Let me guess, it's the half that still hasn't gotten over the Civil war, but at least they love Lincoln now...
Printable View
Let me guess, it's the half that still hasn't gotten over the Civil war, but at least they love Lincoln now...
Texas may be one of the only states that could be a viable country. A better than average economy, oil and wind farms, it's own energy grid, a very large water supply, etc. etc.
So fuck all y'all
:toast
By the way Dan, is that guy the host of some pro wrestling show? That's what their set reminds me of.
Hey, Tytty is back.
I'm one of the Texas republicans that just wants Dan to lose his internet access.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
I'm a Spurs fan yes, but I am also a Virginian and a proud American, and frankly I welcome the day Texas decides to secede.
Go ahead and leave, I mean jesus, your state damn near destroyed this country with the Bush gang anyway.
Texans are fucking retarded
The Rasmussen poll from a week ago found that 17% of Texans want to secede. Still too high a number, mind you, but it doesn't jive with "half of TX Republicans" as this *Daily Kos* poll claims.
You're fucking retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan
Wait, wait, wait....
Does this mean that a state income tax is in our future? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. OBAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!
17% of Texans (may I presume they vote Republican?) who don't want to be Americans is still pretty amazing, especially for all the outrage about Michelle Obama's remarks during the election and Democrats wanting to leave Iraq.
not exactly the best way to refute his point now, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Responding with an insult to an insult? Fuck you too.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc
Hurry up and do it ffs.
No legal way to do it.
what's wrong with seceding? State's rights to leave the Union are spelled out in the constitution aren't they? Or did they Amend that part out...
we don't need no stinkin' Federal Government telling us what to do...! :nope
edit: didn't see chump's comment above... is that true?
Texas v. White and international law (if one wants to go that route) say it ain't happening.
If you really want to do it, get yer gun and go for it. These things don't have a history of going well, however.
this is just for show
republicans are all playing these little psychological games to try and gain ground again with voters.
they hurt bad in the bush years, got beatdown in 2006 and lost the white house in 2008
stop paying attention to these frauds. they are just doing it for attention to smear the Dems as if the repubs had nothing to do with the state we are in right now.
How American of them.
I'm an old guy. way back I remember studying the constitution and I thought states right to leave was something that the framers positively put in. I know, I know, it's different now.
no thanks, I'm not one of those seccessionist wackos.Quote:
If you really want to do it, get yer gun and go for it.
There might be something in the Articles of Confederation about it, but not the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender
probably right... i'ts been a hell of a long time since I studied this junk
edit: ok, did some checking... you were right, TX vs White says no can do.
see what you can learn hanging out on ST... :lol
Texas lost any "right" to succeed or whatever when it was conquered in the civil war.
end of story.
besides the fact that it wouldn't help the texas economy at all because economies don't just disappear at arbitrary lines drawn on the ground.
Secessionist Gov. Rick Perry asks for federal help to deal with swine flu.http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/26/tx-perry-swine-flu/
:lol :lol :lol
Dickless, balless lying hypocrites, every last one of the Repugs and conservatives. :lol :lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
I know you're clueless to how the real world works, much less how our federal government works, but help with the swing flu is something that the federal government should be providing. This thing could blow up into a pandemic, and frankly the CDC has the resources in place to attack this best.
But go on with your Republican hate, boutonsbot.
That's the way *violent extremists* talk. Besides,
Declare the causes, 4cc.Quote:
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Natural rights chime with human dignity but in fact depend on power. Rights are always granted and protected by the political power. Once power ceases to defend your rights -- or the people fail to assert them -- for all practical purposes they cease to exist.
The Mexican assimilation is almost complete anyways... :lol
Reconquista?
From a practical standpoint, talk of secession is idiotic right now. There is no mechanism for it to happen, and even if there were, it would accomplish the opposite of what these morons think it would: Texas would be poorer, not richer. But since stupidity has become a prerequisite to remain a Republican, I'm not surprised that so many of them are talking about it. I read a letter to the editor on Sunday from some allegedly educated redneck in Sour Lake alluding to minor Civil War battles as solid evidence that Texas could whip the U.S. Armed Forces in a war. Give me a freaking break.
From a philosophical standpoint, I don't believe anything unites the subjects of the United States anymore, except the power of the state. The marriage is merely financial at this point. Once the money dries up, we'll go Balkan. I know I personally don't feel any ties of brotherhood to New Englanders or Californians, at least not any more so than I do to the average Mexican.
