Political Lies - Dems want bigger gov't, more spending. TRUTH - Republicans do too!

By WhichWing
May 17, 2009 - 06:14 ET

Demorcrats and Republicans alike are taking us to the cleaners.  They are both spending like crazy and expanding the government at almost every turn.  Let's start calling out both sides and stop falling for their cheap theatre.

JWF was nice enough to put alot of time and effort into some number crunching on this subject, so I'll point you to his body of work.  Unfortunately, he has decided that this aspect of his findings shall not be discussed in that thread, so please do so here. 

‹ Voice of The People Torture question for the ladies... ›

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I hope WhichWing means well.

May 21, 2009 - 07:18 ET by JWF

  Maybe I won't call him names if he learns stuff.

  Let me help you out. Go to the budget as linked in my forum post. (1) Pull up table 3.1 - Outlays by Superfunction and function. Look at Human Resources in the as percentage of outlays tables. Starting in the late 40's after the war spending died down through this year..

  There. There is your problem.

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

PS: The apt title is Political Lies not conservative lies. Conservatives do not call for more spending. Conservatism is not a political party. Kindly correct

(1)

Eewww

May 22, 2009 - 08:24 ET by WhichWing

That was not a pretty table to look at, it looks like it could even become a problem. Table 3.2 added some more insight, under National Defense and International Affairs.

PS:  People that pretend to be conservatives do call for more spending.  And I don't think liberalism is a political party, but I've updated the title either way. 

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

So you see more than two thirds of the budget has no wiggle room

May 22, 2009 - 08:36 ET by JWF

   Two thirds of the budget is fixed on social spending.

   Now see why conservative does not automatically equal Republican.

http://boycottnrsc.blogspot.com/2009/05/making-it-really-simple-for-nrsc.html 

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

I got that

May 23, 2009 - 08:02 ET by WhichWing

I realize that conservative does not equal Republican, or vice versa.  But many people claiming to be conservatives, and many that were granted the title in your link, simply are not.  These people defend the outrageous spending on foreign affairs and won't do a thing about the outrageous social spending.   They expand the Department of Education and create Homeland Security.  They send hundreds of billions a year overseas and boast that they reduced some pork barrel spending?!

Conservatives have taken their moniker too literally.  We don't need to maintain, we need to pull back.  Reduce.  Remove.  

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

Reactionary

May 27, 2009 - 15:51 ET by Unsane

 These people defend the outrageous spending on foreign affairs  No such thing.  I actually LIKE defending the country via diplomatic and military efforts.  Contrary to your thought process, the United States does not live in a vacuum, nor is it hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world.  Hate it all you want and cry about it all you want, but as the United States is part of a greater world, it must coexist with it, and counteract any threats the greater world poses. 

As for the rest, I'd privatize Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid.  I'd do away with the Department of Education (about 99.99999% of it) if I were king for a day. 

You,WhichWhine, are NOT a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.  You ARE a reactionary. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Look that one up.

May 28, 2009 - 06:17 ET by WhichWing

First, I don't claim to be a Conservative.  Second, if you look at how you support failed policies and refuse to consider anything else, I think it is you that is the reactionary.

The policies (foreign and drug) you support do not provide the results you expect, but that never stops you.  No sir.  As long as it looks good on paper and in theory we don't need to know how it works in the real world.

What do you mean by privatize?  Make the government a middle man or get them out of it altogether?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

 Second, if you look at

May 28, 2009 - 11:19 ET by Unsane

 Second, if you look at how you support failed policies and refuse to consider anything else, I think it is you that is the reactionary.  The English language continues to confuse and bewilder you, doesn't it?  Look up "reactionary" sometime.  Under your picture, it will state that a reactionary is "an extremely conservative person or position that not only resists change but seeks to return to the “good old days” of an earlier social order."  Considering your views on independent central banks, and your intense worship of a jaundiced pipsqueak who, in Dean Barnett's words, "wishes it was 1796 and can go out in public with a powdered wig without ridicule", this fits you extremely well.

By that definition I CANNOT be a reactionary.  Try again. 

The policies (foreign and drug) you support do not provide the results you expect, but that never stops you.  No sir.  As long as it looks good on paper and in theory we don't need to know how it works in the real world.  Here's how our foreign policy works with real world results: the United States of America, a country you hate with a passion for being a fascist, evil, oppressive nation, still exists.  The Stars and Stripes waves all over America and anywhere in the world where there are American interests.  As much as it bothers you to no end, the United States does not exist out of the kindness of the hearts of other nations. 

