w00t! Gas Lite! If you are in the Santa Monica area, it's a great little dive bar on Wilshire. Great place to get crazy drunk, belt out some tunes, and stumble home (or to Izzy's Deli) wasted!

*backup=[...snipped...]

Obama is no marxist. His policies are centrist liberal. Yes, he cut some taxes but they are not enough.

Furthermore, let's not forget the policies of Reagan were an antidote to the high inflation caused by the military Keynesianism/supposed golden era of Liberalism of the post war boom period (1945-67). Unions were too strong and corrupt, durable and nondurable good consumption started falling in the late 60's, the emergence of OPEC, the expansion of the communist menace leading us into Vietnam, various conflicts to combat Marxist-Leninist-Maonist armed resistence groups taking power under political party fronts and an arms race with the Soviets and off the gold standard...While Europe had their social welfare experiment, we were busy policing the globe.

After the Volcker shock of 1979 (boosted IR to 20%) this lead to the financialization of the economy and the move away from manufacturing. All of this happened under the Carter Administration. Realizing the golden era of liberalism was untenable it brought the inevitable Reagan to prominence whose new regime (following the prescription of Milton Freidman and others was to allow consumers and the market to decide and to decrease the centralized control of government) - as denationalization of the public sector was the only way to create more opportunities and jobs. Cheap credit was not only championed by Wall Street as an antitode to problems, but was also championed by Democrats.

Democrats were almost completely unelectable in the White House until Bill Clinton and his administration (was Republican lite in essence as enacting Welfare Reform and setting the infrastructure for the War in Iraq and following the financial privitization schemes of the Chicago School, the FED fueled dotcom and mortgage bubble which created the much ballyhooed and fictitiuous Clinton surplus) is the reason for the financial deregulation in the late 90's (Clinton is now distancing himself from Rubin and Summers regading derivatives). The Neoconservatives and Democrats have much in common - as they both believe in crazy spending. Neocons through military (some of which does create nascent industries of the future), and Democrats who spend on any frivoulous social programs that work to break states and keep their politicos electable. Where is the incentive to become a producer in this country? If you are not paying high taxes you are competing against government subsidized monopolies (stop whining for more jobs when you overregulate ad penalize big corporations for doing what they need to do to make profits). The Democrats kill the ability to start a small to medium sized business thus making it more attractive to join big firms - that everyone continues to attack - sending them racing abroad.

And last time I checked the "real left" - which Obama distances himself from for good reason - is too busy scratching their heads ain petty sectarianism about how all of their wonderfully utopian ideas caused over 70 years of dreary totalitarianism. Seems the working class in the US now wants nothing to do with them. They want Palin. While you upper middle class liberals eat organic, sip latte's, do your hipster environmental thing and make fun of these people - they are forming the next grassroots that will be a vital contituency to covet.

These people may not be smart - but know that Obama is untrustworthy if he thinks the Federal Government can spend its way out of this mess, not understanding that for every 1/2 cent we have saved we still owe 2 dollars and that if we start increasing our deficits to create new jobs, the Chinese will sell off their currency reserves which are in dollars and then...

>> ^Issykitty:
Kitteh rockin' out to da layzur lite!


[shines and moves a laser/lazer light at IssyKitty for her to shake her head like crazy!]

Kitteh rockin' out to da layzur lite!

Don't give in to those established bastards. Seriously, I upvoted your comment here. Whenever, I say anything the least bit reactionary to some established piece of bullshit, I get the same treatment. Solidarity.

In reply to this comment by Matthu:
This is a dirty, cheap argument and people like you who make such arguments, are what holds back progress in this world.

I could make the claim that eating dogs shouldn't be illegal because, well, what's stopping someone who really likes chickens from putting forth a motion to ban eating chicken based on the same arguments against eating dogs. It's not the same fucking thing. That's what.

