Printable View
"Why do we have to do this shit? We have plenty of resources."
What I meant by that was that the land stolen from the indigenous natives and purchased in the Louisiana Purchase (from others who had stolen it from the indigenous natives) was / is fertile and had / has many resources such as coal. Also it had / has good waterways. So was it really necessary to steal more land just to get other resources such as gold and copper?
At what point in US history did stealing land and resources change from acceptable to not acceptable? Who was it acceptable to steal from and who was it not acceptable to steal from?
As I wrote, MOST, not all, of US intervention in the Americas during part2 of the 20th century was due to the cold war. What is unbelievable or even questionable about this?
[QUOTE=Moore]At what point in US history did stealing land and resources change from acceptable to not acceptable? Who was it acceptable to steal from and who was it not acceptable to steal from?[/QUOTE]Richard T this is a good question and one I have often wondered about. The brits still refer to some parts of the world as land "won by right of conquest" I don't know where it is but I remember reading it and having it stick in my memory.
I think it has something to do with Womens sufferage. I think the western world generally became more pussyfied when they had female voters to answer to. All that touchy feely crap. One of the enduring lessons of history I think is, if your unable to hold on to your shit somebody will take it. War is nothing but larceny on a national scale most times. I'm not saying I oppose it at all times but really in essence that's pretty much what it seems to me.
Why is it that almost without exception the most hateful, venomous, unhappy, sad and resentful people are usually liberals?
Why is it that liberals almost always resort to name calling and mean spiritedness?
Why is it that liberals can not engage in political banter with out making it personal?
Why is it that liberals who detest censorship of any type are always trying to censor others?
This should be interesting.
(BTW - democrat does not always = liberal)
[QUOTE=Dickhead]I looked up the word "illogical" in the dictionary and it said. "A person who likes to fuck hookers but is a Republican."[/QUOTE]Why must liberals always pidgeon hole people?
What does Republican have to do pussy?
Do you ever look inwards with such criticism?
I remember (this is at least 13 years ago) Bush senior making a statement duing one of his State of the Union addresses. He basically said that liberals were people who couldn't relax or sleep at night because they were too worried that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time.
Amazing how one's views are so distorted. I will only submit this one post because like my father always said, don't argue with a fool or you will become one yourself.
Neocons should look at themselves just a bit more closely. They have become, perhaps, the most hateful / corrupt party in our history.
They hate gays and lesbians.
They hate evolution and anything else having to do with scientific fact-like global warming, polution, etc.
They pretty much hate anyone who isn't white.
They hate anyone who isn't a religous fanatic--like themselves.
They love only the rich and powerful, thus they hate the poor, the weak.
They hate protecting the environment-money / greed is more important.
They hate the UN and any country that disagrees with them.
They are also the most hypocritical:
They believe in less government and fiscal restraint- yet they are responsible for the largest deficit in our history (now and when Reagan was Prez)
They want Amendments against:
Burning the flag.
Gay marriage.
Prayer in school (amendment for this)
How is that keeping government out of our lives and out of our bedrooms?
Corruption-ever hear of:
Halliburton.
Oil companies.
Soft corporate money.
Sorry for the rant.
Stowe
[QUOTE=One Tree Hill]Why is it that almost without exception the most hateful, venomous, unhappy, sad and resentful people are usually liberals?
Why is it that liberals almost always resort to name calling and mean spiritedness?
Why is it that liberals can not engage in political banter with out making it personal?
Why is it that liberals who detest censorship of any type are always trying to censor others?
This should be interesting.
(BTW - democrat does not always = liberal)[/QUOTE]Is it liberals that ban books because some knowledge may "corrupt" our youth or would that be conservatives.
Liberals and name calling? Would it have been a liberal that put a poll in the field during the 2000 primary's asking people in the south if they would vote for John McCain knowing he was the Father of an illegitamate black child? (Hint GW's hatchet man Carl Rove, brilliant move though totally lacking in ethics but brilliant)
The liberals I knw don't resort to name calling but if saying our President and his administration is a corrupt disgrace is name calling then I'm guilty. However I'm also prepared to defend why I think that is true if you are prepared to rebut with facts. Most of the NeoCons I know resort to sound bites when debating.