The Revolutionary War, for starters, was not like this:

The Second Continental Congress to Lord North and King George III: "We declare our independence from Great Britain."

Lord North and King George III in response: "Oh.  OK."

But listening to you, WhichWhine, this is EXACTLY what happens, history and human nature to the contrary.

And in regards to your OBSESSIVE DEVOTION: it is working in that we have fewer losers (druggies) on the streets now.  In fact, I would submit that if the cops took it more seriously, they could end the threat posed by drugs to this country. 

What do you mean by privatize?  Make the government a middle man or get them out of it altogether?  Again, your troubles with the English language are astounding.  Maybe you should take many remedial courses on English, history, and civics before you post on NB again.  This way you could avoid embarrassing yourself.

If the government allowed me to divert the money I pay into Social Security into my retirement coffers, I would be MUCH better off in the end.  So would millions of others.  Hence I favor the gradual government privatization of Social Security. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

But aren't you...

June 2, 2009 - 22:36 ET by WhichWing

Aren't you the one that seeks to "return to the 'good old days' of an earlier social order?"   When gays were not accepted and drugs were considered a moral hazard by all.  You are looking for Mayberry I think.

Next, I'm not sure why you hate America with a passion for being a fascist, evil, oppressive nation, but I think we should work to improve rather than demean it.  You should insult the policies you disagree with, not the country that I love.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

Try conversing, WhichWhine

June 3, 2009 - 12:11 ET by Unsane

 Aren't you the one that seeks to "return to the 'good old days' of an earlier social order?"   Hmmm.  No.  Next dumbass question.  When gays were not accepted You need to dump this stupid strawman you cling to like Linus van Pelt clings to his blanket.  "Unsane doesn't want gay marriage so HE MUST HATE GAYS!!!"  WhichWhine thinks, in that brain powered by a hamster spinning a wheel (or so it would seem).

I have attempted to converse with you on this issue on another thread.  You have refused.  Therefore you will not know the full spectrum of my thoughts on this subject.  If you wish to converse with me on this subject, you might find that you agree with most, if not all, of what I believe.  But as you don't...

But do I hate gays?  No.  You can apologize anytime now. 

drugs were considered a moral hazard by all  WhichWhine, thank you for showing me for the 8000th time your refusal to read.  It's not a moral hazard in my view.  It is a public health issue.  If I didn't think your OBSESSIVE DEVOTION was a threat to public health, or if I thought I was a GREAT THING for my children to indulge in, I'd be all in.  Til then...

Besides, in your case I think as long as we do not ever legalize drugs, you will be with us.  The instant they do get legalized, you won't survive the first ten minutes. 

 I'm not sure why you hate America with a passion for being a fascist, evil, oppressive nation  Um, this would be YOU, genius.  I actually have gotten off of my ass to defend it; so much for hating it.  You on the other hand sit around all day bitching and moaning about what a horrible evil oppressive fascist state you live in because the United States:

- has a military

- has a society that frowns on drug use and thus has laws to enforce this view

- has an independent central bank

- has a society that frowns on drug use and thus has laws to enforce this view

You should insult the policies you disagree with, not the country that I love.  Please.  If you truly loved this country, you'd have an infinitely better grasp of civics than it has.  You would also be in favor of actually defending it, which you are not; not now, and not ever. 

Instead of twisting my words around and sticking to pathetic strawmen, try to converse. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

H.J.

June 13, 2009 - 06:46 ET by WhichWing

"Unsane doesn't want gay marriage so HE MUST HATE GAYS!!!"

I am absolutely amazed that you have the nerve to complain about such a tactic.  This is EXACTLY what I've been complaining to YOU about for about two years!  This is how you approach every subject we have ever discussed.  Think about it:

'Whichwhine hates the military because he's against the war in Iraq.  Whichwhine wants to legalize murder because he thinks drug prohibition is wrong.  Whichwhine wants a whiny, toothless nation because he doesn't want to spend a trillion dollars a year overseas.  Whichwhine hates America because he doesn't agree with Unsane on foreign policy.  Whichwhine is not in favor of defending America because he's opposed to pre-emptive war.'  Etc, etc, etc....'

You have got to be the biggest hypocrite that I have ever dealt with.  And you apparently don't even realize what a dumbass you've been until I use your tactic against you.  Shoot, maybe you still don't realize it.  I half expect you to come firing back completely ignoring the biggest pile of irony that you've ever stepped into. 

