Alaska Darin

Typical. Ludicrous, but typical. The part you can't come to grips with is there isn't a single thing to scapegoat for a system that has gone awry over decades. I don't have to carefully read your simplistic drivel. That's laughable. Once again, you've brought nothing of substance to the discussion and then try to pass it off as someone else's problem. But is the "individualisticness" of the rest of the world that's the problem. Waddle away with your ball, large Marge.

I don't understand the thread title. "As much as I hate Jerry Jones" followed by a link to a puff piece?

Probably because they build their team AND play baseball the right way.

I don't vote for political parties, jackass. Being able to face reality is hardly the same thing as accepting it as unchangeable gospel. It seems your entire game revolves around trying to attribute things to me that I've NEVER said. More displacement and attribution. In translation: You say something, then attribute it to me. The end game is you somehow winning an argument that you're only having in your own head. Which isn't even digging deeper into how or what was measured, just disproving your "point" with your own friggin' data. What's the matter, too ashamed to post the link to Slate because it paints Illinois in such a poor light? Corruption Smackdown: Illinois versus Louisiana Now to go after the "study": Mokhiber warned that the study has its limitations. “The Justice Department is reporting only public corruption convictions that result from a federal prosecution,” Mokhiber said. “Convictions that result from a prosecution pursued by state district attorneys or attorneys general, for example, are not included in the Justice Department statistics. But the vast majority of public corruption prosecutions – perhaps as many as 80 percent – are brought by federal officials.” “Also, public officials in any given state can be corrupt to the core, and if a federal prosecutor doesn’t have the resources or the sheer political will to bring the case and win a conviction, the public corruption will not be reflected in the Justice Department’s data set,” Mokhiber said." Let's tally this up: 1. Your "hypothesis" is disproven using your own data. 2. The study that you cite is pedestrian at best. The irony of that is it may actually be the best defense you may have for your ridiculous point. 3. I haven't said any of the things you're attributing to me. 4. The "study" pretty much proves the point I repeat over and over: The only way to reign in corruption in government is to limit it in both scope and access to capital. That's the antithesis of your political matra and the "defenses" that have been offered up in this thread. Of course, liberals like to pretend that any success is proof of their beliefs despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Now tell everyone that I'm a hypocrite, have a Napoleonic complex, and that you're somehow winning.

Pathetic.

Perhaps the most hypocritical post in the history of this board, starting with the first sentence and ending with what basically amounts to a prayer. You can't win any kind of argument with me anywhere but your fat head. Color me less than surprised that's the best you can offer AND that you somehow think you're accomplishing something. You can't bow out of an "argument" when you've offered absolutely nothing of substance. I can spell it out further if you require. The fact that you're concentrating on the most minimal facts tells everyone what you're capable of. That's the reason you continue to use the "Alaskans refuse to belly up" while ignoring that the citizens are taxed at the federal level EXACTLY the way you are and that the system that you liberals love so much is biting your enormous behinds because there are ALWAYS people smarter than you who will game it to their advantage. That's called risk, something liberals desperately want to eliminate, don't actually understand, and are the largest contributors to the negative. I've never stated anything about moving Alaska to the Lower 48 or anything remotely similar. I've never voted for a single Alaskan politician that's represented the state at the national level and I'm absolutely disgusted by the fraud, waste, and abuse perpetuated on both the American taxpayer and the indigenous people by the representative delegation. The difference is, unlike you, I'm not part of the problem. The "Do your own research" comment is probably the most appropriate use this board has ever seen. The Federal government has regularly seized land, resources, and passed laws that have cost Alaskans jobs their families have done since before statehood. It's a payola scheme and you're so stupid you blame the citizens instead of the politicians who're playing the game. The fact that you don't know the story is painfully obvious and your ignorance is on display for all to see. Your state is corrupt because of people with your political ideology. The unions have basically broken the backs of the middle class with their pension system and even if they were a net gainer of Federal Money they'd still be more broke than a homeless man. Meanwhile, your governor is passing out double digit raises in a desperate attempt to keep the office he inherited from someone vaguely more corrupt than he is. Your response? Find a way to at least partially blame a state with a population less than 10% the size of Chicago. Nice projection, meathead. It's everyone else's fault. Typical ignorant liberal. Now come on back with another pathetic retort - everyone here knows that's all you're capable of.

I didn't say that, nor did I infer it. Try and stay somehow close to the topic. I don't care either way. Breitbart is a tiny part of an overwhelming problem and eliminating him from the equation is the equivalent of putting a street dealer in prison and pretending to have won the drug war. I didn't know who he was until this thread. And I still don't care.

Wide Ri... Can't even !@#$ing type it.

Rk is both a BILLS' fan AND a retarded righty partisan hack. I'm not sure Breitbart ruined anyone's life. That's pretty emotional. There's a really good chance that the "victim" is going to end up far better off financially than if this story never hit the airwaves.

You certainly do. That's the hypocrisy that big government liberals are never able to face.

No, you didn't. That's pretty typical given your rudimentary understanding of most things. It's not baseless. You regurgitate the same tired liberal crap which spawns from the way big government people set things up. That's a problem of understanding the consequences of action/inaction. Alaska doesn't have a leg up because the Federal government hasn't come close to fulfilling the promises they made to the citizens in exchange for statehood. Instead, they seized enormous areas of the best land and put in copious regulations on what was left that all but assured they'd have to spend huge money to keep the citizenry occupied (like buying $35,000,000 hovercraft for a tiny town instead of building a road through seized land or stopping private resource development to buy off environmentalists in the Lower 48). You know virtually nothing about this state other than a couple of very basic statistics that are symptoms of much larger and more complex issues, most of which are based on your political ideal failing (as it always does). DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH, you blithering idiot.

That's honestly about the best reference for this fiasco that I've seen.

You're a complete idiot. While the current administration is nothing but an exercise in buffoonery, the alternative isn't any different. The Executive is a tiny problem compared to the corruption and stupidity that has infected Congress for half a century plus. There's nothing nebulous about what's going to happen in America over the next 2 decades. We're well on our way to losing our status as an economic super power and you and your ilk are too busy stupidly taking credit for inevitable private company successes and worshipping a failed political ideology to realize it. Too bad it's not humor.

Wait, the Democrats provide safe haven to oil drilling companies? Who knew?

So move there.

And you'd be wrong, too. I don't know the story and frankly I don't care about it. It's chaff - something to keep the idiots satiated while the ruling elite continue to steal your grandchildren's grandchildren's money. And I could give a flying rat's ass about whether you have time for me or not. I've managed to live this long without your approval, so I'm sure I'll be OK. You mean like the vast majority of the the two ruling parties?

I'll let you know the very second I care about your opinion. Now STFU, new guy and sing me your fight song.

Which is why you're regularly called an idiot.

I hate !@#$ing Flutopians. Die.

How the !@#$ is that retarded !@#$ing !@#$ of a show still on the air?

Like that's going to change anything.

Once again, you start something you know you're woefully uninformed on and then backtrack like a B word. The thing you're accusing me of is exactly what you're trying to pull off. And you know exactly "what I'm babbling about", Riddler. Your act has always been a little thin but the community tends to let you off the hook out of abject pity. Frankly I don't care why you're here. If you're going to make a contention, have both the facts and balls to back them up.

Using someone else's money, of course.