capologist, on 20 March 2010 - 11:32 PM, said:

There's a decent reason for stopping people from taking all of their money and going home. There is certainly a legitimate percentage of people who cannot really take care of themselves and those people will need to be provided for by taking a percentage of the funds earned by those who can take care of themselves and giving those funds to the truly needy and poverty stricken.

And the same applies to those who want to take their money and give only to the charities that they support and withold money from people who stand for things they do not agree with. The arguement that the total amount of money donated may actually rise if the government were to stop taking funds from people and allow people to choose who they donated money to is unsound as well. That arguement is just a different way for people to complain about how much money they have to give up each pay period.

Count me among those who are happy that this country is trending toward being governed as a whole as opposed to loose federation of independant states. I prefer that to facing the idea that some of the morons in my state's government might actually be able to impact my life more than they already are.

And if my spelling sucks, I just do not care anymore.

/rant

There's NO DEFENDING THAT SIGN, no matter what spin people try to use to justify it. In no way do I think the majority of those at these rally's really understands what is in the healthcare bill and what is not in there. Sure, there may be a core group that is trying to organize a strong grass roots movement to reign in the power of the federal government. But I, for one, will not believe that most people there are in any way honorable in their intentions. The first dumb fcuk to catch a bullett in this "revolution" needs to be the idiot who made that/those signs.

Easily manipulated, hateful, classless morons; plain and simple. Revolution my azz. :angry:

Statick, on 20 March 2010 - 08:21 PM, said:

You know what's truly scary about your comment?

They may end up being right.

I do know this for a fact. Even if Obama loses when his time to run again comes up we/they/Dem supporters must stop this process of radical behavior toward our elected officials and each other.

The current state of affairs, as it relates to common decency and courtesy, just goes to show that there really is a THEM vs. US scenerio playing out. But it isn't a Dems vs. Rep battle, it's a "decent vs. dangerously classless" battle. Right now the "dangerously classless" group appears to be winning the day but that's probably because the loudest mouths tend to draw the most media coverage. Civility has to be restored and that isn't going to be done by these nutjobs who are rallying to draw attention to their causes.

Radicals, anarchists, and psycho's are loving the current set of circumstances. Those among us who can disagree and still remain civil have to find a way to set an example and take back the keys to the car because these types of things illuminate just how pathetic a certain percentage of our population truly is.

#1 pick, on 18 March 2010 - 09:38 PM, said:

Certainly the two situations are not the same.... at all. And if you do trully equate the two, then debate is futile.

Julian St.Clor, on 18 March 2010 - 12:08 PM, said:

I'm telling you it['s not always the case that when someone makes a wise crack it's because he's a racist. Pretty sure I remember reading an interview with Clint Eastwood in which he talked about how him and some of his old jazz musician freinds would give each other he77 up to, and including a few racial barbs. Maybe Fuzzy is a biggot, but I just don't think it's true.