Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
About Deviant Artist equal opportunity nerdOther/United States Recent Activity
Deviant for 12 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 118 Deviations 1,883 Comments 24,033 Pageviews
×

Newest Deviations

Mature content
Slowly Melting -Sherlock BBC- :iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 10 9
Mature content
That Road -Sherlock BBC- :iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 11 10
Mature content
Right Now -Sherlock BBC- :iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 15 7
Mature content
Evolution -Sherlock BBC- :iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 17 16
Mature content
Interplay -SW- :iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 4 1
Literature
Overture -LotR-
"Overture"
by Street Howitzer
It was winter in Ithilien, and still, it was too warm to snow. The air was chilled, more sharply edged, and when the Sun rose in the early morning, each blade of glass and tree-twig glittered with a crusting of frost. This melted within two hours of Sunrise, leaving the landscape damp and muddy, bereft of any color but indistinct browns and greens. Snow did bury the nearby Mountains of Shadows, making them look less like a mountain range and more like a collection of glaciers. The Elves generally thought their new abode was the least pleasant during the winter-time. Their memories recalled the ever-blooming forests of Lothlórien, and judged Ithilien the poorer by comparison.
Winter was a strange time. The Mountains seemed closer, and served as a silent reminder of what and Who once dwelt beyond them. The winds from the Sea were strong and cold, scenting every breath with salt and driving more than one Elf to drift to the Havens. And in winter, the Lor
:iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer
:iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 16 5
Mature content
'... infirmities' :iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 2 0
Mature content
Losing My Religion -2- :iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 2 17
Mature content
Losing My Religion -1- :iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 5 5
Mature content
Tarantulas 2 -Pitch Black- :iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 2 0
Mature content
Tarantulas 1 -Pitch Black- :iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 3 2
Mature content
The Other Companion -Holmes- :iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 16 10
Literature
Clocks and Cabbages -Holmes-
"Clocks and Cabbages"
by Street Howitzer
It was gospel to anyone who knew him for more than ten minutes: Sherlock and boredom got on about as well as cats and water.
Now, one might presume that all boys his age might struggle with ennui, and fear it above all other experiences in their short time on Earth.  Boy-children have an unending impatience with the world--they do not tolerate being cramped up in front of Latin-books in classrooms, nor in front of hymnals in churches.  The kicking of heels, the slouching of shoulders, the deep-throated sighs, and the blank, glassy stares at the ceiling, as if looking to God to save them from their troubles, are all hardly strange to see in children who are kept from their rightful place at the fishing-hole.  Yet it was undoubtably peculiar in Sherlock, as anyone who had any familiarity with the Holmeses would know.
Mycroft, who had more than a passing knowledge of that family line, might go so far as to wonder wheth
:iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer
:iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 7 7
Mature content
Field Guide to Anti-Yaoi Fans :iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 103 304
Mature content
No, You Can't... :iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 4 2
Mature content
Some Things... -Tin Man- :iconstreet-howitzer:street-howitzer 5 8

Random Favourites

The Black Swann by neffinesse The Black Swann :iconneffinesse:neffinesse 14 12 Nut Longs by neffinesse
Mature content
Nut Longs :iconneffinesse:neffinesse 16 3
Captain Hector Barbossa WIP 8 by InsaneKane87 Captain Hector Barbossa WIP 8 :iconinsanekane87:InsaneKane87 43 168 Fire and Alchemy by neffinesse Fire and Alchemy :iconneffinesse:neffinesse 134 30 Golden Ice Master by Steampunk-Girl Golden Ice Master :iconsteampunk-girl:Steampunk-Girl 17 10 J and L watercolor by Thundertori J and L watercolor :iconthundertori:Thundertori 51 17 Desert by vicas-fawx Desert :iconvicas-fawx:vicas-fawx 75 32 Valentine Victoriana by vicas-fawx Valentine Victoriana :iconvicas-fawx:vicas-fawx 71 21 Lupin III coloring contest by Steampunk-Girl Lupin III coloring contest :iconsteampunk-girl:Steampunk-Girl 63 26 Happy Halloween by InsaneKane87 Happy Halloween :iconinsanekane87:InsaneKane87 477 556 I love pillow by Oriana-X-Myst I love pillow :iconoriana-x-myst:Oriana-X-Myst 2 1 Where's the puppy? by Oriana-X-Myst Where's the puppy? :iconoriana-x-myst:Oriana-X-Myst 2 6 Cat Cat Cat by Oriana-X-Myst Cat Cat Cat :iconoriana-x-myst:Oriana-X-Myst 1 2 Album 2, Black and Burgandy by Oriana-X-Myst Album 2, Black and Burgandy :iconoriana-x-myst:Oriana-X-Myst 3 2 the baby by kvetched the baby :iconkvetched:kvetched 10 6 Buddha statue by ibizaholidays Buddha statue :iconibizaholidays:ibizaholidays 1 0

