Redstate

I presume you have crosstabbed polling to show this, right? You know, that it was all of the great work Congress did for social conservatives that killed them. While you're at it, some actual accomplishments for social conservatives would be nice.

Or is this just another substance-free rant?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I was writing my thesis on RedState sorry. I live in one of the most conservative states in the Midwest and I go to one of the most conservative colleges in the nation. Most Republicans, including leaders of College Republicans, were more upset at the Social issues constantly going forward than spending.

If you can find me a person that votes solely on spending then that person will vote for the minority party every time.

You did say spending had NOTHING to do with the Republican defeat which is not true. You did NOT say that spending as a single issue caused the Republican defeat.

Spending is a top tier issue for me and affects how I vote every time.

"Most Republicans, including leaders of College Republicans..."

Let's talk about adults, instead. Keep your "college republican" leaders where they belong: (silently) volunteering on campaigns, and debating the Young Dems on campus.

DO NOT bring them here and use them as a rationale or as an example of actual adult Republican thought.

I am the CR president at my campus, at 26 years of age. While I may not have your experience, let me say that the CR's here are rather intellectual, and I believe that they will have a big impact in coming years. Every coalition for Republicans is important-let's not denigrate because they might have the experience of the elders.

Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan

For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

follow the links and email me!

Hinzsightreport.com -- Citizen Journalism!

I've heard it's the "internet gaming ban" and the inability to pass a comprehensive amnesty bill, as well. And the inability to pass a SS plan. And of course there's always Iraq.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I'll agree and add that we also had the Katrina fiasco and probably most importantly, high prices. Nothing sunk the Republicans like $3/gallon for gas.

Oh, and gratuitous character assassinations by the media didn't help much, either.

Gimlet

2 parts gin + 1 part lime juice

with gay marriage and flag burning. It's a matter of telling people what to do. And SS - it's a SoCon thing because "married" couples get higher benefits. Katrina and gas prices are too. That's about Republicans "getting at" poor people so they can help their rich friends. And making LA a safe red state by forcing all of the poor people out.

It was the SoCons.

Iraq? What's that?
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

In fact, some of us went into the voting booth believing the Republicans did not do enough on "family values" and what little they did do was pure pandering with no real desire to get things done on abortion, so called gay marriage, flag burning and terri schaivo. Add to that that the republicans also did nothing about shrinking the size of government and reducing spending, then I'd say social conservatives have more to be upset with the republicans than you do.

AMEN. How can any American think killing inconvenient children is the right thing to do? Even if you have decided that
it's OK for a adulterous husband to take the insurance money he was paid to take care of her, and use it instead to buy a high priced lawyer to get her killed. How can anyone agree that it's
OK for a Judge to sentence an innocent women, convicted of no crime, to starve to death for 13 days with no water allowed, by court order. Even Saddam Hussein was allowed to have water.
Even Saddam Hussein was allowed to die quickly.

I disagree with your statement that “Republicans need to learn that spending had NOTHING to do with defeat.”  Congress’s irresponsible spending and support for “big government” was my biggest issue this year.   Yes,
I did cast my votes in response to  Congress’s irresponsible spending.  In addition, the fact remains that Republican Party came to power in 1994 with the Contract with America, which promised to “…end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money,” 
and lost power in 2006 as a result of “Big Government Republicanism.” The belief that Big Government is the problem is still very popular in this country as shown by a recent Rasmussen reports poll.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Look at how many people pushed the idea that we’d be better off with “divided government” on the theory that it would lead to gridlock (and hence less spending increases and tax cuts) as Bush would find it easier to oppose the other party’s spending initiatives.

its legalization has been forced on our country in 1973.

If, as you say, the GOP was forced out because people have grown tired of "Family Values" (quotes and capitals are yours), then I still rest assured that a remnant of true believers will remain as has been promised by God.

Those who failed to value the life of Terri Schiavo will be judged in their own time - along with those who have failed to advocate for the millions upon millions of innocent unborn children who have been destroyed.

We don't need to start shooting Congressmen, as some [batsh*t nuts 'pro-white' advocates that WND itself considers loony.* - Moe Lane] suggest.

[*BTW, even implying that we give these twits the time of day is not compatible with a long-term posting history here. You have been warned.]

Mr Lane, you overreact.

I think my words (ex. "within reason" and "we don't need") say all that needs to be said about what I think the appropriate reaction to such "twits" ought to be.

You're not as bright as you think you are, and we've seen this kind of passive-aggressive guilt-by-association attempts before. Over and over and over again, in fact.

You will now apologize to the group for underestimating our intelligence and for attempting to cause trouble, and pledge that you will be more respectful in the future. I suggest that you use precisely those words; trying to be quote-unquote 'creative' on this is contraindicated.

Moe

PS: Yes, I can make these calls; no, I don't really care about your opinion of them.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I didn’t buy that argument when it was offered before the midterm elections and I was probably one of the most ardent critics of the idea that “divided government = smaller government” particular with the problem of entitlement programs.

However I understand why a lot of people thought it would be a good idea particularly with the fiscal irresponsibility of the last couple of Congresses and President Bush. If Republicans want to get back into power, they’re going to need to seriously address that issue.

After all the hostility and vitriol directed by the Democrats toward the military over the last 50 years...
After all the Physical damage their policies have done to the military over the last 50 years...
And not One Dem politician, let alone a member of the Dem leaderhip will stand up and cry foul when that party tries or says something else that is either patently untrue or known to be harmful to the US Armed Forces...

...How can ANY military member, current or former, vote Dem?

