Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The cowboys and dustbusters HATED each other with passion and that was obvious.
Sodbusters.
And ask any modern cowboy what he thinks of farming and you'll find it's certainly not passionate hatred, but there's an obvious note that he does think himself above such things.
However, you're really reinforcing my point. This was true of some areas, but not most. Generally speaking, once an area was opened for homesteading, it tended to get settled very quickly.
Sodbusters.
And ask any modern cowboy what he thinks of farming and you'll find it's certainly not passionate hatred, but there's an obvious note that he does think himself above such things.
However, you're really reinforcing my point. This was true of some areas, but not most. Generally speaking, once an area was opened for homesteading, it tended to get settled very quickly.
"Some areas"? Hmmm.
Texas had counties that were involved in bloody family feuds that engulfed whole towns and required the Texas Rangers to intervene all the way into early 1900s (way after it was settled). The Lincoln county war in NM (the one that produced Billy the Kid) was in the 1880s (just 10 years before the frontier was officially proclaimed settled in 1890). Tombstone gunfight at the OK corral happened in 1880 when Tombstone was a booming mining town that had 4 churches and 100+ saloons (so much for "when the church was built the prostitutes went away). You can only imagine the Arizona and NM territories in the early 1800s. WY had its share of fence wars and gunslingers. Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid robbed and did their deeds into early 1900s. The West especially was a violent place and your life was not worth much back then. There was little respect for LE and an ordinary person had few choices.
Now, after that came the stock market schemes (there were few laws), speculation, the dust bowl, prohibition. All times marked by thievery, exploitation, more violence etc. You could take your money to a "bank" and not see it again. Insider trading, various illegal get-rich schemes of the day were the norm. Whole towns were sold to investors and ordinary people back East that did not exist but only in the rotten minds of their scheming inventors. Factory owners were able to exploit the workers any way they wanted (that's why and how the Unions came about). There were no anti-harassment laws, no whistle blower laws, no environmental laws.... Personal freedom for a woman was to choose from a homesteader's wife or prostitute or teacher (unless she lived in a city back East and had family money to go to college).
Even to this day the "contemporary frontier counties" in USA (the ones with less than 2 people per square mile density) do not have doctors (cannot attract one into a town of 700 for longer than a year).
Anyone could abuse you or kill you back in the day if you did not have a gun or were unwilling to use it.
I think the conservative/libertarian crowd is full of s*it. They want to go back to a time they know little about. Yes, you should be able to buy meat or milk from the next-door farmer. However, the potential for lawsuits is enormous and when someone dies the majority of people look to someone who should have shouldered the responsibility. This is a result of a growing social contract where an ordinary person relinquishes responsibility and assumes that someone else will take it for a particular matter, in exchange for paying taxes. It has been like that since 1776 only the scale has changed. A lot of that has to do with the increasing complexity of the society, the technology marching on and the myriad of things we do now that we did not do in 1776.
It's called progress/evolution. If people wanted to live in a dog-eat-dog without any protections, we would still be living in a society like that. Even states that are very conservative like Texas or North Carolina see areas like Austin or Asheville that use local laws to make things better (in their minds) for the population. Even your conservative rancher today drives a brand new dually that cost upwards of $60K and is not shy about taking tax payer handouts in the form of BLM grazing leases that are run at a loss to the tax payer or subsidies for this or that crop or milk or whatever. If these folks truly wanted the 1800s they would be haying the fields with scythes, feeding cattle off horse carriages pulled by drafts and riding fences daily. While some of it still happens out West, it is a dying lifestyle. Even the die-hard ultra-conservative Texan ranchers in the south west use helicopters to round up cattle on their 20,000 acre spreads. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
a booming mining town that had 4 churches and 100+ saloons (so much for "when the church was built the prostitutes went away)
I'm not sure what you're arguing. I never said anything of the sort.
And the bolded part is what's relevant here. Boom towns continue to be "uncivilized." Too many men without their womenfolk to keep them on the straight and narrow. You see it today in towns like Williston, ND.
To the rest, I think your grasp of American frontier history is a bit on the sensationalist side...
ps:
Quote:
Even your conservative rancher today drives a brand new dually that cost upwards of $60K and is not shy about taking tax payer handouts in the form of BLM grazing leases that are run at a loss to the tax payer or subsidies for this or that crop or milk or whatever.
