You are one of the most ill-informed disingenuous windbags ever.

~~~
Oh okay. Let's see what you brought for lunch.

#1
The only time the Constitution mentions national defense is in the preamble.
Today those militias are known as the National Guard.

Your point being? That the militia is the only "authorized" defense? Is there no oath to “preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?"

You can argue the size and scope of the military, but not the mandate of its existence.

#2
All Transportation Security Administration [TSA] spending falls under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security. The Department of Defense budget is a completely different budget.

Not sure what your point is here. I mentioned nothing about the monies of the TSA, only that if you love government sloth and ineptitude, you can expect more of the same from theoretical "Health Security" workers just like TSAers.

Small portion my ass (referring to military budget).

The necessary FIFTH of the economy is dwarfed by the entitlements that are bankrupting the future.

#3
Every year, Social Security and Medicare taxes are stolen out of our wages with a guarantee that we'll be repaid.

You said it, not me. I merely pointed out that there is no Constitutional basis for such programs, both of which are rife with fraud and waste. You can argue the merits of these programs (there are many) but not their Unconstitutional origins. Oh, BTW, Social Security is a tax. And the government doesn't have to pay you a dime of it.

Are you suggesting the government should renege on its 2 Trillion dollar obligation to tax-payers?! *GASP!*

There is no one solution for the Ponzi scheme of SS, but if it's going to be realistically tackled, none of the solutions will be pleasant.

#4
Being harassed at the airport isn't a necessity nor a fundamental right.


Right now, it's their bullsh!t rules. If public opinion turns against the TSA, it's gone. Has it? Not yet.

Healthcare [Well-being] is.

Hope you are able to recognize the difference between opinion and fact. "Health care is a human right" is an opinion, but why do you stop there? Do you believe housing, food, jobs, transportation, etc. are also "human rights" that the State is required to provide?

Put government in charge of health care and you give some people who might have had no care some mediocre care while condemning others to rationing and life-threatening bureaucracy.

And if you think health care is made cheaper and more efficient by government, well, good luck with alllll that.

~~~
I know I've completely wasted my time and breath in yet another vain attempt to point out your fallacies.

You've wasted your time to the extent there's nothing new here. I observe the results of socialism, the trade-offs disguised as solutions, and remain unimpressed. I'm not buying into this BS which isn't worth my money or my freedom, and as Nov 2nd proved, neither is the rest of the USA (except in the usual dummy areas). I'm less of a threat to you than the bureaucrats you're fighting to have take over your life and mine.

Oh good, more Leibowitz bigotry.

See people aren't naturally this way...it has to be drilled into them to not care about other human beings and it takes a lot.

People have a right not to care about everyone, and to care about one group or cause more than another. Sending money to Haiti is one step removed from simply tossing it in a lit furnace. There is no infrastructure and no legitimate government there. Besides, these countries don't need any more imperialist American dollars.

But hey, if you feel that strongly about this, waltz down to your local unemployment office (always crowded thanks to obamanomics!) and explain to them why a billion dollars of their tax monies should go towards making zero difference in the Toilet of the Western Hemisphere.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I spent half the day at a tent camp for homeless folks, numbering in the 100s.
Monies to support them came all the way from the Vatican. What has the 'atheist charity society' done lately?

If we assume that all atheists are members of the "atheist charity society" in the same way you attribute christian charities to all christians, then you have to count that money as "atheist" money. So, subtract that from the christian charity total, add it to money that non-religious charities make and you've probably, in my country at least, got a figure that's either even or in favour of atheists nowadays.

There isn't a rule stating that ONLY christians can give to christian charity, you know?

However what i like MOST about this comment is that the money they wasted on building a gigantic affluent COUNTRY in the name of christianity could have gone to help people. Instead, they built the vatican with that money. The non-religious charities that i know of work out of a shitty little office and cut just about every expense they can in order to channel more and more money to the needy. So i wonder how much money that makes its way to the vatican from the generous pockets of charitable people is spent on maintaining the vatican lifestyle and other enterprises that could have been better invested in a loaf of bread for a starving person?