I won't understand how Anyone who likes his freedom and safety can vote Dem either, but I'll just stick to the smaller group for now.

Disclaimer: The above are the ONLY reasons that I refuse to support any person who tacks that (D) at the end of his name. While I am no Socialist, I prefer people who are honest about being criminals and about how stupid they feel the American public is over people who claim otherwise and then prove to be just as bad...

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

there is no chance that I (retired military) would ever vote for any member of a Political party that nominated the person who
went to Paris, met with the enemy and stood in front of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the US Senate on 22 Apr 1971, and told them, he had met with the enemy and adopted their
proposal and was promoting the enemy's plan. Who was later nominated to be the Democrat candidate for President.

Nor will I vote for Democrats who allow Rep Murtha to be seated in their party after his brazen efforts to aid terrorists.
Nor Sen Kennedy, who's correspondence with the Russians asking
their aid in defeating the US, is a matter of record.
Nor Sen Rockefeller, who's trip, in Jan 2002, to alert the Syrians that America was going to attack Saddam Hussein was made a matter of record by his own voice. On Fox News Sunday, 13 Nov 2005-with Chris Matthews.
Nor Sen Durbin or any of them, the list just seems to go on forever.

Raven,
It's interesting to read your perception of the battered military due to the hostilities Democrats have caused over the past 50 years. What's funny about that is wasn't the battle to take Iraq before Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech done with the past administrations' military? And isn't the current administration who is wrecking the military? Reports say that it will take up to 10 years to restore the military after this folly is completed.

What's most interesting is the abject denial of fact your post portrays, while conveniently omitting the fact that it has been the Republicans who have cut spending for veterans, who short changed them when it came to supplies like body armor.

Furthermore, your question regarding how can any militarty member, current or former vote Dem? Your question begs another question. If the Dems hate the military so much, why is it that 99% of the veterans of the Iraq war that ran for office ran as Dems? Or why is it that the vast majority of those serving in the House and Senate that were in the military Democrats? Pardon the rhetorical nature of this question, but the answer is, because veterans know that the Republican party and the administration mis led them to get them into war,had no stategy to get them out of the war and continually changed the reasons for going in to Iraq. At first it was WMD's, then it was to liberate the Iraqis from tyranny, then it was because Iraq is the central war on terror, now it's to get the job done, whatever that means as no objective, plan or strategy has been brought forth it appears the military has been duped, not by the dems but rather by the chickenhawk "leaders" who look only to profit from the misery and chaos that they so haphazardly have inflicted upon a country and the region as a whole. Perhaps you should re-examine where your loyalties lie or at the very least re examine your perceptions.

you wanted "American Style Fasism"??

you got it

Hinzsightreport.com -- Citizen Journalism!

...is non-negotiable, sorry. Neither do we tolerate those who would overthrow that.

But I must say: you were aptly named.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

If the Dems hate the military so much, why is it that 99% of the veterans of the Iraq war that ran for office ran as Dems?

Because the military that support the war tend to re-enlist, while the military that don't leave the army ASAP and join the Democrats.

I've made your name more reflective of your beliefs. Good news, right?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I had tro throw up before I was half through that...

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

Take it up with John Kennedy. The ban on I.N.T.E.R.S.T.A.T.E gambling was passed when he was president. All the last congress did was deny credit card processors the ability to process credit transactions for those companies.

Take it up with your new CongressCritter™ I'm sure he appreciates your vote and will immediately write a new law opening up the joys of texas hold em once again.

Or you could host a game at your house.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

Governments don't like gambling when they can't legitimately lay claim to a cut.

They've never minded it when they get to wet their own beak.

The problem that the Frists of the world have with Internet gambling isn't so much the gambling part, it's the part that it invariably takes place offshore and away from their taxing authority.

Don't fall for the old saw about gambling just being bad for you. The government busted up all kinds of gambling rackets for years -- only to replace them with hundreds of these state-sanctioned casinos.

I thought you'd like our graphic. ;)

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

And that night divides the day? No matter how you try to run, and try to hide. All that's really left is to break on through to the other side.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

.

But you don't think that trying to to associate the Democratic Party to dictatorial Communist regimes might be a bit much?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

The whole "hammer and sickle" thing is going a bit far. I'll agree with that. There's nothing particularly Stalinist about the Democrats.

But the headline itself is completely factually accurate. The Senate majority consists of 50 Senators who call themselves Democrats and one who calls himself a socialist.

Personally, I think most of them are socialists...same with a lot of the Republicans there. But we tend to look at such a label as some kind of epithet, rather than a legitimate political (or, in this case, economic) philosophy.

I don't see it as an epithet -- not in that way, anyway.

Like it or not we live in a somewhat Socialist state and we will continue to live in one long after we are all pushing daisys.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

And I try my best every day to resist it -- because socialism has a habit of creeping to the point where it's easy to forget where you even came from. Next thing you know, you're France.

I was in Munich a few years ago having beer and pretzels at the Hofbrauhaus. Sitting at my table were a group of HP employees from South Africa. One of them asked me why I thought America was able to gain so much wealth and power in such a relatively short period of time while the older powers of the world seemed, at best, to languish or, worse, recede -- even with the Industrial Revolution beginning in Europe.

He said he believed it was about attitude -- that Americans were more confident and determined than peoples elsewhere.

I disagreed. There's nothing special about American people versus, say, German people. I think we've been successful because we've generally done a better job than other industrialized nations resisting the temptations of socialism.

We haven't been great at it and I think we'd be much better served by undoing a lot of what socialism we have done. But, as compared to Western Europe, in particular, we just did a better job protecting our private sector.

