On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Sam wrote: > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:37 PM, denstar 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?
At least he's given a lot of lip-service to "open government", and started websites and whatnot. Did Bush43 do the same thing, and I'm just being biased? >>> 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. Ha! If you read those links JB posted, note how many of them say "taking advantage of a recent precedent...". I'm pretty sure they'd name Clinton if it was him. And besides that, basically you are arguing that because Clinton started it, *that's* why the folk that are angry about it now, weren't angry about it when Bush43 was in office. Because *really* it was Clinton's fault that Bush43 was able to do what he did. Or something like that? FWIW I've mentioned some of the stuff Clinton did that I didn't like. I didn't think he was "the One" either, but I did like him, overall. Guess I'm a party line kind of guy. >> How much of this stuff do you even see as being bad? > > It's too vague of a question to answer. Fair enough. I'm just wondering if it's principle or opportunity. >> 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. Dude, why do you think there's all those jokes about doing stuff in triplicate? Documentation is the difference. One way you have to "trust" people, another way you can trust *and verity*. Do you really not see the difference? You are the one harping on Blind Trust! :) >> 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. You didn't read that link I posted to that court ruling, did you? Bottom line: it is *not* legal to do what was done, and what apparently continues. You know, you used to have to name the stuff you were looking for when you got the warrant. If you found something you weren't looking for, you couldn't use it in court. I like that idea. It's a check on governmental power (which you are all for, right? You don't want an all powerful government- or do you?). For a self-labeled conservative, it's odd that you're so gung ho about Big Brother. Really really odd. Maybe that's even worse for Republicans than the God stuff, come to think of it. >>> 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. Nope. The one case they actually heard they said was illegal. The rest were dismissed under the "state secrets" clause or whatever. A governmental conservative would be pretty pissed about this. If it takes Obama to get you pissed, that's fine by me, but get pissed, dude! >>> 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. Ah. I see. *giggles* >> 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. But in this case they couldn't. The one case, apparently. >> 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:) I feel the way whoever wrote that ruling I linked to feels. It's so important, it can't be taken lightly. Read that ruling man, it is Good Stuff! >> What are the prisoners of war you're talking about? > > Gitmo Oh. That is a sticky situation too, but I'm complaining about what happens to American Citizens. >> 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. Does that sound logical to you, Sam? >> 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. You are, huh? So you can assure me that no double spy covers were blown? If they were deep, how would McCarthy have known? And broadcasting that our government is full of spies isn't a national security leak, especially if true?!?! Come on man. >> 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. That's a shame, and partially why history repeats itself so often. >> So the only ones harmed by McCarthyism were soviet spies? > > Wasn't that what made him insane? Tarred and feathered for saving the world? I hear tilting at windmills can do something similar. >> 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? The purpose was to scare a portion of American Citizens, who were doing nothing "wrong" besides things like making movies or being gay? That is a meme that scares me, Sam. Ha! "Fear" scares me. LOL! >>>> What do you think is more important, Sam: Short term (money) or long >>>> term (stability)? >>> >>> Long term. >> >> Me too! > > We have neither. It's all a matter of perspective. And what we do to make our future a reality. >> 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. It was kind of direct with Bush43, neh? Blatant, even. And Haliburton? >> Bush43 and Cheney, etc., *personally* profited off what they did. > > You made that up and can't back it up. Ok, so Bush43 (unlike Al Gore) doesn't profit off of the oil. And I'm sure Cheney didn't profit from Haliburton or anything else. Not any more than "normal", I guess? >> 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. Oh yeah, when I think of "the greater good", I think of Bush43 and Cheney. I think they compromised too much with the democrats! Freaking socialists! >> 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. Um, not here. Are you sure you work for the government? Because that would be *really* *really* fast for it to move. It's comically slow, you see. Generally. >> 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. You know what's funny with the economy and the stock market and whatnot? It's not based on