Hillary = Auntie Christ

I'll bet it's a real sweatshop down there.

The truth of any given story is not what's important, as even if one isn't true, there's plenty more where it is, so it's still valid to use the untrue story because it points to a greater truth.

Class dismissed.

Jay Cost makes a number of unfair implications:

A) That pork-barreling is anti-Conservative, and the GOP is supposed to be Conservative, but when the GOP last had complete control, it pork-barrelled more than any prior Congress.
But:
1) The GOP is not a Conservative party, it's a neocon party, and big spending is not exactly incompatible with neocon principles, and
2) Bringing home the bacon to keep getting re-elected is a fact of our system, and will always be a balancing act between limiting spending and staying in office, and
3) Most of that bacon was probably for businesses to expand or military contracts, for jobs, all of which is totally compatible with GOP values, and
4) Probably every Congress generally pork-barrels more than the prior one, so it's probably not a trend suddenly started by the GOP, and
5) If a party has been out of power for while there's probably a mindset of having to catch up one's constituencies, having been starved for however long under the opposition party.

B) That one side of the GOP considers low wages and high unemployment a virtue.
Sure there's the desire to pay less for labor and being in a buyer's market, but it's tempered by those things leading to:
1) Less customers who can afford the products or services one is in the business of, and
2) More unhappy and less productive workers and quality, and
3) Higher taxes to pay for expanded use of government subsidies and safety nets.

Ace is just plain either a Leftie or lost most of his contact with reality:

C) The only people who use the term "corporatist", either as a pejorative, or at all, are Lefties. Like "infidel", it's a dead giveaway.

D) American life both politically and economically is not dominated by a corporate class. This is of course a long-peddled Leftie phantasm, any reader of Slashdot for example already knows. We're dominated by a ruling class, who favor special interests. The ruling class is across both parties, and the special interests are environmental and others in addition to corporate ones.

E) It is not "extremely liberal" to want to import a bunch of cheap labor. It's very pro-business, and totally compatible with the neocon outlook. Just because the Democrat party wants to import a bunch of low-skill immigrants, for an entirely different reason (i.e. votes), does not make neocons "liberal". Any more than it makes Democrats "neocon-like". It's just a policy they both share, for different reasons.

F) Talking about "1%-ers", and with disdain, is something only Lefties do. I for example, personnaly don't want to start a business of my own, so I rely on the wealthy for employment opportunities. I appreciate them for affording me the ability to make a living without having the burden of having everything on my shoulders. I like being able to come home and forget about the business I'm involved with.

G) Taxing the rich to death is something only Lefties want.

I) The Conservative agenda has never been a slave to corporate interests. Any more than Conservatives are "slaves" to the gun lobby. You can't be a slave to something you already strongly agree with.

H) Insisting that corporations serve one's political agenda is only put forth by Lefties. They call it "social responsibility". I tell them to fuck off. Private enterprise is a private enterprise and the Conservative position is that they ought to do whatever their owners want, not what some commie puke wants.

It started off sounding like a Conservative making some unfair statements about the Republican Party, only to be revealed to be a Leftie making obviously untrue statements about it, and otherwise spouting predictable Leftie angles. Sad, because there are many valid criticisms of the GOP (see: the (once hopeful) Tea Party movement). But one would have to get serious first, to talk about them. (Which implies honesty, neither of which one will get out of a Leftie*.)

*Except possibly when you're alone with one, who's also family. Otherwise, it's poker-faced propaganda, all the time. (Because winning power is of the utmost importance. (Because that's the only real way that "fairness" can be ensured. By being imposed. Q.E.D. It's just Leftism 101. Here endeth the lesson. You're welcome.))

I completely don't get it. But I appreciate the effort; welcome to the human race. (Just don't be like some people and be discouraged and consider this all for naught; I assimilate everything into my noodle, and it *may* flick on a light in my melon *some day*.)

That's what I was afraid of; you think that's excelling at being communicative. Think of it this way: How would you explain it to your children?

Since it's a guessing game you require being played, I'll play for now. It seems like if I decide to go get a chicken sammich at CJ's for lunch today, either I decided it, or God made me decide it. So by your geometric analogy that you consider the epitome of clarity do you mean:
1) We both had a hand in deciding, as in I was leaning toward it, and God nudged me to finally do it?
2) It was all me deciding, but God already knew about it, and okayed it/didn't act to stop me?
3) We both had a hand in deciding, but it was 100% me deciding and, in some drug-induced way of looking at it, also simultaneously 100% God forcing me to decide that way?
4) Other?

Also, explain how a line is a good representation of the pseudo- Free Will you believe in. And why is that line "time"?

The first is not an elaboration, and the second, based on what you've indicated in the past (I do pay atttention), is from either intellectual dishonesty or intellectual dishevelment. I'll assume the latter. Maybe we should just stick to toilet humor. Here's my lame attempts for today:

http://science.slashdot.org/co...

http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

That's nonsensical on the surface, so you would have to explain how it makes sense to you.

But you've only answered part of the question at hand. Even if you do believe that God has forced us back to Him a few times in the past, and that's why America could, theoretically, turn around, why do you assume He would do it again? I mean, He might (assuming for the sake of argument that He would), or He might not. As far as I know He never promised to keep America from straying too far from Him.

Reasoned arguments when you disagree. (Telling me that you're somewhere between one term that entails a whole bunch of meaning and another term that also entails a whole bunch of meaning, serves as a marvelous counter-example.) I'm not holding my breath; trying to get you to focus is like you trying to get DR to have a buddy study of Marxism.

Then again, a little frickin' personal responsibility would be nice. If you've got something terminal, pick your method of offing yourself and acquire all the materials and set it up, before you become physically incapable of doing so.

It's just that if someone else is doing all the work, it's not a suicide, it's a murder. It's like Japanese cars that are "made in America". They're not American-made if everything is done overseas except for the last step. Likewise it's not really suicide if I buy the gun, load it, hold it up to your head, lift your hand and wrap your finger around the trigger, and move it halfway for you.

And I think I'd prefer these things come out of say the mortuarial arts instead of the medical department. If there's a pill you can take when you want to croak, maybe morticians should prescribe that, and leave doctors to just sticking with trying to keep people alive.

Taking your own life is very permanent, so it should be very deliberate. "Assisted" should be defined very conservatively.

Well usually "explain what you meant by this particular juxtaposition" doesn't mean "provide wikipedia links for extensive reading on two subjects and let me puzzle it out for myself", but whatevs, dude.

Wow, you really aren't paying attention. I guess, going forward think of my posted responses in your journal as just me collecting my thoughts.

Apologies, then. I'll just accept that you're not interested in getting into any kind of real discussion with me. (Or that we're necessarily even able to, being on, as you said, different wavelengths. In spite of probably largely agreeing on things.)