The vast majority of ranchers don't have access to BLM leases even if they wanted them. Those are only found in a few of the largest Western states. They also don't grow crops (ie, the difference between farming and ranching) or milk cows (which are dairies, not ranches). No subsidies for ranchers.
Last edited by itsMeFred; 12-25-2012 at 09:19 AM..
I think the conservative/libertarian crowd is full of s*it. They want to go back to a time they know little about.
... snip, snip, snip ...
If people wanted to live in a dog-eat-dog without any protections, we would still be living in a society like that.
OD
I've noticed a Strawman lurking in your posts. Not that I'm immune, and I'll proclaim that I have my fair share of Strawman friends in posts. It's just an easy rhetorical or tactical ploy to use and often a successful one, even though it clearly falls within the logical fallacy category.
Here's the first point: you tell us that libertarians want to go back to a time of lawlessness. This is not true at all. You are talking about anarchists. So you are mislabeling libertarians. That's the first diversionary tactic you've used. Truth be told, most libertarians (unless the are total anarchists) would like to see MORE law enforcement than the typical liberal when it comes to crimes that negatively affect others. And harsher punishment for those breaking these criminal laws.
But that's just a sideshow. Here is the main event, and our friend, Señor Strawman: you are correct in stating that libertarians feel the federal government oversteps its boundaries... but, that does not generally include typical criminal laws/codes that keep riffraff from wronging others or murderers from taking lives. It's the social programs and non-criminal issues, for the most part, wherein we are on a different page. And in my case, it's not even really the social programs per se, but the current trend of MANDATORY social programs. It's the compulsive nature that I do not agree with. It has nothing to do with not wanting Charles Manson behind bars and not wanting thieves, murderers, rapists, extortionists, so on and so forth behind bars. The lack of support for mandated socialism is not the same as the lack of support for basic law, order, and decency. That is where your argument takes on a good amount of straw. It's a clever tactic that is used by liberals quite often to good effect, because most people don't even catch that. But some do.
It's the same argument as someone saying that libertarians should move to Somalia. Problem is, that is not what libertarians are after. Lawlessness does not equate to lack of Utopian socialist ideals. Criminal law is one thing; collectivism mandated by law is another altogether. Equating them is a strawman approach. You'll have to do better. Tell me why every person should be forcibly "escorted" to a spot under the umbrella of collectivism, and do so without equating it to lawlessness. Because it is NOT the same. And tell me why you do not believe in the concept of a republic (which means the rights/needs of the few are not trampled by the wants of the many). Tell me why mandated collectivism should replace the concept of a republic. So in essence, why a democracy is better than a republic... conceptually, with no mention of land barons, spoiled milk killing people, lynchings, etc... because you know very well, as do I, that NOBODY wants that, save sociopaths.
I've noticed a Strawman lurking in your posts. Not that I'm immune, and I'll proclaim that I have my fair share of Strawman friends in posts. It's just an easy rhetorical or tactical ploy to use and often a successful one, even though it clearly falls within the logical fallacy category.
Here's the first point: you tell us that libertarians want to go back to a time of lawlessness. This is not true at all. You are talking about anarchists. So you are mislabeling libertarians. That's the first diversionary tactic you've used. Truth be told, most libertarians (unless the are total anarchists) would like to see MORE law enforcement than the typical liberal when it comes to crimes that negatively affect others. And harsher punishment for those breaking these criminal laws.
But that's just a sideshow. Here is the main event, and our friend, Señor Strawman: you are correct in stating that libertarians feel the federal government oversteps its boundaries... but, that does not generally include typical criminal laws/codes that keep riffraff from wronging others or murderers from taking lives. It's the social programs and non-criminal issues, for the most part, wherein we are on a different page. And in my case, it's not even really the social programs per se, but the current trend of MANDATORY social programs. It's the compulsive nature that I do not agree with. It has nothing to do with not wanting Charles Manson behind bars and not wanting thieves, murderers, rapists, extortionists, so on and so forth behind bars. The lack of support for mandated socialism is not the same as the lack of support for basic law, order, and decency. That is where your argument takes on a good amount of straw. It's a clever tactic that is used by liberals quite often to good effect, because most people don't even catch that. But some do.