reality. Think positive, Sam, and maybe we can make reality. >> 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 needs to be transparent, regardless. Now *and* then. >> 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? Not "no right". And again, since you seem to be forgetting it, I'm encouraging you and Tea Party people. Ride Obama! Be the thorn in his side that the Democrats were in Bush43's. Better yet, base it on principle, so we protest when it's in the red *no matter who is in office*. >> You are equating canceling the moon mission with what Bush43's >> administration wrought? > > Yeah the bogus Hanson speaking events. There were *tons* of examples of blatantly Religiously biased (or motivated) policies from Bush43. "Abstinence Only", cut funding for Family Planning, etc., etc.. Obama does something for the budget, and you say it's the same as Bush43 doing something because of his religious views? That's not right. >> 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. I don't see that as bad as making policy based on religious views. Not one whit. >> 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. I don't stay there, I just visit now and again so it stays fresh. >> 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. In the middle, or at the very top? It seems like the very top stays roughly the same, no matter who is in power. Or maybe it's because of who is really in power. We the people! =] >> 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 Yes, some presidents have done really well before ever becoming president. Wasn't Bush43 some sort of fantastic business guru? >>>> 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? And killed more than 3000 citizens! It was a dark day in our history, vividly remembered for a long time. How could I forget about the weathermen!? >> The Weathermen or whatever are the ones *I* don't like. They're >> always up to something! > > I guess you do. Yes! They are *totally* on the same level as the Saudi family! I heard that Obama flew the Ayers family out of the country after the attack. >> 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. Nothing is all roses, Sam. They grow in shit-- but the good kind of shit. The title is awesome. Sorta that "Homeland Security" type of ring to it, neh? Almost as good as "The Patriot Act". Man, were you up in arms when that legislation came down, right? I remember it well. >> So you do or do not like the SC ruling? > > I'm OK with it. In principle or spirit? If both, I think you shouldn't be. If principle, ok, but we need to address it somewhere else. >> 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. So why is creating a bunch of jobs in the health care area bad? Do you not see our nations health as a national security issue? An infrastructure concern? Like building roads and channeling rivers? >> 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. So he invented government contracts, eh? Boeing is a government run deal, right? Has been for years? Most our other "flight" related stuff is run by the .gov, right? >> 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?" Sure. But your point is that people don't do it based on principle, or else they'd be up in arms about Obama. I'm saying, "damn shame, right?", basically. >> 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. Changing the power structure. Obama didn't really shake things up as much as you'd have us believe, or seem to believe yourself. >> Bush43 sucked /so/ bad, we got to choose between a minority and a woman. > > I didn't think you labeled people. I have a love/hate relationship with labels. I do especially hate it when someone labels me a "man" or a "minority" (or "majority", even!) though. Alas, apparently I'm a hypocrite. >> 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. Man, Powell got shafted. Another reason I think Bush43 sucked nuts. I bet the next president is a Hispanic lass (or whatever the appropriate label would be, no offense intended). Pow! >> Don't worry ladies, yer time is coming. > > Palin's getting ready There's a pretty bad ass republican chick running for governor here in NM. Not the one that's in all the adds and is apparently a favorite with the republicans, though. That made me sad. The Republicans don't seem to like balanced individuals. >> Settles what? Read the wikipedia page for that song sometime. > > You need to not get your political views from musicians. It's not a view, it's a memory. You think it was easy for Regan? >> I haven't forgotten the Cold War. > > Ronnie won that one for us. They did most of the work. >> Or the War on Drugs. > > I think we'll surrender soon. LOL! To who? >> Good, good. We will need these revising skills to write a successful >> history book. > > Facts are facts. And a fax is a fax. But a fax is not always the facts, and facts aren't all faxes. And further back, you used to get taxed by the word. Memory is malleable though, which conflates the issue. >>> 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. But we should be pals with the Saudis (a single example I'm sticking with)? >> 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. If only he had been as good (or as bad) as Clinton! Man, think of the ammunition-- "You came into office