On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Sam wrote: > > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:13 AM, denstar wrote: > >> Obama seems inclusive, Bush43 seemed exclusive. > > Yeah, look at how much he talks to the press :)
It's more important to me that the government itself is "open"-er than under Bush. And getting open-er. Can't we all agree that more transparency in the government is a good thing? >> 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? Come on man, this is the overriding theme we've been on since Bush43 et al spread the FUD. If you're doing nothing wrong you've nothing to fear, ja know? >>> 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. No, warrants are "the system" I'm talking about. As the judges have ruled, the existing system was more than adequate as it was. You should be super-pissed about Bush taking the law into his own hands. Heard of Watergate? I know you never liked the "wall" between agencies, but it's a git-dang check on power, and one that's *needed*. Proven time and again, now. >> 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. Nope. It was illegal, and the government tried to claim "national security" concerns about being brought to court. Luckily, at least some of the stuff, they'd openly admitted, so the court was like, "what'cha talking 'bout Willis!". It's pretty scary to see how many cases have been dismissed because of the "state secrets" stuff. Scary as hell. >> 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. >From what I remember, (I wasn't around then myself, so this is hearsay:) the government was doing, and indeed had done, stuff already. Believe it or not, we really do screen folks who have critical jobs, and have for a very long time. His data actually /came/ from those screenings, IIRC. I could google it, but this is more challenging. He went mad with fame, if you ask me. And power. Destroying people's lives is heady stuff, I reckon. If they're people you don't like anyway, bonus! >> 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. Yeah. And like, how did VHS win over BetaMAX? Rhetorical question. :) >> 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. Only if you're focus is pure money. Money comes and goes, I don't think it's the most important factor. Of course, I also think it's important that the rest of the world likes us (less terrorism, etc., basically)... has that been a downward spiral too? What do you think is more important, Sam: Short term (money) or long term (stability)? >> 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... This is just a backwards line of reasoning. If you're that concerned, the haliburton stuff would have really pissed you off. The oil stuff would have had you fuming. Bush43 and Cheney, etc., *personally* profited off what they did. If the government pays so well, go get a government job! You think only Democrats work for the government?!?! Have you ever heard of equal opportunity? You're up in arms about no-bid contracts now, but I don't remember you being very upset when Bush43 took it to the next level. And now that too is going to be harder than it would, had the Tea Party stood up to the last administration. The economic problems we're facing were showing long before 2006, too. Yet you profess it's all the fault of Obama and Heal Care? Seems opportunistic, more than principled, but then your whole point is that everyone exhibits these traits, and what's really important is the horse race. Maybe you are right. I should be bitching more about the moon stuff getting cut, etc.. Truth is, I don't like bitching. I generally do it when I'm concerned overall. There's stuff I don't like about this Administration, but overall, I'm happy. Is it perfect? Hell no, but that's politics. Compromise and whatnot. A skill we've forgotten in the political arena. >> 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. Whatever. It's obvious that they're blatantly lining their own pockets the same way the last presidential family did. Aren't they long time friends of the Saudi Family, too? The conflicts of interest are just *out of hand* with this latest bunch! >> 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? Outraged that a bit of reform actually made it into law, even if it wasn't perfect? HELL YES! It should be ALL OR NOTHING. I'm really glad that the Supreme Court just ruled that the reform was unconstitutional. Because money == speech. Not. >> 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. It was a really good read, excellent data for the whole domestic spying conversation. >> 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. Not Hoover? >> 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. He was *sooo* close to being one of the most liked presidents! >> 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. I remember this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oepXF2B5NK4 And Regan saying we all need to "tighten our belts" while he wasn't paying his taxes. Maybe that was before he was president tho. I was just a kid then. >> Frankly I'm sad that "we the people" haven't held more folks feet to the >> fire. > > Right on. Common ground. It's what's for dinner! >> 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. It's all about entertainment factor. But I'm pretty sure that's what yellow journalism was about too. I think we can solve this problem (again) if we try. >>> 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." I wasn't justifying living in debt, I was talking about precedent, and wondering why the Tea Party people weren't up in arms when it was "only" 200B. If this is all really only about debt and taxes, of course. >> 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?" So which is it, dude? Opportunity or principle? You're seriously saying stuff like this along with "when it was only 200B it wasn't so bad"? Do you have any idea how much even a billion dollars really amounts to? What *will* it take? Why don't you hold Bush43 to the same standards? Remember your list? Why wasn't that number 1? Oh yeah, because it wasn't /really/ *that* bad, back then. But /now/? Woah, are we in trouble! And don't forget acknowledged attempts to bring religion "back" into politics and policy. Is that part of the Republican platform, Sam? Maybe this hubbub is also about, how with Bush43 out, religious folk are like "oh no, religion is getting separated from the government again!"