>> ^quantumushroom:

I spent half the day at a tent camp for homeless folks, numbering in the 100s.
Monies to support them came all the way from the Vatican.


When a priest molests a child, does the semen come all the way from the Vatican too, or just the money for the cover up?

What has God done to eradicate homelessness, disease, suffering, starvation? He could snap his magical fingers and *poof* it is gone! But.. the more logical answer is.. he has done nothing because he doesn't exist. Or one could say. "He created homelessness, disease, suffering, and starvation." Probably to make some sort of illogical point that we can't quite articulate, because of his "Mysterious ways" or some such bunk. The "mysterious ways" argument essentially translates into "I don't know, nor do I care to find out why because I lack any capacity to reason. Any instinct to question as a result been subdued out of a fear of ending up in some sort of subterranean firey underworld for an eternity... hosted by rather unfriendly horned red-skinned demons that bugger the local denizens. Very much like Catholic priests in a dark sauna with choir boys.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I spent half the day at a tent camp for homeless folks, numbering in the 100s.
Monies to support them came all the way from the Vatican. What has the 'atheist charity society' done lately?
>> ^honkeytonk73:
>> ^kymbos:
Man, what is it with America and book burning?

Its a long established religious tradition.. inspired from the likes of the Roman Catholic Church during the Inquisition and the Dark Ages. Of course, no religion is excluded to participate! Enjoy the burning!

I spent half the day at a tent camp for homeless folks, numbering in the 100s.

Monies to support them came all the way from the Vatican. What has the 'atheist charity society' done lately?

>> ^honkeytonk73:

>> ^kymbos:
Man, what is it with America and book burning?

Its a long established religious tradition.. inspired from the likes of the Roman Catholic Church during the Inquisition and the Dark Ages. Of course, no religion is excluded to participate! Enjoy the burning!

Look, don't get me wrong, I'm undecided on the issue, and as such, am not propagating any particular side. Nor am I trying to fear monger, though I may be expressing my own concerns of the unknown, when I speak of Islam, I'm speaking of Islam as it is proscribed by the Koran. Though there certainly are many moderate muslims, the Koran's demands are worrisome:

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know (8:60)"

"Strive hard (Jihad) against the Unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed. (66:9, See also 9:73)"

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (8:12-13)"

In regards to my comment on the founding fathers' views and expectations having been corrupted, I was referring specifically to the power given to the banks. Here's Thomas Jefferson's view on banks:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The
issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to
whom it properly belongs."

As far as my worry about what they're preaching and praying for in mosques, how can I know for certain? Shall I infiltrate them? There's a mosque right around the corner from my house. Shall I attempt to gain entry? My best bet would be wearing a full cloth bag and pretending to be a chick! Yes... 'tis an excelent plan. Or maybe I'll just walk in and see how they react to my curiosity.

Funny story about that mosque actually, when I was a young kid I was biking around with a muslim friend and he needed to go to the mosque for a bit, he wanted me to come with said it wouldn't be long. I was pretty hesitant as I didn't feel it was appropriate, we biked to the back of the mosue where everyone was happy and cheerful and smiling and random muslims were coming up to shake my hand, lol, until my friend said nono he's not muslim. Anyhow, it was a little awkward. His holy book says this about me:

"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe(8:55)"

Regarding the Koran demanding the abolishment of all non-muslim religions, why would a moderate muslim have a different answer than a non-moderate muslim? The Koran either says it or it doesn't say it. Oh wait, I forgot. Religious words can be interpreted, misinterpreted and reinterpreted. Religion is so convenient and easily defended that way.

Also, Atheists are, or should be, fighting holy wars all day long. Fighting for better spending of resources, fighting for good science, and fighting against religion when it seeks to undermine, conceal, distort, exaggerate or otherwise abuse the truth to the great detriment of people.

