On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:13 AM, denstar <valliants...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Obama seems inclusive, Bush43 seemed exclusive. Yeah, look at how much he talks to the press :) > Coupled with the push for draconian ideals such as "guilty before > innocent", that's a pretty Bad Thing. Where did you get that from? Who's guilty of what? >> I totally agree. I thought you're point was we can't trust anybody so >> do away with. > > That *is* my point. Safest is to not have the temptation, right? But > barring that, we can't "trust" people to do stuff right, we have to > build the system so their only option is to do stuff right. So all wire tapping should stop even with a warrant because the same folks can't be trusted. We should take the guns away from cops too, same reason. > And those court cases from 2005 haven't been settled yet-- here's to IIRC the program was legal but one or two agents over stepped the bounds and were punished accordingly. > While it's possible that his initial claims were correct, and the > government really was infested with spies, the result was Bad with a > capital "B". You mean mentioning that they're spies is a violation of privacy? It's a been long time since I read about it but I think he went public because the government would do anything. Then Murrow doing is trick editing and special effects convinced the country he was a raving lunatic. That defamation of character actually turned him into a raving lunatic. > Maybe him and Bush43 suffered the same problem? Surrounded by the > wrong people? I hear they were both well meaning. I think Bush43 was > less well meaning than Carter tho, with like, a bunch of conflict of > interest type stuph. See, I think Cater was the worst President since I've been alive. Many historians agree but the press loves him so he's still quite popular. Amazing how that works. > It's not worse now because the democrats are in the majority though. > "The Party" isn't the root problem, in my mind. What's happened since the 2006 elections is a fast downward spiral. When we Elected a President with a D it got much worse much faster. > Maybe it's the love of money that's the problem, sorta. It's amazing > how willing people are to totally screw thousands of other people for > a grip of cash. Under the guise of supporting the little guy and the minorities. No gay marriage, Blacks and Hispanics are suffering the most with this economy.Who's doing well? Government workers, friends of Dems, Banks Al Gore... > Do you think Obama is going to get a grip of cash out of this stuff? > His buddy trial lawyers and whatnot? What is the sinister goal that > makes this stuff Evil vs. just misguided? No, the Obama's are humble people, they live like the rest of us. That reminds me, I need to block my Chef's tweets. > That's the deal about corps contributing to political stuff. The SC > ruled that denying Big Money's freedom of speech was unconstitutional. > > Because corps are people too! They can't vote or be citizens, but > hey, what /really/ defines a person anyway? Sounds right. Remember McCain Fiengold? It made the Dems rich because they found a loop hole in the 501's. George Soro's spent $25 million to try and defeat Bush. Were you outraged? > I like how freedom of speech was used for this tho: > > http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/acluvnsaop081706.pdf Too much to read. Later maybe. > If so, it's because we didn't nip Bush43 in the bud! I'm telling you, > that dude set precedent, and it's a real bitch putting the stuff back > in Pandora's box. I think he's following FDR more than Bush 43. > If the Tea Party-ers were ruled by principle, they would have been up > in arms when Bush43 started rocking the "hey, let's put it on credit!" > meme. Back then tho a *lot* of them were like "yay Bush!". let's see, we had a recession, 9/11 and 2 wars. Yeah, the deficit was 400 billion for a year or two but lowered to 200 billion as planned until the banking crap hit. If the banks paid back the money and things went back to the same course we would have been in surplus territory soon enough. Isn't that what Clinton did? Based the surplus on 10 years of future economic growth? All Bush 43 had to do was borrow the SS money on a promise of a rosy future. > You are a Regan fan tho, aren't you? I bet you think he fixed stuff > while he was in office, and it just took a while for people to see he > was right. Yes and no, they saw it right away. He was very popular with both sides. Like Clinton. > Frankly I'm sad that "we the people" haven't held more folks feet to the fire. Right on. > But come on, look at the Enron scandal. One or two people would have > seen jail time out of like thousands of folks neck deep in the scam. You do know Anderson offered to pay the entire $43 billion or whatever was lost if the government let them stay in business and they were told no. They took their money and closed shop. That's messed up. > We the people don't really care that much, it seems. We do but if it's not a reality show we lose interest. >> Obama, Pelosi, Reid. > > They're just continuing the trend, as you noted. I don't get how you can use the: "well they started it with their huge $200 billion debt so we're going for $20 trillion." > The *real* blame is of course on the Republicans, who's very platform > rests on things like "fiscal responsibility", and yet who did > *nothing* to curtail the rampant spending when it was totally within > their power to do so. That's comical. What will it take to hold the people in charge responsible? Is there any amount of money they can spend where you'll finally say: "okay, they went way beyond what the R's did?" > We've pulled off ill shit before, this ain't nuth'n. I'm not following. > Plus, do you have any idea how much just 1 stealth bomber costs? ;) I could look it up if I wanted to know. Why do you ask? > He was that good! :) > As many people have pointed out, it wasn't for lack of trying. I remember hearing a lot of "We won." during the bi-partisan discussions. > And we've got, what, calls for a revolution? When I was banging that > drum, people with my perspective were labeled "unpatriotic". And that > was with riots and free speech zones and a president who said he could > do what he pleased because his lawyers said he could. Never heard anyone from the right say unpatriotic. > Are the Tea Party people called "unpatriotic"? No, they're called racists violent lunatics. Why is that? >> That's weird, everyone was happy when he said he'd do something but >> half got mad when he did. > > You're saying the same thing about Obama. At least what Obama is > trying to do makes a certain kind of sense. To a select few yes. > And not that kind of sense where you're like, "well, they do have a > lot of money invested in us and vice versa, and they are political > allies... it would be bad if we bitch-slapped them even though they > had a pretty obvious hand in this attack which claimed 3000 or so > American lives, on American soil". So you don't liek war but now you think we should have started one with Saudia Arabia because some of their citizens attacked us? See that logic just doesn't fly. >> That was 2 years ago when unemployment was at 5%. Then you could get a >> job if you tried hard enough and maybe sacrificed a little salary. >> Now, you're shit out of luck. > > Bullshit. You *make* your own luck. > > Use the fucking Force, bro. So now you're saying the 10 million that can't find work are lazy. Funny how two years ago they weren't. > Who trusts statistics, anyways? The devil, and all that... Statistics are great, you can make them say whatever you want. > LOL! You don't work for the government, do you? I do. Kinda. >> I think there are good and bad parts. > > I'm cool with that. Did the good outweigh the bad though? 50/50, 70/30? I'd have to do a refresher but don't want to. > Actually, that should have conveyed that if we do poorly, we go out of > business. Isn't that when education does it's best when there are no jobs? "Well if you had more education you would have a job" > And the government money was in grants, and was never assured for more > than a year. And you save a large chunk until the end for emergencies but make sure it all goes eventually. Because if you don't use it all they give you less the next year. > Retirement isn't something to sneeze at tho, everybody tells me. So > maybe I should keep working for The Man... what do you think, Sam? I like to take chances, I was never one for the gold watch. > You know, this is unrelated, but when someone said the bit about how > direct democracy can be a bad thing, it made me think of this HST deal > I saw on twitter. > A tax change in BC, I take it, pretty unpopular it seems. > I think the health stuff was pretty popular, or else nothing at all at > all would have happened, but this is my question: Are there times > when the government should *not* do what the majority of it's citizens > desire? I'm all against mob rule. But when we elect representatives that continually go against our wishes, like pushing votes before holiday breaks so they don't have to face the constituents, then we're ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:319279 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