You're not taking into account the mobility of Americans. The regional differences were much greater in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
Stupidity a prerequisite? Americants have two choices dude. If they don't like what the left has to offer....they are forced to vote rep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
I agree 111110% with that second paragraph.
Not really. You can refrain from voting entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
Thus my frustration. At heart, I am not a leftist. I think all things being equal, the public sector is less efficient than the private sector because you have so many fewer people with so much narrower a perspective making decisions in the former than the latter. The leftist's persistent faith in the perfectability of humanity if only it can be properly enlightened, despite the countervailing evidence of the entirety of history makes me sigh. The inevitability of our bankruptcy and descent into chaos given the spending priorities of the left leaves me numb. I believe our basic notions of family, self-reliance, and responsibility are being dissolved into nihilistic oblivion.Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
And yet... when I hear liberals and conservatives talk about the issues... it's as though conservatives are talking about some other planet. I think a lot of liberal ideas are wrong, but at least they can demonstrate conversance with the issues. In the Obama-McCain debates, it was sad to watch McCain have absolutely zero idea what was going in with the financial crisis while Obama could summarize it with concise aplomb.
Sarah Palin was the last straw for me. She knows less about national and international issues than the average college-educated American, yet she is held up as some kind of female Ronald Reagan. I don't need Newt Gingrich or Daniel Patrick freaking Moynihan up there, but the Alaskan Peggy Hill? Seriously?
And now this... secession talk. Serious things are going on in the world, and the best the conservative ethos in the country can muster up is 19th-century nonsense. Once upon a time, Bob Dole destroyed his own Presidential campaign by offering America a bridge back to the 1950's. Now that doesn't seem to be enough -- people are looking for a bridge back to the 1850's. I guess in their worldview that was the last time the world made sense.
So in America, as I see it, the choices are between one group that has what I think are a lot of wrong answers, and another group that has no idea what the questions are. I have made a dark descent into hopeless cynicism. America is finished.
blistering.
I agree with the public vs private sector conundrum. I rather have it in private hands. That said, I also think that has gone to an extreme, without proper checks and balances, and has caused the current outcry for the public sector taking over. Issues like student loans have become such a fraud to the government, that you don't know what else to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
Hey, at least you're the Run N' Gun Football champion. Some of us don't have it that nice. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
The powers that be in the GOP are counting way too much on that. As if we weren't paying attention when an allegedly conservative Republican president essentially took part in a blackmail of the Congress to pass a $700 billion increase in the national debt to pass the losses of large financial services firms on to middle class taxpayers? Am I really supposed to believe that this was merely a creation of the current administration and forget everything that occurred prior to Jan. 20, 2009? Am I supposed to be agitated about 'socialism' when the prior, allegedly conservative Republican administration rammed through the largest expansion of an entitlement program since the 1960s?Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
Another thing the GOP leadership needs to wrap their minds around is that the social conservatives are a spent political force. Stop kissing Dobson's ass. They haven't delivered in the last two federal elections. That is not how you get back to being a majority party. Actually offer an alternative to greater government expansion instead of merely offering a more intrusive federal government with a social conservative cultural bent. Tax cutting isn't enough. End the fing spending.
Republicans need to take God out of the platform and kick the shit out of the Democrats.
I'm not sure why it's so preferable for the state to take over the free areas of social life. Why do I want to replace my liberty with the option to vote every two years on an ever increasing array of state intrusion into private life? It's not as if this has been that effective an option as it stands, especially given that our system generally ends up favoring incumbents. Why must the state continue to grow at the expense of the individual?Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
shouldn't it be considered foreign aid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
Actually, it'd jive pretty well. Most places have a roughly 35-35-30 split (Republican-Democrat-Other), so half of that would be 17.5% of all Texans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Of course, Texas is probably a bit higher Republican than most places, but I saw some polls putting it at about 40-45% of republicans wanting to secede, so it'd probably come out to about the same.
Of course, that's reliant on ONLY Republicans wanting to secede.
Does this mean I'm going to have to take up arms? Because I don't have a gun. Will one be issued?