with a surplus!!!". Whatever gets the job done- or almost done, I guess. >> 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. Bullets cost more now then they did then. >>>> 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. The government shouldn't be in the business of "saving" religions. Does Christianity really need government support to be a viable religion? >> 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. Actually, I *like* religion. Maybe even love it. I don't think it needs "help" from the government, however. >> But Religion + Government is a bad idea, regardless. Agreed? > > Religion as government is bad, religious freedom protected by > government is good. So long as it's for the One religion, right? >> 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. Probably thought pagans were Devil worshipers. >> 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? It's about a lack of proper regulation. Do you like SciFi stories where corporations run the world? Where do they come up with this stuff! >> 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. Ok. I didn't think you were a libertarian. I was guessing Republican. I don't think the government has been regulating right. Fighting DVD pirates is like, super important, you know. >> The only problem we face is a "green" one? > > No, our foreign policy is on par with president Carter's. It's that bad? >> What about religion getting pushed out of view? > > Me thinks you're obsessed. It's one of the things holding back the conservative movement, IMHO. I'm just offering advice. >> 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. I hear you. Nation of laws and sometimes men. Or chick- Er- women. >> So that was the height of the English Empire, eh? Thatcher? > > Long after it's fall. Oh. I thought you were going somewhere else with that then. >> 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. "Good" and "bad" might be relative. I like all kinds of stuff tho. >> The problem with the simplistic economy models is that the economy >> isn't simplistic. > > Too complicated to explain? I get it. To explain in a sentence or two? Fuck yes. Anyone who tells you it's easy, is selling you something. >> "He" did it? > > Them? Really, it's "us", but we knew that already, and this is more fun. >> So it did happen, but it was "before". Alrighty. > > They would remove single payer to get votes than add bortion funding. > Than add billions in pork to buy other votes but since they agreed on > one item out of thousands they are bound? I'm just saying I don't think it's as emotion free as you are implying. I'm sure it was all based on pure logic though, you're right. That's how our political system is powered. By logic. >>>> 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. Democrats don't do lock-step like the Republicans. Again, I think that's a good thing. More governmental (requires compromise, communication, etc.), IMHO, and less "team"-ish. >> 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. Ok. I was hoping for some hard numbers but I'll just agree that they're roughly the same. Why not. >> 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 Again, I guess the numbers are about the same, eh? Chronologically, even! >> 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 Hey, look, the theory works! We went from having money to being in debt, but not as much debt as predicted! Looks like your Faith was well placed! Of course, I don't really see how going from a surplus to a deficit is a "plan". But I guess we should be happy it wasn't as bad as we thought it would be? Call it a success? > Then there's this shocker from Harvard: > Stimulus Surprise: Companies Retrench When Government Spends > http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6420.html?wknews=052410 Wow. I can see the whole of economics is encompassed by that headline alone. Sounds like someone has an easy solution to our economic troubles. I do like easy solutions. Kill the dog and it's not sick, right? >> 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. You do see *some* correlation though, right? Perhaps more people, were more upset, back then? That's just a guess, I'm sure it's really the Media doing what it does tho. The country *must* be in worse shape than ever. It's quiet. Too quiet. >> I also have freedom of Religion. And the freedom to challenge without >> being called "unpatriotic". > > When were you ever called unpatriotic? When I said going to Iraq wasn't the best move. >> 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. That's horrible. I hate it. Bush43 made it an art tho, and even easier for Obama to do. Man I wish "you guys" had stood up back then. With "us". Folk on the same side, theoretically. >> 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:) Indeed. :) >> 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? Take money away from Planned Parenthood? Advocate sexual practices that cause more harm than good? Tell me "some" drugs are bad? Try to make me stop drinking or smoking or whatnot? Come on dude, this isn't a "no harm, no foul" thing you are pushing for. >> I feel *that* strongly. I would lose money over it, I would! > > You already said many times money is low on your list. I know. It's so high