Re: The banks are made of marble.
 

Fuck, really? Tell me there's more. Tell me that Biden paused and said, "you get it, right? Chains? Let me spell this shit out for you guys. There's Romney, and then there's a hood..."

There's gotta be more for this amount of outrage over something that sounds this stupid.

Re: The banks are made of marble.
 

As what?

Re: The banks are made of marble.
 

Respectively: No, no, no, and I don't know.

My brother used to live with Mormons. The ones I know are Democrats, FWIW.

Re: Should 5% appear too small.
 

You might be being utopian, and unrealistic.

Re: The banks are made of marble.
 

I like to hang out and do family research with Mormons, and have a secret crush on all the Huntsman daughters. I want to speak Chinese with them. Mormons are just alright by me.

I have seen some pretty nasty stuff here on the board from the right-wing anti-polygamy crowd, especially when the gay marriage discussion was occurring. I objected. Did you?

Re: Should 5% appear too small.
 

I don't think so. Pre-Buckley, the notion we were on a path similar to Europe's was not merely accepted with a shrug, but embraced as the natural, or proper, course for the Republic.

Buckley will be a footnote in history, as will the Tea Party, and Ron Paul. But these people and movements were important speed bumps, or small rogue waves (select whatever analogy suits you), that at important moments have pushed us off a course toward a society more resembling the European states.

Inevitably, all Democracies degrade and rot when, as our crony capitalists and the entitlement recipient classes have realized, one is best, or at least most efficiently, enriched by voting himself wealth from the treasury. The question is how long the economy manages to remain vibrant during the long slog into that goodnight. People who frustrate the state's and crony corporatists' efforts to encumber our freedoms (a necessary side effect of efforts to protect their interests) help to extend our life span as an economically free country. Paul was important in this regard. Buckley was important. And though it galls me to admit it - the Tea Party has been essentially important.

Re: The banks are made of marble.
 

There is nothing wrong, or objectionable, about saying that is plainly obvious: Mormonism was started by a notorious con man, and observes as sacred ludicrous fictions accruing from no place other than this criminal's twisted mind. This is fact. This is inarguable.

If you believe something ludicrous, I have the right to make fun of it. And you don't get a pass because it's "your faith." I was born Catholic. Most of that is absurd. You can make fun of it, and I have no right to argue in response that you have offended me because it was a "belief" cherished by my grandparents. Preposterous is preposterous, however deeply you might feel about it.

That said, to be angry with polygamy is irrational. It's someone else's business. If you want to have ten wives, or marry your dog, or your '06 Toyota Pickup, have at it. A person who gets mad about someone else's polygamy (as long as its consensual and no brainwashing of teen brides is involved) needs a hobby.

ETA: I'd keep my opinions to myself around the Huntsman daughters.

Re: Should 5% appear too small.
 

Maybe, I'm not really old enough to know. And I don't think you are either.

But I don't think Ron Paul's a particularly important part of R opposition to social security and Medicare, which significantly predate's him.

What's changing the GOP starting to see it's desire to screw everyone in favor of the rich as morally compelled (ala Rand) and thus being increasingly willing to publicly take those positions despite the fact that they are political suicide. For that, Paul deserves some credit.

Re: Should 5% appear too small.
 

Screw who? The unnecessary annoyances associated with running a small business - which Paul has railed against - are enormous. Between the state regulations and all the tax crap you have to deal with, it's a serious pain in the ass. Pay this, pay that, deal with this requirement, this regulation. Careful not to violate this statute, or that one. Buy five types of insurance to cover employees. Follow these workplace rules. Comply with these four agencies. That crap steals time, which steals money. And who does all of this benefit? The government, and big business, for whom this shit provides a barrier to entry.

If you're suggesting the Dems are on the side of the poor against the GOP, you've done lost your mind. Both parties are on this side: Making Government Bigger. Neither gives a fuck about anything but power, and when they win, they act in almost identical fashion: Growing the Red Tape.

Here's how to vote:

Do you have some money? Own some stocks maybe? Then you should vote GOP, because they steal from the Treasury to exclusively benefit corporate interests, from which you might profit.

Do you need the state? Are you struggling? (Or, paradoxically, are you so rich you don't give a damn who's in office?) Then you should vote Democrat. They steal from the Treasury to near exclusively benefit their corporate donors, but they also give a bunch of money and benefits out to those with little, and to govt employees, which there's a good chance you might be. And they'll keep doing this because they need the "struggling" voting bloc to get elected. It's an essential part of their business model.