You should request for a subsidy to buy one...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven
That's not true anymore, Democrats currently enjoy between 9 and 14% advantage in partisanship identification, with republicans representing just 25.7 % of the populationQuote:
Originally Posted by fyatuk
If Texas said, "we are going to secede", and the rest of the U.S. said "no", then even without any military fighting, Texas would not last very long at all on it's own.
the amount of money spent on border security and drug wars would be an overwhelming financial burden on it's own......among many other things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan
Exactly. And given there are probably a good number of Libertarians in the "Other" group, you can see why I'm skeptical.Quote:
Originally Posted by fyatuk
I could see it happening...I mean does anyone give a shit if any other state wants to secede?
I couldn't careless if some state seceded and I imagine the rest of the country would feel likewise about Texas. In fact I could imagine Texas would have the overwhelming support of the citizenry of states like Cali and NY who probably view the big red state of Texas as somewhat of a thorn in their side. Furthermore I think if Texas were to get serious about this they might not be making the move alone.
But I mean really...if you guys heard tomorrow that New York wants to secede, what would be your attitude about it? War? Or fuck it...let em' go. I don't think Texas would be any different. I do not see the population of America supporting any sort of military action against a seceding state and it would be tough sell for the Government.
Oh yeah and let me just add this...I think it would probably suck. Our Government is crappier than the National one(including the Bush Admin)...I just have these visions of douchebags like Tom Hicks, Rick Perry and god help us the University of Texas running the state...
The stratification of Saudi Arabia would seem tame in comparison to what the likely ruling class of Texas would create.
Oh yeah and you'd have to pay to park in your own driveway.
I'm still in shock that I didn't see any toll booths while driving around in Texas... Here in Jersey we have them everywhere... and we have crappier roads too...Quote:
Originally Posted by whottt
Yep, when it comes to bureaucracy, you get what you pay for...Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
And we sure pay a lot... $6 toll to cross to Philly... $13 to go to the city...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The fucking Turnpike, a WASTE of a road, it's $4 for like 12 miles....
Gotta love the GPS and the 'Toll Avoidance' option...
It'll be back there in a few years. Temporary shifts happen, but it always normalizes back around the 35-35-30 area. It'll probably be back to about the standard split by the next Pres. Election.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan
Quite true, although Libertarians are not a large segment of the population, really. Larger here than most other places, but still fairly negligible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
Quote:
Originally Posted by whottt
Yeah I agree I don't think anybody would care, I think alot of states would encourage it to see if it would work, and then try it later themselves.I know it's hard to imagine but it's hard to imagine alot of things that have happened, and so many people feel that the nation is coming to an end, why not try something else.I'm sure alot of soviets couldn't imagine the fall and balkinization of the ussr,but it happened.
You know alot of what you say is true,but the social conservatives didn't deliver because the republican party didn't deliver, they're taken over by neo cons.George Bush can be accussed of alot of things but he is neither a fiscal nor social conservative he's just a politician who wants to keep his political machine in power, and his connections to power close.He simply made gesture to appease social conservatives so the made gesture of support for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
I've found there is a lot broader range of thinking among conservatives than liberals, and so they don't all believe the same things.However an economy is not enough to base a society on, the nation must have more of a vision that ties it together than just the bottom line, that type of thinking is what has got us into this mess. Look a california or other third world countries where money is king and everyone is busy climbing over the other guy to the top of the shitheap,cause he don't wanna be climbed over.I really think that money is the least of a nations worries if it can find something that can sustain and nourish it as a people.
The neoconservatives are a small sliver of intellectuals based in NYC and DC. Yes, they are certainly influential. Still, the social conservatives command their power through their GOTV efforts. That's why they have power in the party. If they can't win elections for the party, it's time to reexamine the importance given to the policies and issues they care about and determine if a change is in order for the party to come up with a winning electoral strategy. I think that strategy is greater personal freedom (to the extent it can be thought of as separate from economic freedom). This strategy is much more consistent and in tune with the classical liberalism inherent in the Constitution. Plus it's generally more appealing. As long as your liberty is safeguarded to live as you see fit, what's the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by hope4dopes
Nah, he's a social conservative today. Honestly, he represented a strain of militarist progressivism, much like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson once did. That is, a political philosophy that is not opposed to the expansion of the state, so long as that expansion accomplishes certain political objectives which have sprung out of a Judeo-Christian view of society and the world. That is, 'big government' isn't bad so long as it is accomplishing the objectives they like. Hence, government charity isn't necessarily a bad thing, so long as it can be run in part by institutions of faith. Government intervention in general isn't a bad thing as it has the power and resources to shape society in a way amenable to certain values. Frankly, it wasn't surprising that the Obama campaign went after evangelicals in the last federal election as many aren't necessarily opposed to the expansion of the state. A true conservative in the classical liberal/individualist mode of course objects to this as the end that matters is not the state but rather that which provides the individual with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of what they deem to be happiness. And, of course, one would expect that the individual of faith would realize that such a 'big government' could one day serve other purposes inimical to their beliefs. I have no doubt that the religious side he exhibited publicly was honest.Quote:
George Bush can be accussed of alot of things but he is neither a fiscal nor social conservative he's just a politician who wants to keep his political machine in power, and his connections to power close.He simply made gesture to appease social conservatives so the made gesture of support for him.
