ny years ago when I
I specifically responded to your post in a non political way.
You know I disagree with you on political matters.
As a matter of fact most of the people who frequent this group disagree with you on politics.
And you know that.
I said that I wouldn't talk about matters political and so did you.
I haven't.
You have.
You persist
It serves no purpose but to stoke the fire.
It's been really nice here.
Do what you will.
Exactly, that's because disaster relief is not a priority. I read only 6% of the their budget goes toward it.
No, it is because the agency is bloated and incompetent. That has not changed.
They're coming to take me away oh no, they're coming to take me away my my to the happy place where life is beautiful......
Perhaps... perhaps not. Let's not make it personal either way, OK?
This is just my personal attitude, not an attempt to define anyone's rights. If they have reasonable cause to stop and question me, no problem. If not, but I'm at or near the border, I don't mind answering a few questions. 100 miles from the border is (IMO) not the scope of Border Patrol and I'd resent being stopped by them for more than an ID check.
BTW, the same kind of thing happens in other countries but not necessarily with benign intentions. I think I may have already mentioned that I was stopped once by a couple of dishonest cops in my favorite vacation country. They were clearly looking for a "tip". While going through my stuff they noticed a box of rubbers. I ended up giving this character 6 Trojans. Somehow I doubt that would have worked with our Border Patrol. :^)
Jim may be a number of things but it's clear he's no sheep. It seems he thinks it's better to give up a little freedom in favor of security. I disagree -- believing that those who would take our freedom for any reason have no interest in our security -- only their own power.
That's concertina wire, Graham. Constantine was an emperor. I disagree with Jim on this but not 100%. There's got to be a balance.
As long as the "inspections" aren't just a thinly disguised attempt to marginalize people of specific non-terrorist related groups, I agree.
Yep. I took it political without political provocation. Sorry. :^)
Yep. I don't care. I figure someone has to stand up for the "other" side.
Not really. I think we can talk politics or anything else without getting angry. The key is to realize it's not a personal insult to disagree. I know you believe very differently from me on politics. That doesn't make you any better or worse in my eyes -- just different. If we all agreed it'd be a pretty boring world.
Yes, it has. We're both adults. You can proclaim the virtues of whatever side of whatever issue you want without me getting angry. OK?
Robert
Good, that is what I believe too. The right always "say" they are for less government (even calling themselves the de facto Libertarian party), but it always seems to me the right wants to be involved in every aspect of or lives.
LOL.. You're right. I'm not the first one to screw that up apparently. :)
I'll just have to live with the satisfaction of having the last laugh. I won't be able to rub it in on the NG because the internets will be all gone.
You mean like firing car company executives? Telling hedge funds what to do? Regulating pay? Pushing government-run healthcare? Regulating trans-fat?
Yea the right did that kinda stuff didn't they?
Per G. Morgan:
All those executive orders and they *still* couldn't get help into New Orleans in a timely fashion for fear of stepping on the state gov's toes???
It boggles the mind.
FEMA "Executive Orders" are dispensed on toilet paper rolls.
The Internets are a permanent series of tubes so they can't go down and I should think you'd be one of the first targets now that you've exposed them
It would have been illegal otherwise
Not all of them. Most are genuinely interested in smaller government, lower taxes and better personal freedom. Note: I'm talking about the people -- not the politicos.
True indeed. Right-wing politicians didn't fire car company executives or any of that other stuff. They just allowed them to run rampant, destroying our economy while raking in personal fortunes at taxpayer expense. BTW, that first bailout -- the one that was spent on trips to Vegas, etc. -- was a Bush program.
That was fun. Care to play again?
Since Bush stole the election we'll never know that.
Sounds like someone has been listening to too much Rachael Maddow, either that or Alex Jones
I knew about Bush long before I ever heard of Rachael. BTW, unlike Faux News' pandering to Bush, Maddow has been lambasting the head of the Democratic party lately. That's the difference between truly "fair and balanced" and the propaganda you get from Bill'O the Clown.
Actually we do...it was bad under Clinton too.
I'll grant you that for sure. Maybe if Monica had worked for FEMA he'd have paid better attention.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required