View Full Version : You want "change" -- try smaller
The government's place is to stay small and attempt to work itself out of a job. It is to be comfortable in its limited role, so that it is not threatened by the power it might loose, as it never stole it to begin with. The people's job is to ensure that government does not think that we are passive enough to stand by while individual freedoms are erased in the name of what the flavor of the month government condescendingly feels is "best for us" -- we the ignorant weak who are "not allowed" to eat trans-fats because Big Brother is now picking up the tab. We, who are not allowed to have talk radio because they are threatened by real diversity. We, who are not allowed to say anything about our boarders being overrun – because “they" want slaves and/or votes. We, who are not allowed to hold on to our traditions, and history (which Michelle Obama so eloquently argues against) because again -- those traditions remind us how far we have drifted away from the Democratic Republic we should be, and the Marxist government we are incrementally becoming.
defenseman
08-31-2008, 05:10 AM
Well, growing a bigger government never helped, and that's exactly what obama wants to do...I'm dead set against him for this....dman
Spider
08-31-2008, 06:28 AM
Well, growing a bigger government never helped, and that's exactly what obama wants to do...I'm dead set against him for this....dman
LOL how so ? seriously back your bull**** up ........Government grew by 60% under bush , so now you tell us how Obama makes it bigger ......
LOL how so ? seriously back your bull**** up ........Government grew by 60% under bush , so now you tell us how Obama makes it bigger ......
Where do you get this "60%" number?
"back your bull**** up".
jhat01
08-31-2008, 07:19 AM
Homeland D is probably a big chunk.
DHS sucked into it a bunch of pre-existing agencies.
Spider
08-31-2008, 07:27 AM
Where do you get this "60%" number?
"back your bull**** up".
your are right W*GS 60 % is bull**** ... it was 86 % **** wad .........
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1071
Spider
08-31-2008, 07:27 AM
DHS sucked into it a bunch of pre-existing agencies.
Back that up son ...............
"Procurement spending" is not the same thing as "government", Spider.
jhat01
08-31-2008, 07:28 AM
Gov contracting? Is that what we're talking about?
Spider
08-31-2008, 07:29 AM
"Procurement spending" is not the same thing as "government", Spider.
it is still spending our tax dollars on more Fed projects
Back that up son ...............
The following 22 agencies were incorporated into the new department:[6]
U.S. Customs Service ( Treasury)
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Secret Service
Immigration and Naturalization Service (Justice)
United States Federal Protective Service (ICE)
Transportation Security Administration (Transportation)
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (Treasury)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (Agriculture)
Office for Domestic Preparedness (Justice)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Strategic National Stockpile and the National Disaster Medical System (HHS)
Nuclear Incident Response Team (Energy)
Domestic Emergency Support Teams (Justice)
National Domestic Preparedness Office (FBI)
CBRN Countermeasures Programs (Energy)
Environmental Measurements Laboratory (Energy)
National BW Defense Analysis Center (Defense)
Plum Island Animal Disease Center (Agriculture)
Federal Computer Incident Response Center (GSA)
National Communications System (Defense)
National Infrastructure Protection Center (FBI)
Energy Security and Assurance Program (Energy)
it is still spending our tax dollars on more Fed projects
"Government grew by 60% under bush"
is false.
Spider
08-31-2008, 07:31 AM
Gov contracting? Is that what we're talking about?
Over all .......Basically I am talking spending , thats the main point of big government isnt it ? trying to spend money to fix all of the problems . you know tax and spend liberals etc ..........
Spider
08-31-2008, 07:31 AM
"Government grew by 60% under bush"
is false.
I just admitted that dumb ass . it was 86%
I just admitted that dumb ass . it was 86%
Well, no. Changing your statement:
"Government grew by 60% under bush"
to
"Government grew by 86% under bush"
is still wrong - even more so, actually.
Spider
08-31-2008, 07:35 AM
Well, no. Changing your statement:
"Government grew by 60% under bush"
to
"Government grew by 86% under bush"
is still wrong - even more so, actually.
I didnt change **** J-O , I just admitted the 60% was wrong ,and that 86% was the real # but if you notice Iam not using the 115% number , I think that has more to do with iraq and Haliburton ......... so me where I changed .And no it isnt wrong , spending ballooned under Bush ......
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-31-2008, 07:36 AM
I just admitted that dumb ass . it was 86%
Ha!
And to think that these past eight years we've seldom heard W*GS the "libertarian" utter a word of protest about this particular Bush accomplishment.
I guess he was too busy living in the past and searching inside Clinton's zipper.
Spider
08-31-2008, 07:38 AM
Ha!
And to think that these past eight years we've seldom heard W*GS the "libertarian" utter a word of protest about this particular Bush accomplishment.
I guess he was too busy living in the past and searching inside Clinton's zipper.
LOL yeah now W*GS is trying to spin his way out of this .....
defenseman
08-31-2008, 07:42 AM
LOL how so ? seriously back your bull**** up ........Government grew by 60% under bush , so now you tell us how Obama makes it bigger ......
I don't like Bush for it either, however, some expansion was needed, 9/11 was the justification for some of it...dman
defenseman
08-31-2008, 07:43 AM
Homeland D is probably a big chunk.
Bingo...dman
Spider
08-31-2008, 07:45 AM
I don't like Bush for it either, however, some expansion was needed, 9/11 was the justification for some of it...dman
sure there was , I dont argue that , though I do argue that more of it had to be put in securing our boarders , ports etc ....I wouldnt have said a word if I had felt the expansion was used wisely . but the Patriot act , Home land security , Wire tapping , was the wrong approach
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-31-2008, 07:49 AM
I don't like Bush for it either, however, some expansion was needed, 9/11 was the justification for some of it...dman
That's debatable.
A case could be made that rather than expanding or creating a new government agency Bush should have reformed the existing intelligence and law enforcement apparatus.
I didnt change **** J-O , I just admitted the 60% was wrong ,and that 86% was the real # but if you notice Iam not using the 115% number , I think that has more to do with iraq and Haliburton ......... so me where I changed .And no it isnt wrong , spending ballooned under Bush ......
Yes, spending ballooned. "Government grew by 60% under bush" isn't an accurate summary, however. It also doesn't matter if you pick 60, 80, or 115.
That's debatable.
A case could be made that rather than expanding or creating a new government agency Bush should have reformed the existing intelligence and law enforcement apparatus.
Remember, Bush opposed the DHS, but caved and allowed this new bureaucratic monster.
And to think that these past eight years we've seldom heard W*GS the "libertarian" utter a word of protest about this particular Bush accomplishment.
I've already shown Spider was wrong, in his "Government grew by 60% under bush" claim.
I guess he was too busy living in the past and searching inside Clinton's zipper.
There you go again with your fantasies about Clinton's cock. WTF is your problem that you mention it first, always?
peacepipe
08-31-2008, 08:10 AM
Remember, Bush opposed the DHS, but caved and allowed this new bureaucratic monster.
