The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 95

wendybeth · 06-06-2006, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

So... I click on the last page of this thread... And see this:

I was just beginning to think that nothing I read on LoT could surprise me anymore…

Prudence · 06-06-2006, 10:38 PM

I wish Tim Eyman would fall off the face of the earth. Damn him and his government by initiative and referendum. Micromanagement of the state legislature. If they decline to do something he wanted, it's initiative time. If they do something he doesn't like, whip out the referendum. Oh, but he's not a politician. NO! He's just out there, taking a ginormous salary to defend the common man! Never mind that the common man apparently elected those legislatures, and is presumably capably of not re-electing them if they really cared so much. No, we're going to pay those legislators with our tax dollars to conduct meaningless activities that Saviour Tim will swoop in to undo before the ink is dry.

And yet, his initiatives pass. Because people are so fvcking stupid they fall for his nonsense. And then act all baffled. Gosh, it's just not fair for him to pay more to license his brand new BMW than some 20 year old clunker. Mandated property tax limits that are far surpassed by inflation. Oooh! But waaaaah! Why are my roads so crappy? I want the same level of services I got 10 years ago when the same about of money I pay now went a lot further, only I want to pay half as much! *I'm* not using the bus, public schools, fire department, whatever, so why should I have to pay for it?

Oh, but he's not trying to single-handedly shape state policy. No. He's just helping correct errors out of the goodness of his heart. No, there's nothing in it for him. No, he's not pulling in a salary who knows how much greater than in his former position. No, he's not enjoying his moment basking in the spotlight. No, he's not enjoying being a household name. No, he's not exploiting the initiative process to apply his own policy preferences without the hassle of actually running for office.

GAH!

(pant, pant, pant)

Alex · 06-06-2006, 10:41 PM

And that is why I vote no on all propositions and referendums out of principle (except in very rare cases where the legislature has actually sidestepped its responsibility) no matter how much I approve of the measure in theory.

wendybeth · 06-06-2006, 11:27 PM

It's a point of pride that I've never voted for an Eyman prop- the bastard is a snake-oil salesman, and his Peter Principle is going to hit him hard. He just a weasel in Everyman's clothing and it astounds me that he has enjoyed any success whatsoever in his endeavors.

Nephythys · 06-06-2006, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

That's him. The Mormon moron: Sh!tt Romney. He's on Charlie Rose at the moment talking about how marriage is only about procreation. So, I guess people who are sterile/impotent shouldn't wed, eh Mitt? What a dinglecheese.

damn, guess I am all out of luck huh? Had my kids, had cancer- and I'm divorced----but according to this asshat I have no reason to marry unless I can breed?

I just hate people sometimes.

wendybeth · 06-06-2006, 11:34 PM

He's an idiot. Even my Mormon MIL rolled her eyes at his mention. It must be nice to live in such a black and white world, eh? I wonder if he's ever experienced the shades of grey that most people have to endure in their lifetimes. GC is right- total dinglecheese.

Alex · 06-06-2006, 11:45 PM

He's right, to a degree, though. The only even remotely reasonable justification for government sanctioning of marriage is as a device for creating a automatic protections for children. Ideally this would mean that marriage would only be available as a state sanctioned institution once children are produced of course. But then this still wouldn't necessarily preclude homosexuals (as this need for protection extends to the guardianship responsibilities not just the fact that you personally own or have visited the vagina through which it was extruded).

For marriage as it exists (where people can do it all willy nilly), there is no reasonable justification at all for state involvement of any type.

innerSpaceman · 06-07-2006, 06:43 AM

How about the incentive for people to take care of each other in their old age, rather than have that responsibililty fall to the government?

Oh, I know Alex doesn't support any time of economic incentive. But considering that the tax code is one of the government's main avenues of governing, the incentive method IS going to happen.

So among many economic incentives, isn't a tax break to marriages one that makes some sense ... in keeping the feebs off the dole?