And the remainder of your post is more of the same thing.  You can't refute anything I have to say without completely distorting it first.    You can frown on drug use if you want, I'm just telling you not to imprison people for it.  I frown on you being a hypocritical jackass, but I don't want to lock you up for it. 


"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

 

Temper temper WhichWhine

June 15, 2009 - 00:47 ET by Unsane

 Whichwhine hates the military because he's against the war in Iraq.  Whichwhine wants to legalize murder because he thinks drug prohibition is wrong.  Whichwhine wants a whiny, toothless nation because he doesn't want to spend a trillion dollars a year overseas.  Whichwhine hates America because he doesn't agree with Unsane on foreign policy.  Whichwhine is not in favor of defending America because he's opposed to pre-emptive war.'  Etc, etc, etc....  You call me a hypocrite.  I call yo a liar.  Unless you can quote for me where I specificaly said these things...

You have made plain you view the defense of the United States with nothing but the most extreme contempt possible.  You CONSTANTLY SCREAM this CRAP about spending a
"trillion overseas."  Sorry, defense budgets cost about $500-600 billion.  If we are spending so much damned money on the defense of the country, maybe you can explain why we cannot replace the aging tanker fleet, why the AF can only procure 187 F-22s, and more importantly, why several thosand Airmen were given the ax earlier this decade!!!  WHERE IS ALL THIS MONEY YOU SO WHINE THAT WE ARE SPENDING, WHICHWHINE??????

One of your bases of your aching to legalize drugs - other than to make it easier for you to get high, and to legally do so - is that such a law is unenforceable.  I asked why not legalize murder or robbery, as THOSE are not enforceable either (and I have 6000 years of proof there).  Silence.  I ask you how the United States still exists and is free.  Silence.  Hence I can only conclude that yo hold veterans in the deepest possible contempt, and hate the military.  You hate America for a whole host of reasons - I am not the one constantly comparing America and how it is to fascism, YOU are (remember the 14 points of fascism list YOU, not I, regurgitate over and over and over again?).  What else am I to conclude there? 

And you apparently don't even realize what a dumbass you've been until I use your tactic against you.   WhichWhine, you have been spending YEARS walking around as if you are THE SMARTEST, most intellectually profound thinker on NB when all you are is a total simpleton, clinging to simplistic ideas that most of us adults expunged in kindergarten.  Your idiocy here is only exceeded by your total arrogance.  You attempted to use a "tactic" against me, and you did so EXTREMELY POORLY.  Why not actually take the time to properly quote me?  Could that be because you absolutely positively refuse to read or consider anything that runs counter to your simplistic, drug-addled and drug-obsessed world view? 

And the remainder of your post is more of the same thing.  You can't refute anything I have to say without completely distorting it first.    You can frown on drug use if you want, I'm just telling you not to imprison people for it.  I frown on you being a hypocritical jackass, but I don't want to lock you up for it.  The remainder of YOUR post is more of the same: either you are illiterate or refuse to read.  I have shot down every stupid, inane comment of yours time and time and time again, as have others here, and you are just throwing a bigger and bigger temper tantrum with each post.

Now, seeing as you simply cannot go a thread without referencing your deep, profound OBSESSIVE DEVOTION to drugs, I am forced to request this of you AGAIN:

1) Show me where the CONSUMPTION of drugs is against the law in this country.

2) Provide for me a case where someone has been prosecuted for the CONSUMPTION of drugs.

If you cannot do so, have the intellectual honesty to STFD and STFU. 

And trust me, little boy, if idiocy were a capital offense, you would be counting down your final minutes in Huntsville right now.

(And yet again, my offer to converse with you about gays, which of course you completely blew by for the 15 millionth time, is refuted.  We can converse about that subject at any time. You may be a little surprised at what I have to say.  But stupid sh*t like your littel tantrum will get you absolutely nowhere.)

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Hack

June 17, 2009 - 00:50 ET by WhichWing

You make a mockery of the things you claim to believe in.  I've answered to everyone one of your points numberous times, and everytime you distort what I say and demand that I defend the distorted version.  You just plain suck.  ESAD.

TRY to have a nice day

June 18, 2009 - 15:42 ET by Unsane

Why don't you have the guts to spell out that acronym at the end, you whining crybaby?

Why don't you not post on NB until you have grown up physically AND intellectually? 

