On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:37 PM, denstar <valliants...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you think? Is there a master list of how many interviews each > has done or turned down? Today was his first press conference in 10 months . Is that open? >> 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? I think Bill Clinton set most of them but you never mention that. > How much of this stuff do you even see as being bad? It's too vague of a question to answer. > Um, because they *have a warrant*? So a magical piece of paper makes the same guy you can't trust to abide by the law suddenly is honorable? Warrants come with rules, similar to the rules you don't trust these folks to adhere to when they don't have the warrants. > 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? Wow you are vague. So you can just point in a direction and think that's good enough to make your point? The guys listening without the warrants are the same ones that listen with. The rules are slightly different and it's legal. Same as they can listen to you if they don't have a warrant against you but have one against someone you talk to. If they suspect a foreigner of being a terrorist they don't need a warrant. If that person talks to you you're in the loop. The idea that anyone can listen in at anytime is a red herring. >> 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. I think the judges agreed with the admin on this. >> 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/? Breaking in and entering, illegal wiretap and a cover-up. On a presidential level, it was the cover-up. > The Government tried to claim state secrets, but was partially turned > down because they'd already admitted to listening without following > established procedure. That's what lawyers do, they find ways to make the cases go away so they don't have to spend time and fortune in court. > No, I'm talking about the domestic spying court cases, and a *lot* of > other cases against our government. You're being vague again. Are you against state secrets, nm, you like the open government thingy even if it's not real:) > What are the prisoners of war you're talking about? Gitmo > If so, ipso facto: the government was doing something already, which > McCarthy sensationalized. The government knew the spies but did nothing which is why he went public. Is how I remember it. > I thought you didn't like "leaks"? National security leaks, no. If he blew the cover of a sting operation than his bad, I'm sure that's not how it went down. > Heh. "Wildcards: Aces High" was a good book. "The Crucible" wasn't > too bad either. I read the Crucible in high school, don't remember it. > So the only ones harmed by McCarthyism were soviet spies? Wasn't that what made him insane? Tarred and feathered for saving the world? > As a non-normal individual ("we still group together / like a fucking > survey", to quote Del) I would have been pretty fearful. Wasn't that the purpose? Expose them all and make them panic, quit or leave? >>> What do you think is more important, Sam: Short term (money) or long >>> term (stability)? >> >> Long term. > > Me too! We have neither. > 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. Oil is kind of a big thing. Al Gore in on it. Obama's in on it. But I guess we need boogie man so Big oil is it. > Bush43 and Cheney, etc., *personally* profited off what they did. You made that up and can't back it up. > I'm open! Are you saying neither one had any such investments? Are we talking about oil or Haliburton? You do know Cheney sold all his shares and donated teh profits to charity. Bush had his money invested in blind trusts. I think it's a law. > 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. And now it's been reversed in just one year. > 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. Another whistle-blower from the census claims she was fired and rehired a dozen times to spike the job creation numbers. > Ah. That makes me sad. Not based on the same principle I'd thought > you were basing it on. Bidding contracts can be good but can also be the worst way to try and get something done. Haliburton was probably the only company qualified for the job again. > It seems opportunistic, vs. principled. That's so black and white. If you don't protest when the deficit approaches the red you have no right to protest when no matter how bad it gets? > You are equating canceling the moon mission with what Bush43's > administration wrought? Yeah the bogus Hanson speaking events. > How is Obama putting Religion above Science? Obama has been more of a > Kennedy as far as religion goes. Obama's hurting science buy not funding it. > Bush43ism represents a lot of Evil for me, overall. I bitch about > McCarthy a lot too. You're in a dark place. You need to focus your paranoia to where it's needed. > So that makes it even worse, if what I said was true, and the Bush and > Cheney families (for example) did make money. Bush and Cheney will make money just like Clinton does. I was talking about friends of Obama and how suddenly there's an entire new class of wealthy. > They lived the life AND profiteered! The American Dream, right there, eh Sam! I think Cheney surrendered more money than he'll make. All presidents do well and I don't see a problem with that. They did live modestly in while on the job. No rappers in the situation room IIRC >>> 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? You think Saudi Royal Family were involved with 9/11? You do remember Ayers group attacked us? > The Weathermen or whatever are the ones *I* don't like. They're > always up to something! I guess you do. > I'm sorry, I forgot for a moment that the safest form of government is > the one that doesn't do a damn