Thursday December 19, 2013
Jump to content
Back in the day (late 60's), the term "huffing" was reserved for the inhalation of paint and glue fumes. But more importantly, did the author of that article really write "had drank"...?
Hey Tom... this sounds like it could be interesting. You already got my hackles up when you said that rich Libertarians pushing the issue would prejudice people AGAINST term limits. I would submit that the Libertarian position is for a smaller, less intrusive, and arguably more transitory government, less entrenched and more in touch with their constituents in the real world, which to me would seem to prejudice some folks FOR term limits. Anyway, maybe you're human and your bias is showing. ;)
Another thing... have you seen or heard from Dean Shields lately...? I have a message for her from a guy in Illinois and I tried forwarding it to the only address I have, but no response. Hope she's alright.
A consumption tax - taxes paid only on what you buy - is the surest way to create a vibrant and robust underground economy. Not sure who said it first, probably an old Soviet reformist, but I'm saying it now.
No problem with labor unions, per se, Jack, although I would be glad to criticize many of the actions of their leadership at some other time. I do take issue, however, with the need for unionization of public employees... always have.
It irks me to watch a representative get on TV and say that they have the "right" to union protection. Just once I'd like the reporter to ask, "protection from whom... or what?"
I suspect that, since they work for the government, e.g., me, and I'm a pretty nice guy to work for, the protection they want is from a merit-based system, or more simply, competition in the work place.
Inarguably, they took the idea of unionization from the private sector, leaving behind the dynamics that brought about the need for unions in the first place! Now, it is we who need the protection, and since they work for me, I say that public employee unions should be banned.
This is a typical example of a partisan blinded by bias. When trying to make a point that may indeed be worthy, she simply can't mask the hatred, allowing her rhetoric to alienate the majority of readers. Such people should be advised to do a deep breathing exercise before unloading on the rest of us. Who knows... we might actually be inclined to listen.
I'm just guessing here that Robert is voluntarily sending in to the state that additional 1% while graciously trying to convince government to force the rest of us to do what he's already doing... right?
I don't know what's more goofy - that the question is not amenable to a "yes or no" response, or that 90+% of respondents answered it as if it were. Kudos, I suppose, to the "Undecided".
OK, that's what I figured. It does seem like 7 months is little more than a slap on the wrist. The way I understand it, she sent her son money after the escape, so she knew what she was doing. But I'm thinking that the court may have taken her "special circumstances" into account - motherhood.
Now, I've never been a mother (or a father), but I do have a dog that I helped raise from a puppy, and I love that little dog more than life itself. Just based on that relationship, something tells me that, were I in her shoes, I would have done whatever I could to help, protect and defend a kid of mine, no matter what the charges were, no matter the personal consequence.
I'll just bet the judge is a parent, too.
There were two women involved, Barbara... one who visited them regularly and then went with them on their rampage. The second was a local Jake's Corner woman, the mother of one of the escapees. Apparently, all she was charged with was harboring. Do you know which one the news was talking about...? I can't find anything on-line this morning...
It may be 27 years late, but it's starting to look a lot like 1984 out there.
"If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death."
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"
"Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary."
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
Last login: Wednesday, December 11, 2013