Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Constitutional Issues The Self-Destructive Habits Of Politics

Ahah! You've given me the opening for even more mirth, Ardy! Something I wrote in '03, concerning the use of the acronym LMAO (Laughing My Arse Off).

Given the inordinate number of butts in this forum that have apparently become detached as a result of uncontrollable fits of laughing, would it be safe to say that a meeting of members of this forum would not be a sit down affair? Indeed, given the growing regularity of this phenomenon, are the buttless going mainstream? Has the phrase, "great seats for the game" simply become cruel irony?

Are such buttless souls condemned to wander forevermore through cyberspace sans butt, or is there a place where lost butts, no matter how ragged, can be reunited with their owners? I suspect there must be because I have noticed that there are some people who report repeated occurances of this phenomenon. but what would serve as proof of ownership at such a place? Photo id? Butt print (the technology ain't all its cracked up to be)? Perhaps a line up?! "Hey, you. Yeah, you, third from the left. Get ridda the gum!"

"I'm just not sure officer. I never got a real good look. Could ya ask the one with the beard to turn sideways?"

Are there any known cases of tragic mismatches? Are such afflicted individuals left to take a stand for lack of support and backup? Surely there's a non-support group available for these wretches?

And what impact does it have on debate? Does it not give a whole new meaning to "rebuttal"?

What is the social impact for this emerging group of victims? Do they find themselves the butt of the joke at the various parties they attend? What poignant reminders do they endure when the next round is bought and an insensitive type raises his glass with a hearty, "Bottoms up!". Does one experience a sense of emotional loss with the sudden cessation of the tender kisses of others? And what of those who, through no fault of their own, are impacted by the increasing population of buttless people? Pity the bully -- a person whose entire world and sense of self is based upon the act of kicking butt. He must undoubtedly be profoundly shaken in a world increasingly populated by buttless people.

By the way, what does a butt sound like when it drops to the floor? And what is the proper etiquette if one is standing nearby when it happens to another? Does it become socially permissible in such a case to grab another's butt with the purpose of returning it? Is there a greater status accorded those who have worked theirs off? Do those who have merely laughed theirs off get depicted as shiftless, lazy, or even half-assed in their subsequent actions?

If one loses the use of ones butt through the laugh inducing stupidity of a governmental action, could it be construed as a "taking"? Would the judge have the sensitivity to order the bailiff to forego the usual command to the people present to "be seated"? If not, could it result in a hung jur -- Oops! Better not go there.

Is there legal remedy if someone else has been found to have been playing with one's detached butt, or is possession still considered 9/10ths of the law? And how much more apologetic would a "sorry butt" be which has lost its mode of transportation? And has it ceased to be polite for a man to offer a lady his seat?

There has also been an economic and a social impact as demonstrated by reports of roaming gangs of peopleless butts and reports of random acts of flatulence by gangs hauling ass. But, as Father McLaughlin, at the Home for Lost Butts, likes to say, "There are no bad butts". On the other hand, there has been a remarkable increase in law school enrollment and most of the asses in Congress have been reported missing.

Republicans are pushing their proactive "just say no to humor" campaign while Dan Burton prepares for committee hearings. Democrats, having lost their butts in elections for the past 10 years, seem more comfortable with the developing crisis.

So there you have it. Think twice before you get carried away and begin to ROTF. It could very well lead to LYBO.
Yours,
Issodhos

Perhaps, but I give this wonder of government and quasi-government regulated economy about 3 to 6 months before it falls into an inflationary recession that could possibly lead to an inflationary depression. Then come back Phil and talk about false premises. Also Phil, in the mean time I would definitely prepare myself for those eventualities. The premise that the economy is not self-regulating defies the obvious, that People and their behavior is not and cannot be regulated by government. The economy will always react to the emotional direction of the consumer and despite all the efforts of government to contravene in the matter it cannot, even with all its regulations and oversight, operate the economy contrary to the laws of economic science. The economy will self-regulated despite all the efforts of government, and you will witness that fact in time. Whether the government regulates or doesn't regulate, politics has little power to direct the economy over a long period of time. If, as you state, a self-regulating economy would lead to incalculable suffering, then by all means look at what the attempts of a government-regulated economy, more people have lost their livelihoods, their savings and have been forced into poverty under government regulated economies than ever lost under a self-regulated economy with limited oversight. In terms of limited, I speak of those enumerated powers that are delegated to the government in the Constitution.

RS, I think you are going off in another direction, one in which you and I have much in agreement. I have long ago worried about the current economic situation and am inclined to agree with your predictions of where things are headed.

Where we disagree is in the causes. My contention simply is that there is little or no distinction between the government and the forces that govern the economy outside government. The uber wealthy and their cohorts select the government, we voters are left to endorse their selections.

Government's regulation of the economy is always in favor of the large economic interests with a patina of help for the average person. For the most part, I would say that the government/wealth efforts to manage the economy are of benefit almost exclusively for those who already have great wealth. As a result, we are currently in dire straits not because of regulation per se but because the regulation that exists is aimed at interests other than those of the public.

Our disagreement centers on whether it would be better for there to be no or minimal regulation or whether the problem is in divorcing the actions of the government from a handful of powerful interests. I favor the latter, you the former.

As you may remember Phil, about two years ago when I first discovered this exhilarating forum, I wrote a piece on the finite lifespan of fiat monetary systems and gave warning, at that time, of the fact that our current system had already entered a period that could be considered maximum possible lifespan. I said that from that period of maximum practicality, it would rapidly decline and reach its maximum possible lifespan ending in irreversible insolvency where all productivity within the economy is siphoned off by the underlying debt upon which the entire economy is built.

Well, according to what I am seeing we are indeed reaching that point, although I hope I am wrong, but I fear I am not. Now, looking at the causes you will find one cause and one cause only, that is the legislative process that has ignored the very principles of Constitutional Order in addition to the laws of economic science. It was the formation of a Central Bank given extremely wide latitude governing monetary policy without a smidgen of Congressional oversight or authority, for that matter.

I am in agreement with you about the influences of, as you put it, the uber wealthy and their cohorts in government, that is why I have said, since I first began posting on the CHB, that unless we return to the sound principles of both economics and Constitutional Order then we will remain at the mercy of those who are only too willing to make of us simply a productive peonage supplying our labors to increase the wealth to those who have, through the corrupting influences of power and ambition, embedded themselves as parasitic ticks in the flesh of this land and its people.

Once again, you are making my point for me; for you are indeed right about government regulation, just as I have said, it not only favors those large financial forces within this country, but in most cases it is crafted by agents of the same economic sectors those regulations are written to oversee. It is the classic fox guarding the henhouse.

Once again, until limitations, Constitutional in my view, are forced upon the government there will be no end to the political whore-doms that sell this land and its people for filthy lucre and unbridled power. We have a blueprint that can accomplish this reversal, but for some reason, perhaps ignorance or complacency, we seem to ignore its potential to solve many of the major issues we now face as a people.

We are in a very strange position, for without the changes in our government, without the constraints of the principles of the Constitution, then more or less economic regulation will do little. What will happen, as this run-a-way locomotive continues down this dead-end track, is not only an economic collapse, but a social one as well.

When I advocate a free economy, I presuppose a free government, one in which the separation of powers are restored, one in which the Will of the People is once again considered by those who are suppose to be the servants of the People. As the situation becomes desperate, and it will, the People will hopefully not forget that there is a solution to our problems and in remembering they will begin to place forceful demands upon this government, questioning its motives, its actions and its very being.