You whine about why the drugs you are so obsessed with aren't perfectly legal, and one of your points is that we are spending too much money on drug law enforcement.  Myself and others hit back with an analogous situation: that law enforcement agencies have poured lives and treasure into stopping thefts and murders since the dawn of time, and that to save money, perhaps we should stop this.  Not a distortion at all, but a shrewd analogy.  Your response?  Why, throwing a fit, and refusing to take the time to refute that analogy, and whine that I am distorting your take. 

You cry about how gays and lesbians are being oppressed in this evil, oppressive society, and you trumpet your support of gay marriage.  I say I am against this idea, and instead of discussing the differences - and I must say we probably wouldn't have that many on this topic - you throw a fit.

You have posted here about how much you deeply, truly believe that the only reason terrorism exists is because of our foreign policy and the fact we have a military, regardless of how many times it has been pointed out to you otherwise. Yet you wonder why I have to conclude you despise the military and want the United States to be the Whiny States of America. 

You, not I, are posting things like the "14 points of fascism", and then go about trying to show how the United States is a fascist country.  When others call you on it, you throw a fit. 

This is hardly hackery; these are responses to a childish poster who cannot tolerate the questioning of his simplistic ideas, and who would rather throw a tantrum and attack people as though they are in middle school (perhaps you ARE a sixth grader) rather than confront the issues at hand.

I have asked you questions: simple, basic little questions over and over again about various topics and you constantly refuse to address them, just repeating the same tired lines over and over and over again.  I have asked you over and over again for proof that your beloved harmless druggies are arrested and convicted for the mere consumption of drugs: you respond by ignoring the question and repeating constantly that your beloved harmless druggies are arrested and convicted for the mere consumption of drugs. 

You are an extremely arrogant, yet very whiny poster who cannot and will not back up his statements.  I just plain suck?  You just plain disappoint.  TRY and have a nice day.

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

I'm glad you picked up on

June 25, 2009 - 08:00 ET by WhichWing

I'm glad you picked up on the acronym.

I am going rehash this with you, we'll keep it short and sweet.  If you want to continue to distort what I say, or outright ignore the points I make then I guess there's just nothing I can do about that.  But please try to take in what I say.

You whine about why the drugs you are so obsessed with aren't perfectly legal, and one of your points is that we are spending too much money on drug law enforcement.  Myself and others hit back with an analogous situation: that law enforcement agencies have poured lives and treasure into stopping thefts and murders since the dawn of time, and that to save money, perhaps we should stop this.  Not a distortion at all, but a shrewd analogy.  Your response?  Why, throwing a fit, and refusing to take the time to refute that analogy, and whine that I am distorting your take.

    * I always respond to that simple analogy with the point that the crimes you speak of are crimes against people or their property, unlike drug laws.  You always choose to ignore this response and call it a fit instead.  A distortion I'd say.

You cry about how gays and lesbians are being oppressed in this evil, oppressive society, and you trumpet your support of gay marriage.  I say I am against this idea, and instead of discussing the differences - and I must say we probably wouldn't have that many on this topic - you throw a fit.

    * I don't see the point in opposing gay marriage.  Nor am I a supporter of gay marriage any more than I am of straight marriage.  Your usual stance was something about your morals, traditions and the reason marriage was created in the first place, where as I want to be able to live as an individual, and allow other individuals to travel their roads to happiness.  But I guess that's just another fit I was throwing?

You have posted here about how much you deeply, truly believe that the only reason terrorism exists is because of our foreign policy and the fact we have a military, regardless of how many times it has been pointed out to you otherwise. Yet you wonder why I have to conclude you despise the military and want the United States to be the Whiny States of America.

    * I have posted many times about how I believe that the primary reason we are targets of the terrorists we fight today is a result of our foreign policy.  How you conclude that I despise the military based on my dislike of our foreign policy is beyond me.

You, not I, are posting things like the "14 points of fascism", and then go about trying to show how the United States is a fascist country.  When others call you on it, you throw a fit.

    * I did post about that, and I'm sorry if it offended you.  You should get some one to pre-read stuff for you.

This is hardly hackery; these are responses to a childish poster who cannot tolerate the questioning of his simplistic ideas, and who would rather throw a tantrum and attack people as though they are in middle school (perhaps you ARE a sixth grader) rather than confront the issues at hand.

    * Hopefully you've been reading up to this point of my response to you, and maybe by now you've recognized who it is that is throwing tantrums and fits and attacking people.