And lastly, you defend Islams oppression of women by purporting that I should troll the streets in search of self-proclaimed moderate muslims and ask their opinions on the conditions of women? That's just silly. I can only speak on what I see, and what I see are TONS of women psychologically manipulated into roles of subordination. They gladly don their cloth bags in my neighborhood, if I were to spend the day on my stoop, in 35ºC weather, counting how many women walk by fully concealed, I would count many dozen.

One last thought: I'm not even American, I'm Canadian, but it seems Americans expect a lot of themselves. It's strange. You've got tons of people saying, "Hey, we'll be righteous and good, we will let them build a muslim community center a couple hundred feet from where muslims flew planes into our buildings and murdered close to FOUR THOUSAND of our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, in one fell swoop."

But then when Americans invade other countries, some undevelopped and third-world, murder, rape and pillage resources, everyone stays quiet. There's no outrage. It's funny to me is all, America portrays itself as some morale bastion of freedom, justice and righteousness when it's not. And that's fine. It doesn't have to be.

Quit being hypocrites and tell them to go fuck themselves. Maybe next time their brother knocks down your sand castle at the beach they'll speak the fuck up a bit louder and tell him to quit ruining their good thing.

I'm sorry if this has been inflammatory or offensive in any way. It's a very contentious issue, and I'm happy I'm not the one having to make a decision on this. I don't hate any group. I have a lot of disdain for religion in general, but I am not so ignorant that I would hate blindly, nor should the ignorant be hated upon.

“The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance” -Thomas Jefferson

He should be ripping into the Dems and the president for not giving him the time of day during the public debates on health care. Then he should be ripping into the law that allows the lobbyist money to flow into both parties, preserving the balance of power in favor of monied interest rather than the people.

60 billion on green energy? That's at least one windmill! Of course, he won't make sure that the 60 billion--or any other monies--will go anywhere near what they are intended for. But then congress won't look after it either... Republican or democrat.

After the cuts to favorite companies and CEOs, I could go to McDonald's and get a value meal burger for me and one other... who is with me?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility?
This. Whatever liability BP is on the hook for should be handled 100% through the courts, not by the Executive branch. There is a separation of powers for a reason.
Umm, false. If I break something of yours, do you have to 100% go through the courts to get compensation? No. Why? Because civil court is totally optional.

Can I prevent you from seeking damages in court? Only if you sign a legal agreement waiving that right, and then only as long as the court feels like you gave properly informed consent.

Can Obama force you to go through the ICF? No. Can Obama take away your ability to seek damages in court? No, because of separation of powers.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:


it just means there's a government-run escrow being set up to ensure that BP has set aside the funds to pay claims
You say the words GOVERNMENT RUN ESCROW and still no alarm bells go off in your head?

No! I have not been programmed to have a knee-jerk Pavlovian response where I wet myself with fear whenever the word "government" comes into play.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Now Obama’s ‘pay czar’ is the one people bow & scrape before for redress – a guy who has no oversight, answers to no one, didn’t have a single vote by Congress, and doesn’t have to face an approval process. No chance for abuse there, eh?

All public servants are answerable to someone. Even Supreme Court Justices can be impeached. I'm sure there will be Congressional oversight of this -- as there is to most things the Executive does. Republicans will demand it, and Democrats have no reason to oppose it.

Then there's that whole thing where you can still just seek damages in court...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

but no real sign that any of those people want to deprive Obama of the power to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial
The president has no constitutional right to collect monies from private organizations of any kind for any reason - real or fancied, freely or begrudged. The president DOES have a constitutional right direct the military and defense of this country and that includes treatment of captured enemy soldiers. See the difference?

Wait, what happened to separation of powers? The President doesn't have to give people trials anymore under the Constitution? Read the 6th amendment again, please!