Sure, there are plenty of different flavors of conservative and individualist thought. The problem is that instead of social conservatives seeking to protect their liberties from an increasingly secular state, they simply sought to change the nature of the state's policies. There's definitely a road back for the GOP and conservatives to a political majority, but that road is to become more libertine in the legality of personal matters, while actually exhibiting fiscal conservatism and still holding the line on some issues such as in crime and punishment in which the country is inherently more traditionalist.Quote:
I've found there is a lot broader range of thinking among conservatives than liberals, and so they don't all believe the same things.However an economy is not enough to base a society on, the nation must have more of a vision that ties it together than just the bottom line, that type of thinking is what has got us into this mess. Look a california or other third world countries where money is king and everyone is busy climbing over the other guy to the top of the shitheap,cause he don't wanna be climbed over.I really think that money is the least of a nations worries if it can find something that can sustain and nourish it as a people.
My daughter (and her 5th grade class) gets to re-enact Pickett's Charge on Friday - Right up (well partly) Cemetery Hill.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
It is cool living up here; some very interesting field trips relatively close by.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
However, no Republican President in recent memory has actually been fiscally conservative. Clinton was the most fiscally conservative President this country has had in the last 40 years. And that is why the Republican base is by and large a bunch of clueless idiots.
Lee should have been shot by his own men for ordering that attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Nice Post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chumpdumper
+1
And much of the credit for that can be given to a GOP controlled Congress that actually acted as a conservative majority Congress, at least for a few years. In general, fiscal conservatism is not really a selling point for a politician any longer. That is why it's going to get worse in this country before it improves (if ever).Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord23
Frankly, I don't see any political party or politician moving away from the 'national greatness' meme. The only thing that changes is the definition of said greatness. The notion that each of our own life, liberty and pursuit of what we define as happiness is the end of our politics (so long as we do not infringe on the rights of our fellow citizens to do the same) should hold. Instead, we find that we must take haircut after haircut of our freedom to serve the state, as politician after politician expands the state to enhance his or her greatness, as well as the state's greatness. After all, the state will make us good. George and Barack agree.
Don't Mess With Texas... Get Rid Of It:lmao http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=103543574Quote:
NPR.org, April 28, 2009 · During the campaign, President Obama talked a good game about bipartisanship. Now he has the perfect opportunity to achieve something that people on both sides of the aisle desperately want: kicking Texas out of the union.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently implied that Texas might need to leave the United States if the mean old federal government doesn't stop doing things like sending stimulus money and slightly raising the top marginal tax rates. These things being obvious markers of impending fascism (unlike, say, unapologetically institutionalizing a global torture regime), Perry thinks it's time to go. Unsurprisingly, a majority of Texas Republicans approved of these remarks.
Texas asking Blue America for a divorce is like a woman asking her boyfriend if he'd like to sit around all day drinking Miller and watching football, or like the Patriots offering Tom Brady to the Redskins for a 19th-round draft pick. Befuddled liberals can only shake their heads in gratified amazement while they pop the cap on their first beer, settle into the sofa and watch Brady pilot the 'Skins to the Super Bowl.
The transition should be peaceful — no need for 600,000 Americans to die like the last time a state tried to leave the union. These kinds of things are best handled with negotiations — just ask the Czechs and the Slovaks, who dissolved Czechoslovakia like an old married couple who remain great friends but just don't want to sleep together anymore.
First, Texas should be given the option of taking neighboring Oklahoma, Alabama and Louisiana with them. These states are reliably deep red, and are also three of the biggest tax drains in the country, raking in federal dollars while kvetching about Obama's tyranny. In return, the U.S. gets to keep the liberal oasis of Austin, like the little swath of Azerbaijan surrounded by Armenia and Iran.