President George Bush unveiled a plan to create a Department of Homeland Security. The cabinet-level agency will host approximately 170,000 employees and a $37 billion budget. To initiate this plan, approximately 20 existing agencies will be moved under the new department. Some of the larger agencies scheduled to move include the Transportation Security Administration, Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Customs, the Coast Guard and Secret Service. The president's plan has four primary components/functions. They are reflected in the proposed department's agency structure. The agencies currently proposed are Border and Transportation Security; Emergency Preparedness and Response; Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures; and Information Analysis and Infrastructure.
While generally there is bipartisan support for the initiative in Congress, the actual process of getting the department up and running is daunting. Approximately 88 committees and subcommittees in Congress have jurisdiction over some aspect of homeland security. Accordingly, resistance is expected from several subcommittee chairs.
To view Bush's Department of Homeland Security Outline, go to www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/book.pdf
Copyright Institute of Transportation Engineers Aug 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved
What were you saying about GWB opposing DHS?
Spider
08-31-2008, 08:12 AM
Remember, Bush opposed the DHS, but caved and allowed this new bureaucratic monster.
In a pigs eye you **** ........ Bush opposed the 9-11 investigation ........ Bust wanted DHS , Patriot act , etc ............
What were you saying about GWB opposing DHS?
Bush original wanted just an Office of Homeland Security, not a Cabinet-level Department.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/homeland.security/
Bush initially resisted the idea of a new department, which had been championed primarily by Democrats in the wake of the attacks. But Bush embraced the concept in June [...]
In a pigs eye you **** ........ Bush opposed the 9-11 investigation ........ Bust wanted DHS , Patriot act , etc ............
As I've shown, Bush opposed a new Cabinet-level Department. He wanted merely an Office.
LOL how so ? seriously back your bull**** up ........Government grew by 60% under bush , so now you tell us how Obama makes it bigger ......
Still a fib, Spider.
Rohirrim
08-31-2008, 08:20 AM
Oh no, the gummint won't let me eat trans fats! How about this, Porky. You can eat all the trans fats you want as long as you promise not to stumble into the local ER with your heart coming out of your chest and no insurance card in your pocket? ;D
Spider
08-31-2008, 08:30 AM
Bush original wanted just an Office of Homeland Security, not a Cabinet-level Department.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/homeland.security/
He still wanted a dept called Home land security ...... splitting hairs W*GS
Spider
08-31-2008, 08:30 AM
Still a fib, Spider.
Yeah it was 86% ..:rofl:
He still wanted a dept called Home land security ...... splitting hairs W*GS
No, he did not want a Cabinet-level Department. It's not splitting hairs, it's the truth.
Spider
08-31-2008, 08:40 AM
I just find it funny W*GS , that you for years piss and moaned about taxes , went ape **** over the stadium tax in Colorado , bitch and moan , about SS , yet the 86% growth under Bush doesnt phase you a bit ...and you wonder why despite your prancing around about being a libertarian , people think you are a right wing bed wetter ...... Hilarious!
Spider
08-31-2008, 08:41 AM
No, he did not want a Cabinet-level Department. It's not splitting hairs, it's the truth.
LOL yes you are , the depth of the department wasnt at issue you **** stick
Yeah it was 86% ..:rofl:
Not 86% either.
I just find it funny W*GS , that you for years piss and moaned about taxes , went ape **** over the stadium tax in Colorado , b**** and moan , about SS , yet the 86% growth under Bush doesnt phase you a bit ...and you wonder why despite your prancing around about being a libertarian , people think you are a right wing bed wetter ...... Hilarious!
I've always said the government was too big and too expensive, under Bush and just about any other president. However, I'm not so stupid to claim:
Government grew by 60% under bush
I'm not a liar, nor do I make statements I can't back up.
Spider
08-31-2008, 08:49 AM
Not 86% either.
you want to go with the 115% # ?
Spider
08-31-2008, 08:50 AM
I've always said the government was too big and too expensive, under Bush and just about any other president. However, I'm not so stupid to claim:
I'm not a liar, nor do I make statements I can't back up.
LOL oh bull**** , you are well known for posting opinions from th economist ......
you want to go with the 115% # ?
That would imply that government spending, in absolute dollars, has more than doubled under Bush.
It has not.
LOL oh bull**** , you are well known for posting opinions from th economist ......
You're just flinging **** hoping it sticks to something.
Government grew by 60% under bush
is still wrong.
Spider
08-31-2008, 09:17 AM
You're just flinging **** hoping it sticks to something. LOL are you saying you never post opinions from the economist ?
is still wrong.
we agree it was 86%
I don't post things I can't back up with facts, son.
60%, or 86%, or 115% - all are wrong, Spider.
Spider
08-31-2008, 09:19 AM
That would imply that government spending, in absolute dollars, has more than doubled under Bush.
It has not.
well then take it up with the editor of the link Iposted
well then take it up with the editor of the link Iposted
I already did.
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2056319&postcount=8
Spider
08-31-2008, 09:20 AM
I don't post things I can't back up with facts, son.
60%, or 86%, or 115% - all are wrong, Spider.
LOL uh sure thing ........ answer the question
What does "The Economist" have to do with you being wrong?
Spider
08-31-2008, 09:22 AM
I already did.
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2056319&postcount=8
you did , but you are wrong ...... Government spending on Projects is still government spending now matter how you try to word smith it
Spider
08-31-2008, 09:22 AM
What does "The Economist" have to do with you being wrong?
LOL just answer the question read back if you need to . it is rather simple W*GS
Bronco Bob
08-31-2008, 09:32 AM
The government's place is to stay small and attempt to work itself out of a job. It is to be comfortable in its limited role, so that it is not threatened by the power it might loose, as it never stole it to begin with. The people's job is to ensure that government does not think that we are passive enough to stand by while individual freedoms are erased in the name of what the flavor of the month government condescendingly feels is "best for us" -- we the ignorant weak who are "not allowed" to eat trans-fats because Big Brother is now picking up the tab. We, who are not allowed to have talk radio because they are threatened by real diversity. We, who are not allowed to say anything about our boarders being overrun – because “they" want slaves and/or votes. We, who are not allowed to hold on to our traditions, and history (which Michelle Obama so eloquently argues against) because again -- those traditions remind us how far we have drifted away from the Democratic Republic we should be, and the Marxist government we are incrementally becoming.
Or so says the right wing Reaganistas.
The purpose of government is to serve the people.
This include insuring their health and safety.
It's strange the right advocates invading Iraq and
Iran because one day they MIGHT be a threat to
out safety, yet squeal like a stuck pig when the
government tries to eliminate known killers that
kill far more Americans than Saddam Hussein, or
even Osama bin Laden did.