thing. You didn't discuss the healthcare reform but you speak of it as if it's all roses. I think like 70% of the US want it repealed now. But you can chant how important healthcare for all is no matter what form it takes. Who needs to read the stinking bill anyway, just look at the title. It's awesome. > So you do or do not like the SC ruling? I'm OK with it. > 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. I'm not against government, that's Rand Paul. I'm all for moderation. Roads need to be fixed, someone needs to check up on business to make sure they aren't taking risks for increased profits. I'm not sure if solar is ready for prime time yet but if the government takes the initial financial hit it will help finance development and become cost effective sooner. > 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? It's beyond that, All the knowledge we gained was tremendous. Now Obama wants to farm it out. > Is there *anything* a government is good for? B/w again. You're either for government or your against it? Can't people say "hey, slow down there?" > I was more fearful Ron Paul would get whacked, honestly. (read: I'm > not surprised) Ron Paul is Whacked but I don't know why you think or don't that he was considered a threat. > Bush43 sucked /so/ bad, we got to choose between a minority and a woman. I didn't think you labeled people. > I never thought a thing I said for years would get tested: "we'll > have a black president before we have a chick president". Powell would have had my vote over Bush. Not now. > Don't worry ladies, yer time is coming. Palin's getting ready > Settles what? Read the wikipedia page for that song sometime. You need to not get your political views from musicians. > I haven't forgotten the Cold War. Ronnie won that one for us. > Or the War on Drugs. I think we'll surrender soon. > Good, good. We will need these revising skills to write a successful > history book. Facts are facts. >> 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). Whatever the reason we're like lunch money victims now. Not something you should boast about. > 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. I did point out the payment plan was working and the deficit was going down. But I guess it's all or nothing, in for a penny or something like that. > We're both dead, but at least I died for the 100 bucks, and not the penny. I could find a penny in the cushions along with a nickel for the interest. I'm sure teh bullet cost more than that. >>> And don't forget acknowledged attempts to bring religion "back" into > No, it's not. And generally the debate centers around Christianity, > not Religion as a whole. The left hates Christianity, but the republicans aren't promoting it, they're saving it. Maybe a few fundies but they don't represent the masses. > It wouldn't seem so dirty if it was about religion, and not *a* religion. I think you your bias is showing. Seem like Judea-Christian is evil in this country and Islam is good. You can have a prayer room in schools if there's an arrow pointing top Mecca, otherwise you can't even bend your head in private prayer. > But Religion + Government is a bad idea, regardless. Agreed? Religion as government is bad, religious freedom protected by government is good. > You know about the fight to get a pagan star vs. a cross, right? No but a quick google search says they allow 38 different religious symbols so far but I couldn't find why they didn't allow that. > 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? I don't see how the Presidents salary is relevant. Is that it thought, Obama doesn't like people making more than him? How many $million will he get for his first speech when he leaves office? > Not that this is regulation, but in your worldview, does the > government even have the power to regulate? That's one of there tasks. BTW, I'm not a libertarian. > The only problem we face is a "green" one? No, our foreign policy is on par with president Carter's. > What about religion getting pushed out of view? Me thinks you're obsessed. > How do you feel about vigilante justice, Sam? Should it be supported? I prefer using the system, but sometimes I can't help but cheer when someone set's someone else right. > So that was the height of the English Empire, eh? Thatcher? Long after it's fall. > Heh. Was watching a "Dr. Who" where they went back in time, and there > were all these signs dissing Thatcher. T'was kinda funny. So you're a pop culture kind of guy. Did I mention Obama girl is no longer in love? Matthews no longer gets a tingle? Thatcher was hated by the unions and the minors. Many still don't recognize the good she's done for the country. But then again they claim she ruined it so maybe I'm wrong. > The problem with the simplistic economy models is that the economy > isn't simplistic. Too complicated to explain? I get it. > "He" did it? Them? > So it did happen, but it was "before". Alrighty. They would remove single payer to get votes than add abortion funding. Than add billions in pork to buy other votes but since they agreed on one item out of thousands they are bound? >>> Course, Democrats did that too. It's amazing anything at all got >>> done, with people voting party lines and whatnot. It took months and billions to get the Democrats to support it. Only two or three Republicans were bought off. That's something to be proud of. And Specter's gone because of it. > Just out of curiosity, how often do Republicans break with party > lines? About equal, in your opinion? Gang of 14 gang of 7. There's lot's of Rino's supporting the democrats when needed. > I'm just wondering, because it would be an indicator of Something Bad > about Republicans if I'm right. There party line voting secured Clinton's spot in history. Balanced budget, surplus etc > We shouldn't. But we should be realistic, too. Come on man- cut > taxes *and* increase spending? http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/Ten-Myths-About-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax cuts, the CBO projected a 2006 budget deficit of $57 billion, yet the final 2006 budget deficit was $247 billion. The $190 billion deficit increase resulted from federal spending that was $237 billion more than projected. Revenues were actually $47 billion above the projection, even after $75 billion in tax cuts enacted after the baseline was calculated.