Actually though I don't think of myself as a liberal. I detest fanatasism of any kind. I think I'm pretty moderate. I believe that less government is better (don't even try to talk about tax and spend Dems it's your guys that are increasing the size of Government not ours) I believe that if Bob and Bob want to get married they should be able to. I believe if your church doesn't want to marry Bob and Bob they shouldn't have to. I believe that like me, government should balance their fucking checkbook. I believe the founders wanted us to have guns in case we ever needed to kick the bastards out. Assault weapons work best. I think it's better to keep serial killers alive in prison so they can be passed around like packs of cigaretts for the rest of their life. I think that the reason prohibition was repealed (you can't keep people from doing what they want to do) is good enough reason to stop crowding the prisons with reefer people. I believe their should be term limits in congress, that it should pay worse and that legislators should NOT be able to exempt themselves from the law. I believe that the power to call special investigative commitees should rest with the party NOT in power but if nothing comes from the investigation all costs should come from the reelection funds of whoever called it.
OTH I do like your posts about pussy but you haven't said shit about what you believe here. All you have done is repeat the tired sound bites you hear from Rush and off of Fox (choke choke) news. Tell me what you think I believe as a liberal, and then tell me in measured words that have a basis in fact not conjecture why you think I'm wrong for believing it. Honestly I don't think you have the stones for it. I think all we will see is another hate rant.
Sadly you had to throw in a personal attack for good measure.
"Honestly I don't think you have the stones for it."
That is why you get NO response."No Soup for You!"
No more mindless banter. Got a weekend visitor arrivng in mere hours.
I will busy for the next three days.
BTW - She is a republican that is very liberal in tha sack!!
[QUOTE=One Tree Hill]Sadly you had to throw in a personal attack for good measure.
"Honestly I don't think you have the stones for it."
That is why you get NO response."No Soup for You!"[/QUOTE]An attack would have been "You don't have the stones for it" and opinion is "I don't think you have the stones for it". In any event it seems I was right.
Check it out. The Bush Administration thinks Roe vs. Wade means two good ways to evacuate a flooded city.
[QUOTE=Dickhead]Check it out. The Bush Administration thinks Roe vs. Wade means two good ways to evacuate a flooded city.[/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO!
Damn it! Now I gotta clean off the coffee I spewed on the monitor!
Thanks alot DH!
This is for One Tree Hill, Moore, or anyone else willing to admit that they support the party of the religious extremists and Bush: Why are you not absolutely terrified that your ability to enjoy sex by contract (the raison d'etre of this forum) will be taken away even more severely than it has been already? Along with a host of other liberties? With "your team" on the "sup court" will you be jacking off to pictures stashed away in 5 years because this forum has been outlawed, along with sexy pictures; or there is a law making it illegal for an American to contract a prostitute anywhere in the world (similar to the underage sex law)?
One Tree, we have talked a few times, and I know from your posts that you are a young man who enjoys sex with women. You have a lot of years to worry about. I probably won't be ABLE to have sex in 5 years, but will probably just break the law if I am able, having little to lose. But you will have a serious problem if we end up with 5 Scalia types on the "sup court". How do you sleep? This is what DH was referring to about the illogic of Republicans being mongers.
Daddy Rulz, I loved your talk about becoming Libertarian. I have been thinking exactly the same way for years. I was Republican in the 70's, but started switching to the Dems because of the Reagan years. But the Dems scare me now, too. Where are the Jeffersonian democrats when we need them?
Dickhead, since you studied Guatemala, you should start following what looks like Guatemala revisited, possibly worse.
There was a lot of press in Paraguay about the US troops when I was there May-July, most of it negative. They were especially unhappy about the US forcing the legal immunity for the troops down their throats. But it appears that worse is still to come.
I have seen a few pieces that say the US is lying about building a base in Paraguay (which seems obvious, actually) and is building one in the Chaco in the gas fields, not far from Bolivia. The immediate purpose of the troops is ostensibly to support Paraguay and fight terrorism in the triple frontier. But it seems the real reason is the gas and oil in Bolivia, and probably the gas in the Chaco. It seems that the lies and bullying are incredibly brazen. Of course, the US is starting to worry a little about Brazil, and would like a base a little closer to them as well, I suspect.
Bolivia has unrest because the people want to nationalize the gas and oil, the energy companies want to steal it. It seems that the energy interests are trying to foment a secessionist movement to separate the provinces with the oil and gas, if necessary. If that happens, there will be massive unrest, possibly civil war. The US, with a base in the area, will obviously support the interests of the energy companies and help them steal the oil and gas. Always talking about the "rule of law" at the same time, of course. Interestingly, the same sort of situation could develop with the gas in Paraguay, with an attempt to split the gas containing Chaco from Paraguay. There are few people up there, and the energy companies will probably soon control the area if the gas looks viable. We could have unrest again in Paraguay as well.