...In sum, here's your political choice - what it's been, and what it'll always be: Pick the Thief who Delivers You the Most Contraband. That's it. That's all it will ever be, and that's all we can ever hope for. It's a squalid husk of a Republic, but that's how they all are. The human element pollutes all, and that is never going to be fixed. And if you believe in anything... If you think any more than 5% of the people running for office give even the slightest fuck about anything beyond their own self-enrichment, you are going to be one of the most disheartened, frustrated motherfuckers who ever lived.

Re: Should 5% appear too small.
 

Um, what? Seriously -- what planet are you posting from?

Re: Should 5% appear too small.
 

"[H]is" was not a misspelling of "this." His aim was to shift the debate. He did that. Fifteen years ago, Obama could have argued for HCReform based on what's "right," or "humane," or some other liberal concern. Today? It's all about the dollars. Fiscal prudence, etc. Obama had to sell it as cost-cutting.

Paul, like Ryan, refocused people on the books. Where the aim previously was doing what felt right, or seemed noble (expansion if HC, war in Iraq, gifting seniors Part D), Paul helped to erase concerns for anything beyond, "Can it be afforded? If not, who cares how 'right' or 'humane' or 'long term strategically wise' a plan is. We aren't doing it."

This allows severe contraction of the Left's favorite expenditures under cover of the excuse, "Look at the numbers. We simply can't afford all these programs and govt outlays."* And it has the added benefit of being true.

It's brilliant, really. Instead of arguing a competing "vision" that sounds cruel as the GOP had in the past, it now argues for fiscal prudence, which effects exactly the same result. And all the Democrats can fight back with is, "But more taxes would fix that!" And again, fiscal hawks own them with this argument: "People can't afford them, and they'll destroy what little nascent growth we have."** For at least the foreseeable future, the debate isn't "How do we pay for what we have?", but "How do we cut it so we can afford it?"

Norquist should be jealous.

ETA: If only this cost cutting could be applied to Defense. Then we'd really be somewhere. Paul would do that. Ryan, the faux fiscal hawk, refuses to do so.
________
* Note how Obama's been handcuffed from assisting fed/state public employment.
** All this said, the people who benefit from transfers will still vote to protect what they're getting this fall. Obama will win.

Re: Should 5% appear too small.
 

Everyone who would rather maintain social security and medicare instead of give Mittens another tax cut.

Nice change of direction. Also "unnecessary" is in the eye of the beholder. Finally, there is no real partisan difference here, unless you're in coal, oil or gas.

Again, mostly driven by capture rather than ideology.

Both are on the side of protecting their benefactor. Libertarian rhetoric aside, that has nothing to do with any desire as the "size" of government.

But I'm not sure how you've now morphed into saying they are all the same when not long ago you were lauding the momentous change brought on by Paul and Buckley.

Or maybe I should just say, "off my corner, ho?"

Unless you, you know, care about people or something.

We're lawyers. Of course we need the state.

Or unless you, you know, care about people or something.

Re: Should 5% appear too small.
 

Well, he did sell it on "right" and "humane" too, but whatever. I'm not sure why Paul get any of the credit of it being cost cutting. Exploding health care costs did that.

Paul is Exhibit A in how Washington doesn't understand money, macro and government finances, so maybe I'll give you that.

Except, of course, William Jefferson Clinton.

And thus the stupidity of making long run fiscal policy in a recession.

Re: Should 5% appear too small.
 

Obama had to win over moderates -- Democrats and conceivably Republicans -- to get to 60 votes in the Senate. Fifteen years ago, you didn't win over those people by talking about what's right and humane. Indeed, Clinton didn't at all. Obama is a pragmatic moderate. And consider that HCR was enacted, unlike fifteen years ago.

Ron Paul did not invent fiscal prudence. Nor did Ross Perot, but it's like you've never heard of him. Republicans believe strongly in fiscal prudence, but only when Democrats are in power.

All of this is what Republicans always say when Democrats are in control. Ron Paul didn't invent any of it. The Tea Parties were conservatives, reacting to a Democrat in the White House.

The cost cutting is only to be applied to government spending that other people want. The Tea Parties say, Hands of our Medicare!

Re: Should 5% appear too small.
 

They don't. No one in politics does.