A Complete Waste of Space

callmeslick wrote:

ruggbutt wrote:Why is it that every post you make sounds like you're defending a larger Federal government?

because, in a modern, diverse society, a larger federal government is necessary.

callmeslick's Liberal to English translation wrote:SO in 20 years when we have an even MORE modern and DIVERSE society, we'll need even a BIGGER government, because BIG Government can never be BIG enough

I think we need to come to the conclusion that Slick feels that he needs more controls in his life because he cannot run his own life for himself. He cannot be trusted to make the right decisions that 99% of us make every day. The other thing that Slick doesn't get is that there are enough laws on the books that we do not need any more. The current ones need to be enforced.

That's hitting the nail on the head Ruggstir.........

It's a trust issue to Slick....Plain speech doesn't make sense to him...you have to use the "fantasy" approach, which has lots of wiggle room...

Old Pudfark sez: " Come on Baby...lets do the twist "

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions.

The term was popularized in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the 19th Century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Other coiners have therefore been proposed. The most plausible, given current evidence, is Charles Wentworth Dilke (1843-1911).

ruggbutt wrote:I think we need to come to the conclusion that Slick feels that he needs more controls in his life because he cannot run his own life for himself. He cannot be trusted to make the right decisions that 99% of us make every day. The other thing that Slick doesn't get is that there are enough laws on the books that we do not need any more. The current ones need to be enforced.

and, we need to come to the conclusion that you're a freaking idiot. Larger government doesn't mean 'more controls', necessarily, a larger federal government would replace programs run on a state to state basis, rather inefficiently. Wake the fuck up, we can't run this nation in 2010 by 1790 methodologies. And, in 1790, none of the folks in charge were so stupid as to think that we should. That was why everything in our system of laws was made to evolve.

Loco-S wrote:"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions.

The term was popularized in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), who attributed it to the 19th Century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881): "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." However, the phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. Other coiners have therefore been proposed. The most plausible, given current evidence, is Charles Wentworth Dilke (1843-1911).

nice overview, and very much true. Listen, if you wish to subject yourself to it, to the 'Healthcare Summit' from the other day. Both sides quoted polls and statistics, and, narrowly speaking, those numbers were accurate. It's just that they were selective, and not viewed with any context or nuance. That was exactly what I was pointing out to Dawg by citing the same survey, from the same pollsters, from 2006. Those numbers stay the same, and thus, show no emerging trend, just the status quo.

Pudfark wrote:Plain speech doesn't make sense to him.

What the Hell would you know about plain speech?

callmeslick wrote: and, we need to come to the conclusion that you're a freaking idiot. Larger government doesn't mean 'more controls', necessarily, a larger federal government would replace programs run on a state to state basis, rather inefficiently. Wake the fuck up, we can't run this nation in 2010 by 1790 methodologies. And, in 1790, none of the folks in charge were so stupid as to think that we should. That was why everything in our system of laws was made to evolve.

I'm not sure what you do for a living, but after reading that amazing post above, I bet, with a switch and a box of bananas I could train a chimp to replace you in a month.
I mean do you talk to unicorns and shit?

no, but I talk to a lot of conservatives that want to continue a 6 trillion dollar budget on lower taxes.
Pretty much the same thing. Like I've asked before, what would you propose to reduce in government, and then go explain how you would get elected by proposing such a change.

callmeslick wrote: Larger government doesn't mean 'more controls', necessarily, a larger federal government would replace programs run on a state to state basis, rather inefficiently. Wake the fuck up, we can't run this nation in 2010 by 1790 methodologies. And, in 1790, none of the folks in charge were so stupid as to think that we should. That was why everything in our system of laws was made to evolve.

Name a couple of government agencies that come under budget. Right, stupid question, private business doesn't have to do that. its crazy talk..pffft budget.

Ok, name a couple of government agencies that work efficiently. And why the states cant do a better job.
The constitution is NOT an evolving document. I will figuratively take up arms if need to be prevent the Fed from running my state.

those "folks" in 1790 prayed, meditated and were centuries ahead of their time. The created a document that would be literally timeless. Those rights, those rules were so simplistic, and so unarguable as to work for 200 years, so why now, why does it need to suddenly changed to suit some current administration when that didn't need to get changed during other massively threatening times?

callmeslick wrote:no, but I talk to a lot of conservatives that want to continue a 6 trillion dollar budget on lower taxes.
Pretty much the same thing. Like I've asked before, what would you propose to reduce in government, and then go explain how you would get elected by proposing such a change.

slick I wont play this game with you. This is the gleeful thing you do that folks still talk about years later, many forum splits down the road. The archtypical liberal.
Name anyone (sound mentally) that wantsto pay more taxes?
Name a few conservatives who WANT to continue a 6 trillion deficit like you mentioned.
I need another vacation from your lunacy.