Eliminating heart clogging, brain rotting trans-fats certainly
fall well within the health and safety aspect. We don't
need it, we are a lot healthier without it. Only an insane man
or a right winger (is there a difference?) would be an advocate
FOR trans-fats.
you did , but you are wrong ...... Government spending on Projects is still government spending now matter how you try to word smith it
[...] Government grew by 60% under bush[...]
Care to amend that "Government" word, Spider?
Wriggle all you want, but the fact of the matter is that your claim is false. Period.
You're just not very good at deflecting, Spider. I caught you making a provably wrong assertion, and rather than just leave it at that, you're flinging **** all over the place.
The purpose of government is to serve the people.
Yes.
This include insuring their health and safety.
It does? Going from "serve the people" to "insuring their health and safety" is a Grand Canyon-esque leap in "logic". Care to provide the intermediate steps?
Only an insane man or a right winger (is there a difference?) would be an advocate FOR trans-fats.
Whatever happened to letting each one of us decide how much risk (regarding trans-fats or whatever else) we're willing to take with our own lives?
You're one fan of Big Mother...
Spider
08-31-2008, 09:42 AM
LOL keep trying W*GS ... sooner or later it will dawn on you , then maybe I should re ask the question you dont want to answer........I didnt think it was that hard of a question .... But then no one else is like you W*GS
Spider
08-31-2008, 09:43 AM
Care to amend that "Government" word, Spider?
Wriggle all you want, but the fact of the matter is that your claim is false. Period.
LOL for the umpteenth time I agree 60% was wrong it is 86% ......I know it is rare that I make a mistake , but damn ........
Bronco Bob
08-31-2008, 09:50 AM
It does? Going from "serve the people" to "insuring their health and safety" is a Grand Canyon-esque leap in "logic". Care to provide the intermediate steps?
There are no intermediate steps. It's one and the same.
Whatever happened to letting each one of us decide how much risk (regarding trans-fats or whatever else) we're willing to take with our own lives?
Or heroin, crack cocaine, LSD, meth, tainted meat, salmonella tainted spinach, candy sweetened with lead acetate, for that matter.
After all, the government banned all those too because they are bad for us. W*gs, the champion of putting lead acetate in our candy.
You're one fan of Big Mother...
Damn straight. When in comes to healthy food on the store
shelves, I want all the government I can get. Much rather
that $10 billion a month went to something that would
actually save lives.
Just for you, Spider:
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2056484&postcount=46
and
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2056484&postcount=8
Spider
08-31-2008, 09:52 AM
Just for you, Spider:
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2056484&postcount=46
and
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2056484&postcount=8
Now think , this has what to do with me asking if you post opinions from the economist ........ Take your time W*GS .....
Spider
08-31-2008, 09:54 AM
There are no intermediate steps. It's one and the same.
Or heroin, crack cocaine, LSD, meth, tainted meat, salmonella tainted spinach, candy sweetened with lead acetate, for that matter.
After all, the government banned all those too because they are bad for us. W*gs, the champion of putting lead acetate in our candy.
Damn straight. When in comes to healthy food on the store
shelves, I want all the government I can get. Much rather
that $10 billion a month went to something that would
actually save lives.
LOL W*GS doesnt think that broad , just like this debate me and him are having about the 86% , he just doesnt get it ....... He is either thinking Departments , agencies in a limited view , He doesnt see the big picture
There are no intermediate steps. It's one and the same.
Saying it and showing it are two different things.
Why does the government allow us to be so fat, die by the tens of thousands in car accidents, drink to excess, skydive, ride motorcycles, smoke, eat Twinkies...?
If it's to "insure" our health and safety, why are we allowed to do any of those things?
Or heroin, crack cocaine, LSD, meth, tainted meat, salmonella tainted spinach, candy sweetened with lead acetate, for that matter.
Mixing drugs and tainted products? What's the connection? The government's job is to protect us from ourselves? Really?
After all, the government banned all those too because they are bad for us.
Snort. Read up on the history of the Drug War, for starters.
W*gs, the champion of putting lead acetate in our candy.
Bronco Bob, the champion of the highest incarceration rate in the world, due in large part to the War on (Some) Drugs. Gives a lie to the concept of the "land of the free", doesn't it?
Damn straight. When in comes to healthy food on the store shelves, I want all the government I can get. Much rather that $10 billion a month went to something that would actually save lives.
What's "healthy" about a Twinkie? Why are we allowed to buy them?
Hint: The government isn't your mother. Quit demanding that it act like her, or else you'll end up with a nation of babies. Is that what you want?
Now think , this has what to do with me asking if you post opinions from the economist ........ Take your time W*GS .....
You're flinging again.
LOL W*GS doesnt think that broad , just like this debate me and him are having about the 86% , he just doesnt get it ....... He is either thinking Departments , agencies in a limited view , He doesnt see the big picture
Still running around like a cockroach, who's been caught in the open, I see.
Spider
08-31-2008, 09:58 AM
You're flinging again.
LOL ..... keep dodging
LOL for the umpteenth time I agree 60% was wrong it is 86% ......I know it is rare that I make a mistake , but damn ........
So, this
Government grew by 86% under bush
is now your stated belief?
Prove it.
LOL ..... keep dodging
You're the (in)Artful Dodger on this one.
Spider
08-31-2008, 10:00 AM
Still running around like a cockroach, who's been caught in the open, I see.
LOL and you are still dodging , but as the rep I got said , this act of youres is nothing new . Just like Bronco Bob blindsided you , you just dont think W*GS , the only time you have a thought out Position is when the Economist does , and they are 99% wrong ...........Dont get mad at me W*GS , just think before you post ........
Spider
08-31-2008, 10:01 AM
So, this
is now your stated belief?
Prove it.
Been there done that , now about the economist
Another piece of ignorant twaddle from the resident moron.
Spider has no thought-out views. That's why he makes provably wrong statements.
Spider
08-31-2008, 10:06 AM
Hilarious! W*GS ,how many times can you dodge 1 simple question ?
I thought you was proud of the economist
I do post articles from the Economist, some of which are opinion pieces.
What that has to do with you making a proven-wrong statement about how the government grew under Bush is something that exists only in your mind, Spider.
Spider
08-31-2008, 10:10 AM
I do post articles from the Economist, some of which are opinion pieces.
What that has to do with you making a proven-wrong statement about how the government grew under Bush is something that exists only in your mind, Spider.
there we go .... admitting your problem is the first step ..... Now I admitted the 60% was wrong several times , you need ot let that go , it was 86% , i was wrong I low balled the # .....
86% is still wrong, Spider.
What "The Economist" has to do with you being wrong is still something you need to figure out.
Bronco Bob
08-31-2008, 10:15 AM
Saying it and showing it are two different things.
Why does the government allow us to be so fat, die by the tens of thousands in car accidents, drink to excess, skydive, ride motorcycles, smoke, eat Twinkies...?
If it's to "insure" our health and safety, why are we allowed to do any of those things?
What's "healthy" about a Twinkie? Why are we allowed to buy them?