Activity


deviantID

street-howitzer
equal opportunity nerd
Artist
United States
Current Residence: A bardo. But who isn't?
Favourite genre of music: Dark cabaret, acid rock, grunge, garage band, graver, hellbilly
Operating System: Windows 7.
MP3 player of choice: YouTube.
Favourite cartoon character: Angelo Espinoza.
Personal Quote: I don't know where the hell I am half the time.
Interests
I didn't expect the ton of wonderful comments and Watches I've gotten in my absence.

I'll get around to replying to everything soon. Work's taking up a lot of my time, but I'll get to it. Thanks for your patience and your support.
  • Reading: "The Leftovers"
  • Watching: Confederate States of America
  • Drinking: water

Groups

Comments


Add a Comment:
 
:iconeeekabee:
eeekabee Featured By Owner Oct 10, 2012
Hi, I also saw your Slumber of Feelings essays, and am hoping you'll continue them somewhere/sometime. (I'm online in various places, fanfiction.net, AO3, etc., mostly with this username)

Thank you for what you did write in that series - I am continually amazed when I run across someone who can describe so clearly many of the things I've been through/thought over the years, and you pegged a bunch of them. I hope you'll post again sometime soon. Cheers! EeekaBee
Reply
:iconmwasaw:
mwasaw Featured By Owner Sep 22, 2012
I do believe you are the one who wrote 'The Slumber of Feelings' series of essays, and I was wondering if you had any plans to finish?
If not, that's okay, but I would love to know either way.
Reply
:iconmarilyn-ross:
Marilyn-Ross Featured By Owner Mar 16, 2012  Student Digital Artist
Hi there. I don't know if you remember me. ;v; I just wanted to tell you I wrote something you could find interesting. [link]
Thanks to you I've learnt a lot about "how to express what I think". ^^
Reply
:iconwaqwarrior:
waqwarrior Featured By Owner Nov 8, 2011
Ohai.

Wondering what your opinion is of socialized medicine, as implemented in Canada, Cuba, and the UK?

Personally, I'm strongly against it because it does nothing to reduce the actual costs of healthcare, it kills medical innovation, and ends up doing more harm than good, in the long run especially, but also in the short run.
Reply
:iconhally-bally:
Hally-Bally Featured By Owner Nov 22, 2016
Well, I'm from Switzerland, and here, we are obliged the be insured, but... It's hell expansive (1/5th of a normal salary). When it comes to being reimbursed after a treatment, well... you can spend years in paper-works "till death do us part" to get your money back!!!

Oh, and let me not forget the fact that, there's a list of doctors you're authorized to go to. You do not have that list. you ask for it when you need to consult. Not forgetting that you have the right to ask only 1 doctor for his opinion, if you diver from that, you pay from your own pocket.

I would really like this us to have a more socialized medicine system!
Reply
:iconstreet-howitzer:
street-howitzer Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2012
To be blunt, it sounds like you haven't read very much about universal health care.

The US spends *more* on health care than any of the countries you named. Yes, we can afford more technology here--but on the other hand, before Obama's health-insurance reform act was passed by Congress, you could only access that technology if you had the cash for it.

I know this from personal experience. I couldn't get diagnosed with autism until last year, when I was 28, because I finally had enough spare money to pay for the right psychiatrist's time. I had to keep my wisdom teeth a full five years after they started coming in (and I was in severe pain for three of those five years) because I couldn't afford to get them surgically removed. My spouse has advanced endometriosis; they can't afford the medication or treatments they need to fix it, so we're just waiting for the point when the pain is so great we can justify hospitalizing my spouse. Little conditions turn into gigantic medical crises, requiring hospitalization, which actually *drives up* the cost of health care for everyone.

Furthermore, look into life expectancy rates in the US, as well as infant mortality rates. Compare them to rates in countries which provide universal health care. Or, to countries which have much stricter controls on health-insurance companies (like Switzerland). Then tell me about how universal health care does more harm than good.
Reply
:iconwaqwarrior:
waqwarrior Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2012
I've read a fair amount, really.

We also have had roughly half of all our health care expenditures made by the government since 1964, and that number has only increased. We haven't had a "free market" health care system by any means.

