Azalin

http://www.straightd...ay-57-varieties 'Dear Cecil: Thank you for the leg work. In case you're not aware, you've uncovered another Illuminati agent in Henry J. Heinz. Let me expand briefly. The Illuminati are an extremely secret sect, and have been among mankind practically from the beginning, originating, it is believed, in the Lost Continent, Atlantis. Being a secret, powerful, occult sect, the Illuminati gathered great mystical power from their use of the number 5. Five is an extremely strong number, still used in the worship of Satan, the power of our military, the logic of our digits, the points of our extremities, our senses, and a great many other things rooted in our collective psyche. Also important, and perhaps more powerful, is the combination of the numbers 2 and 3, equalling 5, of course. Two is the symbol for symmetry, and three, the divinity and others. It is a blatant game that the Illuminati are extremely fond of, flaunting their symbols to each other — the more bizarre the better, the more flagrant the waste of money, the better yet. Keeping this in mind, think again of the giant pickles, the man whose "mysterious" number is 57. (Remember, 7 is simply the repeating 2 + 3 cycle, i.e., 2 + 3 = 5 + 2 = 7 + 3 = 10 or 5 x 2.) Now observe the phone number — 237-5757. Ergo, buying Heinz products finances the Illuminati.'

just calling them as I see them.

medicare is intended for people 65 and over, and as far as I know is not intended for the general population. since its inception, medicaid has always been intended to provide low-income people with access to health care. the takeaway from this statement is that low income americans ALREADY HAVE health coverage WITHOUT needing to resort to a massive industry takeover like Obamacare. anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty already knows that. a more legitimate debate would be on the substance, quality, and eligibility for medicaid. why don't you man-up and give 3rd an honst answer to his question? are you afraid that lack of a substantive answer on your part might mean you don't really know what you're talking about? I'd like to see you step up and make your case.

bearing in mind that the constitution is a document stating the limitations of the federal government (not a document declaring the rights of individuals), I've always taken that to mean that american citizens can take up arms to protect themselves from a tyrannical centralized authority (ie the federal government).

I'm not an economist either, and I appreciate your honesty in that regard. all I know on the subject are the basics, combined with what I've seen happen in our country during my adult lifetime, and my viewpoint is biased in that it reflects things as I have experienced them. over and over I have seen one economic 'crisis' or another develop due to government interference in economic matters, whether by creating new regulations for the financial industry, new mandates to create assistance programs (re freddie/fannie), or direct intervention (bailouts). keeping in mind that it's the feds that set the regulatory environment within which these businesses operate, those businesses employ teams of attorneys to aid them in navigating the masses of regulation within which they are constrained. it is my belief that business and finance should be much more simple, that there should be a degree of consumer protection, but little else. I believe that most of the economic trouble we experience is due to government interference, not something inherent to business itself. what's the best way to achieve this? I'm not certain about that, but I think a great place to start would be to get the feds the hell out of most areas where they've insinuated themselves, and allow businesses to operate as they will, and people to invest and otherwise live as they will.

as far as I know, the bond market doesn't fund any federal programs that address poverty or provide means of assistance for the needy. and you laugh at the idea that the 'super-wealthy' are hard working? really? are they all just a bunch of lazy do-nothings that sit on a fat stack of cash that they inherited? you also mentioned progressive taxation....does that mean that given the concept of 'no taxation without representation' that you support greater representation in congress for those that pay a higher percentage?

is a 'Bigender' someone with fat @ss?

it does not disappear, but neither does it magically multiply. if one person has a hundred dollars to spend, he'll spend it. if you take it from him and divide it among 4 government workers, then it's still the same 100 dollars that is spent. what you did was take it from someone who earned it doing something productive, and simply handed it over to other people who's productivity is more than questionable. there is no gain economically at all. this isn't debatable, it's a fact. a best case scenario is that it all comes out even in the end, but that can't happen either because of the administrative costs of collecting those tax dollars and redistributing them.

no, it isn't. the money is taken away before it can be spent. part of it is given to another person in the form of a paycheck, and a lot of it goes to the people who administer the transfer. the government employee in your example is just spending money that the person it was taken from would have spent. it is not economically viable. additionally, if you're going to use consumer spending as part of your argument, you may want to look a little more closely at the effect taxation has on consumer spending. the more that's taxed, the less gets spent. this is not a philosphical argument, it's a matter of numbers, plain and simple.

the simple fact is that government is the one area where it is economically sound to reduce employment, because the government doesn't actually produce anything, and they have to take money out of the economy to support it's employees. it's literally robbing Peter to pay Paul. you can't use the argument that it helps the economy by providing jobs because it has to take in order to give. that's not forward progress,,,,it's lateral at best. a business has to run efficiently to remain viable, but there is nothing efficient about the federal government at all, and when people demand accountability and efficiency, their efforts are met with inane accusations of sefishness and greed.

few, if any. however, history has shown time and again that free markets, low taxation, and minimal government interference always creates the most significant and widespread increase in wealth throughout the populace, and provides escape from poverty for the largest percentage of the population. it also provides a greater source of tax revenue with which to support a financial safety net for those that need it.

I wasn't talking about any government agency when I said 'staunchest defenders of government assistance for the poor', I was referring to ordinary citizens of the bleeding-heart leftist persuasion. I would think that if they were sincere in their defense of welfare and other forms of public assistance, that they would realize that people scamming the system are taking money from the people who need it most. for some reason, they don't seem to care about that, and instead aim their anger toward people who would prefer to see limitations placed on an out-of-control source of handouts.

I've always wondered why the staunchest defenders of government assistance for the poor....those that are genuinely concerned with providing assistance for people who are truly in need.....aren't militant about preventing fraud within the system. after all, the more people that are on the dole, the less money there is for those who really need it.

he won't be appearing in pinata form. intead he, along with Randy Weaver, will be subjects for a new line of pop-culture range targets.

I would think it should be full of skittles.

Justin Beiber meets Cthulhu: http://youtu.be/bJ1dOIgiIyk the original idea was a Bill Clinton pinata that had violence-activated pre-recorded imitation of Clinton's voice that said 'I feel your pain' every time you struck it. next, was the politically incorrect Rodney King pinata, which said 'can't we all just get along' every time you hit it.

personally, I think it would be hysterical to market a line of politician & celebrity look-alike toilets. sort of like my idea of making politician & celebrity look-alike pinatas.

and it would be infinitely more amusing to sit on.

except for the authorities, of course.

I got used to using a bidet after spending a good amount of time in Spain. I wish I had one at home. you still need to use toilet paper, though.

TEA leaves.

'okay students, gather 'round....today we are going on a field trip to see Allah'.

who's says you've got to be gay to do this?! I thought....well....doesn't everyone listen to Judy Garland in the bathroom?

actually, I wasn't referring to you at all. it's still funny, though.