>> ^thain:
@HollywoodBob: You're right, it really isn't the American way. Not only is it why we're in this predicament to begin with, it's why the government has picked up so many social programs that could be handled so much better on a local level.

Unfortunately though we can't deal with things like health care and the economy at the local level anymore. Maybe we could have after WWII, but now they've grown too big to deal with locally.


>> ^Ryjkyj:
"Ask not what your country can do for you. But what you can do for your country."

A great sentiment, too bad it was forgotten before it was ever uttered. If you look at the social programs in most of the industrialized world after WW2, the US is the one that followed the "Why should I help anyone but myself" creed. Though much of Europe was in rubble but they picked themselves up and built social programs to care for their citizens. What'd the US do? We built corporations that exploit and swindle their customers. And we still see it today, from the majority of conservatives, lower taxes, no social programs, basically "I work for what I have, if other people don't have that, they're lazy and/or stupid." The foolish part being that most Americans end up paying a far larger share of their income to taxes, insurance and university, than any European citizen does in taxes. Greed became the priority in the US not the wellbeing of our citizens. Is it any wonder that the countries of Europe are looking for new methods to measure the success of a country other than it's GDP.

>> ^HollywoodBob:
~ 3:10-3:15
Sorry to say it but that's just not the American way. It's why we're in this predicament to begin with.


"Ask not what your country can do for you. But what you can do for your country."

"Ask not what your VietCong can do for you, ask what you can do for Jane Fonda."

Ah entropy. Ask not for whom the towers fall. They fall for thee.

I'd like to see an interview where the Pol answers the question that was asked - not a longwinded response which inevitably ends in a drumbeat of talking points.

She is saying "Ask" not Ass. Just you know... an FYI.

>> thepinky (you asked not to be quoted so I will oblige)

Being ascribed female character traits is indeed derogatory towards a man. However, this is not exclusively one way. I doubt most women enjoy being called "butch" or "manly". Of course, I'm willing to admit that there are exceptions, but then there are exceptions on the other side too, and you will undoubtedly find men who like being called "girly" just as frequently as you will find women who like being called "manly".

In addition, it is my opinion that being "laid back" is, in itself, neither positive nor negative, and is solely dependant on the situation. I would say that being laid back about spilt milk is a good thing (unless it starts to stink , whilst being laid back about bankruptcy is not.

On the subject of the video itself, I also believe that it's not pornographic. However, I also find it to be rather dull and uninteresting. I didn't find it erotic, nor titillating, nor particularly entertaining. I guess I must be built wrong

>> ^kulpims:
everybody - CHICK FIGHT!!!
because i enjoy being a male pig


Maybe so, but I will not take back what I said, and I also will not apologize. That was absolutely uncalled for. She specifically asked not to be quoted, IN CAPITAL LETTERS, and then was quoted in full. The response was directly underneath her capital-letter request. I believe thepinky deserves an apology just as public as her request not to be quoted. - If not for her, then for all the other females here that have been victims of sexual abuse and may not want to be quoted saying such.

I'm really quite fond of your comments, ya know. Your arguments actually made me really think twice about my opinions.

In reply to this comment by spoco2:
I agree, I don't think we're going to change either one of our minds.

So... we'll end this discussion.

And probably argue about something else later

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
I never said that I want to eliminate taxes altogether. As I said several times, I like government programs and I like the good things they do. But I don't want them to take any more of my money, I want them to start using correctly the money that they already take.

What about self-sufficiency? Who says that rural areas can't survive without help from Big Brother? I grew up in a small farming town, 60% of the population of which were Hispanic, many of those illegal immigrants. We didn't get enough funding for our high school so we worked our butts off to raise it. The town had a huge tourist event every year to raise money for the town, and all of the cultural organizations would work at the festival to earn money. My parents sruggled financially and we lived on beans and otmeal and rice for a few years. They learned to survive. The town built cultural centers and theaters with no government help whatsoever. You're probably going to say that I'm falling into the trap of saying that I didn't use the services so blahddy blahddy blah, but don't you think it is insulting for us to assume that people can't make it on their own? That they need help to get the things they need? That they shouldn't have to change their situation (move to a city if that's what is needed) or make sacrifices to succeed? Most people are just as intelligent as me and just as capable of making it as I am. We tell them that they can't do it so they don't. Yes, the government and taxes are good and necessary, but I don't believe that we ought to be so dependent on someone else. "Ask not what your country can do for you..." and all that. By making people feel like all of their problems are somebody else's fault, we are teaching people not to take responsibility for there own actions, and it is leaking into the moral attitudes of people as well. Everything is somebody else's fault.