Let's keep going. Why the fuck is it illegal to walk away from my dogs shit without picking it up, but he can piss wherever he please! Wtf is this bullshit? Both are excremental. It's time people start carrying around a bucket of soapy water and a sponge because, god willing, I WON'T STAND FOR THIS INCONSISTENCY.

Okay just one more in case you actually are dumb, and aren't just a self-serving sophist pig. It's illegal to carry a concealed machete in the streets. Well wait, hold on! Why's it illegal to conceal a machete up your sleeve while strolling in the streets but I can carry a mag lite? Both are tools.

HEY GOVERNMENT! YOU BETTER BE CONSISTENT HERE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BAN A TOOL, YOU'D BETTER BAN ALL TOOLS.

In fact mods, let's start by banning this tool.

tl;dr Nose piercings and saggie pants serve completely different purposed from the niqab.
>> ^Stormsinger:
"I think wearing those things are right stupid and degrades the person wearing it. whatever its intent is ; its ridiculous."
I feel the same way about nose piercings, but I see no reason to force everyone to live to -my- standards.
To be consistent, if you support institutions forcing people to remove certain clothing, you also must support outlawing color combinations worn by gangs, and outlawing the wearing of sagging pants that is so popular among the wannabee gangstas today. Are you ready to allow colleges to outlaw wearing red & black outfits?

This is a dirty, cheap argument and people like you who make such arguments, are what holds back progress in this world.

I could make the claim that eating dogs shouldn't be illegal because, well, what's stopping someone who really likes chickens from putting forth a motion to ban eating chicken based on the same arguments against eating dogs. It's not the same fucking thing. That's what.

Let's keep going. Why the fuck is it illegal to walk away from my dogs shit without picking it up, but he can piss wherever he please! Wtf is this bullshit? Both are excremental. It's time people start carrying around a bucket of soapy water and a sponge because, god willing, I WON'T STAND FOR THIS INCONSISTENCY.

Okay just one more in case you actually are dumb, and aren't just a self-serving sophist pig. It's illegal to carry a concealed machete in the streets. Well wait, hold on! Why's it illegal to conceal a machete up your sleeve while strolling in the streets but I can carry a mag lite? Both are tools.

HEY GOVERNMENT! YOU BETTER BE CONSISTENT HERE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BAN A TOOL, YOU'D BETTER BAN ALL TOOLS.

In fact mods, let's start by banning this tool.

tl;dr Nose piercings and saggie pants serve completely different purposed from the niqab.
>> ^Stormsinger:
"I think wearing those things are right stupid and degrades the person wearing it. whatever its intent is ; its ridiculous."
I feel the same way about nose piercings, but I see no reason to force everyone to live to -my- standards.
To be consistent, if you support institutions forcing people to remove certain clothing, you also must support outlawing color combinations worn by gangs, and outlawing the wearing of sagging pants that is so popular among the wannabee gangstas today. Are you ready to allow colleges to outlaw wearing red & black outfits?

It's like Beck-lite.

>> ^choggie:
I tend to stay away from bars for that very reason. Everyone's obnoxious to someone else, innit? Have seen my own death though, it does not involve gunshots.

For some reason I'm guessing your death involves a lite-brite, a tub of vaseline, and a scale model of Che Guevera selling land he didn't own to farmers for their participation in the revolution.

While his rhetoric is par for the course stupidity - Mr. Doofus has a point (even if he only steps in it accidentally).

One of the GOP's many problems is that it tries too hard to appeal to 'values voters'. I would more accurately refer to them as 'Social Conservatives'. The problem is that SoCons are (typically) single issue voters who want government to ban things they don't like. I may agree with SoCons on some issues at a personal level, but their efforts to use government as a bludgeon for social enforcement are misguided and wrong.

Abortion is a good example. SoCons want abortions banned. On a personal level I am sympathetic to the SoCon perspective that abortions are wrong except in extreme cases. But I do not support any attempt to make them illegal because that is taking away vital human freedom. If your cause is truly just (as I believe it is when discouraging abortions) then you make your case at a personal, individual level with persuasion and logic. If the person chooses a different path then that's their business.

