous.
http://www.homesteadbook.com/blog
62 Right Stuff says: AS a matter of principle I think that I am a much better administrator of my own money….. You are obviously of the mind that the government should manage yours. I’ll just let that speak for itself. 12/20/2006 at 12:07 pm
Just because you THINK you can outsmart the financial markets doesn’t mean you can. And if you fail, then the rest of us have to bail you out, because in reality we’re not going to let old folks starve in this country.
Here’s a few other things to ponder:
To replace your SS benefits, you have to earn a much higher rate of return than the government does, because administrative costs are higher in the private sector, plus multiple entities are taking profits from each and every transaction, plus you have to offset investment losses.
Private investments do not pay a steady rate of return. When interest rates are only 2%, you need to invest $1,200,000 to replace a $2,000 monthly Social Security check. Where is the average American going to get that kind of money? In addition, unlike Social Security, private investments aren’t indexed to inflation, so you have to invest extra to make up for loss of purchasing power over time. (Actually, SS isn’t indexed to inflation either; it’s indexed to wages which tend to rise faster than inflation.)
Private investments suffer from illiquidity. When you retire, you can’t time your financial needs to the market; you need food and medical care today. So you may be forced to liquidate your private retirement assets at unfavorable prices.
Social Security was never meant to replace private savings or pensions. In a worst-case scenario, it’s insurance against destitution in old age. In better circumstances, it supplements your other retirement income, enabling you to enjoy your retirement more.
In the private investment world, results are not uniform. Some people will do poorly, and others will see their private retirement savings totally wiped out. It’s not always their fault; private pensions and investments are not only vulnerable to market fluctuations and bad investment outcomes, they’re also vulnerable to fraud, which is extremely prevalent in Wall Street and corporate America. In recent years, millions of Americans have been cheated out of their retirement savings by corporate and Wall Street crooks. Add to the costs of replacing SS with private investments, the higher taxes you’ll have to pay to bail out the losers under a privatized retirement system.
Social Security is one of the economy’s most important depression-fighting tools. Most Social Security income is spent immediately, and the steady flow of this money sustains consumer spending during business down cycles. And this money flows into the economy regardless of employment levels. The consumer spending by Social Security recipients puts a floor under economic declines that keeps recessions from getting worse or turning into severe depressions.
Conversely, in a severe economic downturn, private investments typically become more illiquid and decline in value, sometimes drastically.
Social Security opponents often argue that future payment of benefits not only isn’t guaranteed, but is unlikely. There are two simple answers to this specious argument. First, from the inception of the SS program to the preent time, every cent of promised benefits has paid on time — the government has never defaulted. The same cannot be said of private investments. In fact, the private sector frequently defaults on its promises. Second, if for some reason the government does repudiate its financial obligations, it will take down the entire economy and probably the political system as well. The currency will collapse; private investments will become worthless; the economy will go into the most severe depression in history; and — if experience in other countries is any guide — there probably will be revolution in the streets and ultimately the government will be overthrown and replaced by something that will repudiate all pre-existing legal titles and claims to land and other assets. In other words, if the governments Social Security benefit obligations don’t survive an economic upheavel, none of your other assets will survive either.
We liberals understand that people don’t like being told what to do. That’s human nature. We understand that some people think they’d be better off managing the money they pay into SS themselves, and undoubtedly some would be. But we’re looking at the big picture.
The situation is somewhat analogous to people who bitch about motorcycle helmet laws. People who don’t want to be forced to wear a helmet don’t want to be forced to buy $10 million medical insurance policies, either. But that’s what the financial exposure is. The truth is, what happens in 99% of the cases of motorcycle accidents resulting in catastrophic head injuries is taxpayers get stuck with the person’s immense medical bills. That’s why virtually every state legislature has passed mandatory helmet laws — people are tired of paying for other people’s stupidity.
While the analogy is not a perfect one, the argument for Social Security is, in part, somewhat similar. Some people can’t manage money, and the rest of us get stuck with taking care of them. In addition, we live in an incredibly complex society, and many people do not have the financial knowledge and skills required to navigate it. Also, a large percentage of American households simply don’t have any investable income because everything they earn has to be spent on current needs. Young people, in particular, have modest earnings and at that time of life they’re paying off student loans, trying to buy a house, have child rearing expenses — so how are they supposed to save for retirement? Many can’t; it’s simply not realistic to expect otherwise.
And don’t forget that Social Security is more than retirement; it’s also disability and survivor insurance. Add to the cost of replacing your SS retirement income, the additional costs of buying insurance against loss of your earning power or loss of your spouse’s income.
Social Security and Medicare virtually eliminated destitution among the elderly in our society. Why would any intelligent, compassionate, reasonable person want to return to the bad old days? Proponents of eliminating Social Security invariably resort to the falsehood that SS is insolvent (it’s not) and will not be able to pay ANY benefits in the future (a lie).