Because fools like you have a ****-fit when the government tries to
ban them. You are already on record as to the government having
no right to ban trans-fats. What do you think Twinkies were filled
with?
Hint: The government isn't your mother. Quit demanding that it act like her, or else you'll end up with a nation of babies. Is that what you want?
I want a government that let's me know when something I eat
is bad for me and does something to get it out of the food chain.
Unlike you, I'm not wealthy enough on my own to hire teams
of researchers and scientists and fund labs to investigate
the effects of trans-fats or salmonella infested spinach on
the human body. I need the funding and organization that
only a government can provide. If it were left up to people
like you, we'd all still be dying of small-pox, polio, the black
plague, and all these other diseases the government stepped
in and established programs to prevent.
Spider
08-31-2008, 10:16 AM
86% is still wrong, Spider. if you say so ... I provided proof , you havent
What "The Economist" has to do with you being wrong is still something you need to figure out.
Hilarious! the economist doesnt have anything ot do with me , but it has everything to do with a statement you made ........ Man thick is thick no question .........Come on W*GS tell me life is like a box of chocolates
You did not prove your assertion, Spider.
Geezus, you couldn't make a coherent argument to save your life. That's why you get in bar fights. And it shows.
Because fools like you have a ****-fit when the government tries to ban them.
You're the fool for thinking it's the government's duty to protect us from ourselves. What's next? Government inspectors to make sure we wipe our bottoms properly?
You are already on record as to the government having no right to ban trans-fats. What do you think Twinkies were filled with?
You don't want to eat the trans-fats in Twinkies? So don't eat Twinkies! Duh!
I want a government that let's me know when something I eat is bad for me and does something to get it out of the food chain.
Hardly. If that was true, and the government followed vegans, say bye-bye to steaks, hamburgers, hot dogs, eggs, milk, cheese, butter, and many other foods.
Define "bad" food.
Unlike you, I'm not wealthy enough on my own to hire teams of researchers and scientists and fund labs to investigate the effects of trans-fats or salmonella infested spinach on the human body. I need the funding and organization that only a government can provide. If it were left up to people like you, we'd all still be dying of small-pox, polio, the black plague, and all these other diseases the government stepped in and established programs to prevent.
Infectious diseases are the same as Twinkies.
'K.
Spider
08-31-2008, 10:27 AM
You did not prove your assertion, Spider.
Geezus, you couldn't make a coherent argument to save your life. That's why you get in bar fights. And it shows.
LOL meanwhile we havent seen any proof from you disproving the 86% spending growth .......
That's not what you claimed, Spider - and whether it's 60 or 86, it's still wrong.
Spider
08-31-2008, 10:34 AM
That's not what you claimed, Spider - and whether it's 60 or 86, it's still wrong.
Growth is growth jack ass , now prove the 86% wrong ....... pretty simple to do ........if I am so wrong
Bronco Bob
08-31-2008, 10:37 AM
You're the fool for thinking it's the government's duty to protect us from ourselves. What's next? Government inspectors to make sure we wipe our bottoms properly?
Are people dying because they don't wipe their butts?
Though in your case I could see where government
intervention could be required just for the sake of
the people around you.
You don't want to eat the trans-fats in Twinkies? So don't eat Twinkies! Duh!
Once I found out they were laced with trans-fat, I did.
And how did I find out? That little nutrition label
THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES TO BE ON FOODS.
Hardly. If that was true, and the government followed vegans, say bye-bye to steaks, hamburgers, hot dogs, eggs, milk, cheese, butter, and many other foods.
Has any government studies showed the claims of the Vegans to be true?
Define "bad" food.
Food laced with bacteria or viruses. Food with harmful chemicals
such as lead, arsenic, cadmium. Foods with trans-fats.
All things government labs test for. And could test a lot
more of if they had the money. Or less of if people like you
had their way.
Infectious diseases are the same as Twinkies.
'K.
What-ever. Enjoy your Twinky, fatty. Just don't go to one
of those government hospitals when you keel over with a
heart attack. Treat your own heart attack instead.
Here's your sole source for your 86% figure:
Procurement Spending Is Accelerating Rapidly. Between 2000 and 2005, procurement spending rose by 86% to $377.5 billion annually. Spending on federal contracts grew over twice as fast as other discretionary federal spending. Under President Bush, the federal government is now spending nearly 40 cents of every discretionary dollar on contracts with private companies, a record level.
That is not at all the same thing as claiming:
[...]Government grew by 60% under bush
Care to play a different game? You've lost this one.
Spider
08-31-2008, 10:40 AM
Here's your sole source for your 86% figure:
That is not at all the same thing as claiming:
Care to play a different game? You've lost this one.
you are right , it wasnt the same 86 % is much larger then 60% .....again let it go
Spider
08-31-2008, 10:42 AM
Maybe W*GS you should go look up Procurement ....... you know the meaning of the word .........
Rohirrim
08-31-2008, 10:45 AM
You're the fool for thinking it's the government's duty to protect us from ourselves. What's next? Government inspectors to make sure we wipe our bottoms properly?
You don't want to eat the trans-fats in Twinkies? So don't eat Twinkies! Duh!
Hardly. If that was true, and the government followed vegans, say bye-bye to steaks, hamburgers, hot dogs, eggs, milk, cheese, butter, and many other foods.
Define "bad" food.
Infectious diseases are the same as Twinkies.
'K.
Obviously you've never read this: http://www.amazon.com/Jungle-Uncensored-Original-Upton-Sinclair/dp/1884365302/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220204780&sr=8-1
The government is not protecting us from ourselves. It's protecting us from a bunch of greedy bastards who would kill to put money in their pockets, in other words, promoting the general welfare.
Are people dying because they don't wipe their butts?
How can you stand idly by and take that risk?
Though in your case I could see where government intervention could be required just for the sake of the people around you.
I'm an adult, not a baby. You out of diapers yet? That's certainly not clear!
Once I found out they were laced with trans-fat, I did. And how did I find out? That little nutrition label THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES TO BE ON FOODS.
Strangely enough, I've never thought Twinkies were healthy, label or not.
You're the kind of person that needs to be reminded not to put the toaster into the bathtub, aren't you?
Has any government studies showed the claims of the Vegans to be true?
Ask your local vegans to show their evidence that meat is bad for you.
Food laced with bacteria or viruses. Food with harmful chemicals such as lead, arsenic, cadmium. Foods with trans-fats. All things government labs test for. And could test a lot more of if they had the money. Or less of if people like you had their way.
Tainted food is one thing; food that is less healthy is another. You've still not defined where the boundary between "good" and "bad" food lies. It's clear that known toxins like lead shouldn't be in food; it's another for the government to mandate we eat a "healthy" diet. You do realize that in many parts of Europe, cheese doesn't have to be pasteurized. Amazing that there's any Europeans left, isn't it?
What-ever. Enjoy your Twinky, fatty. Just don't go to one of those government hospitals when you keel over with a heart attack. Treat your own heart attack instead.