I have asked you questions: simple, basic little questions over and over again about various topics and you constantly refuse to address them, just repeating the same tired lines over and over and over again.  I have asked you over and over again for proof that your beloved harmless druggies are arrested and convicted for the mere consumption of drugs: you respond by ignoring the question and repeating constantly that your beloved harmless druggies are arrested and convicted for the mere consumption of drugs.  

    * I've responded to this point many times.  May 9, 2009 @ 17:16 ET:  "Simple logic tells us that one would have to possess a substance in order to consume it, and someone must of bought and sold along the way.  All those actions should be legal between adults."  You tried to make the same argument repeatedly in that thread, and I always point out that you were correct, but missing the point.  You still are.  

You are an extremely arrogant, yet very whiny poster who cannot and will not back up his statements.  I just plain suck?  You just plain disappoint.  TRY and have a nice day.

    * Silly hypocrite.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

Maybe he is disgusted.

June 29, 2009 - 08:16 ET by JWF

   Pumkinhead: you respond by ignoring the question...

  Maybe he gets tired of talking to a coprophagic goob with an uncommonly large head.

Riposte

June 30, 2009 - 14:45 ET by Unsane

I'm glad you picked up on the acronym.  See, as I have long since gotten past sixth grade, I know what it means.  When you get past sixth grade, maybe you'll upgrade your insults. 

 I always respond to that simple analogy with the point that the crimes you speak of are crimes against people or their property, unlike drug laws.  You always choose to ignore this response and call it a fit instead.  A distortion I'd say.  Drug laws address a public health issue which, if unchecked, will endanger lives AND property.  To this, you almost - but not quite - come out and suggest that druggies are GREAT and WONDERFUL, and are the backbone of society, instead of the pathetic losers that they are.

I don't see the point in opposing gay marriage.  Nor am I a supporter of gay marriage any more than I am of straight marriage.  Your usual stance was something about your morals, traditions and the reason marriage was created in the first place, where as I want to be able to live as an individual, and allow other individuals to travel their roads to happiness.  But I guess that's just another fit I was throwing?  I do.  I'm funny, I guess, in that I see marriage as an institution devised for child-rearing.  You constantly SCREAM about how your rights as an individual are constantly threatened, when they are not.  And when I suggest to you that yes, while we are all individuals, we are NOT in fact raised by wolves, and we do NOT live on deserted islands and isolated communities, and we DO in fact belong to a SOCIETY which has folkways, norms, mores, values, and rights and wrongs, you FURTHER throw a fit.  May I suggest to you that if you find this concept of "society" so difficult to handle, that you may move to a island out in the middle of nowhere, or move far, far to the north, where you are the only human being in hundreds of miles, where you don't have to deal with societal issues?

You got me.  I like civilizations and societies, and such things have rules to live by.  Guilty as charged. 

I have posted many times about how I believe that the primary reason we are targets of the terrorists we fight today is a result of our foreign policy.  How you conclude that I despise the military based on my dislike of our foreign policy is beyond me.  Oh, I don't know - maybe because the military is an instrument to be used in foreign policy???

And this sentence is telling: I have posted many times about how I believe that the primary reason we are targets of the terrorists we fight today is a result of our foreign policy.    This is why I say YOU ARE WHINY.  Whenever a terrorist commits an atrocity, I think it is a good idea to kill them and destroy their base(s) of operations, and never to negotiate with them.  Your response?  Why, run up to them, drop to your knees, begin to uncontrollably cry, and SCREAM "OH, PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE, PRETTY PRETTY PLEASE, DON'T DO THAT EVER AGAIN!!!  I BEG OF YOU!!!!  I WILL GIVE YOU ANYTHING YOU WANT, ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!"   This is a really piss-poor way to do business if you actually wish to see the Stars and Stripes continue to fly. 

Sorry, WhichWhine, I like living in a country that formulates a foreign policy based ON ITS OWN INTERESTS,  not on the interests of others or terrorist groups.  We do not need our foreign policy vetted by other countries and terrorist groups as you so badly want, from everything I can read here. 

 I did post about that, and I'm sorry if it offended you.  You should get some one to pre-read stuff for you.  This is about the biggest BS apology I have seen.  You believe the United States is a massive, evil, fascist, oppressive dictatorship primarily because your beloved, yummy drugs are proscribed by law here, as in many other countries (I might add that the countries that frown upon drug use tend to be up and comers or those nations well established as world-beaters. Coincidence?).  Which is ironic, considering the side you root for in the War on Terror, and the side you sympathize most greatly with in terms of our foreign policy.  See, in the United States, you get off quite easy for the sale, transport, or possession of drugs.  Consumption is perfectly legal (you have yet to show me where specifically CONSUMPTION gets you in the slam despite repeated requests for you to put your money where your mouth is and prove it).  The guys you like in the War on Terror WILL KILL YOU if you even LOOK at one of your beloved drugs. 

