WhistlinDave
Member

Some animals are more equal than others ... a LOT more equal ...

Ah, yes! That was it ... You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CCTelander again.

Pension shenanigans ... profiting from drug trafficking ... running gambling dens ... (And using violence against anyone else who does the same things without giving you piece of the action ...) Someone remind me - what's the difference between a politician and a Mafioso supposed to be, again? :confused:

In the long run, yes, it is. But as one of the more notable (and unfortunately influential) advocates of spendthriftiness said, "In the long run we are all dead." The key word here is "eventually" - a point toward which the spendthrifts and their enablers will always try to kick the can. That the can must eventually stop is a thing with which they are concerned no more than the gamblers who bet on Zeno's tortoise are concerned with Achilles ...

Exactly. What they want is not to be INCLUDED in what is NORMAL, but to REPLACE what YOU think is NORMAL with the PERVERSE. If they had their druthers, they would wreck your mind, and will NOT STOP until every aspect of your life is no longer recognizable. They have no self control, and probably can not stop until they take on Group Mentality, and, like an stampeding herd, destroy everything in their wake. Society is built piece by piece by individuals, and destroyed by Psychological Groups. When you find your own mindset perfectly aligned with any group, it is time to pause and reflect. +REP

Survey: Among just me being polled, 100% of me wants to label these 27% as SHUT THE FUCK UP because they are actively destroying every normal facet of society. Whats next, EVERY fictional character ever was also a crossdressing *****? He-man was not a ladies man but a mans man? Skeletor had a boner for He-man? She-ra was a Lesbian Lickalottapus? The Easter Bunny is leg humping the family dog? St Patty liked playing Patty Cake with Roger Rabbit? STOP FUCKING GAYING EVERYTHING!

What does your gut tell you Brian? Will Rand give in to the neocons and remove his hold or will he continue to take the flak on the chin and tough it out. I hope Rand stands firm

I wear bi-focals because I'm long and short sighted. I've had to update them every few years as eyesight loss tends to increase with age. When I first got a set, lined, it threw me off for about two to three weeks. Now I don't even notice it. Eyes and brain adjusts. To keep them secure I use 'Cablez' which allows me to tighten, secured, or expand to lower to my neck. https://www.amazon.com/Cablz-Eyewear-Retainer-Black-12-Inch/dp/B0068A02LI/ref=asc_df_B0068A02LI/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312669841401&hvpos=1o3&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5918104921019990970&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9010198&hvtargid=pla-504097532767&psc=1

Don't even give a road side breathalyzer. Those things are notorious for false reads. My standard reply, and I did it about three weeks ago.... "I'm sorry, I'm too old to dance like your monkey. If you want a breathalyzer you will have to take me to the station." I apparently wasn't worth much more of her time as she cautioned me about driving drunk or stoned and sent me on my way. Edit: I also presented my "lawyer on retainer card" along with my license.

Amen. Been there, done it. CF for sure.

Some don't have problems with taking presents from old, fat, white men. Like section 8 housing, SNAP, Obama phones, Obamacare, and health services. Why rag on Santa?

No victim, no crime. As far as death by motor vehicle there is already vehicular homocide or vehicular manslaughter laws. All that is needed is to prove criminal negligence. But, The NTSB is the government strong arm of M.A.D.D. An organization that has become full on prohibition oriented.

And this goes here ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYdmk3GP3iM

Indeed. That, too. I was originally going to phrase it that way - but then I decided to just distill it down to the quintessential stupidity inherent in the idea of giving more money to people who "are not good with money", regardless of where the money comes from. (But it now occurs to me that it might not be such a stupid idea after all - at least, not if your true objective is to transfer money from the people who are "good with money" to the spendthrifty "stimulators" of consumption ...)

Central planners are just as good at managing ecologies as they are at managing economies ...

Problem: Solution: Give them some money ...

Has he ever, really? Except for show? And even when he does ... "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected." -- G.K. Chesterton (1924) (Or, to paraphrase Ambrose Bierce if you prefer: "A conservative is one who is enamored of existing evils, as distinct from the liberal, who wishes to replace them with new ones.")

It depends on just what you mean by "can win". If you mean "can win" merely in the sense of "is it possible", then I suppose it is. But if you mean "can win" in the sense of "is it any more likely under ranked-vote schemes than under the current single-vote system", then I am skeptical. The problem occurs if people "backstop" their first choice with the Republican (just as you suggested would happen). This eliminates any "spoiler" effect and insulates the Republicans against reaction, leading them to skew more liberal. But even worse, it also makes Republicans more likely to defeat Libertarians or Conservatives even if the Republican is not able to achieve a first-rank plurality (just as the Democrat defeated the Republican in Maine even though the Democrat failed to win the first-rank plurality). There are only two ways around this under a ranked-vote system: (1) win an absolute majority (with at least 50% + 1 of first-rank votes), or (2) win without "backstopping" votes with the lesser evil (else the backstop is apt to win even without a first-rank plurality). But (1) will be even harder to do under a ranked-vote system than it already is under a single-vote system. And (2) will also be more difficult, since under a single-vote system (where the only votes are "first rank" votes), winning a first-rank plurality is strictly sufficient to win the election, which is not the case under a ranked-vote system (as the OP article clearly illustrates).

Yes, this.

What if Idaho says no? Then what? Do the feds send in the military?

Buh by, Mehico will be greatly enriched to have her back.

Well, when you pay $20k in taxes..... I kid. I'm sure 46k get's you welfare of some kind. Like UBi.

Found the FB poster if anyone has FB and wishes to check it out. It really is getting crazy. https://www.facebook.com/roxgeee?__tn__=%2CdCH-R-R&eid=ARB2mZkD81arJUC6sGM7EiDMywIFGo34MOSUJnVUnegGHhwGoQsUv8zyML_sREgZJMCeUPwP-35bSNWX&hc_ref=ARTCSc5mHl4VGjwv8sAqJhtI83AV9u54YJVfij-YQnK0vOnxSM9LvXLdnrssVgI3BI0&fref=nf Some of the posts...

What the fuck was the medical "need?" Must have been psychological. Therefore, if I'm ever incarcerated I'm going to claim that my medical condition, my psychological "need," is to be free and not confined. To keep me imprisoned would be cruel and unusual.

Charlotte, N.C. +102. Christsakes, they are not even "half-backs" anymore. Just full on invaders.

In how many places does it have to be tried and fail before it is given up on?

Adios.