It's the same argument as someone saying that libertarians should move to Somalia. Problem is, that is not what libertarians are after. Lawlessness does not equate to lack of Utopian socialist ideals. Criminal law is one thing; collectivism mandated by law is another altogether. Equating them is a strawman approach. You'll have to do better. Tell me why every person should be forcibly "escorted" to a spot under the umbrella of collectivism, and do so without equating it to lawlessness. Because it is NOT the same. And tell me why you do not believe in the concept of a republic (which means the rights/needs of the few are not trampled by the wants of the many). Tell me why mandated collectivism should replace the concept of a republic. So in essence, why a democracy is better than a republic... conceptually, with no mention of land barons, spoiled milk killing people, lynchings, etc... because you know very well, as do I, that NOBODY wants that, save sociopaths.
OK - I will take the bait
First off, there is not intentional straw man tactics deployed here, I believe what I say and I am merely addressing the constant claims that it was way better in the 1800s when everything was manual (you tend to claim that a lot ) and everyone was apparently honest and free. I called BS on all those claims and I said why.
As for collectivism, my claim is that like it or not our society (as any other wealthy society) has been going there. Go back and find one place in all my posts where I said I like what is happening. However, a fact is a fact whether I or you like it or not.
Mandatory medical insurance may not be the best choice but it is what the majority wants and the Supreme court decided it was legal so.... It sure beats the system corporate medical field prefers today. People going into bankruptcy over medical bills? Dying from pneumonia because you have no healthcare in 21st century America? At some point somebody has to put a stop to that and in the current climate where corporate lobbyists have all the say, we got the best solution possible for the circumstances.
Democracy vs Republic? Nope, you got it all wrong. It is middle class vs. the corporate republic if anything... get rid of lobbying, limit donations to politicians and make it a law that nobody can serve more than two terms in either senate or congress. That would take us a LONG way towards freedom. Will it ever happen? NOPE.
First off, there is not intentional straw man tactics deployed here, I believe what I say and I am merely addressing the constant claims that it was way better in the 1800s when everything was manual (you tend to claim that a lot ) and everyone was apparently honest and free. I called BS on all those claims and I said why.
No, no, no... not today.
I have certainly claimed that a "manual" lifestyle is a better and more healthy one. But, then again, so do most of your liberal buddies, do they not? Is the exercise of chopping wood (which accomplishes something) inferior to the stationary bike at Gold's Gym (which accomplishes nothing other than vanity and cash in a CEOs pocket)?
But, I don't recall saying everyone was honest or free in times past. Obviously that was not the case. If you mean, those who were fortunate enough to be free people having less government intrusion and red tape, then yes, I have said that. It's true. For instance, if I wanted to build my own home (let's say a timber frame at 14 x 16), I could do so without asking anyone. (little bit of anecdote there )
Now... before you come back with codes being there now to protect the foolish, I will tell you that my timber frame home would still be standing in 200 years, unless someone purposely tore it down. We have such homes and barns in New England from the 1600s that are as strong today as they were back when they were built... without codes, without size restrictions, without zoning. Do you think the garbage we call homes nowadays (built via codes) will be standing in 200 years? Believe it or not, some people are smart enough to do things right without having it mandated by the government.
Yeah... that's one example. But I can give you a bunch more as well. And NO, I'm not saying regulation does not have its place. It's simply that it has gone too far. Some people can't even paint their living room walls these days without some government loser (living off your tax) coming in and making a choice based on his mood for the day and whether he likes the color cream yellow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
As for collectivism, my claim is that like it or not our society (as any other wealthy society) has been going there. Go back and find one place in all my posts where I said I like what is happening. However, a fact is a fact whether I or you like it or not.
Mandatory medical insurance may not be the best choice but it is what the majority wants and the Supreme court decided it was legal so.... It sure beats the system corporate medical field prefers today.
And Vlad Ţepeş decided that lots of things were legal that shouldn't have been. (hows about some hyperbole? Oh yeah! We're talking my lingo now, baby.)
It does NOT beat the corporate system because it IS the corporate system. The only difference is that it is mandated. Mandated usury is not a better way than pedestrian usury whether a majority wants it or not. A true republic would never have passed forced corporate medicine/usury. There are plenty of collective plans out there which do the same sort of thing in a dignified way. Rather than forced collectivism, they do it in an elective collectivism manner (the way it should be)--look up "Medishare" to see how collectivism can work in a voluntary way.