Most other countries don't have their own version of our Republican Party. They have their left and right parties. But their "right" parties are about where our Democrats normally are, economically. Their left parties are about where guys like Sanders are.

There'd be a lot more wealth and prosperity in this world if every country saw the wisdom of resisting socialism.

While there may not be anything specifically special about the American people themselves I do think that there is a dramatic difference in the cultures of Europe and America.

When you speak to the vast majority of Europeans they tend to view materialism and greed(the good kind) as not being very desirable traits. They are much focused on non-productive goals. Big vacations and short work weeks are vastly more desirable to most of them than making huge salaries and personal advancement. That's not to say that they are uninterested in making more money. Of course they are. But it isn't nearly as focused a part of their culture.

Their socialist safety nets are a by-product of that mindset. They believe that it is far more important to have those nets than it is to have a more efficient economy.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

You're saying the same thing I'm saying in slightly modified language.

Things like short work-weeks, long vacations, etc. are just as much a part of socialism as are good ol' redistribution. It's not as if there's some agreed upon framework between free employees and free employers. These are all government enforced things.

Did you see the marching in France's streets last year when somebody had the audacity to propose increasing France's workweek to 36 hours? The government relented, of course.

You're right that this is a cultural difference -- but it's all tied in together. These people want good lifestyles just for the simple fact that they're French/German/Italian/Spanish/etc. And because these nations are, relatively, wealthy, they see things as healthcare, generous welfare packages, and leisurely employment laws as some kind of entitlement.

And, IMO, this has caused them to fall behind economically and will continue to do so as long as it's like that.

Sooner or later, if you get enough people to buy into collectivism, more and more will become on the dependent side of that equation rather than the productive side of it. And these countries are finding it out -- while liberalizing economies like Dubai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and even China are finding out that with liberalization comes growth.

Things like short work-weeks, long vacations, etc. are just as much a part of socialism as are good ol' redistribution. It's not as if there's some agreed upon framework between free employees and free employers. These are all government enforced things.

So you oppose labor laws entirely? Or just ones that reduce work time from their current levels?

I also see a difference between socialist policies and regulatory policies. Shorter work weeks is a regulatory policy.

You're right that this is a cultural difference -- but it's all tied in together. These people want good lifestyles just for the simple fact that they're French/German/Italian/Spanish/etc. And because these nations are, relatively, wealthy, they see things as healthcare, generous welfare packages, and leisurely employment laws as some kind of entitlement.

You don't think that most Americans want good lifestyles because they are Americans?

As I said those countries have a different view about health care, welfare, and pension plans. They believe those are core aspects of their society.

You don't think that Ireland has significant socialist policies in place? Those Asia nations are coming from MUCH different places than the big Euro countries.

You are assigning a value to productivity over quality of life based on your cultural beliefs. Germany, France, and England have already had a go at the world domination thing. And it culminated in 2 very bloody wars that changed Europe forever. To ignore the impact of those 2 wars on the cultures of Europe is ignore history altogether.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

So you oppose labor laws entirely? Or just ones that reduce work time from their current levels?

For the most part, yes. Of course, it depends what they are. But I look at an employer-employee relationship as being voluntary, coequal, and mutually beneficial. Either party should be able to demand want they want as a condition of the relationship -- be it in terms of wages, benefits, hours, working conditions, etc.

Most labor regulations rest on the premise that workers don't know enough what's good or bad for them -- such that the government has to dictate it....that people wouldn't refuse jobs on the merits of the requirements, pay, etc.

If I offer a job that pays a salary of $20K a year with no benefits, an 80-hour week, in rotten working conditions, that should be completely legal -- as should be the ability for a potential candidate to give me a Bronx cheer and flip me the bird.

I also see a difference between socialist policies and regulatory policies.

You shouldn't. It's the usurping the role of a private citizen in either case. If the state replaces my judgment in favor of its own, that's socialism. It's not merely about the forcible extraction and redistribution of capital.

It's no accident that anti-socialists fight against both taxation and regulation -- for these are both fundamental tenets of central-planning.

You don't think that most Americans want good lifestyles because they are Americans?

Many do, yes. And I (sadly) think the number of entitlement-minded people is growing here. As I've said elsewhere, this will be the downfall of Western civilization -- it's a part of the broader shirking of personal responsibility that is so prevalent.

And it is, IMO, completely the fault (though certainly unintended) of liberalism, socialism, and other collectivist philosophies.

Mind you -- I didn't say that we'd avoided sliding into this cesspool. I just said that we've been generally better at it than most other countries.

You don't think that Ireland has significant socialist policies in place?

Ireland is a great example of a liberalizing economy realizing the growth benefits of doing so. And, not coincidentally, they've been registering higher than most of their European counterparts in recent years on the annual list of freest economies.

Those Asia nations are coming from MUCH different places than the big Euro countries.

Er, so? The point is that countries which liberalize their economies will see growth. China's growth has exploded as they've been liberalizing, as an example. The story of Hong Kong ought to be a model for the rest of the world.

The late British economist PT Bauer did some fantastic writing on how a poor country can become prosperous -- and Hong Kong and Singapore were Exhibits A and B on how to do it.

You are assigning a value to productivity over quality of life based on your cultural beliefs.

Wrong, flyer. I'm establishing a relationship between productivity and a sustainable quality of life. I'm not valuing productivity over quality of life -- I'm saying that you can't have the latter for very long without the former, and the more you avoid the former, the soon you'll be without the latter.

Most labor regulations rest on the premise that workers don't know enough what's good or bad for them -- such that the government has to dictate it....that people wouldn't refuse jobs on the merits of the requirements, pay, etc.

