Aw - the Frankfurter is sad because of a lack of substance? Well - maybe he'd have been happier if the reporter had dove into the following topics of substance...

1. Frank's role in the housing and banking collapse (IE his role with AIG in pushing the repeal of Glass-Steagall)...
2. The coverup of fixing parking tickets for the prostitution ring that was run out of his house...
3. Frank's involvement in a banking scandal in Boston with OneUnited...
4. Frank's abuse of office in forcing Fannie Mae to hire his lover, Herb Moses.
5. Falsification of documents where he claimed a $30,000 'gift' from hedge fund manager Donald Sussman was only $1,500...

Just a few 'substantive' issues that may this total sack of crap would have preferred to discuss. Barney Frank is one of the primary reasons for the recession. It is always impossible to pin such a big thing down to just one person, but if you could name one person that was to blame for the economic collapse it would be Barney Frank. This piece of human filth should be dragged out of Congress today, banned from all public service for life, should have every penny he owns confiscated, and then he should be tarred & feathered, pilloried, and tossed in a dank prison cell for the rest of his miserable, misbegotten life.

And that would be letting him off easy.

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^zombieater:
How ironic, a British person complaining about people "invading" their country.

Think people need to start being specific. It was England that took over the world, not Britain. There's plenty of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish people who wouldn't want to be tarred with that brush you're using
She looks very much like someone coming off drugs, or maybe coming down from them. Poor kid clearly hears that mouth often, he's entirely unfazed by it


Good point. England, then!

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^zombieater:
How ironic, a British person complaining about people "invading" their country.

Think people need to start being specific. It was England that took over the world, not Britain. There's plenty of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish people who wouldn't want to be tarred with that brush you're using
She looks very much like someone coming off drugs, or maybe coming down from them. Poor kid clearly hears that mouth often, he's entirely unfazed by it


My name is Inigo Montoya. The Welsh killed my father. Prepare to die.

Don't worry, Britain and England are synonymous for most people and judging by how politics is going in Scotland, they want to strengthen that definition as well

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^zombieater:
How ironic, a British person complaining about people "invading" their country.

Think people need to start being specific. It was England that took over the world, not Britain. There's plenty of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish people who wouldn't want to be tarred with that brush you're using
She looks very much like someone coming off drugs, or maybe coming down from them. Poor kid clearly hears that mouth often, he's entirely unfazed by it

>> ^zombieater:

How ironic, a British person complaining about people "invading" their country.


Think people need to start being specific. It was England that took over the world, not Britain. There's plenty of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish people who wouldn't want to be tarred with that brush you're using

She looks very much like someone coming off drugs, or maybe coming down from them. Poor kid clearly hears that mouth often, he's entirely unfazed by it

Better read again, because the articles do discuss equivalent jobs. But – because I anticipate (and compensate) for your laziness in advance…

http://blog.american.com/2011/07/the-value-of-public-sector-job-security/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/19/group-says-ill-state-workers-paid-more-than-private-sector-peers/
http://www.dispatch.com/content/downloads/2011/09/BRT-Public-Sector-Comp-Study.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-03-01-1Apublicworkers01_ST_N.htm
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-10-05/news/fl-jscol-pensions-salaries-public-smith-1005-20111005_1_private-sector-government-workers-salaries
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-5.pdf

I implore that just once you attempt to penetrate the callus of propaganda that buries your free-thought. Public workers are not underpaid. They are – in fact – paid notably more than private sector equivalents.

The thing that really amazes me about your fight to screw people out of their promised wages

So the public should have to pay for the bad deals made in bad faith by unelected union scalps collaborating with politicians behind closed doors to arrange unrealistic benefits packages in exchange for power, labor dues, and votes? Nope. Not buying it. The public had no say in these deals, and therefore the public has no obligation to pick up the tab when those lousy deals made by crooks go belly up. Public workers should get mad at thier union mafiosos and the lefties that connive with them - not the private-sector citizens who had nothing to do with it.

77 Billion dollars?

That’s just for federal employees. It deals in no way with the many other areas where the Federal government vastly overspends – defense included.

77 Billion dollars is what you're saying is going to bring this country to it's knees? That's your "silver plated budget?" What a crock

The 77 billion is just one example out of literally thousands of areas where government overspending is indeed bringing the country to its knees. But – I never said that alone was the reason for the federal government’s budget failures. On the federal level the blame lies almost entirely on entitlement spending – of which federal employees are a significant portion but certainly not all. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the primary offenders there. However, you are ignoring the Illinois example. Illinois’ budget woes are almost entirely due to paying its employee burden of wages, benefits, retirement, and health care. They offer gold plated packages, but don’t have two pennies to rub together.

As an American, you should be ashamed of yourself

Back atcha, Clyde. A real American wouldn't have anything to do with the commie BS crap you are cheerleading. The fault of everything you’re whining about lies at the feet of the liberals who ran these unions and governments into the ground. And you have the temerity, audacity, and gall to complain about grown-ups and other good folks that have to come in and clean up the filthy mess made by your philosophies? Leftists deserve to be pilloried, tarred and feathered, and then run out of the country on a rail for their bullcrap policies because it is leftists that have ruined these people’s lives. It is leftists who end up crushing the ‘little people’ all in the name of big government socialist policies. Leftists do more to squash human dignity and push more people into poverty, ruin, and oppression than any other philosophy in history. For leftists to gripe about conservatives who have to fix stupid liberal screw-ups in order to save the system from collapse is pretty rich. What's your solution? Oh yeah - tax and spend. The same level of stupid that got us here in the first place. The solution is conservatism which means cutting back - and yes that means on stupid contracts made with evil unions that put unrealistic burdens on the private sector.

