Unfortunately, reality has a left-wing bias.

I'll just concentrate on this because it is late and I am doing other things right now. In the first sentence you say you don't think it is irresponsible for government to spend more than they take in and then you follow that by saying they should be saving money. I hate to be the one to break this to you but it's kind of hard to spend more than you make and then squirel some away for a rainy day. But that's okay because "good debt" is our friend.

Government expenditures should be calibrated against needs rather than prestige. Surplus revenue should be saved for when the market enters a period of recession and you no longer have sufficient tax revenue to cover essential services. This is not always possible because you usually have a bunch of morons who think any surplus should automatically become a tax cut (i.e. people who honestly believe the Republican party cares about anybody who makes less than $10 million a year.)

You know this is what I'm saying. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

I did not interpret you two short sentences as the paragraph long explanation you provided above. To me, the two statements were, and still are, incongruous.

I would agree with your proposal only if we had a tax system such as a national sales tax. Seeing as how we have an income based tax system I vehomently disagree. It is not the place of the government to save the people's money for it's own use during a recession. I understand that you are stating for essential services so it would be for the people's benefit however we all should be able to agree that you can't trust Washington to be disciplined with our money.

And if you think about it, they already have a ton of money in reserve. All they have to do is sell all that gold that no longer backs our worthless money.

Are you just being terse? You see no problem with that "obituary?"

.

I understand what you are saying, but I think "essential services" is a bit vague. There already is a lot of debate on what things like "general welfare", the bear arms clause, "public use" in eminent domain, etc, mean, especially their use in the Constitution if applicable.

I'd be frightened to see what government deemed "essential" services. Frankly, I think that's the problem we face today :/

Like I said earlier, I really don't know much about the man. The impression I get from the obituary is that he was a troubled man that led a remarkable life. If there is something factually wrong with the story I wouldn't catch it. I can say that the poignancy of the piece did make me interested in finding more out about the man.

Let me explain: You're a troll.

Your moms a troll.

oh snap


what an intelligent discussion this is turning into.

Do you know what a troll is

*CUE PICTURE*

yes

Do you really think Wookie is a troll?

Does this thread remind anyone else of the South Park episode where Stan tries to get a refund for his dad's Margaritaville thing?

I think some of the comments he made in this thread were designed to get a rise out of people, as opposed to just argue a point.

Yeah, I do realize that offering conservative opinion here is, by definition, designed to get a rise out of people. Further more, offering my opinion on the OP, arguing my views on Cash For Clunkers, correcting the record when I realized I made an error, opining on a Kurt Vonegut clip while admitting twice that I don't know much about the man, and arguing againstly [mostly consumer] debt is certainly volatile.

If anything, Jon'C has been the biggest troll in this thread. Followed of course by you.

And your mom.

backpedal

Oh, you wound me. Being accused of backpedaling, which I realize is your way of getting under my skin by someone who just placed his second post and twelfth word in his own thread.

You know, what's this thread for? Is it a parody thread? Are you trolling for an argument about Fox News? Is there some other, bigger point that I'm missing? Are we just supposed to comment on what a tragic story this is?

It'd be helpful to know what we're supposed to be discussing.

Hint: plagiarism above.

Discuss how Fox News never gets anything right and all the other networks are infallible!

You don't need to know who Kurt Vonnegut is to know that the video is disrespectful to a dead person. Calling a person "rich & irrelevant," is not friendly. Mentioning a past attempted suicide and quoting the most bizarre self-admonishing statement as if it is somehow a tip of the hat is nearly disgusting. If you do end up spending even a vague 5 minutes looking Vonnegut up, you'll find he's one of the most well known, well celebrated American authors. He's arguably in league with Mark Twain in a lot of people's eyes.

I still find it pretty suspect that you don't recognize why that's one of the worst obituaries I've ever seen passed off as "respectful."

yep anybody who thinks you're wrong is a troll

I agree with Kirby here. That obit was awful.

Edit:
Nevermind, I didn't realize it was on page two already.

vs


while a wookie may not be a troll but i would argue at least cousins...

Also cousins?

Colbert is a character. He makes his living by pretending to be Bill Orielly. Really, he's not worth paying attention to.

people take colbert seriously?

Apparently JM does. It explains a lot, really.

Right. I take him seriously... when I just said he's a character, and a caricature of Bill Orielly.

I also think this looks EXACTLY LIKE OBAMA.

I'm not just overly sensitive to this type of thing. I can see why if you hold the person in high regard you might not like the segment. However, considering that it was likely one segment out of many on the network, let alone other networks, your bound to see various takes on the life of the man. This kind of seems like being critical of a Michael Jackson piece because it makes references to activity for which he was never convicted. He was a talented person haunted by personal demons as well.



I didn't need to look him up for the basic information. I just didn't know anything about him as a person.



Like I said, I'm just not overly sensitive to this sort of thing. I already gave specific comments with regards to what I thought of the segment. If that's suspect that's okay. I just don't get too worked up by celebrity deaths or all of the various opinions surrounding them.