If I offer a job that pays a salary of $20K a year with no benefits, an 80-hour week, in rotten working conditions, that should be completely legal -- as should be the ability for a potential candidate to give me a Bronx cheer and flip me the bird.

Do you think that the meat packers of Upton Sinclair's world were unaware of the risks of their jobs? Do you think the mine workers of 1910 in West Virginia didn't know that everyday they enter a mine may be the last day of their lives?

Labor laws aren't in place to protect the ignorant. They are there to protect those that have NO CHOICE but to take those jobs that render human life meaningless. I hate to break the news to you but Justice Lochner was horribly wrong.

You shouldn't. It's the usurping the role of a private citizen in either case. If the state replaces my judgment in favor of its own, that's socialism. It's not merely about the forcible extraction and redistribution of capital.

It's no accident that anti-socialists fight against both taxation and regulation -- for these are both fundamental tenets of central-planning.

Really? So you see no difference between the Nuclear Regulatory Committee and Welfare?

Are you sure you're a libertarian? You sound more anarchist than libertarian.

Ireland is a great example of a liberalizing economy realizing the growth benefits of doing so. And, not coincidentally, they've been registering higher than most of their European counterparts in recent years on the annual list of freest economies.

Ok. But you do realize that they have a bunch of socialist policies and strict regulations? Has it occurred to you that the main reason why Ireland is doing so well is low taxes, particularly at the local level, and a perhaps the most productive workforce in the world(defined as productivity compared to wages)?

Er, so? The point is that countries which liberalize their economies will see growth. China's growth has exploded as they've been liberalizing, as an example. The story of Hong Kong ought to be a model for the rest of the world.

That is pretty amusing? China's growth is a chimera. In 10 years, remember that it was flyerhawk that told you that China's economy will collapse between 2009-2014. Regardless the fact that you think that because Communist China is turning capitalist proves that socialism, of any kind, is wrong is simply bizarre.

Wrong, flyer. I'm establishing a relationship between productivity and a sustainable quality of life. I'm not valuing productivity over quality of life -- I'm saying that you can't have the latter for very long without the former, and the more you avoid the former, the soon you'll be without the latter.

And you base this on what?

Sometimes I wonder if you guys have a clue what life in western Europe is about at all.

Labor laws aren't in place to protect the ignorant. They are there to protect those that have NO CHOICE but to take those jobs that render human life meaningless.

So someone is literally placing a gun to these folks' heads and forcing them to work these jobs?

Or by "NO CHOICE" did you mean that they merely lacked the job skills to obtain other (and presumably better and safer) employment, and/or needed the money?

I hate to break the news to you but Justice Lochner was horribly wrong.

Presumably you mean to say Justice Peckham, writing for the majority in Lochner v. New York. And no, he wasn't wrong: the Framers recognized that economic freedom was as basic and essential as anything enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and despite the oceans of jurisprudential ink spilled on the subject no one has yet articulated a minimally rational distinction between property rights and other fundamental liberties that justifies treating them so differently in terms of substantive due process.

Gee that was fun.

So someone is literally placing a gun to these folks' heads and forcing them to work these jobs?

Or by "NO CHOICE" did you mean that they merely lacked the job skills to obtain other (and presumably better and safer) employment, and/or needed the money?

No, choice as in you need food to live and you need money to buy food and you need a job to get money. One thing that has been proven over and over again is you can make people do ANYTHING if they are desperate enough.

the Framers recognized that economic freedom was as basic and essential as anything enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and despite the oceans of jurisprudential ink spilled on the subject no one has yet articulated a minimally rational distinction between property rights and other fundamental liberties that justifies treating them so differently in terms of substantive due process.

Really? Where in the Constitution are the words economic freedom written?

I'm sure no one has articulated a minimally rational distinction because you are referring to vague concepts. What are the fundamental liberties that you speak of?

You have an example of a nation's businesses EVER respecting the rights of workers WITHOUT labor laws?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

No, choice as in you need food to live and you need money to buy food and you need a job to get money. One thing that has been proven over and over again is you can make people do ANYTHING if they are desperate enough.

NA as in non-applicable.

"Will Work For Good" is a great phrase for bleeding hearts and cardboard signs at the exit ramp of interstates, but it is also a big lie. The sign should read, "will beg for food but prefer money, drugs, or alcohol" with another sign below it saying "at least I am making the effort to beg, most people just get a tax payer funded check instead of doing anything".

You do not have to work to eat, live, or even to grow fat in the US.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

What was the purpose of this comment?

We are talking about why labor laws are necessary? We are not talking about whether people are starving in America today.

I'm also not sure why you needed to throw out the "poor people are more interested in drugs and alcohol than working" canard.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

My comments were a direct response to a statement you made. I will place it in blockquotes once again so you can be sure of the target of my comments.

No, choice as in you need food to live and you need money to buy food and you need a job to get money. One thing that has been proven over and over again is you can make people do ANYTHING if they are desperate enough.

You are clearly stating that many have no choice but to work for oppressive employers because they have no choice if they are to eat and therefore live. My response to this is that although this may be true in other countries, it is far from true here in the US. It has been proven over and over again that one need not to work at all or for anyone and not only be able to eat, but also get free clothing, job training, housing and health care to boot.

You can support labor laws all you want and I also see the need for limited regulation, but to say people must work or die in the US is a true "canard".

Definition of canard: An unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story.