The mixed system in place at present is kinda .. awful. Corporate monopolies of any kind totally rape competition, and having minimum wage put into law makes things more difficult for small businesses, and when the government helps subsidize large businesses (effectively eliminating the risks they are taking as entrepreneurs), well fuck (pardon the French), that's just socialism for the rich, isn't it? :\

Insurance, whether private or 'free', doesn't cover everything, only what it deems 'necessary.' Well.. perhaps if health care was left to the free market (and anti-trust laws were strong to prevent monopolies), there would be insurance available with such options. That's mostly wishful thinking, since we really don't know for sure.

I would guess that if conditions were freer, hospitals -might- not be so expensive. Again, as examples of such are basically zero, we can't be sure. In my right (lol pun!) mind, I can't honestly support completely government-run health care--it's unaffordable and just adds to our debt (something we really don't need more of). Also, massive shortages in supply. Changing the price of health care doesn't change the inescapable variable that is cost.

BTW, I can't honestly say I support either the Republican or Democratic Parties. Just.. no. Often you see overspending by the Democrats and hilarious amounts of borrowing and bigotry by the Republicans. They've both bastardized the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' beyond belief.

I also find it interesting that France offers universal health care to all, yet over 90% of the French also have private insurance on top of that. What does that tell you about the government's free health care? :P

Life expectancy =/= quality of health care. Are you trying to imply that health care is the ONLY factor affecting life expectancy? For example, Americans are often more likely to die in accidents or homicides. Also, men in their 20s have a ~50% higher mortality rate. Americans are also more likely to be obese. 31% of men and 33% of women have a BMI of 30+, vs. 17/19% for men and women in, say, Canada. Of course, here there are more people and we're able to produce high calorie foods relatively cheap (they're often cheaper than their healthy counterparts!). Also, the government deciding we should use high fructose corn syrup a lot more isn't helping us either.

There is quite the prevalence of infants having low birth weight here in the United States, which is strongly correlated with teenage motherhood (Yes, I know correlation =/= causation). Whatever our health care system is provided by, I'm doubtful it will influence the country's overall sex drive.

Is it a 'moral' thing to not pay for something and leave the debts for someone else? I wouldn't say so. Yes, morals are relative, and not everyone bases their morals on their religion (even the religious, often) .. one thing to ask yourself when deciding if something is 'right' or 'wrong' is 'Would I want this to be done to me?' and 'Would I support this being a law for EVERYONE?' 'Would I treat other people in this way?' etc. No matter how you look at it, price controls lead to shortages. There is no avoiding that glaring, obvious fact. Do you want a shortage of health care? Should we have to suffer unnecessarily in the meantime? Even our dilapidated and disgusting mixed system is better than NHS.

Seeing the consequences of universal health care alone is enough reason not to support it. Many countries with government-run medical systems have much longer wait times for surgeries. In some cases, that can mean life or death. Also, in countries with NHS, you'll find that modern technologies are much rarer, i.e. MRIs and CAT scans (in another area, specifically airlines, we have very outdated technology in our planes.. vacuum tubes, for example. In Canada, when they removed nearly all the restrictions/regulations for their airplanes, delays went down ridiculously.).

This isn't some phenomenon exclusive to health care. There were waiting lines for food, clothing, and all sorts of other things in the Communist bloc countries in eastern Europe before Communism collapsed over there. Why would anyone support this kind of thing in medical care? Back then, to buy a car, you had to get on a waiting list to buy a poorly made car from India.

Let's look at the waiting lists. According to an OECDstudy, the percentage of patients waiting more than 4 months for elective surgery in English speaking countries is in single digits..only in the United States. In Canada that number is 27%, while in Britain it's 38%. 'Elective surgery' includes some heart surgeries. Comforting. Longer waits can cost a life. I'd say a life is more importantthan monetary savings under price controls or government subsidies, wouldn't you?

But wait, there's more fantastic news about waiting and NHS! Waiting for new medicines to be developed is a bit of a bummer isn't it, especially if those future medicines could help people with cancer, Alzheimer's or AIDS patients. There's an interesting trend in countries with price controls on pharmaceutical drugs and fewer creation of pharmaceuticals. But that can't possibly be the cause, can it?

Maybe this statistic will sober your thoughts. A year after 'universal health care' was instituted in Canada, R&D for pharmaceuticals went down by over half. Ten or twenty percent would be significant, but more than fifty percent? Disgusting...