In the worst case scenarios, if economic growth is very slow and job creation is next to nothing over the next several decades, promised benefits would have to be scaled back about 25% — but because benefits are indexed to average wages, not inflation, and grow faster than inflation, in 2075 the actual benefits (at 75% of promised benefits) would still be higher than 100% of today’s benefits in real purchasing power, after adjusting for inflation. So how are your children or grandchildren worse off? But if you take trillions out of the SS revenue stream for private accounts and don’t replace it by raising taxes, then your children and grandchildren ARE at risk of receiving substantially less SS benefits than today’s retirees. And if you eliminate SS, then of course they’ll get nothing from SS.
It’s useless, of course, to set straight the facts or try to respond to wingnut SS-haters with logical arguments, because this is an emotional issue for them, and they’re impervious to both facts and logic. Fuck ’em. This is a democracy, and if the public wants to continue the current program of universal, mandatory SS taxes and benefits, then our elected representatives will vote that way, and if a day comes when the public doesn’t want this program anymore, then it’ll go away. If the majority wants it, and Congress keeps the SS law, and a minority refuses to pay into the system, then jail them like any other tax dodgers! Don’t debate them, just prosecute them. Fuck ’em.
67 Right Stuff says: you have to go further than just my linked page and actually “click” on some of the stats. They go thru 2005. believe me I read plenty. 12/20/2006 at 12:15 pm
So? The 2005 states are out-of-date. The news story I linked to said crime rates fell during 2001-2005, and began rising in 2006. What part of “2006” don’t you understand?
67 (continued) What’s really absurd about this back-and-forth argument is that the news story I relied on is using the same government source data you are. You made a blanket statement that violent crime isn’t falling. You didn’t qualify your statement by saying violent crime was falling as of 2005. You simply said it’s falling. That’s not true. The decline reversed in 2006 and violent crime is now rising. Your post didn’t say that, it said violent crime IS (not “was”) falling. Your post is untrue, misleading, false … comprende?
correction
should read “you made a blanket statement that violent crime is falling”
67 (continued) What’s really going on here is you posted a comment you peeled off the wall without fact-checking or researching it, and when your comment turned out to be wrong (egg on face), you tried to wriggle out of your mistake by linking to old statistics that do not portray the current situation.
My advice is, next time do a little research before shooting off your mouth, so you don’t look like the idiot you are.
68 Anytime a wingnut starts flinging around the word “truth” — watch out!!!
The truth is that Republicans are lying about Social Security, but I don’t expect a wingnut like you to accept that, much less admit it.
And I won’t be so foolish as to suggest you read any objective reports or analyses on Social Security, because I know you won’t do it. All you want, and the only thing you’re receptive to, is the rightwing kool-aid.
The thing is, the rest of us depend on Social Security for our financial security, and you can shoot yourself in the foot if you want but we draw the line at you taking us down with you. We’re not going to let you do that.
I was hoping for comments on Sandy stealing docs and hiding them under a construction site trailer
Nice work sandy..
meant to add , in todays Pravda, err PI
Report says Berger hid archive documents
By LARRY MARGASAK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
WASHINGTON — President Clinton’s national security adviser removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency’s internal watchdog said Wednesday.
The report was issued more than a year after Sandy Berger pleaded guilty and received a criminal sentence for removing the documents.
Berger took the documents in the fall of 2003 while working to prepare himself and Clinton administration witnesses for testimony to the Sept. 11 commission. Berger was authorized as the Clinton administration’s representative to make sure the commission got the correct classified materials.
@73 You are right. I am looking at historical data. Looks like the first 6 months of 06 must be the start of a trend! ( yeah right, I’ll just forget the data from 1993-2005 that shows otherwise. ) Who by the way is resposible for funding police and fire services?
President Bush?
If you are concerned then look to local govt for the answer. But that would mean Greg Nichols, Ron Simms, and Christine Gregoire……
I know with 100% confidence that the money I invest today will earn a greater return than what the govt can realize because,…..THE GOVT DOESN’T HAVE ANY MONEY SET ASIDE, EARNING A RETURN RIGHT NOW FOR SS.
Congrats on your SS. I’m sure you’ve earned it. I submit that it’s not close to what you could be receiving if you’d had the chance to manage your own money.
83 @73 You are right. I am looking at historical data. Looks like the first 6 months of 06 must be the start of a trend!
THANK YOU!!! (Why did it take so long?)
Who by the way is resposible for funding police and fire services? President Bush? If you are concerned then look to local govt for the answer. But that would mean Greg Nichols, Ron Simms, and Christine Gregoire……
Not exactly. While police and fire services are funded primarily from local taxes, Clinton gave federal assistance to states and cities, following up on his campaign pledge to “put 100,000 more cops on America’s streets.” People always complain about politicians breaking promises, well that one was kept. When Bush came into office, he took away that funding to give tax breaks to rich people — the kind of people who can afford to live in gated communities with private security services. When the federal funding went away, so did the 100,000 cops it was paying for.