I don't eat Twinkies - and I don't need the government to ban them to keep me from eating them, either. Why do you?
Oh, and I'm no fatty. I take responsibility for my health. I recommend being responsible, generally.
Spider
08-31-2008, 10:46 AM
ROFL , I am still trying to figure out how Procurement doesnt mean growth ...i freely admit to being wrong on the 60% , it is 86% ...... my bad
The government is not protecting us from ourselves. It's protecting us from a bunch of greedy bastards who would kill to put money in their pockets, in other words, promoting the general welfare.
Like I told ol' Bob, tainted food is one thing, Twinkies are another.
Do you want the government to tell you that you can't eat ice cream? Or too much pizza? Or hamburgers?
Perhaps we ought to change the acronym "RDA" from "Recommended Daily Allowance" to "Required Daily Allowance", eh?
Maybe W*GS you should go look up Procurement ....... you know the meaning of the word .........
Spending 86% more on procurement doesn't mean spending 86% more on everything.
Here's an analogy that you may understand: Your spending X% more on diesel doesn't mean you're spending X% more on potato chips.
Do you understand?
Besides, the government spends ~$2 trillion. The number from your page is ~$377 billion. Last I checked, the two aren't the same.
ScottXray
08-31-2008, 10:51 AM
Promote the general welfare covers a lot of this.
Twinkies don't have a warning label, and yeah you can say, "These are delicious....buy a dozen a day", or you can say "These are delicious, but read the label and find out what they do, over the long haul, to your body."
If no one knows whats in the package (and how are they to if there's no one to force them to put the contents on a label), then twinkie sales go through the roof, which is good for the stockholders, and bad for the consumers (after a while).
There is a need for the government to step in and advise people what the effect of the Twinkie diet has in the long term, because if left to their own devices the Companies that make products will NOT do so, and in fact will go to extreme lengths to deny any harmful effects their products may induce or directly cause. This is the evidence of what an unencumbered capitalist market has done , time and again.
While banning twinky sales is overboard, informing the public that the product has certain negative effects on health does fall within the purvue of 'promote the general welfare".
The amount of government regulation industries need is directly proportional to the amount of destructive capability an unregulated industry has on the public at large and the specific areas that industry might effect.
Love Canal is a case in point , as is the entire nuclear power industry.
A minimalist government still has the responsibility of protecting its citizens from direct harm.
Spider
08-31-2008, 10:53 AM
Spending 86% more on procurement doesn't mean spending 86% more on everything.
Here's an analogy that you may understand: Your spending X% more on diesel doesn't mean you're spending X% more on potato chips.
Do you understand?
Besides, the government spends ~$2 trillion. The number from your page is ~$377 billion. Last I checked, the two aren't the same.
LOL nice try but it is still government growth .........Procurement is just that
Bronco Bob
08-31-2008, 10:54 AM
Like I told ol' Bob, tainted food is one thing, Twinkies are another.
Define tainted. If a known carcinogen and cause of major heart diesease
like trans-fat isn't, what would you say is?
Do you want the government to tell you that you can't eat ice cream? Or too much pizza? Or hamburgers?
Do you prefer people live in ignorance about the food they eat
and instead depend on ads for Pizza Hut and McDonalds to make their
dietary decisions?
Perhaps we ought to change the acronym "RDA" from "Recommended Daily Allowance" to "Required Daily Allowance", eh?
I'm perfectly fine with recommendations. Why aren't you?
Promote the general welfare covers a lot of this.
Well, no, it doesn't. "Promote the general welfare" doesn't mean "Protecting us from everything that could do us harm", except in the minds of nanny-staters.
A minimalist government still has the responsibility of protecting its citizens from direct harm.
How does a Twinkie create "direct harm" in the same way as, say, an invasion by an enemy would?
Spider
08-31-2008, 10:55 AM
Promote the general welfare covers a lot of this.
Twinkies don't have a warning label, and yeah you can say, "These are delicious....buy a dozen a day", or you can say "These are delicious, but read the label and find out what they do, over the long haul, to your body."
If no one knows whats in the package (and how are they to if there's no one to force them to put the contents on a label), then twinkie sales go through the roof, which is good for the stockholders, and bad for the consumers (after a while).
There is a need for the government to step in and advise people what the effect of the Twinkie diet has in the long term, because if left to their own devices the Companies that make products will NOT do so, and in fact will go to extreme lengths to deny any harmful effects their products may induce or directly cause. This is the evidence of what an unencumbered capitalist market has done , time and again.
While banning twinky sales is overboard, informing the public that the product has certain negative effects on health does fall within the purvue of 'promote the general welfare".
The amount of government regulation industries need is directly proportional to the amount of destructive capability an unregulated industry has on the public at large and the specific areas that industry might effect.
Love Canal is a case in point , as is the entire nuclear power industry.
A minimalist government still has the responsibility of protecting its citizens from direct harm.
LOL to show W*GS is blowing smoke up everyones ass , all one has to do is look back to the 50"s when Cigarettes were marketed to be a safe product ......as I said earlier W*GS is in capable of seeing everything in whole , he needs bits and pieces , then someone to guide him to put it all together
Spider
08-31-2008, 10:57 AM
but you got to love his twinkee bull****
Define tainted.
Something that isn't food or in amounts that cause direct, immediate and deleterious effects on health, for everyone. Something that may cause cancer or heart disease, if consumed in unreasonable quantities over a long period of time doesn't quality.
If a known carcinogen and cause of major heart diesease like trans-fat isn't, what would you say is?
Excessive sun is known carcinogen. Quick - ban the sun!
Do you prefer people live in ignorance about the food they eat and instead depend on ads for Pizza Hut and McDonalds to make their dietary decisions?
There's lots more ways to learn about healthy living than just food labels.
I'm perfectly fine with recommendations. Why aren't you?
Re-read what I said. Recommend is one thing, require is another.
lookin' glass
08-31-2008, 11:00 AM
Might as well go ahead and barcode people's SS# to them and tie their votes to it. If they want government to build a bridge, pony up. If they want to help the poor, (wo)man up and vote. Republicrat going to make the homeland secure, sign up. Demican wants buy up a forest or planet and you agree just run your hand under the laser.
Whatever your position you should pay for it, no? If a project costs $400 billion and collectively it can't be paid off in the lifetime of those that want it it doesn't happen. That way future generations aren't stuck with the bill.
It comes down to who is paying for it. One way or another.
Right now the debts have piled up and NOBODY is responsible. And it's alright because they really don't have to be paid. Like Monopoly. You lose, you get up go have dinner, go boating on the lake, whatever. Because the people you played with aren't knocking on your door wanting your last $500.
In real life now the government is going to pay it off for you. That's great. YOU make a bad investment YOU pay for it. Pick the person who's filling his buddies pocket, YOU pay for it.
McCain on one side of the coin and Obama on the other. The problem isn't which side of the coin you want. It's the same coin.