What many people don't seem to realize is the difference between prices and costs. Prices are what pay for costs (and a little profit, too.). I hear people complain about the cost of drugs all the time. Do you have any idea how much it costs to get a -single- pharmaceutical on the shelf? It costs over one billion dollars. The profit margins for drug companies are pretty slim, especially compared to how much money they spend trying to create drugs to improve our quality of life. If companies do not pay enough to cover the costs, history has shown us that there supply will decline in quantity, quality, or both, and again, in the case of health care, that can mean life or death (and/or needless suffering). Also consider that it costs over $100 to run an office for a single hour, and that the average medical student graduates with a debt of nearly $200,000.

Likewise, a large reason why premiums and copays are so high is because of all the frivolous lawsuits against doctors. They've got to protect themselves.

Why not instead attack the bureaucracy that is the FDA, and have them reduce the amount of requirements for a drug to be approved for sale to the public? The approval process can -easily- drag on for over a decade, cost millions of dollars, and cost the lives of those who die while waiting for the drug to be approved. Businesses tend to love repeat customers. If their product is killing their customers, they're not going to have that steady flow of income that they enjoy so much. Yes, sometimes businesses take shortcuts and make horrible mistakes. Does that mean they're evil? And is the government omnibenevolent or something?

If, after NHS is applied, the bureaucratic hoops that doctors have to jump through to make their huge investment of time and money going to medical school don't seem worthwhile with, they can retire early or maybe take jobs that don't involve treating patients. Either way, the supply of medical care will likely decline, even in the short run. I don't know about you, but that makes medical school look like a horrible future investment.

Let's take a look at Britain, which has had NHS for over a half-century. They have to import doctors straight from third world countries, where medical school standards are lower. So, as long as we have warm bodies with "M.D." after their names, there is no decline in supply, right? Only we, the patients, will find out how great is it to have a decline in quality.

I understand that health care is about the patients, not the money or economic efficiency. But how can I, in my right mind, support a health care system which is full of shortages, unnecessary suffering, and lower quality care? As a humanist, I find the nightmare that is NHS ridiculous.

The great thing about the evil *snicker* private sector of things is that, in a free market, profits and losses tell businesses what they're doing right and wrong. If people don't like the prices of things, they won't buy them. As such, businesses won't be making as much money, so they either improve their product or lower their prices. Power to the people!

Long waiting times for seeing medical specialists in Canada is rather unsurprising. I understand that they don't have nearly the population we do, but seriously, 1 in 3 doctors sending their patients to the United States for treatment? You're kidding, right?

Irony at its finest: Michael Moore, a strong advocate for NHS, was looking to lose weight, so he went to a private clinic in Florida. His movies are okay, but full of half-truths. Not anything to rely on for facts by any means.

According to 2008 statistics, the Mayo Clinic treats 7,000+ foreign patients each year, 5,000+ for the Cleveland Clinic, and Johns Hopkins Hospital treats around 6,000 foreigners. If NHS is so amazing, why do Canadian physicians spend $1 billion+ annually to send their patients to the United States for treatment? That same year, in September, there were ~750,000 Brits awaiting hospital admission. That's not just inconvenient, it's fucking deadly. By what reasoning am I supposed to support Nationalized Health Care? Many of the health problems these people have are curable at the time of diagnosis, but by the time they are able to get their surgery, they're either dead or their problems are too far along to be stopped.

Many people also die on the waiting list for organs - even here in the United States. In Iran, the only country in the world where you're allowed to sell your organs for money, there is literally -no- waiting list for kidneys.

More than 100,000 Britons travel as far as India, Malaysia, and South Africa for major health operations.

Over 50% of all health care expenditures in the United States are made by the government. I am, quite frankly, amazed that you, someone who I see as intelligent, would be asking for more of what's caused the problem. Critical thinking would suit you well.
Reply
:iconalienguardian:
AlienGuardian Featured By Owner Aug 16, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Thank you for the +Watch!
Reply
:iconmarilyn-ross:
Marilyn-Ross Featured By Owner May 15, 2011  Student Digital Artist
You, wonderful woman.
Look what I bring you today.
[link]
darkweb22's comment. I'm not as good as you and I lose my head easily. .-.
Reply
:iconstreet-howitzer:
street-howitzer Featured By Owner May 16, 2011
OH LOL. I commented too.

Oooooh drama. :heart:
Reply
:iconmarilyn-ross:
Marilyn-Ross Featured By Owner May 16, 2011  Student Digital Artist
:iconhurrplz: YES. :heart:
I'm starting to not feel so much rage while replying to that kind of people. I'm starting to find it... funny. It's funny to see how much bigot they are. :3 Plus, my english gets better this way.

