On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:03 PM, denstar <valliants...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can't we all agree that more transparency in the government is a good thing? See Jerry's comment. >> 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. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/world/asia/22detain.html Detainees Barred From Access to U.S. Courts Obama never would have done this if Bush didn't teach him how. I hear he's planning on campaigning against Bush again. > If you're doing nothing wrong you've nothing to fear, ja know? That's tired, move on > No, warrants are "the system" I'm talking about. If you can't trust the same people with out a warrant how can you trust them with? > 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. No, it was overwhelmed and waiting weeks to listen to calls that were long gone. You really believe they did this just because they're evil don't you. But now that Obama is doing it it's only because Bush tempted him. > 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. Watergate was about a re-election and finding out what the opponent was up to. Happens all the time, you just can't try to cover for them when they get caught. Now they get thrown under the bus. > Nope. It was illegal, and the government tried to claim "national > security" concerns about being brought to court. I guess we remember things different. > Luckily, at least some of the stuff, they'd openly admitted, so the > court was like, "what'cha talking 'bout Willis!". What are you talking about? > It's pretty scary to see how many cases have been dismissed because of > the "state secrets" stuff. Scary as hell. Are you talking about prisoners of war eventually released because they were no longer considered a threat? > From what I remember, (I wasn't around then myself, so this is > hearsay:) the government was doing, and indeed had done, stuff > already. One of us should look it up. > He went mad with fame, if you ask me. And power. I guess ot depends on who's telling the story. > Destroying people's lives is heady stuff, I reckon. If they're people > you don't like anyway, bonus! Poor soviet spies had there lives ruined trying to destroy America? > Only if you're focus is pure money. Money comes and goes, I don't > think it's the most important factor. So what of many people can't find a job? The government will help you? They'll borrow money so you can send your kids to failing schools with $200 sneakers. > 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? The world thinks we're a joke. They used to fear us, now they still don't like us and laugh at us. > What do you think is more important, Sam: Short term (money) or long > term (stability)? Long term. > 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. The no-bid contracts? Why? What oil thing. > Bush43 and Cheney, etc., *personally* profited off what they did. Ummm ... they didn't and you would know that if you listen. > If the government pays so well, go get a government job! You think > only Democrats work for the government?!?! I'm thinking government jobs shouldn't out pay and hire the private sector. > Have you ever heard of > equal opportunity? That applies to Republicans? > You're up in arms about no-bid contracts now, but I am? Since when? I like to point it out because everyone was so mad at Haliburton when Bush was Pres but not a peep now. > 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. You lost me. > 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? You're not paying attention. The Bush admin and McCain tried to fix the banking problem in 2005 but the Dems fought like hell to let it play its course. The crisis wasn't as bad as was thought and after the bailout and payback things would be fine. Instead we re-loaned the bailout money and will never see it again. Add to that $ trillions thrown at a bad health plan and people just throw their hands up and say WTF? > 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.. For years people bitch Bush was hurting science when he wasn't, then when Obama really does it crickets. Yeah, make a stink. > 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. You bitch about Bush all the time. > Whatever. It's obvious that they're blatantly lining their own > pockets the same way the last presidential family did. They're living the rock star life. Ni need to line pockets. Presidential speech's will pay in the millions, then there's the presidential library, write some more books. They are set. They people around them, that's another story. Look at there pockets. A whole new set of wealthy has been created. > Aren't they long time friends of the Saudi Family, too? The conflicts > of interest are just *out of hand* with this latest bunch! Let me see, Texas oil money dealing with Saudi oil money. That's a stretch. Do you know anything about business? Who paid for Obama's school? Wasn't some evil Egyptian guy? How about all the radicals tied to Oama or do you just not like Saudis? > 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. It made things worse, but since the dems are the ones that exploited it I can understand your glee. > I'm really glad that the Supreme Court just ruled that the reform was > unconstitutional. Because money == speech. > > Not. What about Soros and his $25 million? >> I think he's following FDR more than Bush 43. > > Not Hoover? No > He was *sooo* close to being one of the most liked presidents! Doing the right thing doesn't always make you popular. I bet you're thinking the same thing about Obama :) >> 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 Well that settles it. > 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. So you think you don't like him but aren't sure? > 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. Because it was a understandable amount considering the current event. It was going down so the problem was fixing itself as promised. > If this is all really only about debt and taxes, of course. It also be about power and surrendering it. Do you think NK would have sank a SK ship if Bush or Reagan were president? > 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? A guy at the bars asks a woman if she'd sleep with him for $1 millon. She thinks about it and says yes. He then offers her $5. She slaps him and says what do you think I am a whore? He says: "we've already established that, now we're just negotiating a price." > 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! If I borrowed a hundred from a friend for some books and you borrowed a million from a loan shark for a mansion and we earned the same income, I would be more concerned about you. > And don't forget acknowledged attempts to bring religion "back" into > politics and policy. Is that part of the Republican platform, Sam? I think it's more of a concern about not banning religion from public view. > Maybe this hubbub is also about, how with Bush43 out, religious folk > are like "oh no, religion is getting separated from the government > again!"