Gemini Cricket · 06-07-2006, 06:51 AM

All I want to know is who is going to push my wheelchair and change my colostomy bag at the hub during Disneyland's 100th Birthday?

scaeagles · 06-07-2006, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

All I want to know is who is going to push my wheelchair and change my colostomy bag at the hub during Disneyland's 100th Birthday?

Even true love has its limitations.

06-06-2006, 10:38 PM	#942
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	I wish Tim Eyman would fall off the face of the earth. Damn him and his government by initiative and referendum. Micromanagement of the state legislature. If they decline to do something he wanted, it's initiative time. If they do something he doesn't like, whip out the referendum. Oh, but he's not a politician. NO! He's just out there, taking a ginormous salary to defend the common man! Never mind that the common man apparently elected those legislatures, and is presumably capably of not re-electing them if they really cared so much. No, we're going to pay those legislators with our tax dollars to conduct meaningless activities that Saviour Tim will swoop in to undo before the ink is dry. And yet, his initiatives pass. Because people are so fvcking stupid they fall for his nonsense. And then act all baffled. Gosh, it's just not fair for him to pay more to license his brand new BMW than some 20 year old clunker. Mandated property tax limits that are far surpassed by inflation. Oooh! But waaaaah! Why are my roads so crappy? I want the same level of services I got 10 years ago when the same about of money I pay now went a lot further, only I want to pay half as much! I'm not using the bus, public schools, fire department, whatever, so why should I have to pay for it? Oh, but he's not trying to single-handedly shape state policy. No. He's just helping correct errors out of the goodness of his heart. No, there's nothing in it for him. No, he's not pulling in a salary who knows how much greater than in his former position. No, he's not enjoying his moment basking in the spotlight. No, he's not enjoying being a household name. No, he's not exploiting the initiative process to apply his own policy preferences without the hassle of actually running for office. GAH! (pant, pant, pant) __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

06-06-2006, 10:41 PM	#943
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	And that is why I vote no on all propositions and referendums out of principle (except in very rare cases where the legislature has actually sidestepped its responsibility) no matter how much I approve of the measure in theory.
	Submit to Quotes

06-06-2006, 11:27 PM	#944
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	It's a point of pride that I've never voted for an Eyman prop- the bastard is a snake-oil salesman, and his Peter Principle is going to hit him hard. He just a weasel in Everyman's clothing and it astounds me that he has enjoyed any success whatsoever in his endeavors. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

06-06-2006, 11:34 PM	#946
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	He's an idiot. Even my Mormon MIL rolled her eyes at his mention. It must be nice to live in such a black and white world, eh? I wonder if he's ever experienced the shades of grey that most people have to endure in their lifetimes. GC is right- total dinglecheese. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

06-06-2006, 11:45 PM	#947
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	He's right, to a degree, though. The only even remotely reasonable justification for government sanctioning of marriage is as a device for creating a automatic protections for children. Ideally this would mean that marriage would only be available as a state sanctioned institution once children are produced of course. But then this still wouldn't necessarily preclude homosexuals (as this need for protection extends to the guardianship responsibilities not just the fact that you personally own or have visited the vagina through which it was extruded). For marriage as it exists (where people can do it all willy nilly), there is no reasonable justification at all for state involvement of any type.
	Submit to Quotes

06-07-2006, 06:43 AM	#948
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	How about the incentive for people to take care of each other in their old age, rather than have that responsibililty fall to the government? Oh, I know Alex doesn't support any time of economic incentive. But considering that the tax code is one of the government's main avenues of governing, the incentive method IS going to happen. So among many economic incentives, isn't a tax break to marriages one that makes some sense ... in keeping the feebs off the dole?
	Submit to Quotes

06-07-2006, 06:51 AM	#949
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	All I want to know is who is going to push my wheelchair and change my colostomy bag at the hub during Disneyland's 100th Birthday?
	Submit to Quotes