Ah, since I'm learning A LOT from you, I could use phrases that I learned from you sometimes... is it ok for you? (for example, once you said that you read a disgusting fanfiction, but you never thought the author should have not written it, and I said almost the same thing to this person)
Reply
:iconstreet-howitzer:
street-howitzer Featured By Owner May 17, 2011
Is there some unwritten law of the universe that says "All anti-yaoi trolls must now identify as bisexual in their first three posts"? :T

Hey, it's good that you're getting better at your English! :heart: I used to get angry, too--sometimes I still do, depending on the subject. I'm more likely to laugh at anti-yaoi/anti-gay trolls, but I still get violently angry at people on my anti-torture stamp, for example. >3>;

Oh, that's perfectly fine. I'm flattered. :blush: You can quote me whenever you like, and you don't have to link back to me when you do it.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmarilyn-ross:
Marilyn-Ross Featured By Owner May 10, 2011  Student Digital Artist
She really does not have anything to do. Why people like Daisyvalentine/Legua/Romaniya/lolitafan/howdoesshewanttobecalled continue on trolling? Couldn't she get a life? It's kinda sad.
Reply
:iconstreet-howitzer:
street-howitzer Featured By Owner May 10, 2011
I don't think lolitafan is the same person, if only because her writing style is different from Daisy/Legua/Romaniya's. But she is certainly a troll, and I do wish she'd get a life. :T
Reply
:iconmarilyn-ross:
Marilyn-Ross Featured By Owner May 10, 2011  Student Digital Artist
I think she is. She seems to know what exactly Romaniya meant and what exactly she felt when she was writing. She uses also the same phrases (Example: "Ppl like u give us yaoi-fangirls a bad name"="People like you only give gay people a bad name" ). I think she tries to disguise her identity changing her writing style a bit. She also thinks that saying she's bi will make her arguments more valid.
Reply
:iconstreet-howitzer:
street-howitzer Featured By Owner May 10, 2011
True that. I'm giving her the benefit for the moment, because I think I've got her in a trap. She called me a liar regarding Daisy/Legua's websites (which have all mysteriously changed to remove incriminating information), not realizing that I took a screen capture of the website yesterday, just in case. :B
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmarilyn-ross:
Marilyn-Ross Featured By Owner Apr 24, 2011  Student Digital Artist
Ok, um. I... I know I'm only one of the many people who really really respects you, but... I really must say this (and sorry for my english ^^").
I don't know you, what you do in your life or whatever, but really: with your gift of gab (is it correct? D: ) you can do really A LOT for the world. The world needs people like you. I think there is a lot of people who thinks the same as you, but they can't express themself properly.
You... really, you are one of the people in which I hope the most!
Reply
:iconstreet-howitzer:
street-howitzer Featured By Owner May 2, 2011
No need to apologize for your English. It's a hard language to learn. <3

I really appreciate your compliments; thank you. I think my place right now is limited to arguing with people on the Internet, but the future might be better.
Reply
:iconauchanvriconella:
AuchanVriconella Featured By Owner Sep 26, 2010
Hi there :wave:,I see youre into Buddhism,wanna join Buddhism Group DA ? = :iconbuddhism-in-da:
Reply
:iconstreet-howitzer:
street-howitzer Featured By Owner Oct 8, 2010
I would love to. Thank you!
Reply
:iconwaqwarrior:
waqwarrior Featured By Owner Jul 29, 2010
Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama's presidency.

Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama.
-----
No, I didn't write that. Just wanted your opinion.

I hear people protesting guns, violence, and the like, saying we should ban them altogether. And saying that gays shouldn't get married.

Hm.
Ok, let's ban guns, totally weaken our military.
If that happened, of course it would make international news. Then other countries would know our weakness.
They'd take advantage of us, certainly.
Besides, why ban them? The beauty of America, is we have the -freedom- to own one. We have the freedom to smoke. And many other things.
Not that I'm a gun owner or a smoker, but the option is available if I so choose it.
Why do people protest it? Because they don't like it, the entire thing shouldn't be allowed?
Guns and accessories for them are ridiculously overtaxed, along with cigarettes. Subliminally, can't you see that they're trying to stop people from buying guns and cigarettes? Kind of stupid.

I say, gay marriage is fine. They can get married if they so choose, I don't see why not.

&& "separation of church and state" doesn't mean you can't say God or talk about religion in school, it means there cannot be a government sponsored religion, not the bullshit that's been blown out of proportion by the left wing media.

