[licence2kill]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Dismissing them is as irresponsible as dismissing the entire occupy movement as the same.

Were there crazies present? Yes.

Did they appeal to people? Yes.

The difference is, the tea party has zero good policy ideas.

[rnauman821]

My issue with the administration right now, and republicans before them, is their ability to piss away the civil liberties and personal privacy of American citizens for the sake of "security". The patriot act should never have passed and shouldn't exist today.

Whichever party gets rid of it first gets a single vote from me in whatever election they want.

[Frank101]

The Congress and president seemed to be in agreement with regards to the anti-protesting bill HR 347 and NDAA. And with an executive whom actually was bound to the limitations of the Constitution, he would not have declared war without congressional approval in Libya.

We are not exactly gridlocked either, last I read, there were something like 20k+ new regulations in the last 2 years or so alone (albeit not all passed by Congress, some were the various agencies).

What good is it if we do happen to even reach that equilibrium of gridlock if we are locked into a ****ty situation of debt, poor growth prospects, and perpetual war/empire presence?

Your analysis of Republicans being reluctant to spend is quite off, they may preach fiscal conservatism from time to time, but it doesn't seem to be the case for their pet projects.

[Dentpusher]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

No the teaparty was a bunch of bat**** crazies who couldn't appeal to anyone except bat**** crazies. You can try to blame the media for their shortcomings though.

Spoken like a true liberal name caller. Give a definition of what makes them crazy. And by your definition, were Occupiers crazy too?

Liberal bias in MSM? Here, out of the mouth of the Political News Director of ABC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eajq0w_MsF8
Oh, I know he is some kind of shill, turn coat, Uncle Tom.........

[Dentpusher]

This is why we are not happy.

(CNSNews.com) – Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Bringing or legislative works to now over 169,300 pages. Exactly how does this give us more freedom? It does not, the constitution made us as free as possible ( i know, except blacks blah, blah )

We can also, see down the road that given our current fiscal situation, the government must cut expenditures MORE than .5%. OP should be in government making the argument that congress is doing good according to baseline budgeting and reducing rate of ADDITIONAL expenditure growth. sigh

[The Ralpst]

Originally Posted by Dentpusher

Over the past three years, the bound edition of the Code of Federal Regulations has increased by 11,327 pages – a 7.4 percent increase from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 31, 2011. In 2009, the increase in the number of pages was the most over the last decade – 3.4 percent or 5,359 pages.

Bringing or legislative works to now over 169,300 pages. Exactly how does this give us more freedom? It does not, the constitution made us as free as possible ( i know, except blacks blah, blah )

Well, the founding fathers didn't have a clue what the ozone layer is, or how fast automobiles should safely be allowed to travel. As we discover more about the world around us regulations are bound to increase. Maybe you should care more about whether or not they are smart regulations rather than just some arbitrary number of pages.

Also, except blacks blah, blah.

[licence2kill]

The discussion should never be about the amount of regulation, only the quality.

[drgonzo]

CNSNews ... might as well quote Alfred E Neuman

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by The Ralpst

Well, the founding fathers didn't have a clue what the ozone layer is, or how fast automobiles should safely be allowed to travel. As we discover more about the world around us regulations are bound to increase. Maybe you should care more about whether or not they are smart regulations rather than just some arbitrary number of pages.

Also, except blacks blah, blah.

Fact of the Day - the 55 mph speed limit set some years ago by the federal government (and eventually abandoned by the states) had nothing to do with safety.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

The discussion should never be about the amount of regulation, only the quality.

[chodeyg]

Originally Posted by Dentpusher

Spoken like a true liberal name caller. Give a definition of what makes them crazy. And by your definition, were Occupiers crazy too?

Liberal bias in MSM? Here, out of the mouth of the Political News Director of ABC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eajq0w_MsF8
Oh, I know he is some kind of shill, turn coat, Uncle Tom.........

You are calling people liberal in an attempt to make it sound negative (irony)
You ignored my post about calling ows a bunch of crazies too (ignorance)

I see why you usually don't post in here

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Fact of the Day - the 55 mph speed limit set some years ago by the federal government (and eventually abandoned by the states) had nothing to do with safety.

What did it have to do with?

[Dentpusher]

Originally Posted by chodeyg

You are calling people liberal in an attempt to make it sound negative (irony)
You ignored my post about calling ows a bunch of crazies too (ignorance)

I see why you usually don't post in here

I don't usually post here because it is a colossal waste of time. I have to work to pay taxes for the government beast so it can redistribute my funds.

Later when I got on a computer instead of my phone, I did see that post, however, comparing OWS to the tea party is like comparing drug cartels/dealers to pharmacists.

I prefer to work with kids to explain to them how to understand liberal speak and know what is really going on in the world. For example: how liberalism is not synonymous with modern day, many times rich,out-of-touch, hypocritical Liberal ie John Kerry, Algore, et al. To me it is anathema to call a Libertarian a Liberal, today, but to some extent they are in the classical term. Not irony.

[Dentpusher]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

What did it have to do with?

This is why I don't hang around these places. If you can't see the difference, it is a waste of breath or skin cells rather (I'll explain that for you. The friction of typing is wearing the skin off my finger tips).

[Dentpusher]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

CNSNews ... might as well quote Alfred E Neuman

If you would like I will post a link to the chart from the government report, on itself, that shows the growth of pages of legislation.

[custar]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

What did it have to do with?

It was an attempt to reduce gasoline usage in response to an Arab oil embargo.

custar

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by Dentpusher

I have to work to pay taxes for the government beast so it can redistribute my funds.

You should quit your job. If that's all that stands between your current oppression and freedom, then the choice is simple.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

You should quit your job. If that's all that stands between your current oppression and freedom, then the choice is simple.

People are too lazy. I have a great quote about that... sitting in that foggy area of my memory. If I am lucky, I will remember it and post it.

Originally Posted by custar

It was an attempt to reduce gasoline usage in response to an Arab oil embargo.

custar

Thank you, kind sir, for picking up my slack.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

no

it frees up labor resources to be employed in other productions, or it simply increases the output of that existing labor making us all richer.

OK let's try this. Stepping back and away from abstract generalizations. I want you to clearly outline how total factor productivity growth explains this nations maintained affluence through a decline in domestic production.

See the problem I'm having is that Americas economic boom was due to the fact that we were also, at one point, the worlds largest producer of petroleum. It carried us to world dominance where our industry and technology boomed. I'm with you up until this point. The problem is, we are no longer that producer and the "made in the USA" tag has been replaced by various third world nations. Supported by the fact that we import many more manufactured goods than we export. When you take into consideration the fact that we have such inadequate domestic capital that we rely on foreign loans, your point is making less sense to me. America consumes more resources and more energy than any other industrial nation. How is it able to do so without its empire? I mean, we are in an almost identical boat as the British empire was before the sun set on it.

Unless I am missing something huge here, I'm not seeing what you see. Then again, one or two sentence responses from you don't reveal much of anything.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by shakeyjonez

I know one libtard who is desperate after Romney kicked Obama's *** in the first debate. This is hilarious.

He only kicked Obama's *** if you believe his lie after lie.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by Spock

He only kicked Obama's *** if you believe his lie after lie.

That is the point of a debate, isn't it?