This situation is developing now, so stay tuned. As this develops, we could see Americans become even more unwelcome in Brazil, Bolivia, and Paraguay. And Argentina could become very upset with the US as well.
Read NewAmericanCentury. Org. This is a 98 page manifesto written in the late 1990's but a bunch of Necons on how the US should develop a military base in the Middle East to protect our oil interests, develop a base in South America and increase our military influence in Asia.
It also advocated bankrupting the country as an excuse to force the elimination of Medicare, Social Security, welfare and all other 'government' programs (aren't the military and corporate welfare government programs?
7 of the authors were subsequently placed in the Bush administration-the most notible, Paul Wolfewitz (spelling? And based on currently trends, most, if not all, of those recommendations by the authors is exactly what is happening now.
However, Republicans don't want to know the truth. Consider the 200 billion Bush has said we may have to pay for New Orleans. Bush says fuck raising taxes or even eliminating the tax cuts on the rich. Just increase the debt more. Another push toward bankrupting this country and possbily destroying more lives than the Great Depression ever did.
I thought it was the Republicans that were fiscal conservatives.
When Reagan took office the debt was only around 500 billion-manageable. This was a debt created over 35 years. 8 years later after he left it was over 4 trillion. When Bush 2 took office we had a forecasted trillion dollar surplus. We are now projected to have a debt of close to 7-8 trillion in 10 years.
Sorry, I should blind some people with facts.
Suerte,
Stowe
Anybody interested in talking about pussy? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?
"When Reagan took office the debt was only around 500 billion-manageable. This was a debt created over 35 years. 8 years later after he left it was over 4 trillion."
1) Presidents do not make budgets nor appropriate money. Congress does. What party held the Senate and Congress during the Reagan years?
2) Reagan tax cuts resulted in a near doubling of IRS revenues in 8 Years.
3) The democratically held house / senate traded Reagans desire to rebuild our military (remember the Carter fiasco?) And accordingly appropriated funds, for their spending spree on social issues and other pork.
4) Did the trade pay off? Well we went from 22% interest rates to near 5% and had the biggest economic recovery in our history. We also gained respect militarily and quickend the end of the Soviet Empire.
Isn't it nice not to have discussions of pending nuclear destruction and global destruction? Of course we could have been nice and made friends with the soviets like the libs wanted and dismantled our weapons while allowing them to keep theirs a show of good faith). On second thought fuck that. Strength gets peace not bleeding hearts.
Total IRS tax revenues During the Reagan era:
1980 $519,375,273 Coming in to office.
1981 $606,799,103
1982 $632,240,506
1983 $627,246,793
1984 $680,475,229
1985 $742,871,541
1986 $782,251,812
1987 $886,290,590
1988 $935,106,594
1989 $1,013,322,133 Leaving office.
[url]http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04db07co.xls[/url]
Cutting taxes has NOTHING to do with creating national debt in this case. Its all about spending. Especially considering a near doubling of revenues in 8 yrs.
Bueller?
Bueller?
Bueller?
[QUOTE=Dickhead]Check it out. The Bush Administration thinks Roe vs. Wade means two good ways to evacuate a flooded city.[/QUOTE]Even Republicans have a sense of humor!:)
Damn nice catch!
Also it's important to note that everyone does not have to have the same political opinion and that politics and pussy can indeed be kept separate. Like I've mongered with OTH quite a few times and I never had any idea whether he was left / right Dem / Rep or whatever. Now that he's out of the closet I'll still monger with him and I still won't discuss politics with him. Of course now that I am living here I don't really give a shit how fucked up things are up there.
I keep trying to show this situation in a light more germane to my interests and those of this forum. Why can't you guys learn? In the US, pussy IS politics. That is why we call it sex prison. It is the biggest, strongest issue in the country. Those people in the Midwest and south who got hammered by Katrina were capable of generating a lot of attention and action to make sure we never see another tit on national TV after the Super Bowl, but little on hurricane protection. They know their priorities. I hope they are happy with the result.
For me, especially as regards pussy, this is about extremist suppression versus freedom and tolerance.