Hopefully you've been reading up to this point of my response to you, and maybe by now you've recognized who it is that is throwing tantrums and fits and attacking people.  Hmmm?  Is it I who calls posters "hacks" in the subject line?  No, that's WhichWhine.  Is it I who runs around throwing around terms and phrases I don't even know what they mean when attacking people?  No, that's WhichWhine, who routinely accuses people of being (pick one) "fascists, statists, oppressors, central planners" and et cetera, even AFTER it has been demonstrated to one and all he has NO CLUE what those terms mean.  Did I end a post with the childish ESAD?  No, again, that's WhichWhine.  Do I routinely call people "dumbass" and other such childish insults, and then get before the NB masses and whine incessantly about how everyone is picking on me?  No, WhichWhine.  Again. 

I've responded to this point many times.  May 9, 2009 @ 17:16 ET:  "Simple logic tells us that one would have to possess a substance in order to consume it, and someone must of bought and sold along the way.  All those actions should be legal between adults."  You tried to make the same argument repeatedly in that thread, and I always point out that you were correct, but missing the point.  You still are.  No, you constantly whine that people are imprisoned for the simple act of consumption.  You re-post that argument immediately after it has been taken apart.  Repeatedly.  Again, if I didn't think that the drugs you so crave were a threat to public health, I would long since be OK with legalizing them.  But as they are a threat to public health, I am not in favor, nor will I ever be.  Indeed, your constant going on and on and on about how wonderful, great, and harmless drugs are only make me (and I suspect others) entrench myself more firmly in the camp which says they should be totally illegal.  And maybe the the State Power Trippers in TX (for example) worried more about going after druggies and stopped lobbying for more discretionary powers that they WILL abuse, like banning cell phone use while driving, I'd suggest that the drug trade in this country would be shut down almost entirely, and you losers would be forced into not being a bunch of losers anymore. 

Silly hypocrite.  Silly illiterate.  To wit, in a response to your stupid position on foreign policy, I put up a forum thread which featured a great passage from Bernard Lewis's The Crisis of Islam.  As Mr. Lewis is not a whacked out America-hating author, as you prefer to read, you would have nothing to do with him.  So don't whine to me about your total inability/refusal to read.  As another poster pointed out on another thread, you are repeatedly presented evidence which blows your arguments straight to hell: you respond by completely ignoring them and continuing on in your kook website cocoon.  This is one reason you are a totally dishonest, whiny debater. 

Again, Pumpkinhead (h/t to JWF, The Vet), try and have a nice day.  And Just Say No. 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

The World according to Unsane the Liberal

July 4, 2009 - 08:23 ET by WhichWing

Look at the poor little guy.  He's so worried about public health issues.  He thinks the government should step in and tell us all what is best for us to ingest, and what we should stay away from.  Through this brilliant setup, they've decided alcohol is safe for consumption.  Tobacco as well.  These are not public health issues for Unsane and his BIG Government.   But marijuana and cocaine shall be avoided, or you risk prison time.  By his logic, smokers and drinkers are GREAT and WONDERFUL!  Be careful though, one day while you enjoy your liquor and smokes the Big Government that Unsane loves may just come along and tell you 'no more of that!  If I catch you with that beer and Marlboro again, it's going to be jail time for you!  LOSER!'

Once you've mastered the list of substances you can and cannot consume or possess, head right on over to the marriage bureau and BIG Government can grant you a license that can be used to begin the child-rearing process.  Then you can assimilate into SOCIETY.  Your every waking thought should be consideration for those around you.  Even though we are individuals in Unsane's version of BIG Government, we must always be working toward the betterment of the state.   Be sure to teach your children the folkways, norms, mores, values, and rights and wrongs that must be followed in order to be a 'productive member' of SOCIETY.

In this land of idiocy, if you oppose a policy, then you must hate everything that the policy may come in contact with.  For example:  If you think education policies are flawed, then you hate children and teachers.  If you think foreign polices are flawed, then you hate the military and people with short hair.  There is no in between in Unsane's Utopia!

