There in the background left, the flamboyant Drum Major?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

More seriously, thanks for your service.

You do look like the dutiful son-in-law. Your hands are folded in your lap. You're wearing that hideous pink/violet shirt she gave you. You're a good little soldier.

"No saki for me mama-san. I only drink healthful water."

What's your wife's phone number? No shenanigans, I just want to talk to her. I'll probably tell her how great you are or something like that.

To be fair to the rest of us though, his avatar says so much it kinda give him an unfair advantage.

For faux-folksiness no one trumps Obama. Instead of a winning lottery ticket, I'll take a nickel for every time he's used the word itself: "Folks".

"the errors are symptoms of an overburdened bureaucracy, not a political conspiracy..."

and Owen says near the end of the linked video that it was miscommunication and careless attention to detail, but "not incompetence".

So it wasn't incompetence due to being overburdened and it wasn't political shenanigans. I guess it was nothing. What a relief!

Larry, I could as easily paraphrase your position as 'the Pope is never wrong, even when he isn't speaking ex cathedra.'

Turning the free-market position into a parody as you've done above is standard-issue leftist rhetoric we see every day on the web. Nearly all conservative positions are given this treatment. We're told that they go too far, they lack nuance and limiting considerations. But no one here is advocating extreme positions despite your efforts to cast it that way.

If Obama had given the same speech I don't imagine you'd be jumping to his defense. This same reflexive reaction occurred with Benedict's anti-capitalist statements. The same excuses were even used: "but unfettered capitalism can be bad" (which we don't all know?) to "it was a small speech and won't do much damage".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited "is" in_last_sentence_to "can_be".

Scrut, I'm leaving and since you're here all alone you can put on 10 cents crown and pretend to be important. Good night.

Wiping. It's a dirty job but someones got to do it. Clearly a job to hand to government. Keep the bureaucrats busy.

With you around Fricosis One, I can feel a little hate stirring.

My thoughts? What Hollywood starlet would date an uber-conservative? I'm a fan and I don't even know who it is.

I say limit comments to six_words.

Wow Amy, this is damning with faint praise.

Anyway, not many bureaucracies give away responsibility when they can use it to justify expansion.

This is a valuable distinction that expresses something of what I've been struggling to articulate for a while.

Would a social plan as you define it imply_a_surety of_purpose_that_could_lead_to_a tyranny of the majority?

Joseph, though you're correct in the strict sense, don't you know Franco well enough to know that he agrees with you on those fundamentals? If I sound touchy, it's because you do the same to me.

When we all have to stop and define our terms from square one it gets tedious.

It would sound less pedantic and patronizing to ask him where he'd draw the line.

So Fred is the devil?

On some intuitive level I already knew this. I wonder if his wife found out yet?