? Or would you say that's a stretch? >> We've pulled off ill shit before, this ain't nuth'n. > > I'm not following. This is just a money problem. It's not like we're fundamentally screwing over the country like we were (pushing religion, executive privilege, etc.). We rebuilt our navy in *how* much time? Made it to the moon in *how* many years? Maybe the budget will be our "moon mission", which is sad, but after the wreck that our country was left in when Bush43 and Co was done with it, what could we expect. Again, because I'm not quite following: How in the hell was cutting taxes and increasing spending a sane idea? >> 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? I just remember when the B1 came out, and the hubbub (I like that word) surrounding it. "When the Air Force has to hold bake sales for bombers", yadda yadda. We spend a *lot* of money on a *lot* of different stuff. I *like* the toys, though. But we need reform so badly... we could be so much more efficient... >> He was that good! > > :) :)p >> 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. I remember Republicans saying they'd vote for it if they got concession X, and then not. Course, Democrats did that too. It's amazing anything at all got done, with people voting party lines and whatnot. I'm curious: Which party more often votes down party lines? My liberally-spun memory tells me it's the Republicans. Incorrect? Those numbers are available, at least. Maybe I should look them up to find out for sure... but how could I trust the numbers? What if the bean counters are biased too! Oh, yeah... LOL, there's more to history than anecdote! I think our government sponsored history book should be 100% anecdote and hearsay. Let's do it right. >> 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 you shitting me? You are pulling my leg now, I know it. >> Are the Tea Party people called "unpatriotic"? > > No, they're called racists violent lunatics. Why is that? I haven't heard them called violent. It seems far more peaceful a movement than the rioting in the streets seen multiple times during the last administration's ministration. Why is that, do you think? Personally, I think it was far more obvious that the country was on the wrong path back then. Things were 100% worse then, than they are now. The debt is higher, but a lot of other Bad things are lower. Net gain, IMHO. God it feels good to *not* be seeing these stories about Science losing out to Religion with Bush43 gone. The environment taking a prominent place is only Good too, even if there's a lot of PCness surrounding it. All the hype aside, it's *about damn time* we started addressing sustainability, head on. >>> 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. You said *everyone* agreed that we need reform, but *some* don't like what we got. What's that saying about "when government works, neither side is happy"? I think that *something* is better than *nothing*, reform wise. >> 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. A bitch-slap doesn't have to mean War. We're in the 00s now, dude. War is so last century. Didn't "mutual destruction" put an end to it? Seriously tho, you think Saudi Arabia has *nothing* to do with our "terror problem"? For arguments sake, why *shouldn't* we have addressed more than Al Q- er, Iraq? >>> 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. Sometimes I'm satirical. :) I'm really interested in what you think about the New Deal. I know how you feel about Welfare. What about the idea of unemployment? I guess this notion that you can pick yourself up by the bootstraps is a fallacy? Screw that! I'll always be a believer. Even so, I'm not against social programs. Life can be hard. >> Who trusts statistics, anyways? The devil, and all that... > > Statistics are great, you can make them say whatever you want. Only if you try to keep them "short". You know, little sound-byte stuff. If you go all into it, like how the data was collected, yadda yadda, and sorta factor all that stuff, you get like, quantum physics. Or something like that. They're hella cool. Which is why the devil is all up in there, I bet. >> LOL! You don't work for the government, do you? > > I do. Kinda. $100,000 a year? Close? What state do you live in? I hear you can transfer posts, like folk in the military. >>> 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. Alright. Doesn't need to be specific, really. It's sorta like asking how you feel about government sponsored welfare, I reckon. >> 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" I made some comments about online universities and community colleges, remember? Each university is different, too. I don't think many people really do "well" when there are no jobs. Job demand is sorta important to secondary education, as illogical as that sounds. I mean, what did you got to school for Sam? Not what subjects et cetra, but *why*? To learn stuff, or do stuff? And do you think there should be a separation twixt the two? And how does the government fit into all this? Ay yi yi! >> 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. I guess it's more like the military than I'd realized. :) Government is complicated. Which is why it should be as transparent as possible. >> 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. Right on. >> 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 I can't argue this with you. I agree. The System needs refactoring and some API changes, pronto. But I disagree with the idea that we aren't already moving in this direction; moreso with this administration than the last. Ultimately it's all up to us, and has been up to us. We have no one else to blame. That's the part of the tea party, and the previously existing movements I like. Folk coming together and whatnot, getting involved. I just wish that we could come together on the common ground, and be less polarized politically. We need each other. But right now it still sorta seems like you have to pick camps, and issues come with strings attached. You can't be for smaller government without being against secularism, blah blah blah. If the conservative movement is going to have a chance, it's going to need to get right with God. And the love of money. But for sure God. :) Otherwise, the moderates on both sides will continue to get marginalized, as both "sides" will continue feel they aren't getting heard, and that they need more extremists up in Washington to "get the job done". Eh. Maybe. Something like that. Probably. :Den -- Ingratitude is the essence of ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:319401 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