I admit that I went a little overboard with the pandhandler rant, but it is one of my pet peeves. What it is not however, is a canard. Anyone who has worked in the construction industry, as I have, can tell you how laborers are always in high demand (and paid well above minimum wage). I have had superintendents that would go out of their way to try to pick up the man holding the "work for food" sign just to hear the humorous waffling that followed an honest offer of work instead of a monetary handout.

___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

Please read the comments before mine. I was NOT saying that people need to work or they will die today.

I said the REASON we need labor laws is because without those laws people WILL be abused by businesses because desperate people will do whatever it takes to make money for the families.

The fact that we HAVE labor laws helps to protect our workers from immoral businessmen who would ignore the welfare of his workers in order to make higher profits.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

In the prior discussion, you supported your REASON labor laws are needed with the excessive overstatement that without them "immoral" businessmen would abuse their employees in jobs "that render human life meaningless".

Death by starvation and meaningless lives are a far cry from being, as you now say, "abused by businesses because desperate people will do whatever it takes to make money for the families." Regardless of your exagerrated overstatements, the fact remains that in our country with its social and charitable safety nets, one only has to quit a job to escape any perceived or real abuse and still have little to fear from starvation or death. Better yet, one could go in search of a job with that apparently rarest of breeds, the "moral businessman".

The REASON I go out of my way to point this out, is because it has been my experience that it is the average worker that is more likely to be the one engaged in "Immoral" activity than the business owner. IMHO, many American workers feel entitled to a paycheck instead of having to earn it(and at times in my life, I have been guilty of this attitude).

The fact that we HAVE labor laws helps to protect our workers from immoral businessmen who would ignore the welfare of his workers in order to make higher profits. But, we do NOT HAVE effective labor laws that protect moral businessmen from those would destroy the profits of a business with frivolous suits, false claims, and the general abuse of labor laws.

__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

Death by starvation and meaningless lives are a far cry from being, as you now say, "abused by businesses because desperate people will do whatever it takes to make money for the families." Regardless of your exagerrated overstatements, the fact remains that in our country with its social and charitable safety nets, one only has to quit a job to escape any perceived or real abuse and still have little to fear from starvation or death. Better yet, one could go in search of a job with that apparently rarest of breeds, the "moral businessman".

Really? Should I bring up various historical references? Have you read The Jungle? Have you read the history of the West Virgnia coal mines and their treatment of their workers?

Why you think I am exagerrating I have no idea. Certainly most businesses are run by ethical people who wish to do the right. But to ignore the fact that humans WILL treat other humans being very poorly for their own is just ignore human nature.

The REASON I go out of my way to point this out, is because it has been my experience that it is the average worker that is more likely to be the one engaged in "Immoral" activity than the business owner. IMHO, many American workers feel entitled to a paycheck instead of having to earn it(and at times in my life, I have been guilty of this attitude).

Well ok. So what? Why do you feel a need to say "Oh yeah? Well workers are soooo much worse than managers"? They're all human beings right?

The fact that we HAVE labor laws helps to protect our workers from immoral businessmen who would ignore the welfare of his workers in order to make higher profits. But, we do NOT HAVE effective labor laws that protect moral businessmen from those would destroy the profits of a business with frivolous suits, false claims, and the general abuse of labor laws.

Well ok. So what do you propose? Criminalizing laziness? And we certainly do have laws that punish frivolous lawsuits.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

It is fitting that you cite the writings of a dedicated socialist like Upton Sinclair to support your arguments in a diary that highlights his modern day brethren residing in the Democrat party. What I don’t understand is why you use the labor abuses of over 100 years ago to support your arguments for labor law today.

Well ok. So what? Why do you feel a need to say "Oh yeah? Well workers are soooo much worse than managers"? They're all human beings right?

I spoke of employee initiated abuse because it was not obvious to me from your comments that you realized that there was another side to the coin and not all businessmen were “immoral”. But “sooo” much worse than managers? I am quite certain that I did not accuse the employees of starving or dehumanizing their employers in the same way you accused their management.

Well ok. So what do you propose? Criminalizing laziness? And we certainly do have laws that punish frivolous lawsuits.

No, but I do propose that the majority of abuse and immoral behavior that occurs in business has flip-flopped over the last hundred years from being committed by the owners to being committed by the employees of today’s modern American workplace. Also, that many of the laws originally meant to protect employees are now misused to threaten, cajole, and extort employers.

I am not advocating the repeal of all labor law- but to compare the workplace of today to that of Upton Sinclair’s worst case scenario is simply ludicrous.

__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

I am not convinced that a socialist state is economically sustainable over more than a handful of generations. The incentives in any flavor of socialism, be it communism, fabianism, utopian, trade unionism, etc reward and thus encourage vice and punish virtue. The net result of socialism is that vice consistently trends upward and virtue trends downward until you reach a “watershed” moment where the socialist society collapses into economic ruin.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

that the United States is a Socialist nation, right?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

But my question for you is:
"You do realize that America has only been socialist since the '30s (though a case could be made for the '20s), right?"

If we keep going at the current pace, we won't last very much longer...

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

A member of the Socialist Party, Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT), is the reason that the Democrats have their one-seat Senate majority.

Thanks for the concern, though.

I don't think Bernie has ever been a member of the Socialist Party, though he does self-define as a "democratic socialist."

He's, technically, an independent.

According to Wikipedia, he's been a member of two different political parties: the Liberty Union Party and the Vermont Progressive Party. But he's never run as a candidate representing either.

Also the hammer and sickle was the symbol of the Communist party rather than the Democratic Socialists which makes this logo about as accurate as putting a Swastika over the Republican elephant.

More importantly, I still think it’s counterproductive on the part of the Directors and comes off more like the sort of temper tantrums the Kossacks threw when they were out of power.