LOL to show W*GS is blowing smoke up everyones ass , all one has to do is look back to the 50"s when Cigarettes were marketed to be a safe product ......as I said earlier W*GS is in capable of seeing everything in whole , he needs bits and pieces , then someone to guide him to put it all together
Cigarettes have been known to be bad for a loooong time - long before the government told us they were.
I just wonder why the government put packs of cigs into the standard kit for GIs all during WWII... Why would the government be trying to kill those guys?
Bronco Bob
08-31-2008, 11:01 AM
Well, no, it doesn't. "Promote the general welfare" doesn't mean "Protecting us from everything that could do us harm", except in the minds of nanny-staters.
Except you seem to be of the mindset that the government should
just ignore anything that might be harmful. If it was up to you,
candy makers would still be putting lead acetate in their sweets.
How does a Twinkie create "direct harm" in the same way as, say, an invasion by an enemy would?
How many Americans have died at the end of a bayonet of an invading
army in the last 100 years? How many have died from heart attacks
and cancer in the last year alone?
Spider
08-31-2008, 11:03 AM
Cigarettes have been known to be bad for a loooong time - long before the government told us they were.
I just wonder why the government put packs of cigs into the standard kit for GIs all during WWII... Why would the government be trying to kill those guys?
Still doesnt change that tobacco advertised Cigs as safe , hell they even used cartoon characters to target kids ....... W*GS used your ****ing head for something besides a hat rack
Bronco Bob
08-31-2008, 11:04 AM
Originally Posted by Bronco Bob
Define tainted.
Something that isn't food
ie trans-fats.
Except you seem to be of the mindset that the government should just ignore anything that might be harmful. If it was up to you, candy makers would still be putting lead acetate in their sweets.
Life is harmful - it always ends in death.
The government cannot, and should not, attempt to regulate, control, and/or ban everything that "might be" harmful. Why do you think it should?
How many Americans have died at the end of a bayonet of an invading army in the last 100 years? How many have died from heart attacks and cancer in the last year alone?
How much responsibility do we have for own lives and health, and how much do you want us to foist off on the government?
ie trans-fats.
Do you even know what a trans-fat is?
Still doesnt change that tobacco advertised Cigs as safe , hell they even used cartoon characters to target kids ....... W*GS used your ****ing head for something besides a hat rack
Changing the subject from Twinkies to cigarettes...
The government bans sticking knives into others' hearts too, so there's a precedent, eh?
ScottXray
08-31-2008, 11:12 AM
Well, no, it doesn't. "Promote the general welfare" doesn't mean "Protecting us from everything that could do us harm", except in the minds of nanny-staters.
How does a Twinkie create "direct harm" in the same way as, say, an invasion by an enemy would?
The twinky stuff was to illustrate that unchecked capitalism is as bad as unchecked government.
You didn't address the Love Canal or nuclear statements which are more illustrative of direct harm to citizens.
Spider
08-31-2008, 11:12 AM
Changing the subject from Twinkies to cigarettes...
The government bans sticking knives into others' hearts too, so there's a precedent, eh?
Have you ever seen the makers of the Bowie knife make an ad showing how cool it is to knife someone in the heart ?
Bronco Bob
08-31-2008, 11:13 AM
Life is harmful - it always ends in death.
The government cannot, and should not, attempt to regulate, control, and/or ban everything that "might be" harmful. Why do you think it should?
But when something is harmful, it should step in. And the only way to
find out something is harmful is to adequately fund the research.
How much responsibility do we have for own lives and health, and how much do you want us to foist off on the government?
How can people make informed decisions if they don't have all the facts?
Kraft sure wasn't about to tell people that trans-fats cause heart disease,
cancer, make people more prone to viral infections, cause obesity.
It took government intervention to require the amount of trans-fat
be listed on the nutrition label. Now we have cookies and crackers
and chips that boast 0% trans-fat, and trans-fats are being phased
out of our foods. Never would have happened if the government hadn't
stepped in.
The twinky stuff was to illustrate that unchecked capitalism is as bad as unchecked government.
Do tell. Unchecked governments murdered 100 million people last century. And no, that figure doesn't include WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or any other wars.
Capitalism is a lot more checked than government, certainly.
You didn't address the Love Canal or nuclear statements which are more illustrative of direct harm to citizens.
Considering how government created the nuclear industry from scratch, claiming that government will protect us from it is rather silly.
But when something is harmful, it should step in.
At what point does "harm" create a duty in government to regulate, control, and/or ban the substance or activity?
40,000 people die in car accidents every year - basically, a 9/11 every month. Does that not qualify as a harm to be banned?
How can people make informed decisions if they don't have all the facts? Kraft sure wasn't about to tell people that trans-fats cause heart disease, cancer, make people more prone to viral infections, cause obesity. It took government intervention to require the amount of trans-fat be listed on the nutrition label. Now we have cookies and crackers and chips that boast 0% trans-fat, and trans-fats are being phased out of our foods. Never would have happened if the government hadn't stepped in.
Processed carbohydrates and sugar (in all its guises) are even more harmful than trans-fats. More amputations are done every year from the effects of diabetes than in the entirety of the Vietnam War.
So how come Wonder Bread is still on grocery store shelves?
How come you don't consume a maximally-healthful diet at each meal, and exercise faithfully and correctly? Why aren't you responsible for your own health?
BTW, I have a can of Crisco in my pantry. Shouldn't it be confiscated from me?
Bronco Bob
08-31-2008, 11:21 AM
Do you even know what a trans-fat is?
A trans fat is produced by hydrogenating vegetable oil.
This results in a partially saturated oil. Food manufactures
love this stuff because it makes the oil much more resistant
to oxidation. But the down side is it creates a stiff molecule.
Ordinary fats have a sort of a "C" shape, making them flexible.
The hydrogenation causes the molecule to assume a stiff, rod shape.
Now here is where the bad part comes in. Our cell wall and
brain tissue are mostly composed of fats. They depend on
the flexibility of these fats to function. But when a person
eats a trans-fat, the cell loses its flexibility. Arteries become
stiff, the brain works less efficiently, DNA is easier to corrupt
(cancer), the cell walls even have a harder time keeping viruses
out because the membranes is less efficient.
Any other questions?
Bronco Bob
08-31-2008, 11:26 AM
40,000 people die in car accidents every year - basically, a 9/11 every month. Does that not qualify as a harm to be banned?
Aren't you the same folks that whine about the government requiring people
to wear seat belts as the government intruding on our rights?
Bronco Bob
08-31-2008, 11:30 AM
Processed carbohydrates and sugar (in all its guises) are even more harmful than trans-fats. More amputations are done every year from the effects of diabetes than in the entirety of the Vietnam War.
So how come Wonder Bread is still on grocery store shelves?
One step at a time.
How come you don't consume a maximally-healthful diet at each meal, and exercise faithfully and correctly? Why aren't you responsible for your own health?