Plus, again, no legal authority is being exerted, BP is voluntarily agreeing to this, and is certainly within their rights to refuse, and most certainly within their rights to challenge the legality of the fund in court.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Just as a final note – I’m not saying BP should be ‘off the hook’. I’m of the opinion that when anyone screws up, they should take responsibility for their actions. When a company screws up, they should pay for the damages. BP has been cutting corners & playing dangerously to save cash and the mess is their fault. They should do the right thing and step up & fix it. That includes paying for legitimate damages and cleanup.

Good to hear. I'm sure you won't contradict yourself in the next paragraph...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
That’s not the same thing as saying they should just write a black check and hand it to the government and walk away. There is certainly no onus on BP to pay all the lunatic claims that will inevitably result as the greedy vultures start circling over this 20 billion. BP isn't responsible for lower tourism revenues, or dropping home prices. The only people that should be getting money are people who have actual PHYSICAL repairs or clean up costs due to oil. All the other stuff is 'act of god' stuff and sometimes that just happens and you have to deal with it.

Ahh, so now you're defining down what constitutes a legitimate claim from what even BP says is legitimate? Good to know you don't want to "let them off the hook"...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Obama’s ‘BP stash’ is designed by nature to be an irresponsible, unanswerable, politically motivated vote-machine. Why should we believe Obama is going to run this clean when he hasn’t run a single ‘clean’ political effort in his lifetime? At what point has government EVER been a responsible entity for the distribution of cash for damages? Never. This is the tobacco settlement fiasco just waiting to happen again.

Ahh, and you close with a fact-free animosity-driven rant. Everyone is answerable. Obama can lose re-election, and he can be impeached. More meaningfully, he can be subjected to public pressure, and evidence of impropriety would certainly be a big story, so every media maven will be looking for some. There's also that whole "no one is giving up their right to sue" part of this, as well as the plain observation that courts are part of the government too...

Plus the specific, named, person Obama's looking at having manage the fund also managed the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, which by most accounts was handled well.

I don't expect to convince you to trust government agencies, but for God's sake, they aren't taking away people's right to sue. If they tried, you can count on someone suing over it!

Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility?

This. Whatever liability BP is on the hook for should be handled 100% through the courts, not by the Executive branch. There is a separation of powers for a reason.

it just means there's a government-run escrow being set up to ensure that BP has set aside the funds to pay claims

You say the words GOVERNMENT RUN ESCROW and still no alarm bells go off in your head? The executive branch does not have the power to do this. The Constitution plainly states you appeal to congress for a redress of grievances – not the President’s personally appointed toadies. Now Obama’s ‘pay czar’ is the one people bow & scrape before for redress – a guy who has no oversight, answers to no one, didn’t have a single vote by Congress, and doesn’t have to face an approval process. No chance for abuse there, eh?

but no real sign that any of those people want to deprive Obama of the power to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial

The president has no constitutional right to collect monies from private organizations of any kind for any reason - real or fancied, freely or begrudged. The president DOES have a constitutional right direct the military and defense of this country and that includes treatment of captured enemy soldiers. See the difference?

Just as a final note – I’m not saying BP should be ‘off the hook’. I’m of the opinion that when anyone screws up, they should take responsibility for their actions. When a company screws up, they should pay for the damages. BP has been cutting corners & playing dangerously to save cash and the mess is their fault. They should do the right thing and step up & fix it. That includes paying for legitimate damages and cleanup.

That’s not the same thing as saying they should just write a black check and hand it to the government and walk away. There is certainly no onus on BP to pay all the lunatic claims that will inevitably result as the greedy vultures start circling over this 20 billion. BP isn't responsible for lower tourism revenues, or dropping home prices. The only people that should be getting money are people who have actual PHYSICAL repairs or clean up costs due to oil. All the other stuff is 'act of god' stuff and sometimes that just happens and you have to deal with it.