I'm pretty sure he does. It's a label he embraces. And it's still widely embraced in European politics -- because it just so happens to be true.

I think it's a shame that any descriptive and legitimate political label -- socialist, fascist, liberal, conservative, authoritarian, right-wing, leftist, even communist -- had to become looked upon as a pejorative.

And while I disagree with Bernie Sanders on basically everything, I admire the hell out of him for standing up and being what he is without being afraid of what others will think of him.

The truth is, Sanders gives the Democrats their one seat majority in the Senate. So it is, after all, accurate -- even if you look at it as alarmist.

It's not alarmist if the subject of the label self-applies it, is it?

I think the pejorative value of the word socialist has lost a lot of its luster in the past 10 years.

Fascist is a nearly useless word at this point. Liberal and Conservative will always be bad words to the other side.

Communist, otoh, still has quite a kick to it.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

clicks above Nazi in the eyes of most people at this point, although they actually killed far more people than the Nazi's.

But I don't know too many democrats that think communism is grand, although I know several who downplay the atrocities committed by communists.

Why can't the Directors buck-up and show the true results of Democrat/anti-war/liberal foreign policy?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

They are right here.

Practical result of liberal Democrat policies.

I Get My News at HinzSightReport!

I agree with you on that one. I used to live in a country where the hammer and sickle were EVERYWHERE. As far as I'm concerned that symbol is about as offsensive as the swastika. I have many relatives and some grandparents that I never got to know because they were killed in the camps due to their opposition to the Communists. For me this is equivalent to the lefties who portrait Bush with swastikas, or whatever. It is a dumb, counter-productive tactic. Of course I'm sure it always feels good to demonize an enemy, but thinking of 50% of your fellow americans as an "enemy" is a problem in itself.

okay, did he become a conservative in the last week or something, because he certainly wasn't one when he was alive.

He wasn't a liberal, in my book.

Perhaps I should have said "Republicans" have always played the "adult"...my point remains, I miss when you could count on that.

we've decided to do that whole "inner child" thing for a while

Gerald Ford's gift that keeps on giving.

------------
Fnord.

in a hurry!

Try to set the night on Fire.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Since you used the term in a strange context, I assume you don't.

Fascism has it's roots deep in socialism and was originally seen as a socialist heresy. It's "Far Right" in the sense that it's to the right of "pure" socialism. It has NOTHING to do with conservatism or libertarianism.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I'm sure that this little epistle exhausted your brain.

Go back to Kos and leave the adults alone.

John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

The decider decided to open your mail without a warrant. Just another freedom stolen because the gate of fascism has been opened.

What rough beast slouches toward Bethlehem to read mail?

He also decided to give illegal immigrants Social Security after months of working here instead of years like American citizens. He is alone in the escalation in Iraq.

I fully expect the Democrats to strip Social Security benefi-- wait, what's that? They won't?

Well, then I surely expect them to defund operations in Iraq -- oh, no, wait, another non-event.

Oddly, this election stands to be proof that they don't always have consequences. Go figure.

History is being made as I type. The first female Speaker of the House. For your country, be a true patriot and get on board for government reform, oversight and accountabilty.

Our President desperately needs it.

Crypto-fascism is forbidden on this board. You are no fortunate son, no.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

that wouldn't be such a bad thing. As long as he was going to meetings.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...

If the Democrats get one of their ideals passed, we'll have nationalization of a couple of industries, namely health care and drug production.

If the Democrats pass one of their main campaign issues, we'll have a tax increase in the form of "Repeal the Bush tax cuts".

And can you please explain this comment?
"I think socialism is taking treasury money that could have been spent on roads and hospitals and airport security and handing it to Wal-Mart and ExxonMobil."

Frankly, it doesn't fit reality and wouldn't fit into socialism if it did happen.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Right. So what did you call the $400 billion (read: $1.3 trillion) Medicare spending bill passed a couple years ago? Charity? By the way, I'm glad Viagra and Botox are covered, that's a load off my mind. So I may be sick and poor when I'm up there in years but at least I'll have tight, firm skin and a rock-hard erection.

I see no plan for nationalization of health care or drug production -- wouldn't those fall under the same flag? The difference between health care and any other industry is that ideally it would provide less, not more, services and products, because practitioners would dispense just so much as necessary to make a patient well. The profit motive is antithetical to a functional and efficient health care sector.

But no one is saying you shouldn't be free to go to the doctor of your choice or undergo unnecessary medical procedures if you so choose. I do think it's a matter of morality to ensure that anyone who works full-time should have access to a basic level of medical care for free. That's not nationalization of health care any more than the food stamps program is nationalization of agriculture.

--> And can you please explain this comment?

Sure thing. We had a surplus, then Bush was elected and it was gone like that. Then we were attacked and Bush "cut" more taxes, which was actually an act of giving away money that no one had. We could have really used that money to pay for the wars we knew we would have to fight. Instead we gave it to people who didn't need it, and people who could have used it got checks for $17.32. Does anyone on this site deny that as members of a society and implicit co-signers of a social contract, we need to have at least a basic level of taxation to pay for vital services that everyone uses, like water and sanitation? If so, how can you defend giving half-million dollar tax rebates to people who are already millionaires, all in the midst of war?

If you all were really so virulently opposed to socialism you'd have drafted Lew Rockwell for President. Until you do you're just hypocrites, not against socialism, just the Democrat brand of it.

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity." - Dwight Eisenhower

You'll probably enjoy his site more than this one, though. Have fun!

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I Get My News at HinzSightReport!

Medicare - yep it was an expansion of a socialist program. No argument with that analysis and no support for the program from me....