? The DOJ just removed a WWI memorial cross from the desert because it's public land. Just imagine what it's going to cost to update all the tombstones in national cemeteries. > 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.). Taking over GM, setting salaries for CEOs. Next thing you know they're going to ban salt in food. > 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. What wreck? The banking crisis? Or are you saying with all this money we now owe Obama will close Gitmo, end all the wars and stop the wiretapping? Did you notice the attacks against us are increasing? And you said they love us now. Bush kept us safe and it cost a fraction what we're spending now. > Again, because I'm not quite following: How in the hell was cutting > taxes and increasing spending a sane idea? Let's try a different approach. The hated Thatcher broke the unions and business in the UK boomed for decades. Companies moved there because they had an educated population and low corporate taxes. Look at Ireland, they dropped taxes and had the largest expansion in Europe for decades. Then they raised corporate taxes and bam, even Bono moved out. > 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. Didn't Obama cancel the new fighter jet? 22 or 25? > 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 could have made health care reform good, instead he said I won get over it. > I remember Republicans saying they'd vote for it if they got > concession X, and then not. That was before it was 3000 pages and lot's of states got paid to play. The bill was teh worse flaunting of public corruption ever. > Course, Democrats did that too. It's amazing anything at all got > done, with people voting party lines and whatnot. Even many Dems had to hold there nose while signing, they're all afraid of Pelosi. But that's the way politics should be right? > 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! That's neither here nor there but I do doubt you're right. > I think our government sponsored history book should be 100% anecdote > and hearsay. Let's do it right. We should only tech Marks and Keynes economics? > Are you shitting me? You are pulling my leg now, I know it. Enlighten me. >> 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? Because contrary to what Larry say's the left get nasty when they don't get their way and the right just complain. > 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. The only thing you have is your dislke for Bush. > God it feels good to *not* be seeing these stories about Science > losing out to Religion with Bush43 gone. Politics, in science sux, good thing those stories were always bogus. I can't believe Hansen still has a job. Science is really taking a hit now financially, but at least the guy doing it isn't religious, not really at least. > 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. Oh yeah Baby! Bogus science bankrupting the world so a few snake oil salesmen, all happen to be Dems, can line their pockets. Got to love cap-n-trade. > You said *everyone* agreed that we need reform, but *some* don't like > what we got. You can agree that change is needed without agreeing on what the changes are. If this change was good they wouldn't have had to do it behind closed doors in the dead of night and they wouldn't have had to pass it to find out what was in it. > I think that *something* is better than *nothing*, reform wise. So if your dog is sick and the vet shoots it it is no longer sick, right? > 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? It worked so well everywere else. You do realize the delicate balance of power going on in Saudi Arabia and Egypt? If we slap to hard the house of cards will tumble and we might not like the replacement. > Seriously tho, you think Saudi Arabia has *nothing* to do with our > "terror problem"? They have a lot to do with it. I don't know how to deal with them, I leave that to the experts. I'm not sure bitch slapping will work in our favor. > For arguments sake, why *shouldn't* we have addressed more than Al Q- er, > Iraq? We addressed al Qaeda all over the world, they decided they wanted to fight us in Iraq. > I know how you feel about Welfare. What about the idea of unemployment? I've used it. > 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. I'm not against social programs, I'm all for helping the needy. It's when they replace incentive like welfare which used to reward people for not working that I think needs to be fixed. > Life can be hard. And it should be. > 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. You probably need to pay for that part of the report. > $100,000 a year? Close? It's personal. > What state do you live in? I hear you can transfer posts, like folk > in the military. East coast. I'm on specific projects but that might change. > 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 know, I was thinking about that 3 star scam out of Orlando that preys on job seekers and CF dev's specifically. They list thousands of phony jobs and when you call they try to sell you education so you'd get an even better job than the one they pretend to offer. The also sell all your info. > I mean, what did you got to school for Sam? Not what subjects et > cetra, but *why*? To learn stuff, or do stuff? I love to learn stuff so I can do stuff. > And do you think there should be a separation twixt the two? No. > And how does the government fit into all this? Ay yi yi! By sneaking a way to take over student loans in the health care bill? > I just wish that we could come together on the common ground, and be > less polarized politically. We need each other. So you want them to rally against Bush? Since you're happy with the way things are going now you don't need them. > If the conservative movement is going to have a chance, it's going to > need to get right with God. They can't kick out the extremists, yet some people use the fringe to define them. The mainstream doesn't want religion taught in schools, they just don't want it banned from public view. > And the love of money. Al Gore doesn't love money. Where did Hillary donate her book money to again? I know Gingrich donated his book money to charity. What about Obama's money. Should have at least given some to Ayers for ghost writing it :) > 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:319429 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