Second, Texas Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton should immediately be seized by the Washington Nationals as part of the deal. The Washington Wizards should also demand star San Antonio point guard Tony Parker, who is French and therefore probably unwelcome in what is likely to be the violently xenophobic Republic of Texas. The U.S. would, of course, have to cough up some native Texans, like Houston Astros meatballer Brandon Backe.
Finally, the Republic of Texas should arrange a population transfer with the United States, like how Turkey and Greece exchanged all their misplaced Turks and Greeks after the first World War — only this time without the forced marches and famine. Basically, we get all the New Yorker-reading lefties, and Texas can have all the crazies — millenarians with basement stockpiles of semiautomatics, true believers who blockade abortion clinics, paranoiacs who think The Gays are coming to get them, and anyone who believes that evolution is "just a theory."
Getting rid of Texas is a once-a-century opportunity for America's new leader. Texas Republicans have spoken. The only question is, "Are you listening President Obama?"
If Clinton + that Republican congress was conservatism, then fuck conservatism. If letting Wal-Mart run the country is conservatism, then to hell with it. If conservatism is selling our manufacturing jobs out to China while pacifying the people with lies about how it'll be a huge market for us to sell goods to, then I hope it dies a quick and painful death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warlord23
Yet nobody seemed to have a problem when the Chinese subsidized our prolifigate public and private spending on credit, which in turn helped to create a couple of joyous credit bubbles or when the American consumer enjoyed the latest and greatest electronic goods from 'round the world. We wanted it all. And we had it, at least for a little bit.
You are right, though. That isn't "conservatism" per se. What are we going to give up then? What are you ready to give up? It's one thing to bitch and moan about it and quite another to live in the alternative.
Was all that credit ever good for the American consumer? Certainly driving up the cost of housing to ridiculous levels was never good for the average American worker. The only other thing that should ever be bought on credit is an education. That education has become ridiculously expensive in the last 15 years due to the inability of to make any kind of decent wage without a degree, thanks to our manufacturing jobs going to China and Mexico.
Such is the cost of having all the wonderful consumer goodies from around the world. Are you suggesting that credit become more exclusive?Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
NeoCons made a lot of money under Dubya, plus they still control the Limbaugh-Hannity crowd - don't count them out yet..Quote:
The neoconservatives are a small sliver of intellectuals based in NYC and DC.
Yes, giving credit to anyone for a home they can't afford was every bit as much of a scam in 2006 as it was in 1906 when Upton Sinclair was writing about it. No one should be using credit to buy stereos, Playstations, and all other kinds of unimportant crap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
How about laptops? vehicles? clothing?
The notion that credit is the foundation of wealth is exactly backwards. Savings is the fountain of capital, not debt.
We need a system that rewards savers and fiduciary prudence, and obviates the superfluousness of experts and complicated instruments for our personal financial security. Good god, let's make banking boring again.
Debt bubbles aggrandize the money sector to the common detriment and unchecked cause the sort of bust we're experiencing right now. The snowcone got piled too high, even for the greatest economy so far known to man.
Edit: Wrong thread.
True, but credit is the straw that stirs the drink of economic growth. Should no one start a business (or expand an existing one) unless they already have the necessary capital saved up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by PixelPusher
I'm not against credit money, but the management of risk has to be prudent, the financial condition of the intermediaries transparent, and the total debt proportional to the real, underlying productive wealth that supports it.
In the present debacle, none of these conditions was satisfied.
Laptops and clothes? Certainly neither should be bought on credit; if you don't have the money in hand for cheap items like laptops, HDTVs, designer-label clothes, etc., then you obviously can't afford them. Even cars shouldn't be bought on credit IMO, but people are stupid and love to buy things because they're expensive so they can give their neighbors penis-envy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Sure, the people are stupid, which is why I'd prefer as less government intrusion mandated by democratic acclimation as possible. Though if someone needs a car to get to work and the other necessities of life, I'm not sure a purchase on credit is a bad thing. What is a bad thing is when the individual poor decisions of people become a responsibility of the state. Of course, that is not as galling as when the state is used to cover the mistakes of the wealthy and powerful. I'm not sure when 'leave me the fuck alone' went out of vogue, but I don't care. All will find out soon enough when this would be oasis of freedom to do, freedom to command, and freedom from responsibility turns into a pile of sand.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
The meme that republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 due to an insufficiency of fiscal conservatism is probably wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
War, incompetence, venality, the relentless barrage of brazen lies and -- fatally -- recession did them in.