The GOP - in an effort to court these misguided SoCons - ends up abandoning the one position that would sweep the GOP into office in perpetuity... SMALL, LIMITED GOVERNMENT. You can't claim to stand for limited government if you are always using government to control people. These days the GOP has abandoned the 'limited government' platform and tries too hard to be 'Democrat Lite' with massive spending and big government solutions. Uh Uh.

The GOP has lost its soul with that position. If the GOP would reclaim the mantle of small government, tax cuts, reduced spending, and fiscal responsibility then they'd dominate the Democrats handily and wouldn't need to chase after these SoCons special interest groups like they were playing Whack-A-Mole.

*femme ... *Asian? Pretty good. A bit of *nsfw lite

Yeah, that failure rate seems... Well, unbelievable. In fact I don't believe it until they elaborate. And I thought one of the points of the F35 was that it was an "F22 Lite" the USA could afford to sell to other countries without revealing all their super secret technology? Though now it seems they were just too embarrassed to let anyone see it.

Air supremacy fighters are pretty much a moot point in todays warfare anyway. The face of warfare has changed so much in the last 20 or so years it's difficult to imagine a conflict where a nimble dogfighter would be necessary for success. Still, I liked the idea of the F22. Though I would have preferred the RAH-66 Comanche to see the light of day, maybe they could've afforded that one if the F22 had been given up early. That thing was stunning and the old Kiowa (I understand that the Comanche was supposed to be a recon chopper, a replacement for the Kiowa, at least partially. If you know better feel free to correct me.) really is getting old.

My life according to: Tori Amos!

Are you a male or female? Cornflake Girl

Describe yourself: Playboy Mommy

How do you feel? Caught a Lite Sneeze

Describe where you currently live: China

If you could go anywhere, where would you go?: Little Amsterdam

Your favorite form of transportation: Horses

Your best friend is: Father Lucifer

You and your best friends are: Beauty Queen[s]

What's the weather like? Raspberry Swirl

Favorite time of day: Bouncing off Clouds

If your life was a TV show, what would it be called?: Putting the Damage On

What is life to you: Liquid Diamonds

Your current relationship: In the Springtime of his Voodoo

Your fear: Blood Roses

What is the best advice you have to give? Take to the Sky

Thought for the Day: Hey Jupiter

How I would like to die: Me and a Gun

My soul's present condition: Professional Widow

My motto: Pretty Good Year

Free markets work best with healthy competition, which is not what they have right now in this particular sector. Force them to really compete, and maybe eventually we can even pull back on the public option completely after we have spurred diversity and true competition in this market.

I agree with you that Republicans are not offering constructive solutions, they're too busy battling this surreptitious end-run to communize the American health care system. When the Elephants were in charge, it is true they did little differently...partially for good reasons. If the Rs were for an actual free market health care approach (which would consist of deregulation and allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines) instead of Republican Brand Communism Lite, the taxocrats would attack as viciously as they did when the Rs suggested privatizing parts of Social Security.

If the "public option" makes it in, it will join the ranks of (Sc)Amtrak and the post office: insolvent, subsidized government welfare projects that will NEVER end, and will cost 10 times what the deceivers "projected".

When the hell was government made a lawful "competitor" with actual wealth-producing businesses? Why would you think anything the government does will LOWER costs?

If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
>> ^enoch:
speak it brother blankfist!
speak well and true i say,for we have elected a used car salesman.who with his honeyed words have blinded us to the truth.
he has done nothing but perpetuate the very things he rallied to change.
we have all been deceived........again.


Wow, your cadence is reminiscent of a one Choggie Kendall.


just call me choggie-lite.
i liked choggie.
many people here have have mistaken choggie and i.
at first i was kinda offended.nobody is like me!
but i have no interest in slamming people faces in their own bullshit like choggie did.whats the point?ill call bullshit but thats it.take it or leave it..meh../shrugs.
guess we do have similar cadence,never really noticed it before.