Yes, given your evident disabilities, I expect it takes you much longer to complete basic daily chores than most people, which really would limit the amount of time you have to spend on the internet.
How much time does it take to put up with something, anyway?
What is really sad is that Cl…ump cannot even be arsed to put some poetic fury into it. This is the pit, the venting place, where passion pours forth to roast the objects of our disaffection, yet all Cl…ump can manage is a trickle of piddle that at best burns a little on the way out.
Also, I think “fuck off” is still proscribed, but Miller is a mod, so if he thinks it is not worth a wristslap, I guess it again simply reveals Cl…ump as pedestrian, artless and unfeeling.
The thing is that no matter what Clothahump comes up with, it’s never going to top the firehose of right-wing idiocy spewing unrestrained gobbets of material over in the SRIOTD thread. Where are the liberals saying that a snowball disproves climate change, or that cancer is a fungus? Who calculate the exact percentage of the president’s “blackness”? Who think Iran is “occupying Tehran” and that snow days are an evil liberal plot?
I’m aware that there are masses of left-wing idiots out there in the world , most of which sadly appear to have internet access. The difference is that the right keep electing theirs. Sure, the Democrats get the odd Anthony Weiner or that “Guam might tip over” guy but for the sheer volume and diversity of idiocy you just can’t compete with the current Republican party and their media minions.
This comment made me remember how conservatives used to say that government should be run like a business. What business would say, “Forget adjusting to the new needs of our customers. We’re just going to maintain our business lines as they were the year before, or five years before, or ten years before, and not do anything new to address new needs. Think of how much cheaper this will be for the company!”
It’s a loser idea for businesses, and its a loser idea for governments. New roads, buildings, trains, and whathaveyou are needed because the population changes over time, and we need to build new stuff to make sure that people are being served. It’s no different than with business, yet if government does it, its “bureaucrats r the stoopid!”
OK, but how is this a liberal idea? Is your claim that they’re the only ones who allocate funds badly? Just in reference to infrastructure, is there a liberal you can cite who would say we shouldn’t repair our roads and bridges and dams?
The liberal part is in just assuming that if we allocate more money, that it will be get better results. If the problem isn’t amount of money, but how that money is spent, spending more money won’t solve the problem. Might actually make it worse. We have government agencies that are tasked to analyze this kind of thing in great detail. We created those agencies because we were concerned about government inefficiency and incompetence. But now that we have these awesome tools, no one is listening to what they actually have to say:
See, it is statements like this that result in you being called an ignorant fuck. This is just boilerplate nonsense. The RWs want to squeeze away effectively all the money, down to below the point of viability (e.g., Norquist’s “drown it in the bathtub” comment). Moderates leftward see value in government programs, many of them at least, and feel that funding them to functionality is worth doing. Numbnutses like you call that “throwing money at” them, which is nothing more than divisive bullshit.
Did you read all of what they had to say? Local FHWA offices have trouble withdrawing funding from inactive projects because it makes their state counterparts pissy. So the solution is… to give the states more authority? The same states that get mad about cancellations of inactive projects?
It’s like calling for a ban on door locks to keep the cost of break-ins down.
Clothy, I’ve scraped excrement off of my boots that showed greater merit in an argument than anything you post.
From the Washington Post:
“Never occurred to her.” We can pity the senile person who shoots themselves in the face with a gun, or makes a bad investment, but pity doesn’t mean we have to steal from successful people and pay for the misfortunate and stupid. … Shit happens. All in all, stories like Ms. Bernardo’s should just remind us that money is better off in the hands of Job Creators than in the hands of stupid people like her. America will be a better place with this stupid person’s savings put back to work. The broker David Harris is to be applauded.
But wouldn’t you know? Liberals are happy to identify a “problem” where none exists:
The broker is required to put client’s interest ahead of his own? :eek: :smack: Admittedly, the new rule would apply only to retirement accounts, but still. Where is Ayn Rand when we need her?
Please write your Congressman and stop this new abuse of power by Hussein Obama.
OK, this is not a liberal idea, per se, but it is an incredibly stupid one, from a centrist Democrat:
California Senator Feinstein wants The Anarchist Cookbook removed from the internets.
I don’t think she understands how the internet works.
Excellent example of stupidity
Let this be an example to Clothahump as to how it is done.
I know a librarian who stole the library copy of The Anarchist’s Cookbook from the library, because he didn’t think it was fit or proper to have that book publicly available.
But…he’s an extreme right winger.
So, maybe this is a stupid idea that has bi-ideological appeal.
Having been a former Chief of Police, I doubt seriously that that state Rep is a liberal.
Putting the Democratic Party label on one does not make one a liberal. Dianne Feinstein is a prime example of that.
Damn it! Way to steal my thunder.
I can’t tell if you’re being facetious or not, but I find it hard to see how this is a stupid idea.