Health care and the drug industry are separate but related industries. The single payor health plans favored by the democrats effectively nationalize the industry. Nancy's call to "negotiate" drug prices does the same for medicine.

And I find it interesting that you equate letting people keep money that they earned with "government subsidies". Subsidies are taking money from people who earn it and giving it to those who don't.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

There will be no nationalization of industry [except in healthcare], no rationing [except in healthcare and energy], and probably not even any tax increases [other than the huge tax increases they already promised -- that'll be enough for this congress].

I think socialism is taking treasury money that could have been spent on roads and hospitals and airport security and handing it to Wal-Mart and ExxonMobil.

And how are we doing that exactly? Is Wal-Mart now the reason we are in Iraq?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I think socialism is taking treasury money that could have been spent on roads and hospitals and airport security and handing it to Wal-Mart and ExxonMobil.

I think you wasted your fifteen minutes of fame!

I Get My News at HinzSightReport!

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I think socialism is taking treasury money that could have been spent on roads and hospitals and airport security and handing it to Wal-Mart and ExxonMobil.

Classic. Purely classic. Utterly wrong in every respect, but spoken as if you think you just scored a critical point.

We really need more of these.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

that the US population has been giving the Canadians? The "cheap" drugs you get are there because the companies that develope them can still recover their R&D costs by charging higher prices in the US. Without our market, there would be no incentive to develop the drugs in the first place.

And that Universal Health Care you're so proud of has some drawback (like long waiting lists, "success" measured in % of deaths while on the waiting list, etc.). It's good that the US is just a little south of you in case you have a serious problem and can't wait several months or years for treatment....

Might I suggest some light reading?

As for the cost of paper pushing in the US, MUCH of that is caused by our current socialist oriented programs (Medicare and Medicaid).

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Member for
22 min 13 sec

And the average rate of taxation (income, VAT, etc.) in Canada is?
And the last medical innovation to come out of Canada is?
And the average wait time for most non-routine medical procedures is?
And the number of Canadians who spend their life savings to come to the US for treatment denied them under the Canadian "Healthcare for All" system is?
And the last time large, or even noticable, numbers of Americans went north of the border for any medical procedure was?

Here's my lingering impression of CanadaCare, as told to me by two Canadian former grad school colleagues - both currently professors in US institutions - "The Canadian healthcare system is fantastic - until you get sick, that is."

Enjoy your RedState Experience™.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

Oh well, glad you like there, eh.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

He said:
And that Universal Health Care you're so proud of has some drawback (like long waiting lists, "success" measured in % of deaths while on the waiting list, etc.).

You said:
You are misinfomed.

I say:
Got links?

'cause I do.
Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.

Heck, man. That's the result of about 42-seconds on AltaVista and I only searched for "Canada Healthcare".

As to the rest...

Actually, it is more like a sensible approach to negotiating a deal.

Pretty easy to do when US consumers are footing the R&D costs. So, I suppose if you're planning on being happy with the current batch of available meds for the next 40-50 years that's swell. Otherwise, not so much.

Or perhaps the excess admin costs come from having legions of workers devoted to non-value add activity processing company-specific insurance forms and reading company-specific insurance policies.

Gee, my GP's office seems to love my private health care (BC/BS). It's a PPO. Doesn't give them any troubles. Want to know who does give them fits?

Have a nice day, eh.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

to your list ... someone mentioned Ireland ...

http://www.irlgov.ie/committees-01/c-health/rep-waiting/Page1.htm

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Socialism doesn't work? I don't think anyone could seriously dispute that. What does shock me is the way the whole issue of government involvement in private life was utterly ignored by the Bush administration. Bush marched into Iraq without dealing with Afganistan properly. There is nothing more wasteful of the taxpayers money than a careless war. Now we are in two of them. This was the act of a fiscally responsible party? And Bush did this with the happy conviviance of the most of his party. You guys are not fiscal conservatives. Oh how you agonized. And oh how you spent.

Another area of grotesque irresponsibility is the much ignored issue of what socialism has become outside the US. Inside the US government expenditure is saddled with much agonizing about its moral implications. You guys like to raise the flag and call the democrats socialists.

Wake up. Its not 1975. REAL socialism has moved on. The Chinese government, that Bush weedles with and remonstrates and then borrows huge amounts from, owns or controls most of the capital wealth of China. They are actively engaged in buying international resource companies and will be moving onto other sectors soon. God knows they have the money to do it. Thats capital in the hands of government. Thats foriegn assets in the hands of the Communist Party. Do I have your attention, Mr. Bush? No apparently I don't.

You guys are going to miss Karl Marx. Once you realize he is no longer the problem.

Russia is doing exactly the same thing. And they are not the only ones. The Saudis and the Emirates ect also practice something very similar. And we love them. The world's capital is moving into the hands of bandit governments. Thats what socialism, the revamped communist oligarkies have become. Your democrats across the aisle are the least of your problems.

What does George do? Complains about Chavez. Yeah right. He's the problem. Chavez probably still reads Moa. You think the Chinese and the Russians laugh at him behind his back? Him and Fidel? You bet they do.

Bush? They laugh right in his face.

But you guys go ahead and make splash screens of the hammer and sicle and fight your ghosts of past wars.

And spend the nation's treasure.

The republicans lost. From reading these posts I think you guys are holding on to your morale. But morale requires a philosophical basis and yours is ancient. You should thank circumstance your democrats are as meely mouthed and ineffectual as they are. Because you guys have lost the plot.