I'm going to be blunt. Liberals have infiltrated America everywhere you look, they're like a poison that has spread into every last corner. Even news outlets that are supposedly reporting on the "conservative" side have been discovered to be involved with schemes to make conservatives look like total assholes.

No, I wouldn't call myself a conservative or a liberal, but it so happens I agree with their worldview much more than the liberal side.

As for abortion, ~95% of the time, I'd say Pro-Life. Why? Abortion is a pretty selfish thing, sort of like suicide. Why should that developing child die because you don't want to take care of it? Put it out for adoption if that's the case, give the child a chance, there are thousands upon thousands of great couples looking to adopt. I mean, unless the mother was raped and had to walk the earth with the constant reminder of that incident or her life was in serious risk, there's no reason to abort, it's just... awful. It's a modern genocide we've been desensitized to.

Why are the late-term abortions banned? Is the child alive at that late stage?
Wait, WAIT. I thought the child wasn't alive until it is born. (<-- Pro-choice POV) So, what's wrong with it, pro-choicer?
Reply
:iconstreet-howitzer:
street-howitzer Featured By Owner Aug 18, 2010
Oh Jesus. It's you again. I really shouldn't indulge your copypasta, but I happen to be bored right now, so here we go.

First, where your copypasta came from: the pen of Wayne Allyn Root. Root's a libertarian, which in his case, means that he's a rabid conservative who happens to be anti-Iraq War. Libertarianism is a fiction of a political philosophy, much like Objectivism, in that both claim to be perfect because neither has ever been tested on a meaningful, broad scale. And the examples we have of libertarian societies of few laws and small government, like Somalia, are not flattering.

Second, I'm not going to reply to your copypasta in full. I'm only going to address the most egregious mistakes, otherwise we'd be here all day.

1. Look up Paul Romer's philosophy on the economy. Explain how this is any different from what Emanuel said, and what, exactly, is wrong with it.
2. Since the economic collapse began during the Bush presidency (it started really rolling in '08--Obama, you will remember, was not President until January of '09), and since Bush signed the first stimulus bill into law, does the theory of Obama ruining the economy not require that Bush, his administration, and the Republican Party are also trying to overthrow capitalism and our nation? If so, why are Tea Partiers overwhelmingly Republican?
3. I thought the point of socialism was, per conservatives, to create a bloated and ineffective bureaucracy that overspent its money. So the big socialist plan is to... create a bloated and ineffective bureaucracy that overspends its money, therefore collapsing, so that they can then set up their utopian ideal of a bloated and ineffective bureaucracy that overspends its money? Lolwut?
4. You spend in a depression. You pay your debt back in a surplus. Economics 101.
5. There is no such thing as "universal health care" in America, not even after the health-insurance reform bill.
6. We already have a cap-and-trade system, called the Clean Air Act, in place. Look it up. Explain how this is an example of rampant federal socialism.
7. Look up the actual Puerto Rico Democracy Act, and explain why the reality of what the bill does is at odds with your nutball writer's theories.
8. Ronald Reagan offered amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants by signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Reagan also raised taxes eleven times over his Presidency. Explain why these facts are at odds with your nutball writer's claims about Reagan and Obama.
9. Obama received about $150K from AIG; McCain received about $60K.

Now, let's move on to what you actually wrote.

>> Ok, let's ban guns, totally weaken our military.
If that happened, of course it would make international news. Then other countries would know our weakness.
They'd take advantage of us, certainly. <<

Right. That's why Japan, a country that has banned guns so stringently that even their criminals rarely employ them, has been conquered ten times over in as many years. Because they have no guns there, and a lack of guns is seen as a weakness to be taken advantage of. Suuuuuuuure.

>> Why do people protest it? Because they don't like it, the entire thing shouldn't be allowed? <<

There are very few people who want to ban guns outright. This is a caricature created, largely, by gun enthusiasts who cannot rationally deal with a pro-gun-control argument. I am not against guns in principle. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to include a personal right to bear arms. I don't have a problem with that. I've used guns at a firing range before.

My problem is this. Cars are required in most places for us to get by, but we recognize that cars are very dangerous and can be operated in such a way as to cause death and destruction. So we put restrictions on who is allowed to take that responsibility on. We issue licenses after requiring that the person prove that they know how to use a car properly. You can take away someone's license if they wreck too many times, if they use a car while they're drunk or on drugs, and (I'm pretty sure) if they're convicted of a crime such as vehicular manslaughter. Or even if you just get too old to be able to operate the car right anymore. Suggest any of these common-sense approaches towards guns (which are a lot less useful than cars in day-to-day life), though, and gun enthusiasts blubber and scream about how it's just! not! fair! to ask them to submit to any regulations at all at any time.