To be fair, even though I hate the insurance industry for moral reasons, corporate medical insurance WAS elective collectivism, but now it's going to be coercive collectivism. But, I digress. As with any unfair ordinance, there are always ways around it (legally), anyway. So, even though I despise the entire structure, it's not so much a personal concern for me. Other than the government getting my medical records, that is. But in my case, the records are long outdated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
People going into bankruptcy over medical bills? Dying from pneumonia because you have no healthcare in 21st century America? At some point somebody has to put a stop to that and in the current climate where corporate lobbyists have all the say, we got the best solution possible for the circumstances.
I wonder why that seldom used to happen? Back before there was the idea of institutionalized insurance running the show. I recall going into a doctor's office as a young man and walking out after having paid a small fee. No red tape. No insurance. Nothing. Just a fair man charging a fair price for his services. It used to work. It still could. Fee for service rendered will generally always be the most reasonable way to do business. When someone tries to gouge people, he/she simply gets no business. When an insurance company gouges you, you're screwed, because they, as snakes, are all about the same. In a fee for service rendered model, there is never a need for an intermediary, thus fees are kept reasonably low for the general costumer base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
Democracy vs Republic? Nope, you got it all wrong. It is middle class vs. the corporate republic if anything... get rid of lobbying, limit donations to politicians and make it a law that nobody can serve more than two terms in either senate or congress. That would take us a LONG way towards freedom. Will it ever happen? NOPE.
OD
Well, we can end on a happy note. I agree. See, we don't always disagree.
But just because it's a corporate republic now, doesn't mean tyranny is the only option, does it? Could not a republic be established if folks had their heads screwed on straight and stopped simply reacting to the bad by coming up with worse? If they would simply think, rather than react?
I wonder why that seldom used to happen? Back before there was the idea of institutionalized insurance running the show. I recall going into a doctor's office as a young man and walking out after having paid a small fee. No red tape. No insurance. Nothing. Just a fair man charging a fair price for his services. It used to work. It still could. Fee for service rendered will generally always be the most reasonable way to do business. When someone tries to gouge people, he/she simply gets no business. When an insurance company gouges you, you're screwed, because they, as snakes, are all about the same. In a fee for service rendered model, there is never a need for an intermediary, thus fees are kept reasonably low for the general costumer base.
There's a difference between the medical science of the past and today...
It costs billions to develop new drugs, procedures, and perform the studies to ensure that the majority of the population won't have adverse reactions. Even very large corporations risk their entire business for a couple drugs. If 2-3 major projects that Pfizer was working on collapsed, they would be easy pickings for their intellectual property and patents from their competitors.
One point of why drugs are expensive is thus the increasingly complex regulatory and technological hurdles the industry has to take. There are relatively few stones left unturned and why you see ridiculous drugs out there now (like Ritalin and this one drug to "overcome swing shift drowsiness" aka being f-ing tired because its midnight and your body's natural cycle is screaming to sleep but you're working anyway).
Therefore, services and drugs that DO pan out and make it to market are necessarily very expensive. And much of the cost is insurance against lawsuits. Since the 0.01% of adverse reactions will necessarily sue the corporation that developed the drug/procedure/service for "not doing enough because of poor little Timmy or Sally" who though tragic were the statistical outliers by far.
The second point of why drugs are expensive are because of the lawyers and the self-entitled they claim to represent.
I have a friend who works at Monsanto and while not the drugs industry, it's pretty close when you think about it. They both use genetic engineering and natural selection on accelerated scales to develop plants or drugs to treat the latest pathogens that have mutated or adapted to the old ways. He said his company regularly spends billions to develop these, trying to stay ahead of nature.
So while we hate the corporate insurance we have to realize the only way to PAY for all these new services and combat the latest diseases and stop them from evolving into something new, or if something terrible does come along, the gene sequencing and research needed to overcome it, we NEED the insurance. And competition to avoid price gouging only goes so far (i.e. emergency care is pretty much whoever you can get to fastest, and few people deviate far from established means of care that as I outlined above, cost billions to develop).
Being a healthy young man myself, I sometimes cringe at the expense I take on because of subsidizing the wasteful and unhealthy habits of the sad majority of Americans. But I also know that I couldn't afford today's dental care myself, combined with all the rest of it. And I definitely know I wouldn't be able to afford having a child delivered (modern care costs around $30k per child).