>> ^cybrbeast:

Lungs only get black when your a coal miner, or if you develop lung cancer (from smoking). Smoking itself doesn't cause black lungs.
http://smokescreens.org/chapter1.htm


Holy crap, what a load of BS. Smoking definitely does cause black lungs regardless of neoplasm. The ciliated portion of the airway terminates proximal to the alveolus/terminal bronchus, thus any small particles (carbon, tar, whatever) that deposit in this region will never be expelled from the lungs. In addition, some particles are retained by dust cells, further discoloring the lung parenchyma.

The danger here is tarring all young Londoners with the same brush. Right wing politics would like us to believe that everybody on any kind of welfare are parasites so that they can squeeze some money out. I don't really disagree with his description of the rioters though, I just don't really see a simple solution to the problem and I think it would be a terrible mistake to start cutting welfare because of a bunch of yobs.

The Police already said that Water Cannons would have not been effective. As for Baton Rounds, well they aren't exactly 100% non-lethal and the Police and Politicians were clearly afraid of inflaming the situation with another death. Do I agree with that? Not really, the Police should have had every asset they needed to protect the lives and property and uphold the law.

I also think the Police is horrible over-criticised in this country. They do a hard job and I've always been surprised with how polite and courteous they are given the shit they have to put up with.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
*promote

Thanks for the promote.

There are many more stories involving the Tar Sands projects that go unnoticed by the media in Canada.

I think we all have a moral obligation to tell the truth if telling the truth meant doing the right thing. I think that obligation should remain voluntary, obviously.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
You're welcome, you ol' sow libeler. I have no desire to see you banned. As much as I wish you'd be less hostile and insulting, I do enjoy arguing with you. I want to win arguments with you, not silence you.

Setting aside my fondness for beating the tar out of you, I think it would have been a pretty grave injustice for me to stay silent and let you get punished because of a misunderstanding, even if I truly hated your guts. I only saw one moral choice on the table, and that was to speak up.

Since you seem to want to at least sorta make this ideological, what do you think? Did I have a moral obligation to tell the truth, or was either choice a valid moral option?

You're welcome, you ol' sow libeler. I have no desire to see you banned. As much as I wish you'd be less hostile and insulting, I do enjoy arguing with you. I want to win arguments with you, not silence you.

Setting aside my fondness for beating the tar out of you, I think it would have been a pretty grave injustice for me to stay silent and let you get punished because of a misunderstanding, even if I truly hated your guts. I only saw one moral choice on the table, and that was to speak up.

Since you seem to want to at least sorta make this ideological, what do you think? Did I have a moral obligation to tell the truth, or was either choice a valid moral option?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Thanks, pig fucker. So easily someone with a particular gumption could've lobbied to have me banned, and by the looks of it it appears ol' Siftler isn't too interested in hearing testimony before sending people to the gallows. I'm ban number three inside of two weeks, right?

Anyhow, thanks for jumping in and giving another side to the story. Freedom works. People do help others even when not incentivized to do so.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I can't believe I'm standing up for @blankfist, but he and I call each other pig fucker all the time. It's just one of those terms of endearment you come to use for each other when you've spent years arguing like an old married couple.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

Like the "Bible guarantees it" star, normally used for "now with 20% less carcenogenic tar" in 70s cigarette ads.

anger is something i am quick to as a result of my PTSD unfortunately, particularly on subjects i am passionate about. Therapy is a long ongoin process =)
apologies all around for my curt manner.

now, to the dialogue at hand.

well firstly those statistics, since you've conceded them to be mere presuppositions, are exactly that: presuppositions. There arent any real statistics that i could produce to rebut it, however, if we use alcohol consumption and prohibition as a model, one could expect as much as a 30% increase in heroin use with its legalization, which is to say, not much at all. the idea of everyone and their mom suddenly hopping on the heroin train is a ridiculous fantasy at best.

while you may be right about the lifelong heroin user, i dont have to speculate about long term alcohol abusers maintaining healthy lives. that being said, this defense (if youre using it as one) is a moot point unless you support alcohol prohibition as well.

putting away traffickers in the netherlands would be the same in the states were drugs regulated and controlled. again, alcohol is the model for this. You think its legal to traffic alcohol just because alcohol is made legal? nope, you'll still get canned for that. follow the model. sticking with heroin, were it to be made legal its not something you'd pick up at your local grocery store. if the government regulates and controls it, firstly you will have fewer overdoses because the potency will be precisely known and consistent (the same as alcohol). Overdoses from heroin (among other things) is largely due to unexpected higher than "normal" street potency's. The same thing occurred during prohibition with alcohol poisoning. Potency would be known in the same way alcohol content (proofs) and tar and nicotine content in cigarettes (labeled right on the packs and cartons).

Now, not anyone can purchase cigarettes or alcohol or a gun for that matter. precisely because of regulation and control. in the same way, not everyone should be able to purchase marijuana, heroin, or whatever your poison is. regulated and controlled.

now i flatly rejected your hypothetical position because it was absurd (much like my brain synapse one was). you and i could draw up all sorts of imaginative what-ifs but theyre not gonna serve any purpose other than drawing up a good laugh.

you know, i also believe personal freedoms end where harm to others begin. but this certainly doesnt support your prohibition stance at all. Looking at it another way, you have the right to drink as little or as much alcohol as you want. but if you get too drunk and drive (and get caught) you'll get arrested. so while you still have that freedom to drink alcohol, that same freedom does not infringe on my freedom to press charges should you become too intoxicated and harm me. i know that sounds a bit convoluted, im not as articulate as i'd like to be right now but you catch my drift ya?

in closing, every piece of your defense doesnt hold an ounce of water when held up to the model of prohibition of the 20's, it's "side effects", and it's eventual outcome.

sorry again for being so curt earlier. therapy for my condition takes a good while =)