Really, if the country was so concerned about fiscal restraint, why did we elect Obama and give the Dems a (nearly) cloture proof majority in the Senate?
Uhm... cars are pretty much mandatory items nowadays. If you couldn't purchase a car with credit, you'd have 99% of Americans living in huge urban areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
People can say anything and some douchebag(nbadan) will post it as news.
lol this thread.
LMAOQuote:
Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan
Get a clue, oh and Fuck Virgina.
For the people saying no credit should ever exist, pls stfu and educate yourself on the realities of business.
OMG......i agree with you. :depressedQuote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
New cars are horrible investments (losing half their value in the first year), and are even worse when one is factoring interest into it. A reliable used car isn't that expensive, but everyone's in a dick-measuring contest with his car. I know, you buy a Benz and it's better than sex the first week, it's pretty great the second, it's nice the third, and by the fourth it's just your car.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Hey jerkoff, I said ordinary people shouldn't buy crap they don't need on credit. Of course credit is needed to buy a home, go to school, or start / expand a business.Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
I agree. Only fools like us care about such things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I assumed you meant credit for cars in general. I've gotten one new car in my lifetime, and it was a luxury purchase. Then I got into an accident. Then I got a used car. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
I missed that. Who said it?Quote:
Originally Posted by FaithInOne
I didn't need a credit to go to school, but we're a social country.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
We're not. Here, we pay out the ass for the right to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by velik_m
Yeah, SNL did a skit on that crazy concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
http://www.hulu.com/watch/1389/satur...dont-buy-stuff
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
Except for the last sentence, I find this post a remarkably concise description of the current state of affairs. As naive as I find the far-left, I also find the far right naive in its blind reliance on "free markets" ( and I count myself as one who bought into hook, line and sinker).
I am not yet cynical, mostly because I am still so irate at the republicans for haven't promised a government that was "small but efficient" and that controlled spending and that was "not arrogant" (quoting candidate Bush in 2000) in foreign affairs, and then gave us a government that was internationally arrogant, domestically inept, and that doubled the size of the deficit because they failed arithmetic ( tax cuts + increased spending increases deficits just as much as increased spending with no tax cuts).
I am admittedly angry with myself for ever having believed that the repubs knew what they were talking about...but now I find myself just hoping for the best.
Unlike the republican base, I am not socially conservative, so I am more concerned with fiscal responsibility and international diplomacy than I am with telling people I don't know how to live their lives. The republican party today is so like the old confederacy ( even the only states they can carry nationally are the "old south" states) that they become less relevant to the national debate over any issue at all by the day. Texas should try to secede. I'll move to a U.S. state without state income tax, because you can count on the fact that as soon as Texas secedes, state income tax is a part of life here. But me, I am an AMERICAN patriot before I am a Texas anything.
If I thought it would make a difference, I would put this entire quote in my sig. That is one of the most well-phrased posts I've had the pleasure to read on Spurstalk. I'm not sure we're finished, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
In my country there is almost now credit. I guess that's why we are in the shitters . . .
Montana HB 246
Alaska HB 186
Texas HB 1863
And so it begins...
"the public sector is less efficient than the private sector"
... is why dubya had to give the PRIVATE health insurance corps $50B so they could complete with PUBLIC Medicare.
... is why the health insurance corps are spending $Ms to kill development of a public health insurance plan to compete with private insurance.
...shhhhh...now, now boutons...Stout and the rest of the hands-off, free-market worshipers are having a life-changing, cognitive-enlightening moment...Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
There aren't many options for US States without income taxes. The list includes (for work income anyway, and not including Texas): Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. And it's irrelevant anyway since these states charge other taxes, mostly at a significantly higher rate than other states.Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAY
And, uhh... There still wouldn't be a state income tax in Texas if it seceeded. Mainly because it would be a National income tax. Property tax rates would likely drop with the new revenue stream and overall we'd still likely be paying less in taxes overall.
Uhh, for the most part, Medicare does not overlap with private insurance, so no, he didn't give money to private insurance so they could compete with Medicare.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
And duh. If you worked in an industry, wouldn't you do everything possible to prevent the government from putting together something that would damage your bottom line (assuming a capitalist stance)? That's like saying tobacco companies shouldn't fight increases in the tobacco excise tax...
uhh, as far as state and national income tax, you're just playing with semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by fyatuk
What new revenue stream are you referring to and exactly how would we still likely be paying less taxes overall?