On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Sam wrote: > > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:03 PM, denstar wrote: > >> Can't we all agree that more transparency in the government is a good thing? > > See Jerry's comment.
I see some unhappy reporters. I wonder if the demand has been the same with this president as with the last one? What do you think? Is there a master list of how many interviews each has done or turned down? >>> 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. Seeing how many people didn't think Bush43 was so bad, I'm not surprised. You really don't think any precedents were set, do you? How much of this stuff do you even see as being bad? >> If you're doing nothing wrong you've nothing to fear, ja know? > > That's tired, move on It's tired and true. >> 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? Um, because they *have a warrant*? With The System, Trust is based on procedure, not on the idea that "people are good". If you trust them without a warrant, maybe you'd prefer to be ruled by a King? >> 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. Bullshit! They *never* had to wait. As the law was, they could already apply for the warrant *after* they'd listened. This administration isn't any more eager to relinquish power than the last one was. Which I note now, *and* noted then. >> 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. So nothing illegal happened, right? Not /really/? >> Nope. It was illegal, and the government tried to claim "national >> security" concerns about being brought to court. > > I guess we remember things different. That was that ruling I linked to, which I said was a good read. It is! >> 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? The Government tried to claim state secrets, but was partially turned down because they'd already admitted to listening without following established procedure. >> 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? No, I'm talking about the domestic spying court cases, and a *lot* of other cases against our government. What are the prisoners of war you're talking about? >> 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. Probably. I was pretty into it a while back. I seem to recall he got "the list" from the government. If so, ipso facto: the government was doing something already, which McCarthy sensationalized. I thought you didn't like "leaks"? >> He went mad with fame, if you ask me. And power. > > I guess ot depends on who's telling the story. Heh. "Wildcards: Aces High" was a good book. "The Crucible" wasn't too bad either. >> 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? So the only ones harmed by McCarthyism were soviet spies? As a non-normal individual ("we still group together / like a fucking survey", to quote Del) I would have been pretty fearful. >> 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. LOL! I was wondering how you felt about the New Deal. >> 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. Fuck that defeatist noise! We're at like 70-something percent, the best we've been since Bush43 "helped" the world love us more than usual. >> What do you think is more important, Sam: Short term (money) or long >> term (stability)? > > Long term. Me too! >> 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. I was thinking that the Bush family and the Cheney family had investments (like oil) that did rather well while Bush43 and Cheney were "running" things. >> Bush43 and Cheney, etc., *personally* profited off what they did. > > Ummm ... they didn't and you would know that if you listen. I'm open! Are you saying neither one had any such investments? >> 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. As opposed to when? For as long as I've worked for the government (such as I have), the private sector out paid the public sector by at least 2 to one. For me personally, it's more like 3 to 4. But I'm in the tech field, and avoid management positions. Regardless, either there are suddenly a lot of government jobs available (there are, right? You're not just making this stuff up?) or people are just lazy/hate the government. >> Have you ever heard of >> equal opportunity? > > That applies to Republicans? Does equal mean fair? >> 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. Ah. That makes me sad. Not based on the same principle I'd thought you were basing it on. >> 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. It seems opportunistic, vs. principled. >> 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? I don't. At least not any more now than I did then. :) >> 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. You are equating canceling the moon mission with what Bush43's administration wrought? How is Obama putting Religion above Science? Obama has been more of a Kennedy as far as religion goes. Opposite Bush43. >> 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. Bush43ism represents a lot of Evil for me, overall. I bitch about McCarthy a lot too. Sometimes I wax poetic about Andrew Carnegie, and the nature of Good and Evil (even tho I'm beyond good and evil ;]). >> 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. So that makes it even worse, if what I said was true, and the Bush and Cheney families (for example) did make money. They lived the life AND profiteered! The American Dream, right there, eh Sam! >> 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? Why would I feel anything at all about people who weren't involved in the least with any kind of attack on my home? The Weathermen or whatever are the ones *I* don't like. They're always up to something! >> 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 sorry, I forgot for a moment that the safest form of government is the one that doesn't do a damn thing. Or maybe I like to live on the edge a little bit. Or maybe I'm not very gleeful, OR super pissed ...there's still time to judge the outcome, right? >> 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? So you do or do not like the SC ruling? >>> I think he's following FDR more than Bush 43. >> >> Not Hoover? > > No Ok. Me neither really, but that whole "socialism" deal, ya know? And with no work (besides government jobs) I was wondering about New Deal type stuff, like building solar panels or roads and whatnot, and how you felt about state sponsored work in general. Do you think we'd have gotten to the moon in the time we did if we'd relied on private industry "being competitive" vs. the government? Is there *anything* a government is good for? >> 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 :) I was more fearful Ron Paul would get whacked, honestly. (read: I'm not surprised) I know you love to think that everyone loved Obama for Obama, but mostly Bush43 sucked so freaking bad, just about anyone would have been a messiah. Bush43 sucked /so/ bad, we got to choose between a minority and a woman. You know, maybe you are right. I should give Bush43 credit for doing something good there, even if it wasn't on purpose. I never thought a thing I said for years would get tested: "we'll have a black president before we have a chick president". Don't worry ladies, yer time is coming. >>> 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. Settles what? Read the wikipedia page for that song sometime. I haven't forgotten the Cold War. Or the War on Drugs. >> 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? Honestly? I don't think he's as bad as I thought he was. Same goes for Nixon. Not exactly M.L.K. Jr.. Look, for all my rhetoric, I don't think that they hate America or something. For perspective, I think Carnegie was a mixed bag. Good stuff, bad stuff... wow, what a complex world we live in! :)p >> 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. Good, good. We will need these revising skills to write a successful history book. >> 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? I think there's some sort of political reason we don't "do something" about