It's the cost of civilization, and I'd rather not go back to a day when child mortality was abhorrently high because of relatively crude care.
There's a difference between the medical science of the past and today...
It costs billions to develop new drugs, procedures, and perform the studies to ensure that the majority of the population won't have adverse reactions. Even very large corporations risk their entire business for a couple drugs. If 2-3 major projects that Pfizer was working on collapsed, they would be easy pickings for their intellectual property and patents from their competitors.
One point of why drugs are expensive is thus the increasingly complex regulatory and technological hurdles the industry has to take. There are relatively few stones left unturned and why you see ridiculous drugs out there now (like Ritalin and this one drug to "overcome swing shift drowsiness" aka being f-ing tired because its midnight and your body's natural cycle is screaming to sleep but you're working anyway).
Therefore, services and drugs that DO pan out and make it to market are necessarily very expensive. And much of the cost is insurance against lawsuits. Since the 0.01% of adverse reactions will necessarily sue the corporation that developed the drug/procedure/service for "not doing enough because of poor little Timmy or Sally" who though tragic were the statistical outliers by far.
The second point of why drugs are expensive are because of the lawyers and the self-entitled they claim to represent.
I have a friend who works at Monsanto and while not the drugs industry, it's pretty close when you think about it. They both use genetic engineering and natural selection on accelerated scales to develop plants or drugs to treat the latest pathogens that have mutated or adapted to the old ways. He said his company regularly spends billions to develop these, trying to stay ahead of nature.
So while we hate the corporate insurance we have to realize the only way to PAY for all these new services and combat the latest diseases and stop them from evolving into something new, or if something terrible does come along, the gene sequencing and research needed to overcome it, we NEED the insurance. And competition to avoid price gouging only goes so far (i.e. emergency care is pretty much whoever you can get to fastest, and few people deviate far from established means of care that as I outlined above, cost billions to develop).
Being a healthy young man myself, I sometimes cringe at the expense I take on because of subsidizing the wasteful and unhealthy habits of the sad majority of Americans. But I also know that I couldn't afford today's dental care myself, combined with all the rest of it. And I definitely know I wouldn't be able to afford having a child delivered (modern care costs around $30k per child).
It's the cost of civilization, and I'd rather not go back to a day when child mortality was abhorrently high because of relatively crude care.
You do have some good points, from your perspective. The main difference between us, I think, is not so much just this medical care debate, but basic life philosophy. They simply clash. And when they do, most folks want to take up arms. They see it as a black and white, and they are defending their perceived white. Of course, I'm as much like this as you are.
But, in my opinion, the most revealing comment you made (and, I hear it all the time) is, "Being a healthy young man myself, I sometimes cringe at the expense I take on because of subsidizing the wasteful and unhealthy habits of the sad majority of Americans." When that line is true, as it is today, there is something wrong with the system. Because, by the definition of your statement, collectivism and liberty cannot truly coexist. My way of seeing it is that a better way should be found (socially). Most other folks' way of seeing it, is full steam ahead, no matter the broader implications.
I have certainly claimed that a "manual" lifestyle is a better and more healthy one. But, then again, so do most of your liberal buddies, do they not? Is the exercise of chopping wood (which accomplishes something) inferior to the stationary bike at Gold's Gym (which accomplishes nothing other than vanity and cash in a CEOs pocket)?
There you go again . "My liberal buddies"? I have conservative buddies, liberal buddies, libertarian buddies. Above all, I have a lot of PRACTICAL buddies
By the way, exercise at Gold's gym is choice, chopping wood so your don't freeze is a MUST. Like going to a job you hate
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
But, I don't recall saying everyone was honest or free in times past. Obviously that was not the case. If you mean, those who were fortunate enough to be free people having less government intrusion and red tape, then yes, I have said that. It's true. For instance, if I wanted to build my own home (let's say a timber frame at 14 x 16), I could do so without asking anyone. (little bit of anecdote there )
I live in a county that does not care much about enforcing building codes. It costs $35 to obtain a building permit and my wife and I are building a straw bale house with a stone foundation ourselves. We fenced our 5 acre foreclosure ourselves (it is solid rock here so it means a pneumatic diesel powered drill and hundreds of posts), cleared up the cedar MANUALLY (hand saw) etc. etc. So, there are places like that still in the country. And we are only 45 miles from a large city with a university and many jobs.