Furthermore, if you suggest that the foreign policy that your country has undertaken has lead to some "blowback," then you must forever bow down to all terrorists and swear your allegiance to them.

Suggesting that we use military as a defensive force is heresy.  To Unsane the military must be used to force our ideals on others.  There is no need to assess a threat.  "Hell," says Unsane, "we've got tons of troops.  We'll send them out to protect our 'interests.'  There are no borders around our 'interests.'"  

If you see an injustice, never fear, Unsane will show you a bigger one.  Your original injustice is now a priviledge.  Lucky you. 

Make no mistake, this all makes you a statist, but in this fairytale world that Unsane lives in, you get to deny it.  

This is an incomplete guide to the Logic of Unsane, but it will get you started.  Good lucky fellow members of SOCIETY.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."  -  George Bernard Shaw

Scorecard according to Free Stinker the Conservative

July 4, 2009 - 08:26 ET by Free Stinker

Unsane: 1

whichwing: 0

Shouldn't you...

July 4, 2009 - 08:47 ET by WhichWing

Hey, shouldn't you be updating your Sarah Palin Fact of the Day thread?  Or did you quit?

Scorecard update due to whining and complaining

July 8, 2009 - 14:46 ET by Unsane

Free Stinker: 10

Unsane: 1

WhichWhine: 0 

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Correction

July 4, 2009 - 08:51 ET by Sergeant ROCK

   Unsane: 1

LeftWing: 0

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

Correction

July 4, 2009 - 08:57 ET by WhichWing

If you aren't a neocon then you are a leftist on this site.  At least you aren't a leftist Sergeant, right? 

Notation

July 4, 2009 - 19:20 ET by Unsane

I see that WhichWhine is still a racist bigot.   

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Silly childish WhichWhine

July 8, 2009 - 14:43 ET by Unsane

 Listen, you civics-deficient child, it is very simple.  When you HAVE to toss around terms like "statist" and "liberal" to describe me, it can only mean the following:

1) You lost the argument.

2) You do not read virtually anything I post elsewhere on NB. 

3) Tossing around terms like candy when you don't know what they mean in a bid to make yourself look smart only wind up making you look stupid. 

Furthermore, if you suggest that the foreign policy that your country has undertaken has lead to some "blowback," then you must forever bow down to all terrorists and swear your allegiance to them. Which you do, in spite of your constant whines to the contrary.  This country's foreign policy is best not ever left to wimps like you who will constantly seek the apporval of everyone else before implementing foreign policy. 

There was "blowback" about 233 years ago, when a document called the Declaration of Independence was signed.  Good thing we accepted those consequences and dealt with them instead of just caving to the Brits, huh?

How about that "blowback" when the United States decided to position its Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor in 1940?  Let me guess: you would have instantly whined an apology to Emperor Hirohito and Tojo, given the Japanese both AK and HI, AND promised you would NEVER EVER build a Navy again, after 7 December 1941, if you were in power at the time?

Suggesting that we use military as a defensive force is heresy.  To Unsane the military must be used to force our ideals on others.  There is no need to assess a threat.  "Hell," says Unsane, "we've got tons of troops.  We'll send them out to protect our 'interests.'  There are no borders around our 'interests.'"   Yeah, we used our military as a defensive force quite effectively in 1941.  That's why the Japanese never thought for a SECOND about bombing Pearl Harbor or invading the Phillpines, and why things like the Bataan Death March are just silly figments of our imaginations!

Yep, the Soviets just allowed West Berlin to function out of the kindness of their hearts.  They stayed out of the Fulda Gap and resisted the urge to march down the North German Plain just because in reality they were total sweethearts.  (Pay NO attention to the caches of things like street signs for occupied territories, currency for occupied zones and the like.  And that whole deal with the SS-20s deployed to the far west of the Soviet Union?  Why, a total misunderstanding, that's all!)

I hate to break that childish heart of yours, but by remaining on offense, we ARE using the military defensively.  We CONSTANTLY assess threats.  That's basically all I do to a large extent when not operational.  But you really don't know what the f*** you are talking about in regards to the military anyway.  Nor historically. 

In this land of idiocy, if you oppose a policy, then you must hate everything that the policy may come in contact with.  For example:  If you think education policies are flawed, then you hate children and teachers.  If you think foreign polices are flawed, then you hate the military and people with short hair.  There is no in between in Unsane's Utopia!  Your troubles with the language just get more and more severe.  I won't answer education as the posters here who have likewise attacked your childish idiocy know where I stand on education.  You can too, but you won't read anything whatsoever that goes counter to that elementary school worldview you hold, so I'm not holding my breath.  When you are willing to discuss that like a mature, critically thinking adult, you know where to find me.  Likewise gays and gay marriage. 