on so many people's list tho. Or at least higher than other things which bring more happiness. See, the Tea Party seems to be about taxes more than anything else. That's well and good, more power to 'em, but my freedom is more important to me than the taxes I pay. Without freedom, I have no control of the taxes I pay. Get it? There's always taxes, and death, but what do they say about Freedom? >> 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. Scale is relative. I happen to see the invasion of privacy and whatnot as more pressing concerns than the money, but to each their own. Look bro, I'm just trying to tell you how to get a little more traction, if you are a tea party supporter. You want the movement to succeed, right? Don't pick sides. This isn't a Democrat vs. Republican deal. Or shouldn't be. >> 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? I want the tea partiers to succeed. For the sake of the country, or some noble ideal like that. So far, it seems like an opportunistic movement. If you want success, people like me shouldn't see it that way. Maybe it's all the media's fault. They're not picking sides, saying stuff like "take back our country" and meaning "from Democrats"-- they have more noble and inclusive goals, and I just haven't gotten the message. That must be it. Only thing that makes sense. >> You're leaving the people in the middle homeless. Er, "we're leaving >> the people...", I mean. > > Notice a lot more homeless now? As opposed to when? Somehow, "time" fits in here. Obama (or the Democrats) and health care have already increased the homeless population? Are you for real? Is the ink even dry? Must be nice to have a conscious so fleeting. >> 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. Don't you ever get tired of portraying things so simplistically? Do you *want* things to work this way? A tit-for-tat type of deal that excuses everyone? You profess "no", and act like "yes". I do to, but I'm a hypocrite. Not intentional, mind, but that's cognitive dissonance for ya. >> 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 god I hope not! That would be pretty lame. Maybe Bush43 is really an evil genius who just wanted us all to think he wasn't very sophisticated... Anyways, it's not far fetched to think that the Bush family ties to the Saudi family had some kind of affect. Perhaps Usama chose then because he hated daddy and the Bushes are daddy's friends? Whatever the case, it made for a [even more] delicate situation. >> Oh Sam. You are an alright guy, you know that? > > Gee thanks, love you too. Woohoo! I wasn't gonna say it first, but I love you! Really, I do. >> 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. Cool. I wasn't sure if you thought stuff like that was Good. Do you think it would be "better" if some private entity was in charge of it? >> 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? Dude, I'm a pothead. Like I'd remember something like that. I was doing welfare to work projects at the time, and I liked the reform. Anyways, it was one of Clinton's campaign promises, so ha! Democrats really get it done, don't they? >> 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. To each their own. I like everywhere, really... there is a different vibe to each place I've been. I love different vibes. And familiar vibes. :) >> Ditto! Sometimes I learn stuff by doing stuff, too. Learning ROCKS! > > Sometimes I learn stuff just so I can talk to you ;) I appreciate the effort. >> 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? Naw, I bullshitted about bullshitting 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. Me too! It was a very bad experience for a lot of people. I can turn bad into good. Personally, at least. My tricks don't work for the wife tho, for instance. To each their own. >> 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? Religion and politics are a bad mix, this has been time tested and proven; as much as such things can be. We'll save money if people aren't going to emergency rooms to treat toothaches. We already had to pay, as you are well aware. I think we can potentially pay less this way. >> 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. Ah. Do you think it's just this list? Or is it in general? If it's in general, I think you might want to think hard about calling moderates extremist. It's just that quite a lot of what you see seems to be "left" leaning. It's almost like that movie "Pi" and the number 216 (if that was the number-- damn you mary jane! ;]) >> 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. Dude, the republicans have gone nuts. This isn't "fringe"-ers, it's the party. It seems kind of lost. I think that's sad. I like competition. I miss the USSR. >> "Teach both theories!", "abortion is murder!", "we need to legislate >> morality!", "bring back Family Values" (*cough*). > > Missing the Sodom and Gomorrah days? Morals are up to society, not laws. Interesting how often things like the Bible are referred to as "the law". At least back in the day. Thank God we don't do that here in America! Yay secularism! >> Where do you go if you like conservative, re: govern ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:319721 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