Again, how is the average person supposed to know this unless someone
tells them. The food industry sure isn't going to. They are still pushing
sugar laded cereal on children.
BTW, I have a can of Crisco in my pantry. Shouldn't it be confiscated from me?
Even Crisco has been reformulated to reduce the trans-fats in it.
Aren't you the same folks that whine about the government requiring people to wear seat belts as the government intruding on our rights?
I don't believe the failure by an adult to wear a seat belt should be a primary offense (i.e., you can be ticketed just for that).
One step at a time.
I have an even better idea - let each of us decide. I don't buy unreasonably unhealthy foods, nor do I eat the ones I do occasionally buy in unreasonable quantities. What's so wrong with that?
What responsibility do I have for my own health, or, is it entirely the government's job to tell me how to eat and live?
Again, how is the average person supposed to know this unless someone tells them.
It's called being a responsible consumer and caveat emptor.
They are still pushing sugar laded cereal on children.
Not my kids. Ooops, I mentioned family members - time to ban me!
Even Crisco has been reformulated to reduce the trans-fats in it.
Thank god we have the government to protect us from Crisco!
ScottXray
08-31-2008, 11:38 AM
Do tell. Unchecked governments murdered 100 million people last century. And no, that figure doesn't include WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or any other wars.
Capitalism is a lot more checked than government, certainly.
Considering how government created the nuclear industry from scratch, claiming that government will protect us from it is rather silly.
Both at the extreme are obviously bad. Yes, the government had a hand in creating the nuclear industry. They also tested atomic bombs in the atmsophere, until it became apparent that that was a very bad thing to do.
Mistakes are made all the time, and our system allows regulation to be put in place to try to correct for those.
The problem with unregulated industry is that it is based on profit only , and will generally not serve the interests of the public, as a whole, if left to its own devices, but rather will produce the cheapest or most profitable product , even if that product has harmful effects. The free market eventually comes into play and weeds out the truly "bad "products, but only because research reveals the negative effects. That research would either never come to light in an wholly unregulated system, or would never be done at all.
As far as cigarettes...I received packs of cigs in my C-rations as late as 1972 (when I got out of the army), by which time it was clear that they were harmful. You don't think that the cigarette lobby had anything to do with those being placed there?
I don't blame the government that I smoke...but I do think that allowing those cigarettes to be placed in rations illustrates a point about both extremes.
Times change, but it is clear that the path lies somewhere in the middle, and the government does have a role to play.
Bronco Bob
08-31-2008, 11:38 AM
I don't believe the failure by an adult to wear a seat belt should be a primary offense (i.e., you can be ticketed just for that).
Weren't you the guy that just got done bemoaning the 40,000
auto deaths a year. Yet here you chime in because the government
steps because some people are too stupid to take the responsibility
of saving their own life in their own hands and bemoan that too.
Instead offering the nonsensical solution to ban cars instead.
Bronco Bob
08-31-2008, 11:42 AM
Not my kids. Ooops, I mentioned family members - time to ban me!
Where did I say anything about your family?
You were the one that brought up my dead mother.
Thank god we have the government to protect us from Crisco!
And lead acetate.
Weren't you the guy that just got done bemoaning the 40,000 auto deaths a year.
I didn't mention that because it bothered me - I mentioned it because certainly that kind of death toll obviously means the government has to step in and do more to make that number as close to zero as possible. After all, isn't it the job of government to "promote the general welfare" and eliminate any and all possible harm and/or risk from our lives?
Yet here you chime in because the government steps because some people are too stupid to take the responsibility of saving their own life in their own hands and bemoan that too. Instead offering the nonsensical solution to ban cars instead.
There's that left-wing elitism again - "some people are too stupid".
It's obvious stupidity can't be banned - if it could, left-wingers wouldn't exist.
Ponder the possibility that a government that can prevent all manner of people doing stupid things is a government that's so big and so dangerous that it's not worth it.
The problem with unregulated industry is that it is based on profit only , and will generally not serve the interests of the public, as a whole, if left to its own devices, but rather will produce the cheapest or most profitable product , even if that product has harmful effects.
Profit can't be made from dead consumers.
Think Henry Ford paying his workers more so they could afford his cars.
ScottXray
08-31-2008, 12:11 PM
Profit can't be made from dead consumers.
Think Henry Ford paying his workers more so they could afford his cars.
Correct...the problem is that it takes so long for the consumer to die that the current board directors will be long gone... ergo the don't care. They got theirs and Screw the rest.
Ford was a visionary, and saw the potential the automobile had to change society. But it was not he that mandated the seat belts and passive restraints, safety glass, etc that autos now have.
The auto industry fought against those standards because it made their cars less profitable to produce. Of course it also made cars more expensive to produce and buy, which will be your counterpoint. However, the nationwide death toll in automobiles has not significantly changed since the 1960s , although there are perhaps twice as many cars on the road and miles driven annually since then.
So would 80000 deaths a year be more acceptable, as long as the car didn't cost as much? Or should we have no standards for the safe operation of automobiles, such as turn signals, speed limits?
Would we have better more fuel efficient cars now, and a more sound economy if higher fuel standards had been implemented over the last 20 years? Something both the Oil and auto industries fought against, and the oil industry now only pays lip service to. Sometimes the free market does exactly the wrong thing, in the name of profit.
There are trade offs to be made, in all things , but the last thing I want to see is a government stripped of its power to regulate, or the industry writing the laws itself (a common occurrence the last 8 years). With that regulation comes all the negative bueracratic stuff, but at least the CHANCE that something right will be done.
Can a well-intentioned safety regulation backfire?
Some years back, the FAA decided that children must be in safety seats on airplanes, as sitting on a parent's lap wasn't safe enough. Of course, having the kid in a seat means having to buy another ticket. That increased the cost for families to fly enough that families decided to drive instead of fly. However, with driving being less safe than flying, the upshot was that more children died than before the FAA imposed its rule.
All governmental regulations ought to use a cost-benefit analysis. Sure, we can make cars that are completely safe in any kind of accident, but they would cost $10 million apiece.
The best thing is for the government to create general outlines of regulations, prohibiting the gratuitous instances of risk (i.e., no spikes in the middle of the steering wheel) but let market forces determine the outcomes.
One size-fits-all isn't workable nor reasonable.
PaintballCLE
08-31-2008, 12:24 PM
The only change Obama is going to give you is the 13 cents he found on the floor in the back seat of the limo!
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sVeFVtcdSYY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sVeFVtcdSYY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Rohirrim
08-31-2008, 02:05 PM
The only change Obama is going to give you is the 13 cents he found on the floor in the back seat of the limo!
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sVeFVtcdSYY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sVeFVtcdSYY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
He who swims with scumbags is a scumbag.
Sinclair, who is still alive, is 46, stands 5'7", and weights 168 pounds, according to arrest records. Colorado records list him with 13 aliases, including "Larye Vizcarra Avila" and "Mohammed Gahanan." His story has generally been ignored by the mainstream media, because he's been unable to substantiate his allegations.