I never said you hate people with short hair, silly.  Put away those drugs when typing here!  You DO hate the military; all you do is badmouth them and the foreign policies they enforce, as the military IS an instrument of foreign policy!  I have yet to see you say one thing about the military that is remotely positive.  All you ever do is bitch bitch bitch about them.  What do you want me to conclude? 

You constantly leave me no choice in these matters, and whine incessantly about it when I do reach my conclusions.

Once you've mastered the list of substances you can and cannot consume or possess, head right on over to the marriage bureau and BIG Government can grant you a license that can be used to begin the child-rearing process.  Then you can assimilate into SOCIETY.  Your every waking thought should be consideration for those around you.  Even though we are individuals in Unsane's version of BIG Government, we must always be working toward the betterment of the state.   Be sure to teach your children the folkways, norms, mores, values, and rights and wrongs that must be followed in order to be a 'productive member' of SOCIETY.  Wow.  You must really have been raised by wolves. 

Why do societies and governments exist?  Can you answer that simple, tiny, little question? 

Look at the poor little guy.  He's so worried about public health issues.  You simply ascribe more power to me than His Majesty The Shahinshah.  Sorry, but you put me in a awkward position: I must now quote a Billy Joel song I don't even care for all that much: "We didn't start the fire; It's been always burning since the world's been turning"...   He thinks the government should step in and tell us all what is best for us to ingest, and what we should stay away from.  Not quite. Through this brilliant setup, they've decided alcohol is safe for consumption.  Except for three states and a good number of municipalities and counties in TX, regions and boroughs of AK (just try taking some alcohol with you to Barrow sometime!!!)...  Tobacco as well.  Taxed, regulated, CONSTANTLY told by federal, state and local governments where and when you may or may not use tobacco.  Hell, I will NEVER forget the reaming I got in the military for admitting I smoked three stogies in a year!!!    These are not public health issues for Unsane and his BIG Government.    But marijuana and cocaine shall be avoided, or you risk prison time.  Please show me where the consumption of either is illegal.  By his logic, smokers and drinkers are GREAT and WONDERFUL!  Not quite.  Yeah, ask members of my family whom I constantly bitched at to quit smoking.  That's just because I am so deeply convinced of the wonders of smoking.    Be careful though, one day while you enjoy your liquor and smokes the Big Government that Unsane loves may just come along and tell you 'no more of that!  If I catch you with that beer and Marlboro again, it's going to be jail time for you!  LOSER!'  Because as we ALL know, no government regulates these things...

And I MAY point out that in foreign policy, WhichWhine does side with those harmless little terrorists.  You know, because if the United States just didn't have a foreign policy, or if we just went out of our way to make sure ALL of our allies and ALL of our enemies and ALL of the world's terrorists vetted and approved of our foreign policy first, we wouldn't have made the terrorists VERY VERY VERY MAD at us.  WhichWhine wants to know what the terrorists are thinking and wants their considerations taken into account first when the United States formulates its foreign policy.

Of course, what poor WhichWhine does not know is that while I and the rest of society (that [gulp!] does what societies have done for about the last 6000 years or so and used the government to enforce its folkways, norms, mores, and so on) merely frowns upon drug use, and attempts to use nonlethal ways as much as possible to curb their use, the people he feels the most sympathy for in the War on Terror WILL KILL HIM WITHOUT HESITATION just for being a druggie.  I can see him now as they are getting ready to chop his head off, screaming "WAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!   YOU CAN'T DO THIS TO MEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!   I HAVE RIGHTS!!!  I HAVE RIGHTS!!!  I HAVE---"

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)

Wow Unsane, both WhichWing

July 8, 2009 - 22:32 ET by Scuba Dude

Wow Unsane, both WhichWing and n-wwwwwwaaaaaaahhhhhhhsssss calling you things that you are not such as liberal, statist, marxist and such.  It does make me wonder if they are one and the same or two people sharing the same brain and neither one of them is washing it before giving it to the other person.

The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER

Society

July 14, 2009 - 13:07 ET by Unsane

Mad props to dscott for putting it best: 

"Only an anarchist or sociopath believes they have no responsibility to society regarding the treatment we extend to others."

"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)