Wonder if he offered folks a six inch or a foot long....sorry, couldn't resist the obvious!:rolleyes:

Oooooo...maybe too soon?


Nah, never too soon for a joke

He and this guy could be cellmates
http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/cait...nt-1201574602/

and I am not surprised at all.....add crook to the list

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0a40aa3ac0f2b

Who does he think he is, the red cross?

http://happynicetimepeople.com/resea...m-yeah-right/#!

Everyone would like to think that the ability to get irony and sarcasm has something to do with being smart — it just makes sense, after all, that picking up on the subtle cues that a statement isn’t meant to be taken at face value has something to do with intelligence, or discernment, or something like that. And god knows when we don’t pick up on a sarcastic remark, we definitely feel dumb. While I suspect that there’s probably something to that, some recent research published in Frontiers in Psychology suggests that, in children at least, the ability to understand irony and sarcasm appears to be related to the child’s ability to empathize with others.

So, slate was being sarcastic. Or you were. Got it.

no, i think slate was pointing out the irony.
people say no government...and then they find out later how often they actually need part of it.
and then they say 'oh'

did something change from that story you just linked above?

"Irony," cries slate - where there is none. Because slate doesn't understand that limited government does not equal no government. Or maybe that was you.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gay-coupl...ounty-kentucky


I really wish that these few clerks could explain why that one sin they don't like is what crosses the line.
but then....she can't judge someone getting married and divorced, and then coming to her to get married again. and again.
she's done it four times so far. yeah, those sincerely held beliefs are only so sincere.

I'm sorry you didn't get it.
or maybe you didn't get to this part of the article?

To be clear, I understand that FreedomWorks has not literally called for the elimination of public fire departments. (If it did, it wouldn't be the first time that proposal has been made by a libertarian group or activist.) FreedomWorks has, however, opposed funding for federal disaster relief funding of the sort that Washington state has requested and received from FEMA to fight ongoing fires in the Okanogan area. FEMA also paid for more than $2 million in fire-related infrastructure repairs in Okanogan County in 2014


I'm all for smaller govt. there's a lot of bloat and waste.
but, quite often those who say 'I don't want no govt' are the first to complain if they don't show when things get tough..
just like people who complain about the aclu, and then wonder when the aclu will sue over something that hits them directly.

then there's 'we don't need to regulate banks' who caused the last economic, worldwide collapse in 08. but let's regulate the living sh!t out of abortion clinics...but no other medical clinics.
hey, maybe we can have another govt shutdown to harm the economy, but our esteemed congress will get paid?

as an aside, I saw something about politicians having to wear their donors names on their suits, just like nascar drivers. I love that idea.

Sarah Palin & Donald Trump:tro:.The Dynamic Duo...what could go wrong here:zz:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oeju2SG7UMA

You need to understand- their objection to government handouts is that any of said handouts might go to "those people." Seriously, if the government would announce it was restricting welfare to Caucasians only, you'd see most of those folks do a 180 on how they felt about it. Heck, it's the only way Social Security was able to be passed initially; they worded everything so that basically whites were the only ones eligible. South wouldn't have voted for it otherwise.

holy crap, had no idea about that. i've not read history passed ww2, and that's been mostly history on the war itself, not domestic policies here at home.
i did some searching after reading your post. shocking stuff.
here's a book review--a book you've read maybe?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/bo...ghts.html?_r=0

At the time, most blacks in the labor force were employed in agriculture or as domestic household workers. Members of Congress from the Deep South demanded that those occupations be excluded from the minimum wage, Social Security, unemployment insurance and workmen's compensation. When labor unions scored initial victories in organizing poor factory workers in the South after World War II, the Southern Congressional leaders spearheaded legislation to cripple those efforts. The Southerners' principal objective, Katznelson contends, was to safeguard the racist economic and social order known as the Southern "way of life."

I haven't read that book, but I'm totally going to check it out now. Thanks for the link! Really depressing to read about how black veterans were cut out of the opportunities provided via the GI Bill, and what a sneaky way to do it- have state gov'ts administer them, rather than the federal. Ugh.

(I did a fair amount of reading on the history of Social Security thanks to an argument I had with a guy who was defending Ayn Rand's collection of Social Security. I actually don't see it as the massive act of hypocrisy it's accused of being, but I did disagree with the amounts of money he assumed she'd paid into it.)

it's appalling how veterans have been treated since day one in this country.
from shay's rebellion back when Washington was still around, to ww1 and and the 'bonus' army, to now when the wait for benefits can take well over a year. it's a disgrace.