And I obviously don't feel like we shouldn't help each other. We should! But we should do it in such a way that we give money where it's needed and teach people to become self-sufficient if they possibly can. It helps them to feel useful and good and capable and like human beings instead of like useless children.

I grow weary of this conversation because we're never going to agree. I'd rather talk about something like this in person because typing it all out gets so annoying.

I agree, I don't think we're going to change either one of our minds.

So... we'll end this discussion.

And probably argue about something else later

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
I never said that I want to eliminate taxes altogether. As I said several times, I like government programs and I like the good things they do. But I don't want them to take any more of my money, I want them to start using correctly the money that they already take.

What about self-sufficiency? Who says that rural areas can't survive without help from Big Brother? I grew up in a small farming town, 60% of the population of which were Hispanic, many of those illegal immigrants. We didn't get enough funding for our high school so we worked our butts off to raise it. The town had a huge tourist event every year to raise money for the town, and all of the cultural organizations would work at the festival to earn money. My parents sruggled financially and we lived on beans and otmeal and rice for a few years. They learned to survive. The town built cultural centers and theaters with no government help whatsoever. You're probably going to say that I'm falling into the trap of saying that I didn't use the services so blahddy blahddy blah, but don't you think it is insulting for us to assume that people can't make it on their own? That they need help to get the things they need? That they shouldn't have to change their situation (move to a city if that's what is needed) or make sacrifices to succeed? Most people are just as intelligent as me and just as capable of making it as I am. We tell them that they can't do it so they don't. Yes, the government and taxes are good and necessary, but I don't believe that we ought to be so dependent on someone else. "Ask not what your country can do for you..." and all that. By making people feel like all of their problems are somebody else's fault, we are teaching people not to take responsibility for there own actions, and it is leaking into the moral attitudes of people as well. Everything is somebody else's fault.

And I obviously don't feel like we shouldn't help each other. We should! But we should do it in such a way that we give money where it's needed and teach people to become self-sufficient if they possibly can. It helps them to feel useful and good and capable and like human beings instead of like useless children.

I grow weary of this conversation because we're never going to agree. I'd rather talk about something like this in person because typing it all out gets so annoying.

I never said that I want to eliminate taxes altogether. As I said several times, I like government programs and I like the good things they do. But I don't want them to take any more of my money, I want them to start using correctly the money that they already take.

What about self-sufficiency? Who says that rural areas can't survive without help from Big Brother? I grew up in a small farming town, 60% of the population of which were Hispanic, many of those illegal immigrants. We didn't get enough funding for our high school so we worked our butts off to raise it. The town had a huge tourist event every year to raise money for the town, and all of the cultural organizations would work at the festival to earn money. My parents sruggled financially and we lived on beans and otmeal and rice for a few years. They learned to survive. The town built cultural centers and theaters with no government help whatsoever. You're probably going to say that I'm falling into the trap of saying that I didn't use the services so blahddy blahddy blah, but don't you think it is insulting for us to assume that people can't make it on their own? That they need help to get the things they need? That they shouldn't have to change their situation (move to a city if that's what is needed) or make sacrifices to succeed? Most people are just as intelligent as me and just as capable of making it as I am. We tell them that they can't do it so they don't. Yes, the government and taxes are good and necessary, but I don't believe that we ought to be so dependent on someone else. "Ask not what your country can do for you..." and all that. By making people feel like all of their problems are somebody else's fault, we are teaching people not to take responsibility for there own actions, and it is leaking into the moral attitudes of people as well. Everything is somebody else's fault.

And I obviously don't feel like we shouldn't help each other. We should! But we should do it in such a way that we give money where it's needed and teach people to become self-sufficient if they possibly can. It helps them to feel useful and good and capable and like human beings instead of like useless children.

I grow weary of this conversation because we're never going to agree. I'd rather talk about something like this in person because typing it all out gets so annoying.

Ask not what the boots can do for you, instead ask only how much money you are willing to give to find out more about the boots

"Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your contract can do for you!"

Trying out the *doublepromote

I am on a mission!

*promote again


LETS GET SIFTBOT TO #1!