>> Subliminally, can't you see that they're trying to stop people from buying guns and cigarettes? <<

It's not subliminal. They're called sin taxes. Look them up.

>> I say, gay marriage is fine. They can get married if they so choose, I don't see why not. <<

Then why do you support a Party and persons who want to amend the US constitution to say that I can't marry my partner?

>> && "separation of church and state" doesn't mean you can't say God or talk about religion in school, it means there cannot be a government sponsored religion, not the bullshit that's been blown out of proportion by the left wing media. <<

Left-wing mediaAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH*GASP*AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Sorry, couldn't help it. Anyhow. The First Amendment says that Congress cannot establish a state religion and that Congress cannot abridge the practice of religion. If you take the conservative, literalist view, this permits all kinds of infringements on religious rights. It says that federal Congress can't establish a religion--but a state Congress theoretically could. And it says that federal Congress can't restrict religious practices; but a corporation most certainly could. Your whining here is like people who whine about deviantArt "abridging their first amendment rights" by not allowing pornography. deviantArt is not the federal Congress and therefore has the right to say what will and won't appear on its servers. Likewise, as a non-Christian, I do have the right to sue and make sure that your future-children can't require my future-children to pray with them in the classroom. Cope with it. :3

>> I'm going to be blunt. Liberals have infiltrated America everywhere you look, they're like a poison that has spread into every last corner. <<

Conservatives need to make up your minds. Are you part of a "silent majority" who's standing up to the liberal elitist minorities? Or are you sorely outnumbered by the vast liberal conspiracy which has bled into every neighborhood, village and dell? I'm trying to keep your insane conspiracy theories straight, and it's a little difficult when you keep switching them.

Also, calling liberals a "poison" is just precious. You know who else referred to his political enemies as poison? Hitler. Just saying.

>> Even news outlets that are supposedly reporting on the "conservative" side have been discovered to be involved with schemes to make conservatives look like total assholes. <<

Perhaps you refer to the faked ACORN tapes, or to the faked Shirley Sherrod tapes--kind of hard to keep track of all the disgusting lies you right-wingers have been spewing. Either way, those incidents did not prove that FOX "News" is secretly a liberal conspiracy to make conservatives look bad. They proved that conservatives look bad when they lie and commit fraud. Your side was more than happy to hump the "ACORN helps prostitutes escape prosecution" story when it first aired. You don't get to back out now and claim it was all a conspiracy just because your pet theories were based on utter fiction.

>> No, I wouldn't call myself a conservative or a liberal, but it so happens I agree with their worldview much more than the liberal side. <<

Liar. You are a conservative. Every conservative I know now says that they don't call themselves that. Just because your label is radioactive doesn't mean it's not true.

>> As for abortion, ~95% of the time, I'd say Pro-Life. Why? <<

You hate women and want to control their bodies and make them suffer.

>> Abortion is a pretty selfish thing, sort of like suicide. <<

I have known women who got abortions, and women who seriously thought about it. I have also known women and men who committed suicide, or attempted it. None of them were selfish. Those who killed themselves, or tried to, were unable to cope with mental anguish related to various mental disorders the likes of which I hope you never have to endure. Those who aborted, or thought about it, did so because they believed their pregnancy would kill them or seriously damage their health. "I don't want to die" is not selfish; it's self-preservation. Likewise, "I can't feel this way anymore" is not selfish; it's a cry for much-needed help.

>> Why should that developing child die because you don't want to take care of it? Put it out for adoption if that's the case, give the child a chance, there are thousands upon thousands of great couples looking to adopt. <<

Actually, the top two reasons are "I don't want to have a child yet" and "I can't afford a child yet". It's not that they don't want the child, but that they aren't ready for it or cannot afford it. I find that more responsible than having children when you're not ready and when the child has to grow up in abject poverty.

And adoption doesn't cut it when it comes to the health of the mother, either.

>> I mean, unless the mother was raped and had to walk the earth with the constant reminder of that incident or her life was in serious risk, there's no reason to abort, it's just... awful. It's a modern genocide we've been desensitized to. <<

It is not. It is a medical procedure. And you do not have the right to tell a woman that she's a broodmare who has to give birth even if it will kill her.

