facepalm of the day

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

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'

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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'

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/24/if...-die-in-fires/

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/24/if...-die-in-fires/

did something change from that story you just linked above?

[OldDog]

"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.

[Danzig]

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

"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.

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.

[bigrun]

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


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

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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?

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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."