However, two miles down there is a town where they enforce a strict building code, have HOA neighborhoods etc.
Point is, codes and HOAs are LOCAL, not federal government/contractual obligations. You can get involved and change them if you are so inclined. At least it would be easier to change your local codes than federal or state laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
Now... before you come back with codes being there now to protect the foolish, I will tell you that my timber frame home would still be standing in 200 years, unless someone purposely tore it down. We have such homes and barns in New England from the 1600s that are as strong today as they were back when they were built... without codes, without size restrictions, without zoning. Do you think the garbage we call homes nowadays (built via codes) will be standing in 200 years? Believe it or not, some people are smart enough to do things right without having it mandated by the government.
You keep talking as if these new homes and codes are some kind of a conspiracy . (hey, we may agree on more than you think). But, the society as it is has chosen to relinquish shelter building, food growing etc. to "experts" and focus on their cubicle. I didn't invent it or made it so but it is REALITY. On average, your average American has no clue where the majority of stuff coms from, little kids think milk comes from plastic and their parents have no idea what they are putting in their mouths, who or what died for the 2x8s in their walls etc. etc. It is called ignorance, it is everywhere but we have (democratically?) elected leaders to whom we have relinquished all the responsibility for taking care of "all that". Again, it's reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
Yeah... that's one example. But I can give you a bunch more as well. And NO, I'm not saying regulation does not have its place. It's simply that it has gone too far. Some people can't even paint their living room walls these days without some government loser (living off your tax) coming in and making a choice based on his mood for the day and whether he likes the color cream yellow.
The government doesn't care what color you paint your house but your HOA might
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
And Vlad Ţepeş decided that lots of things were legal that shouldn't have been. (hows about some hyperbole? Oh yeah! We're talking my lingo now, baby.)
Vlad the Impaler was one man, in our country laws are made by congress, senate, we have the independent states, local governments etc. Many instances of law making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
It does NOT beat the corporate system because it IS the corporate system. The only difference is that it is mandated. Mandated usury is not a better way than pedestrian usury whether a majority wants it or not. A true republic would never have passed forced corporate medicine/usury. There are plenty of collective plans out there which do the same sort of thing in a dignified way. Rather than forced collectivism, they do it in an elective collectivism manner (the way it should be)--look up "Medishare" to see how collectivism can work in a voluntary way.
But, Sir , the only reason the above may be true is because we all agree that lobbying is OK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
But just because it's a corporate republic now, doesn't mean tyranny is the only option, does it? Could not a republic be established if folks had their heads screwed on straight and stopped simply reacting to the bad by coming up with worse? If they would simply think, rather than react?
Your average American is too busy working, driving his/her children to/from all sorts of activities, paying the mounting bills and fighting off the army of a**holes trying to dip into their pockets. He/she does not have the knowledge, time, inclination and frankly, can't be bothered to try and even think about changing anything. At best, he/she will come out and say they voted for the choice of two (of the same) and wash his/her hands off everything post-vote since he/she did their civil duty. Let the experts (in congress, senate, science, LOBBYISTS) fight all the battles. They are the only ones who care?
There you go again . "My liberal buddies"? I have conservative buddies, liberal buddies, libertarian buddies. Above all, I have a lot of PRACTICAL buddies
Ah yes, but we do like taking little pot shots at one another, no?
Believe it or not, I have several liberal buddies as well. We just know better than to talk politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ognend
Your average American is too busy working, driving his/her children to/from all sorts of activities, paying the mounting bills and fighting off the army of a**holes trying to dip into their pockets. He/she does not have the knowledge, time, inclination and frankly, can't be bothered to try and even think about changing anything. At best, he/she will come out and say they voted for the choice of two (of the same) and wash his/her hands off everything post-vote since he/she did their civil duty. Let the experts (in congress, senate, science, LOBBYISTS) fight all the battles. They are the only ones who care?
OD
Yes, too busy watching over their trees as the forest burns around them, in my view.
But by doing that, they are actually inviting those a-holes into their pockets. That's the sad thing. I think those "experts" need to banish themselves in shame rather than fighting battles they know full well 99% of the time only benefit themselves. Not that the "Ol' Number One" thing is new or rare--it's just more prevalent in its willingness to send others to the guillotine, so to speak.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