[6] By that standard, new spending was responsible for 125 percent of the higher 2006 budget deficit, and expanding revenues actually offset 25 percent of the new spending. The 2006 tax revenues were not substantially far from levels projected before the Bush tax cuts. Despite estimates that the tax cuts would reduce 2006 revenues by $188 billion, they came in just $58 billion below the pre-tax cut revenue level projected in January 2000.[7] The difference is even more dramatic with the pro-growth 2003 tax cuts. The CBO calculated that the post-March 2003 tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion, yet 2006 revenues came in $47 billion above the pre-tax cut baseline released in March 2003. This is not a coincidence. Tax cuts clearly played a significant role in the economy's performing better than expected and recovering much of the lost revenue. Then there's this shocker from Harvard: Stimulus Surprise: Companies Retrench When Government Spends http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6420.html?wknews=052410 > That's got to be it. I mean, the number of protesters is basically > the same, then and now, right? Why do the numbers matter? Oh yeah, the bigger the numbers the more songs that get written. > I also have freedom of Religion. And the freedom to challenge without > being called "unpatriotic". When were you ever called unpatriotic? > Did I mention that I didn't have to sign a loyalty pledge? I guess you haven't been to any Obama speeches. Some folks needed to show citizenship papers to graduate, like Germany or something. > 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. We've batted them back and force many times here, I still haven't seen one that holds water. But sometimes a headline is enough to sway the willing:) > I'll take the financial hit over the religious one, even if the > financial one is more detrimental. What is it you think the Christians are going to do to you? Force you to pray? Make you walk past a plaque of the dreaded ten Commandments? Burn your retinas with the image of a cross in plain view from a public location? > I feel *that* strongly. I would lose money over it, I would! You already said many times money is low on your list. > That's how our system works these days, Sam. And we haven't done > anything about it until now, with the Tea Party movement. That may be how it worked with little items but never anything of this scale. > I mean, come on dude! I'm not saying the Tea Party shouldn't be, I'm > saying, *focus* people! You want the tea partiers to embrace the spending and turn on Christians? > You're leaving the people in the middle homeless. Er, "we're leaving > the people...", I mean. Notice a lot more homeless now? > But I thought we were going to be shooting our grandma's? Pretty much. Depends on what they're value to society will be if saved. Registering D has a huge value btw. > Look, I already agreed that I saw the logic. It's just shitty > compared to that other logic I mentioned. So you're not saying Bush had the Saudis attack us to get power? > Oh Sam. You are an alright guy, you know that? Gee thanks, love you too. > Is it OK? Unemployment that is. It's like an insurance plan, you pay in and when you need it they give you back your money. It came in handy paying some bills. > Clinton did some good welfare reform, IIRC. Wasn't it against his will? Was that one of those party line vote things you referred to? > 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 drove through a few times, didn't do it for me. > Ditto! Sometimes I learn stuff by doing stuff, too. Learning ROCKS! Sometimes I learn stuff just so I can talk to you ;) > Philosophy is also way cool. Is thinking doing? Heh. Ah, so you're a bullshitter. Did you bullshit today? Did you try to bullshit today? > I'm always pretty happy. Even when Bush43 was the figurehead of > America's destruction. Glad to see you survived it and still have a sense of humor. > Anyways, you're sorta missing my point. It's not about Bush43, or > Obama. It's about America. And ridding it of Christianity and medical bills? > 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. I'm not pissed. Just making conversation. I jump in when I think a thread needs balance and this list leans heavy left. > This sentiment reminds me a lot of the bitching about the lack of > moderation avocation from "moderate" Muslims. The religion of peace that everyone's afraid to speak out against? I think your comparison is a stretch. > "Teach both theories!", "abortion is murder!", "we need to legislate > morality!", "bring back Family Values" (*cough*). Missing the Sodom and Gomorrah days? > Where do you go if you like conservative, re: government and re: > fiscal, but not re: social? What social laws did Bush push through? National Day of Prayer? That will destroy us. I think the demons are in your head :) > One that does what it should. One that won't make us feel too bad. > One that won't make us feel too good. Good luck with that. > 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 t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:319689 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