----------------
In response to his suit, a lawyer for the anonymous bloggers hired local attorneys and private investigators, and dug up details of Sinclair's criminal record from Colorado, Florida, and South Carolina. The lawyer, Paul Levy of the nonprofit Public Citizen Litigation Group, provided his client's filings in federal court, which are publicly available, to Politico.
The records tell the story of an itinerant life of small-time crime and bad checks, punctuated by stretches of jail time in two states.
He was first arrested on a larceny charge in 1981 in Denver, according to his Colorado arrest record, as filed in federal court. In 1985, he was convicted of theft and of forging a check in Florida, and sentenced to a year in jail, according to Florida records filed in federal court.
After the Florida episode, according to the records, he returned to Colorado, where he faced check fraud and credit card charges in 1986. Then, in 1987, he was convicted in Colorado on more serious forgery charges, and sentenced to 16 years in jail.
In prison, according to state records filed in federal court, Sinclair was disciplined 97 times for infractions including assault, threats, drug possession, intimidation, and verbal abuse, most recently in
1996.
"He has not institutionalized well," a spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Corrections, Liz McDonough, told the Denver Post in 1996 after a month-long Sinclair hunger strike. She said he had served time in prisons in Buena Vista, Delta, Limon and Canon City before being transferred to the state's maximum security penitentiary in 1993.
In the summer of 1996, according to Colorado's state court database, he began proceedings to formally change his name from LA Rye Viz. Avila to Larry Wayne Sinclair. By 1999, according to a mention in a local newspaper, he was out of jail and living in Pueblo, Colo.
The Public Citizen investigator in Colorado stated that Sinclair's outstanding legal troubles there appear to date from 2001, and that Sinclair's effort to convince the judge in 2004 to dismiss those charges failed. The Pueblo County Sheriff's website, which pictures Sinclair under the word "Wanted," cites felony theft and forgery charges.
Sinclair was also arrested and charged with disorderly conduct in South Carolina last September, according to state records filed in federal court.
Even the scumbag's lawyer has been disbarred. Of course, I'm never surprised by the depths the Right Wing pigs will sink to. After all, where is a pig most comfortable but in the slime? I wonder if I Bleed ever spent time in South Carolina? Maybe, making late night phone calls for Bob Jones?:yayaya:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/obama-accuser-larry-sincl_n_107900.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11164.html
peacepipe
08-31-2008, 02:24 PM
The only change Obama is going to give you is the 13 cents he found on the floor in the back seat of the limo!
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sVeFVtcdSYY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sVeFVtcdSYY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>I'm surethere are better ways for you to come out of the closet than to put yourself on youtube.
Spider
08-31-2008, 02:31 PM
I'm surethere are better ways for you to come out of the closet than to put yourself on youtube.
I dont know I have often thought of putting on my new string bikini prancing around video on you tube .;D admit it , you want ot see a 220 pound redneck in a bikini
peacepipe
08-31-2008, 02:41 PM
Well, as long as condi rice is with you decked out in a red leather teddy, whip, a cigar & saying "WHAT'S MY NAME,BIT*H!"
Spider
08-31-2008, 02:42 PM
Well, as long as condi rice is with you decked out in a red leather teddy, whip, a cigar & saying "WHAT'S MY NAME,BIT*H!"
Ok ....... I demand to know how you knew about this video ?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-31-2008, 03:28 PM
I'm surethere are better ways for you to come out of the closet than to put yourself on youtube.
Ha! ^5
your are right W*GS 60 % is bull**** ... it was 86 % **** wad .........
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1071
Most fiscal conservatives hate the way Bush has grown the government -- it may be a pipe dream, but of all thing tried, smaller government has been tried the least. So for those who think that Bush failed -- maybe in part it was because government got in the way many times of people finding solutions. To me when we have 31% waste in Medicaid -- the solution does not then have to be -- well, lets Nationalize medicine -- government is doing so many things well -- lets give them more responsibility and more power?
There is a place for government -- but that role has been defined in the Consitutition, when we start claiming that all day preschool is a basic human right -- that woudl be a Marxist ideal, as government woudl only be too happy to "take care of all of us" from the cradle to the grave.
Spider
08-31-2008, 09:35 PM
Most fiscal conservatives hate the way Bush has grown the government -- it may be a pipe dream, but of all thing tried, smaller government has been tried the least. So for those who think that Bush failed -- maybe in part it was because government got in the way many times of people finding solutions. To me when we have 31% waste in Medicaid -- the solution does not then have to be -- well, lets Nationalize medicine -- government is doing so many things well -- lets give them more responsibility and more power?
There is a place for government -- but that role has been defined in the Consitutition, when we start claiming that all day preschool is a basic human right -- that woudl be a Marxist ideal, as government woudl only be too happy to "take care of all of us" from the cradle to the grave.
well what i know is we cant continue on the way we are , spending in iraq is the worst , that has done more damage then helthcare would
Rohirrim
08-31-2008, 09:39 PM
Most fiscal conservatives hate the way Bush has grown the government -- it may be a pipe dream, but of all thing tried, smaller government has been tried the least. So for those who think that Bush failed -- maybe in part it was because government got in the way many times of people finding solutions. To me when we have 31% waste in Medicaid -- the solution does not then have to be -- well, lets Nationalize medicine -- government is doing so many things well -- lets give them more responsibility and more power?
There is a place for government -- but that role has been defined in the Consitutition, when we start claiming that all day preschool is a basic human right -- that woudl be a Marxist ideal, as government woudl only be too happy to "take care of all of us" from the cradle to the grave.
I happen to work in a field that deals with Medicaid and Medicare. Those programs take care of people who would otherwise have nothing. Not only that, those programs pay to keep hospitals open in places where they wouldn't be able to if left to their own devices. As far as the waste in Medicaid, the biggest number comes from fraud, not government waste. There are multiple organizations and individuals who bleed Medicaid for everything they can, legitimate or not. Believe me when I say, the requirements for Medicaid are so tight that far more are turned away than are made eligible.
ScottXray
08-31-2008, 09:52 PM
I happen to work in a field that deals with Medicaid and Medicare. Those programs take care of people who would otherwise have nothing. Not only that, those programs pay to keep hospitals open in places where they wouldn't be able to if left to their own devices. As far as the waste in Medicaid, the biggest number comes from fraud, not government waste. There are multiple organizations and individuals who bleed Medicaid for everything they can, legitimate or not. Believe me when I say, the requirements for Medicaid are so tight that far more are turned away than are made eligible.
And then you have those companies that will get you qualified for their :
Insert medical product(power chair, diabetes tester or service of some type, at no cost to you HERE..of course Medicare/caid foots the bill (meaning us).
And private clinics that bilk the government with false charges and patients repeatedly. Lets give THOSE bastages a free all expense paid trip to a federal prison for a while.