NK. Maybe something like what we got going on with the Saudis (who are just an example). >> 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." You talk principle, but walk opportunity. I can sense the makings of a great American within you. >> 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. Or how about 1 cent for you and 100 dollars for me? Math is such a trip. And that's without inflation. A better analogy would be using a shark that killed for a missed payment, and neither of us could hope to make the payment today. We're both dead, but at least I died for the 100 bucks, and not the penny. >> 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. No, it's not. And generally the debate centers around Christianity, not Religion as a whole. It wouldn't seem so dirty if it was about religion, and not *a* religion. But Religion + Government is a bad idea, regardless. Agreed? >> 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. Interesting deal, crosses and the military. You know about the fight to get a pagan star vs. a cross, right? >> 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. So you think it's well and good that 40 years ago a CEO made 3 times what the president makes, but now it's closer to 30? Not that this is regulation, but in your worldview, does the government even have the power to regulate? >> 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? The only problem we face is a "green" one? What about religion getting pushed out of view? > 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. How do you feel about vigilante justice, Sam? Should it be supported? >> 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. So that was the height of the English Empire, eh? Thatcher? Heh. Was watching a "Dr. Who" where they went back in time, and there were all these signs dissing Thatcher. T'was kinda funny. The problem with the simplistic economy models is that the economy isn't simplistic. >> 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? I don't know. Did he? It was more of a joke, because of all the hubbub. A billion was a lot back then. >> 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. "He" did 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. So it did happen, but it was "before". Alrighty. >> 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? Just out of curiosity, how often do Republicans break with party lines? About equal, in your opinion? >> 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'm just wondering, because it would be an indicator of Something Bad about Republicans if I'm 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? We shouldn't. But we should be realistic, too. Come on man- cut taxes *and* increase spending? >> Are you shitting me? You are pulling my leg now, I know it. > > Enlighten me. Our future is so bright, we've got to wear shades. >>> 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. That's got to be it. I mean, the number of protesters is basically the same, then and now, right? >> 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. Moreso what Bush43 accomplished. What *we* accomplished. I also have freedom of Religion. And the freedom to challenge without being called "unpatriotic". Did I mention that I didn't have to sign a loyalty pledge? >> 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. They were always bogus, huh? There sure are a lot of verified conspiracies in your world Sam. I'm jealous, my existence isn't as exciting. I'll take the financial hit over the religious one, even if the financial one is more detrimental. I feel *that* strongly. I would lose money over it, I would! >> 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. Those Dems are wile-full! And they're so smart, they make the Republicans to take the blame each time! If only they were more emotional, and thus more prone to make mistakes. >> 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. That's how our system works these days, Sam. And we haven't done anything about it until now, with the Tea Party movement. I mean, come on dude! I'm not saying the Tea Party shouldn't be, I'm saying, *focus* people! You're leaving the people in the middle homeless. Er, "we're leaving the people...", I mean. >> 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? I can't fault the truthfulness of that statement. But I thought we were going to be shooting our grandma's? >> 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. Look, I already agreed that I saw the logic. It's just shitty compared to that other logic I mentioned. >> 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. Oh Sam. You are an alright guy, you know that? >> I know how you feel about Welfare. What about the idea of unemployment? > > I've used it. Is it OK? >> 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. Clinton did some good welfare reform, IIRC. We can fix things betterer and betterer. >> Life can be hard. > > And it should be. Eh. I don't want to push any kind of life on anybody. If you can swing it without hurting other people, have fun. *sigh* too bad "hurt" is complicated. >> 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. LOL! >> $100,000 a year? Close? > > It's personal. I want to pry, but I won't. Military? Heh: "I won't say a word, not one word. But if /she/..." >> 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. Cool. New Mexico is sorta poor, but I love it. Dunno if oodles of money would get me to leave. It didn't during the dotcom boom. >> 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. Yeah, education is a racket now (ha!). It used to be so pure! Anyways, we all want job demand, be we legit or scam-ish. >> 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. Ditto! Sometimes I learn stuff by doing stuff, too. Learning ROCKS! Philosophy is also way cool. Is thinking doing? Heh. >> And do you think there should be a separation twixt the two? > > No. Me neither. Somehow we need to bring 'em closer together, I think. >> 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? Heh. Remember the S&L scandal of... oh, yeah, there's been a few now, neh? Maybe we should just ditch the Federal Reserve and whatnot, get the .gov out of money, period. Switch to barter. I love barter. >> 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. Dude, did you look at those links Jerry posted? I was LOLing when I'd see stuff like this (which I saw a lot of): I'm always pretty happy. Even when Bush43 was the figurehead of America's destruction. I think I'm messed up. Broken. Probably a brain tumor or something (here's to hoping for paranormal powers!). Anyways, you're sorta missing my point. It's not about Bush43, or Obama. It's about America. O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave! Bitch all you want about Obama, it's no skin off my back. I just wish that the same stuff pissed you off all the time, vs. when your buddy is in office or not. Same thing you're bitching about, basically. We're like, similar. Peas in a pod, you and I. >> 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. This sentiment reminds me a lot of the bitching about the lack of moderation avocation from "moderate" Muslims. "Teach both theories!", "abortion is murder!", "we need to legislate morality!", "bring back Family Values" (*cough*). Where do you go if you like conservative, re: government and re: fiscal, but not re: social? Libertarian? Eh. We need a new party. One that does what it should. One that won't make us feel too bad. One that won't make us feel too good. I'm going to run against Tod next year, I think. I'll leverage our social society in a way that Howard Dean III could only dream of. Yeah. That's the ticket; Bust a SLC Punk type of deal! Change the system from /inside/. Wanna be my running mate? Or maybe I could be yours? We can be like The Walrus and the Carpenter. Locke and Demosthenes. The time has come! :DeN -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:319661 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