What I can never understand is what the people who support the extreme right get out of it. Presumably, one does the things one does because one gets something in return for doing them. But these people generally create miserable lives for themselves.
Moore's comment of 9-15-05: "He basically said that liberals were people who couldn't relax or sleep at night because they were too worried that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time." was stolen by Bush.
Sorry Moore, I first heard that statement at least 30 years ago, in this form: "A pilgrim is a person who lives in mortal terror that someone, somewhere, is having a good time.". In this form it is correct. The pilgrim ethic worships hardship and misery in life. The religious extremists still worship this ethic. They constantly talk of "the narrow, difficult path of righteousness", as opposed to the "broad, easy path of sin". The Republicans force themselves to outwardly conform to this ethic to maintain the support of the extremists. The sickest thing to me is that their concept of the "narrow, difficult" primarily applies only to sex in its various aspects. They have no problems with lying, cheating, extortion, stealing, murder. They can rationalize anything but sex.
Consider the ridiculous situation of Bill Gates. Here is a man who is worth $40 billion, has thousands of employees dependent on him, and some would say is responsible for a big chunk of the US economy. But he cannot:
1. Assume legal responsibility for 1 child, even his own. In any dispute with Melinda, he loses his children. It would be extremely difficult to have a child legally his own by any means.
2. Get laid or do much of anything else entertaining without begging Melinda. If he pisses her off, he loses the kids. He is in this regard practically her slave.
3. Get his load off in any legal or practical way when he wants to, without hiding somewhere in his house and jacking off. He can't even leave the country easily.
So what does he get for his $40 Billion? Not much. He generally lives a boring, miserable life. His 40,000 sq. Ft. House doesn't mean shit. I lived in a 4BR, etc. House alone for 22 yrs. Its nice when you want to take a walk at night inside. I would not consider trading places with him, because I would have to give up the opportunity to pursue these gorgeous women.
Do these executives and politicos support men's rights? Or freedom of belief, thought, and non destructive action? Or this forum and what it stands for? No. They, in their "ruthless greed" support policies that destroy the lives of millions to provide the opportunity to acquire more, but the "more" does not benefit them. This has to be the most twisted, deviate attitude imaginable, because I cannot believe that most of them actually have the beliefs of the extremists. They have a policy of acquisition solely for the sake of acquisition. The party of the religious extremists is the republicans, but nearly all male executives and politicos kowtow to them.
Then all of you people who support extremism, why? I understand that politics makes strange bedfellows, but trust me: If these people get in control they will make things worse that will not be corrected in your lifetime.
The other form of extremism regarding pussy is what scares me about the democrats now. In order to buy their silence and save his job, Clinton sold the party to the feminists. And they are the other side of the vice that we find ourselves in. So it is impossible to unquestioningly support the democrats. The biggest issues saving us are abortion, birth control, and gay rights. The straight feminists want abortion and the lesbian feminists want to get married. The religious extremists hate both. This keeps the women from fully aligning with their historical partner, the church. They have to give lip service to all rights in order to obtain the rights that they want. But watch out. After gay marriage is accepted, the women will find a reason why it is okay for women but not for men, and try to create laws against gay male marriage.
On feminist extremism, I mentioned the idea of a law preventing contractual sex for Americans all over the world. This is probably the greatest immediate danger we face. There is a concerted campaign, especially among UN groups, to generate hysteria about prostitution. Mostly it is now in the form of report after report filled with outrageous lies and statistics about forced prostitution, trafficking internationally in women, and so on. These reports are dutifully reported by the press, without challenge. Later, the feminists will quote these reports in further pushes for action. This technique was extremely effective in creating worldwide hysteria about kidnapping and international trafficking in children, a problem that never existed to any extent. But feminists were able to gain a lot of attention and power over the issue. Every time you see mention of "sex tourism" you can believe that the idea behind it is a law against contracting prostitutes worldwide. And yes, you can just break it, but the problem is you become extortion bait.
That is why I tend to agree with the "Libertarian" idea. But we as mongers need to fight the real problems facing us, and learn the issues about them.
[QUOTE=Dickhead]Also it's important to note that everyone does not have to have the same political opinion and that politics and pussy can indeed be kept separate. Like I've mongered with OTH quite a few times and I never had any idea whether he was left / right Dem / Rep or whatever. Now that he's out of the closet I'll still monger with him and I still won't discuss politics with him. Of course now that I am living here I don't really give a shit how fucked up things are up there.[/QUOTE]Besides, in reality neither your, mine nor anyones opinion will change anything and certainly not each others beliefs as politics go!
Trust me, At a certain point in the 8 year reign of terror (Clinton) I developed a WTF attitude and let it go. Afterall, we can only vote once!
And just to clarify: I am not enamored with Bush. In fact, I think he has squandered a golden opportunity for conservatives. I also am furious at his propensity to pander to the fucking Mexicans that seem to believe that they
have a right to violate US immigration laws at will, murder, kidnap, smuggle contraband and drain social resources from tax payers. If we need the cheap labor (and we do) then we should document them and allow workers to come across in a legal and accountable way.
But here is the dig: Neither party wants to piss off the hispanic vote. So the madness continues.
Oh by the way, that southern border doesnt discriminate, any nationality including middle eastern terrorist can cross it. In fact large numbers of Brazilians are now crossing. Word is out down in S. America. Maybe I can convince a few chicas to make it here and I will allow free room and board at my place?
"That is why I tend to agree with the "Libertarian" idea. But we as mongers need to fight the real problems facing us, and learn the issues about them."
Yes, I agree in part with this. I can really identify with a lot of libertarinism but not all of it. Our constitution was written with personal liberties as a central theme. Certainly large centralized government was not what our forefathers intened. That is the biggest problem I have with Dems (libs), I do not want cradle to grave government responsibility for me. What I do want is for our constitution to be upheld as written and respected by government and for law not to be subverted by activist judges who seek to overturn the will of the people, or correct the inablility of liberals to win elections and influence ideas in a public arena. I do not want social engineering. I do not want any restrictions on media, such the attempt to silence conservative talk radio (or any radio for that matter - even Air America). I do not want third world nations in the UN dictating either foreign or domestic US policy. I do not want us to be dependant on middle eastern oil (ok dems. Finally you see we gotta explore in Alaska and other places in the US) And I do not want radical agenda driven organizations like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club to determine how best to use natural resources (and yes I like nature, hiking, fishing etc.) with their anti buiness, anti capitalist motives.
However, I do want personal responsibility for all. I do want tax code reduced or eliminated. I do want to make it easier for small businesses to flourish. I do want to keep our military strong. And I do want to ensure that we remain free (to the extent as we know it - there is no such thing as total freedom) and have the backbone to defend it if neccessary.
And last but not least. I want all of us to be able to continue to freely discuss our views without regard for censorship, undue criticism or without losing respect for diverging opinions.
Afterall, we all have that right and that makes us unique in the world.
Despite all the flaws, where does everyone want to immigrate to? Where else is better to start with nothing? Where else can such quality of life be found
in concert with a large multi-cultural population? Where esle has the opportunity that we have? Answer: Nowhere. We simply are the best and must continue to get better. That, is the American way.
[QUOTE=One Tree Hill]Besides, in reality neither your, mine nor anyones opinion will change anything and certainly not each others beliefs as politics go![/QUOTE]So why discuss politics here?
It's akin to talking in order to hear the sound of one's voice.
[QUOTE=Dickhead]Also it's important to note that everyone does not have to have the same political opinion and that politics and pussy can indeed be kept separate. Like I've mongered with OTH quite a few times and I never had any idea whether he was left / right Dem / Rep or whatever. Now that he's out of the closet I'll still monger with him and I still won't discuss politics with him. Of course now that I am living here I don't really give a shit how fucked up things are up there.[/QUOTE]Dickhead: This makes me think of Reagan and Tip Oneal. Who could be more.
Opposed politically, yet they developed a great friendship while
Reagan was in office. Often privately dinning together in the white house. Thats the way it should be. Of course I know your views, but that doesnt change the fact that you are a stand up guy, alot of fun, knowledgeable on chicas, beer and food and are willing to share it with others. Indeed you and I have mongered a bit together and it has been fun.
As I say to my best friend:
"I don't like your views on politics, but don't let me catch anyone trying to take away that right from you to express them".
Hell I even dated a socialist type chick for over a year once. She was a lawyer for a social advocay group and had political aspirations. Sure we had a few know downs, but always made up afterwards!
[QUOTE=Hunt99]So why discuss politics here?
It's akin to talking in order to hear the sound of one's voice.[/QUOTE]Hunt99,
Well for one, the can or worms was already opened.
Two, being the well intentioned guy that I am I want to let the board know a bit about my beliefs and even more that its nothing personal and that we can and all should get along and respect each other.
Having said that. I formally conclude my political opinions on this board. I just got done fucking a sweet Texas girl for 3 days and need to go review the tape! Boy was her pussy tasty!
Cheers!
Yes I was reading about this is Clarin a couple of weeks ago. Seems like a great idea. It could be a good time to buy some property up there. I need to visit the desert region of Paraguay.
Instead of drilling for oil in Alaska, why not break our dependence on oil, period, and find some cleaner, renewable technologies? Oh, right, because the oil companies' lobbies are too powerful.
Lexton,
Excellent analysis on the effect of the pussy market in the U. S. Men have essentially become the slaves of the new millenium. Anyone who doesn't believe this should try getting a passport or driver's license while unemployed and in arrears on their child support payments.
OTH,
Great idea about providing free room and board in return for Latin pussy but the Department of Homeland Security has already closed this loop-hole by making the harboring of an illegal alien a crime.
US Navy Releases Terrorist.
The US Navy today announced that it has released a senior Al Quaida terrorist after questioning him extensively for 27 days while being held prisoner aboard a US aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea.
In a humanitarian gesture, the terrorist was given $50 US and a white 1962 Ford Fairlane automobile upon being released from custody.
The photo below shows the terrorist on his way home just after being released by the Navy.
Ain't if awfull!
Why there were no looters in Texas!
A welfare state for a welfare nation. Those freeloaders give us real liberal progressives a bad name. Good riddance.
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]A welfare state for a welfare nation. Those freeloaders give us real liberal progressives a bad name. Good riddance.[/QUOTE]So Daddy, we do have some commonalities!
"Workfare, not welfare!"
[QUOTE=One Tree Hill]So Daddy, we do have some commonalities!
"Workfare, not welfare!"[/QUOTE]I have always thought that REAL Republicans and REAL Democrats have a lot in common. The people that are ruining this country are the NeoCons, Christian Religious Jihadists (they are not the same, the NeoCons are using the predjudist of the other to stay in power) and the looney fucking Democrats (we are all NOT like that, I for one am very hard working and the only check I ever got that I didn't work for was unemployment which is not payed for by the State but by the company)
I think the differences between Republicans and Democrates help this country stay on an even keel. I'v been tired for years of freeloaders running up my tax bill. The problem now is we have more corporate welfare and less individual welfare not less welfare. I think the corporate kind will cost me more than the other.
I have no problem with, and tremendous respect for moderate conservatives as I would hope a moderate conservative has respect for my moderate liberalism. We need more folks like this having dialogue, it's time to take our country back from the kooks on both sides of the aisle.
Daddy, unemployment is a program administered jointly by the states and the federal government, and is financed by a tax paid only by the employer [b]in most states.[/b] However, the states do indeed receive federal money, mostly notably when the unemployment rate in a particular state rises above a certain threshold. That triggers [b]extended benefits[/b] and these are federally financed. The federal unemployment tax is I believe 6.0% of wages, but that gets reduced by a credit the employer receives for state unemployment tax contributions.
[QUOTE=Dickhead]Daddy, unemployment is a program administered jointly by the states and the federal government, and is financed by a tax paid only by the employer [b]in most states.[/b] However, the states do indeed receive federal money, mostly notably when the unemployment rate in a particular state rises above a certain threshold. That triggers [b]extended benefits[/b] and these are federally financed. The federal unemployment tax is I believe 6.0% of wages, but that gets reduced by a credit the employer receives for state unemployment tax contributions.[/QUOTE]Perhaps it's a justification for me to feel comfortable. However one of the main differences between welfare and unemployment is that you had to have a fucking job you lost to get the second one. Also benifits are limited by time, they can be extended that's true but not until retirement, that is unless your an old fucker like Exon.
(Sorry Exon, just fucking with you a little)
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Perhaps it's a justification for me to feel comfortable. However one of the main differences between welfare and unemployment is that you had to have a fucking job you lost to get the second one. Also benifits are limited by time, they can be extended that's true but not until retirement, that is unless your an old fucker like Exon.
(Sorry Exon, just fucking with you a little)[/QUOTE]There is now a lifetime max of 5 years of drawing welfare (subject to some few exceptions) thanks to BJ Clinton. Meanwhile corporate welfare such as no bid contracts, cost-plus contracts, and favorable capital gains taxation continues unabated.