Obama’s ‘BP stash’ is designed by nature to be an irresponsible, unanswerable, politically motivated vote-machine. Why should we believe Obama is going to run this clean when he hasn’t run a single ‘clean’ political effort in his lifetime? At what point has government EVER been a responsible entity for the distribution of cash for damages? Never. This is the tobacco settlement fiasco just waiting to happen again.

I can almost garentee that a good percentage of people that are against this are iratoinaly in favor of spending mony on other "worthless goods"

I would've loved for you to have put some more time in linking evolution, population, and corporate greed. It's an interesting link that I could imagine would take a bit more explanation.>> ^NordlichReiter:
Porksandwich, below is a bit of pessimism and sarcasm.
It's a sick world were companies profit off of survival of the fittest.
I would like to think that the Human Race can surpass that, but probably not. Given the nature of today's world. Money is the root of all evil. The US uses fake paper as it's currency not real monies.
From a science standpoint, I would think that the race would benefit from good health care, but you know how science is seen.
More bad news; according to the US Census Bureau 152,505 people die every day, globally. There are only a couple sure things in life; death, taxes, and becoming a statistic.

(Figures may not add to totals due to rounding)
-------------------------------------------------
Natural
Time unit Births Deaths increase
-------------------------------------------------
Year 131,940,516 56,545,138 75,395,378
Month 10,995,043 4,712,095 6,282,948
Day 361,481 154,918 206,563
Hour 15,062 6,455 8,607
Minute 251 108 143
Second 4.2 1.8 2.4
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/pcwe
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popwnote.html

Porksandwich, below is a bit of pessimism and sarcasm.

It's a sick world were companies profit off of survival of the fittest.

I would like to think that the Human Race can surpass that, but probably not. Given the nature of today's world. Money is the root of all evil. The US uses fake paper as it's currency not real monies.

From a science standpoint, I would think that the race would benefit from good health care, but you know how science is seen.

More bad news; according to the US Census Bureau 152,505 people die every day, globally. There are only a couple sure things in life; death, taxes, and becoming a statistic.

(Figures may not add to totals due to rounding)
-------------------------------------------------
Natural
Time unit Births Deaths increase
-------------------------------------------------
Year 131,940,516 56,545,138 75,395,378
Month 10,995,043 4,712,095 6,282,948
Day 361,481 154,918 206,563
Hour 15,062 6,455 8,607
Minute 251 108 143
Second 4.2 1.8 2.4
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/pcwe
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popwnote.html

I don't like survival of the fittest.

To bad you were born to play the game, we all were.

For me, celebrities that I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for are those who, like mentioned in above comments, milk it with the media and books. It's funny how you don't hear that much about the private lives of some celebrities like Scarlett Johansson or Famke Janssen yet I know everything about Britney and Lohan.
It is very possible to stay out of the gossip column everyday if you wanted.

If a celebrity is going through depression, surely you would be better off trying to get better without absolutely everyone knowing and judging you? And if their intentions are to bring depression to the open and to help others, I would have more respect for them if they did not make money out of it by doing free events or donating earned monies from appearances to charities of the cause.

I know someone who uses the sentence I'm so depressed much too often. Instead of saying how an xyz situation made her upset or downed her mood a bit, she would always say that it made her depressed. I'm so depressed today, going to Tescos and seeing all these people makes me depressed, that dog makes me depressed, my hair makes me depressed, adverts make me depressed.
Guess what I want to say to this person? Stop cheating on your boyfriend, find a job and GET OVER IT.

Anyhoo, something that people may be missing is this is comedy. Do we believe everything that comedians say for a laugh? Many comedians make up situations and opinions posing them as real ones. After watching and listening to Gervais for quite a while, I am quite sure that he wouldn't tell someone with a real issue like depression or alcoholism to "get over it". Here he is addressing the attention whores.
In any case, he generalised and exaggerated because he's a comedian and not a spokesperson for the NHS.