But there’s more. After 9/11, Bush dumped billions of dollars of unfunded homeland security mandates on states and cities. Required by federal law to fund these functions, but given no money for them (so Bush could give MORE tax breaks to millionaires), states and cities had to divert funding from local services to these new mandated functions, resulting in additional layoffs of cops and firefighters.
And let’s not forget the GOP’s sorry record on protecting the homeland:
Nov. 14, 2001: Senate Democrats propose $15 billion for homeland security; the White House warns against “permanent spending on other projects that have nothing to do with stimulus and that will only expand the size of government.”
Dec. 4, 2001: Senate Appropriations Committee votes 29-0 in favor of $13.1 billion for homeland security; the next day, Bush threatens to veto it.
Dec. 6, 2001: Senate Republicans reduce homeland security funding by $4.6 billion.
Dec. 19, 2001: Under pressure from White House, House-Senate conferees eliminate another $200 million of funding for airport security, port security, nuclear facility security, and postal security.
June 7, 2002: Senate votes 71-22 for $8.3 billion of homeland security funding; the next day, Bush’s advisors recommend a veto.
July 19, 2002: Under White House pressure, homeland security funding is further reduced by cutting money for food security, cyber security, nuclear security, airport security, port security, drinking water security, coordination of police and fire radios, and lab testing to detect chem-bio weapons.
Aug. 13, 2002: Bush decides not to spend $2.5 billion appropriated for homeland security on the grounds of “fiscal responsibility.”
Jan. 16, 2003: White House reacts to Democratic efforts to increase homeland security funding by stating, “The Administration strongly opposes amendments to add new extraneous spending.” Later that day, Senate Republicans vote against funds for smallpox vaccine.
Jan. 23, 2003: Senate Republicans cut security funding for the FBI, FEMA, INS, TSA, Coast Guard, and National Nuclear Security Administration.
Feb. 3, 2003: Bush submits a 2004 budget cutting homeland security funding by nearly 2 percent.
Feb. 14, 2003: Senate Democrats request money for smallpox vaccine, police and fire radios, and public transportation security; no Republicans support it.
March 21-25, 2003: Republicans defeat 7 amendments to bolster homeland security.
April 2, 2003: Senate Republicans reject Democratic amendment to provide $1 billion for port security.
April 3, 2003: Republicans reject protection of commercial airliners from shoulder-fired missiles and four other pro-homeland security amendments.
June 2003: House Republicans reject Democratic proposal to raise $1 billion for homeland security by reducing tax cuts for 200,000 millionaires by an average of $5,000 each (from $88,000 to $83,000).
Source: James Carville, “Had Enough?” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003), pp. 41-43.
“Although Bush took credit for creating the new Department of Homeland Security, he vigorously opposed the idea when Democrats first proposed it. He insisted that a presidential adviser with no accountability to the American people would be more effective than a new Cabinet member. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said President Bush thought that a Department of Homeland Security was ‘just not necessary.’ Tom Ridge — then homeland security adviser — said that he would recommend that Bush veto legislation to create a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security.”
Source: Democratic National Committee Newsletter, Jan. 29, 2003: http://www.democrats.org/news/200301290004.html
“While the Department of Homeland Security has issued new warnings of terrorist hijackings on commercial airlines this summer, Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee voted just last week against a Democratic amendment to add $50 million in funding to prevent the Transportation Security Administration from cutting the number of air marshals. The vote came during the Committee’s mark-up of the 2003 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill, which funds the TSA’s air marshal program.”
Source: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee press release, July 31, 2003: http://216.25.5.15/press/newsr.....07-31.html
“Senate Republicans once again blocked a vote on homeland security legislation solely because it preserved collective beginning rights and civil service protections for the 170,000 federal workers who would make up the new department. Sixty votes are needed to end debate and bring the measure to a floor vote, the move failed by a 52-45 count, with almost solid GOP opposition. President Bush has threatened to veto any measure that does not give him unlimited power over the workers and Senate Republicans also rejected a bipartisan bill that gave Bush most of what he sought.”
Source: International Association of Machinists, Oct. 8, 2002: http://www.iamaw.org/publicati.....8_2002.htm
Republican assholes could care less about preventing terrorist attacks. They’re too busy doing this kind of shit:
“Feds Win Right to War Protesters’ Records
“DES MOINES, Iowa (Feb. 7) – In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists.
“In addition to the subpoena of Drake University, subpoenas were served this past week on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury Tuesday, the protesters said. …
“In addition to records about who attended the forum, the subpoena orders the university to divulge all records relating to the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a New York-based legal activist organization that sponsored the forum. The group … announced Friday it will ask a federal court to quash the subpoena ….