>> Why are the late-term abortions banned? Is the child alive at that late stage? Wait, WAIT. I thought the child wasn't alive until it is born. (<-- Pro-choice POV) So, what's wrong with it, pro-choicer? <<

You sure you want me to step in? I wouldn't want to stop you from beating the crap out of that Wicker Man-sized straw argument. :roll:

Roe v. Wade allowed for states to more strictly regulate abortions that take place after the fetus is viable (it is theoretically possible that the fetus could survive outside the womb, unless it has been diagnosed with a crippling and fatal disorder). 36 states have done so, many of which did so in an unconstitutional fashion. Furthermore, the Partial-Birth Abortion Act made the safest procedure, intact dilation and extraction, illegal. It left dilation and evacuation, the more painful and more dangerous procedure that should be considered more repulsive to anti-choicers, legal. Funny, that.

My personal opinion on when a fetus becomes alive, or has a soul, is irrelevant to the procedure of abortion. Not everyone shares my religious beliefs and I would not dream of inflicting them on the populace. And because I'm not requiring all children's clinics to have a carving of Jizo Bodhisattva for protection and luck, you don't get to require that women can't get a medical procedure because you think it's immoral.
Reply
:iconwaqwarrior:
waqwarrior Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2010
Man, posted that ages ago. I don't check here often.

Yeah, 'tis some pretty fine copypasta.

Not gonna lie, I've grown fond of you :P

"I have known women who got abortions, and women who seriously thought about it. I have also known women and men who committed suicide, or attempted it. None of them were selfish. Those who killed themselves, or tried to, were unable to cope with mental anguish related to various mental disorders the likes of which I hope you never have to endure. Those who aborted, or thought about it, did so because they believed their pregnancy would kill them or seriously damage their health. "I don't want to die" is not selfish; it's self-preservation. Likewise, "I can't feel this way anymore" is not selfish; it's a cry for much-needed help."

Yeah, many people do it for their own health, I see what you mean.
And plus, if you were raped, would YOU want to walk around every day with the reminder of what -he- did to you? I certainly wouldn't... I agree.

Just Joe Schmo getting an abortion because they don't want to suffer the consequences of their actions is like me, speeding, and when a cop pulls me over, I make the choice of shooting him in the face because I didn't want to suffer the consequences.

Really, though, abortion should be legal, it's a freedom I guess. Nothing wrong with that.

--

Did you hear how they're banning incandescent lightbulbs by 2012?
That kinda pisses me off...
Sure, fluorescents are more energy-efficient, but they sure seem to have a lot of downsides.
*They don't work in freezers
*They take a few seconds to warm up
*They don't work in three way lighting
*They don't work in many types of lamps
*They're excessively brighter than incandescents.

NOTHING wrong with incandescents, imo.
Reply
:iconstreet-howitzer:
street-howitzer Featured By Owner Dec 15, 2010
>> Man, posted that ages ago. I don't check here often. <<

I know; I replied to it ages after. I rarely log in here anymore, either.

>> Just Joe Schmo getting an abortion because they don't want to suffer the consequences of their actions is like me, speeding, and when a cop pulls me over, I make the choice of shooting him in the face because I didn't want to suffer the consequences. <<

Well, first off, with the noted exception of a trans man who has successfully given birth, "Joe Schmo" isn't getting an abortion anytime soon. Jane Schmo might. :B Here's the issue with your metaphor: you seem to be saying that pregnancy is a punishment that women should suffer if they have sex under certain circumstances. Having sex = breaking the law, getting pregnant or giving birth = getting a fine. Because I am pro-choice, I think this is a very cynical and negative way to view pregnancy and childbirth. Shouldn't pregnancy be a welcome blessing?

Another thing is, frankly, what's wrong with multiple abortions? There's this general attitude that once you get an abortion, you can never, ever have another, or you're being irresponsible. Why? I am not currently aware of Planned Parenthood handing out a magical contraceptive that never fails and is totally free to every woman who gets an abortion, and the ones who are repeat patients are just lazy and not taking their Magic Pill. I'm also not aware of any programs that will magically fix the reason why the woman obtained her abortion in the first place. Are you?

>> Really, though, abortion should be legal, it's a freedom I guess. Nothing wrong with that. <<

We are glad, O Mighty Man, that you have decided that we ladyfolk have the right to an abortion. Our silly ladybrains couldn't figure that out on our own, obviously. ;P
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconnihilaphobia:
Nihilaphobia Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2010
You are my hero! I was reading your comments on here:
[link]
And my god you are amazing! I must get to know you! I'll start off by saying Hello I'm Z :3
Reply
Add a Comment: