Ah, I see...

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #324,530 by beepster 4/12/10 3:58:58 PM Reply	Ah, I see... ...that one should work to have as many children as possible and inflate one's need...while at the same time invest the least amount in myself...because no matter what, the government will make sure that I want/need for nothing. Any other method of thought leads to complete dysfunction. Does that sum your argument up? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #324,532 by Ashton 4/12/10 4:13:04 PM Reply	As Peter Geyl observes, The man who has made up his mind for all contingencies will often be too quick for one who tries to understand. Now you may parse 'merit-ocracy' -- as those who invent the slogans always make sure that they are personally entitled to the fullest-measure of that 'merit', before the slogan's release. cha cha etcetera ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers! -- via RC
Post #324,537 by beepster 4/12/10 5:40:18 PM Reply	could you point to some place in history where perhaps a model has been in place that would suit your purpose? Something of this planet perhaps? While you have traditionally rallied to the cause of "what do conservatives want to conserve?", I don't believe you have yet to promote Ashtotopia to anyone, either. While your snark certainly does entertain...I am reminded of that great literary scholar S Wright, who noted... "A friend of mine once sent me a postcard with a picture of the entire planet Earth taken from space. On the back it said, Wish you were here" I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #324,607 by Ashton 4/13/10 5:19:50 PM Reply	The problem with the Reactionary view is apparent: If something beneficial to society as a whole Didn't happen-exactly In The Past® -- It Couldn't Happen in any next. Substitute Reactionary for the modern 'Conservative', 97.7% identical. Pity the word has been elided within the billions of soundbytes spewed all over the æther. Guess most of the current writers are too young ever to have heard it. (Sorry, there's no Ashtopia to be outlined. After all, there wasn't one way-back. How could there be one next?) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers! -- via RC
Post #324,612 by beepster 4/13/10 7:29:08 PM Reply	Thanks for clearing that up the other ways are bad...your way doesn't exist. It could. Hence the SW quote. I'll anxiously await Zefram in your honor. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #324,628 by Ashton 4/14/10 12:06:58 AM Reply	Well, perhaps even, you could.. think outside The Box? too ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers! -- via RC
Post #324,635 by beepster 4/14/10 4:07:00 AM Reply	I could..and often do... ...but prefer to deal with issues within a defined set of reality that doesn't require 6.7bn "aha" moments to work. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.

Doc targets Obama voters for layoffs in advance of Obamacare - (lincoln) - (38) - April 12, 2010, 12:34:56 PM EDT

Maybe you can do that in Texas . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - April 12, 2010, 12:39:19 PM EDT

there's an update at the end - (SpiceWare) - (36) - April 12, 2010, 01:21:07 PM EDT

Here's the next update - (mhuber) - (34) - April 12, 2010, 01:40:00 PM EDT

And the next.. - (beepster) - (33) - April 12, 2010, 01:54:36 PM EDT

Where? - (jake123) - (32) - April 12, 2010, 02:09:23 PM EDT

plumbers rates for a home visit vary from $65 to name brand - (boxley) - (1) - April 12, 2010, 02:20:16 PM EDT

Master plumbers up here - (jake123) - April 12, 2010, 02:26:05 PM EDT

Re: Where? - (beepster) - (29) - April 12, 2010, 02:30:37 PM EDT

What, lawyers don't have to by malpractice insurance? - (jake123) - (11) - April 12, 2010, 03:08:03 PM EDT

Thats to break even. - (beepster) - (10) - April 12, 2010, 03:33:14 PM EDT

Dude, you don't seem to understand something - (jake123) - (3) - April 12, 2010, 03:40:15 PM EDT

..and it is Our Nature to Fight that Fact with every Disney - (Ashton) - (1) - April 12, 2010, 04:01:54 PM EDT

would you care - (beepster) - April 12, 2010, 05:32:31 PM EDT

Don't I? - (beepster) - April 12, 2010, 05:31:53 PM EDT

Most physicians aren't sole proprietors. - (Another Scott) - (5) - April 12, 2010, 06:23:24 PM EDT

And how much of that is by necessity? - (beepster) - (4) - April 12, 2010, 06:36:38 PM EDT

No, that's not it. - (Another Scott) - (3) - April 12, 2010, 08:25:21 PM EDT

Not really - (beepster) - (2) - April 13, 2010, 12:12:49 AM EDT

Regardless - (mhuber) - (1) - April 13, 2010, 04:00:05 AM EDT

Agree - (beepster) - April 13, 2010, 08:28:47 AM EDT

I suspect someone's giving worst case numbers... - (Another Scott) - (15) - April 12, 2010, 03:12:12 PM EDT

I don't need to read the numbers. - (Andrew Grygus) - (14) - April 12, 2010, 03:22:48 PM EDT

Quod Erat.. oh, you know.. - (Ashton) - (9) - April 12, 2010, 03:31:57 PM EDT

To each.. - (beepster) - (8) - April 12, 2010, 03:40:18 PM EDT

And without a soupÃ§on of *Society Maintenance by Each - (Ashton) - (7) - April 12, 2010, 03:54:48 PM EDT

Ah, I see... - (beepster) - (6) - April 12, 2010, 03:58:58 PM EDT

As Peter Geyl observes, - (Ashton) - (5) - April 12, 2010, 04:13:04 PM EDT

could you point to some place in - (beepster) - (4) - April 12, 2010, 05:40:18 PM EDT

The problem with the Reactionary view is apparent: - (Ashton) - (3) - April 13, 2010, 05:19:50 PM EDT

Thanks for clearing that up - (beepster) - (2) - April 13, 2010, 07:29:08 PM EDT

Well, perhaps even, you could.. think outside The Box? too -NT - (Ashton) - (1) - April 14, 2010, 12:06:58 AM EDT

I could..and often do... - (beepster) - April 14, 2010, 04:07:00 AM EDT

And all those beemers - (beepster) - (3) - April 12, 2010, 03:55:38 PM EDT

Lots of Beemers in East LA - (Andrew Grygus) - (2) - April 12, 2010, 08:19:05 PM EDT

enterprising young men they are! - (beepster) - (1) - April 12, 2010, 11:56:56 PM EDT

snort! -NT - (boxley) - April 13, 2010, 08:49:38 AM EDT

Same tired argument that - (Ashton) - April 12, 2010, 03:27:20 PM EDT

Re: there's an update at the end - (lincoln) - April 13, 2010, 03:36:13 PM EDT

iwethey.org

I've spent an unreasonable amount of thought on the line Janet sings in Rocky Horror: "His lust is so sincere". Now, on the surface, that's a big "DUH!" because that's the nature of lust. But wait: Brad has earlier sung about how hot he is for her, and it's pretty clear he's just being conventional. Brad's lust is not sincere.

Now, I could swill green mead and gnaw raw meat with sincere lust. As for kimchee and lutefisk, well, those would be just for effect. And if I'm just going for effect, I might as well wear a tie. And pants.

-- mhuber
65 ms