“‘The law is clear that the use of the grand jury to investigate protected political activities or to intimidate protesters exceeds its authority,’ [the] guild … said in a statement. …
“‘This is exactly what people feared would happen,’ said Brian Terrell of the peace ministry, one of those subpoenaed. ‘The civil liberties of everyone in this country are in danger. How we handle that here in Iowa is very important on how things are going to happen in this country from now on.’ …
“Mark Smith, a lobbyist for the Washington-based American Association of University Professors, said he had not heard of any similar case of a U.S. university being subpoenaed for such records. He said the case brings back fears of the ‘red squads’ of the 1950s and campus clampdowns on Vietnam War protesters.
“According to a copy obtained by The Associated Press, the Drake subpoena asks for records of the request for a meeting room, ‘all documents indicating the purpose and intended participants in the meeting, and all documents or recordings which would identify persons that actually attended the meeting.’ It also asks for campus security records ‘reflecting any observations made of the Nov. 15, 2003, meeting, including any records of persons in charge or control of the meeting, and any records of attendees of the meeting.'”
(Note: This is an old news story, and the original link is no longer valid.)
This is absolutely incorrect. When people could just buy cold medicine and a few other ingredients and make it in their basement, it was easier and more affordable for meth users and addicts. Now that it’s much more difficult to get, the prices have also gone up. In addition, Mexican meth producers are able to make it more pure, so it’s even more addictive.
What was the price on the street before? What’s the price on the street now?
Do the Mexicans use cut? Or don’t they?
You make it sound like Joe Meth User was previously able to make a little meth in his basement when he gets home from work after he stops by the drug store. Wrong. Meth users have always stolen stuff to support their habit. Meth users in almost every case simply aren’t capable of holding down a job because of the nature of the drug and the addiciton, so they steal stuff to get money to support their habit. Meth labs are incredibly environmentally destructive.
Getting rid of meth labs in our communities is not a bad thing. If you want to live in a rural area on well water that’s been poisoned because of people dumping their lab chemicals down a well and wrecking an aquifer, more power to you. If you want to live next door to a lab and be poisoned by the fumes, more power to you. If you want to see little kids contaminated by lab materials, more power to you. If you want to see houses torn down because they’re so contaminated, more power to you. That’s what happens with labs. People who live in communities with a large amount of labs are fed up with these problems, and rightfully so. If Cantwell has helped stop that by forcing pseudo behind the counter, THAT’S A GOOD THING.
I can just see it now: “Cantwell announces shift in anti meth policy: ‘Let’s bring back local labs — there’s too many of them down in Mexico, and we need them back here in Spanaway.'”
I guess if you want to make sure that she gets voted out of office, then yeah, her policy is a bad thing. But if you think having a Democratic Senator is a good thing, then you probably should rethink your position.
http://www.rockymountainnews.c.....24,00.html
Looks like the Moonbat! concerns of people not working in jobs once done by illegal aliens has been dashed. More words from the left proven as lies.
Clueless AKA YLB, another Moonbat! in action.
http://www.chron.com/disp/stor.....14141.html
http://www.breitbart.com/news/.....6H483.html
Premarital sex: Probably where most whiny libtards came into being. I guess abortion wasn’t the option after all?
Didn’t someone call it donkoinfanticide? I’ll redub it Moonbat!infanticide.
Mike Webb SUCKS says:
What say you, Moonbat!s, do you make a muslim “woman” show her face? Hey, you never know!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/a rticle/0,,2-2512361,00.html
Why do Moonbat!s love a religion that has it’s men dress like women to evade capture but hate anything Christian?
Oops… I just answered my own question with… men dress like women…
Furball the Moonbat! dropped some rabbit dung on HorseAss: Roger Rabbit says:
@37 “violent crime down” Are you a liar, or just stupid?
“FBI Says Violent Crime Still on Rise in 2006
“By LARA JAKES JORDAN “AP
I grant you crime is up, but it’s up in Moonbat! land. Places controlled by Moonbat!s.
I am Republican – I lie, steal and cheat when I’m not being a family man (fat whore) or cyring about liberal Democrats.
The price of gasoline rising again, damn Arabs. Good thing I’m getting a tax break.
As a jew living in this city I think that pastor fuiter needs to be hunted for a while,as most christians dont know what its like to be brought to the edge of extinction every 50 years or so simply because one was born to the hebrew faith.It sounds like the pastor needs a serious ass kicking.He needs to have plan B shoved so far up his ass that he coughs it up over mass.
I think the pastor is gay and is angry because you fuckin christians are learning more and more about the perversions of the “men of the cloth”
fruiter sounds like a jewish name.
Maybe when hes done taking it up the ass from an alter boy he can log on and spew more garbage.
Antisemetic fuckin nazis,I hope every one of you motherfuckers dies.