Call me a troll if you like but I am shocked at the complaicency of the political debate. Bush was your baby and he has seriously messed us up. The democrats do you no favors by being worthless opponents.

Have you read this site often? Before today, that is?

I mean, are you unaware that there are a fair number of people who are singluarly hacked at GWB over a great many issues - including spending, including expanding government, including yadda yadda yadda?

And have you read any of the Democrat's policy proposals - especially domestic ones - lately?

Member for
51 min 15 sec

Enjoy your RedState Experience™.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

I found myself repeating it VERY often to libs and just decided to add it to all my posts. My arguments in this tread were against suggestions that we ought to make even more of our economy into a socialist program.

I'd argue that China's ecomony is no longer socialist but has been trending capitalist for many years. Unfortunately it's government hasn't quite caught up with it's economic structure yet.

Russia seems to be moving back in the other direction. You description of them as a bandit government is probably a pretty good one.

Our philosophical basis is ancient? Perhaps. My own favorite political philosophers were from about 230 years ago.... but they devised a system that actually works. I'd like to keep the Democrats from damaging it too much.

Now that you've come in and attacked us, how about explaining what philosphy YOU think works and why it's so much better than ours.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Honestly, have you read anything beyond this page? Really? I mean just as an example, I have a diary up - The Directors were even kind enough to give it some front page space today. Is there anything that seems to be a rump-swabbing of the current GOP there?

But as to your specifics:

1) Balanced budget - you won't get much argument from many here
2) Privatize schools and the PO - you're starting to sound like a Libertarian and I'm hard pressed to recall those ever being "republican" policies
3) Real politic - oh goodie! Realism™ - which gave us the House of Saud, and Saddam, and Iran, and bin Laden, and ...
4) "Leadership at home" - well, sure, whatever.

Look, so you're a purist. Congratulations. The world needs your type. But I hope you will forgive us mere mortals who when given a choice between the obviously flawed George Bush and the disasterously flawed John Forbes Kerry chose the lesser of two evils. Because you see it's precisely your point of view (for example, that you "couldn't possibly vote republican") that has left us with the spectacle of having to address a Botox-stuffed champaign socialist from San Francisco as Madame Speaker for the next two years. Just saying.

Like I said, enjoy your RedState Experience™.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

I Get My News at HinzSightReport!

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

to mix with the anger?

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

He doesn't understand the concept of a signature or tagline, he doesn't understand world politics, and he certainly doesn't understand that his hours are numbered with his imflamatory and disrespectful language about our President.

I Get My News at HinzSightReport!

Bush 43 is a moron and everything he's done is a disaster. Got it.

"The goal is wrong", but you've not yet told us what "The Goal" should be (I'm all a-twitter with anticipation).

We should talk with everyone - including a nation whose last public act was to provide peer review for Holocaust Denial. So I suppose we should chat-up al-Zawahiri as well? Or should we hold out for bin Laden?

Afghanistan is in Asia - should we have stayed out of there too?

Oh, and we've been saddled with The Jooooooooooos™ since 1972. Yep, that's helpful. Thanks for that.

Just to let you know, because I'm a sport and all, you're on dangerous ground here with that one.

And providing Jihadists with a base in the Balkans (the net result of Clinton's adventures with Kosovo) looks good in the post-9/11 world compared to taking out Saddam. Also, keeping Saddam around as the Oil-for-Palaces/Sanction-Lite regime was collapsing was a swell idea.

Do I have that all about right?

If so, aside from opening up a party-line to every tin-pot who longs for cred with the (largely) starving peeps in his dirtwater cess-pool, do you have a solution to any of the myriad problems facing our body politic?

Because at the risk of provoking something of a response that could get you banned from here (and I'm sure the Angels of Death™ are out and about - and for the record, I'm not one of them), I have to tell you that I've heard precisely nothing from you that I would take over what GWB has done over the last 6-years given the choice - my substantial disagreements with the "boy prince" not withstanding.

Good luck.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

Can you give us a hint? Are you going for a dKos twist on that guy from Network?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

you will be sorely missed. We've been in need of someone as insightful and knowledgable as you and now we will have to soldier along in darkness. Just another burden we will have to bear. Fairwell exclab, fairwell.

Don't let the door hit you in the backside on the way out. And no we don't validate parking.

John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

I know how that is. Good news: I can help.

And just have.

You can turn away, to face the cold, enduring chill as the day begs the night for mercy. The moon is up, but we're seeing the sun go down in your eyes.

Run. Run like a river, runs to the sea.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I am not sure who should enter the Bulwer-Lytton contest: exc-lab, you, or Bono.

I think I'll get out of this site.

Hinzsightreport.com -- Citizen Journalism!

be fighting. And it's been going on for a decade too! Why don't I know about such an important war is a mystery to me.

And I didn't get a chance to tell him the difference between passionate opinions and facts....

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

It's all about the pagevisits, baby. All about the pagevisits. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

They've obviously never seen a photo of the WW II Japanese naval ensign but have had someone describe it to them.

Thank heaven Erick didn't have a red, white, and blue stripe somewhere on the logo or they'd have claimed we were saying they were French.

The irony of Wonkette commenters taking potshots at others' intelligence is too rich for this early in the day.

I need to eat a pecan pie to lighten up the meal.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

A troll started crying like a brokenhearted man, at the howling wind!

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

...doing unto others as we were done unto, aren't they? (Shaking head) Guess it's true: having ain't the same as wanting.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

having ain't the same as wanting. It's not logical, but...

Hinzsightreport.com -- Citizen Journalism!

I couldn't remember, which is actually quite...

(...wait for it...)

...fascinating.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

We don't need any pon farr combat.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.