On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM, denstar <valliants...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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? No, Bush was honest about his intentions:) > 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. Nope. You saying everything is Bush's fault because he set a precedents. Meanwhile it was really Clinton that started the wiretapping and big brother tactics as well as rendition. > Because *really* it was Clinton's fault that Bush43 was able to do what he > did. Bush hired Powell because he was a realist. He wanted to focus on domestic issues and leave other countries in the background. 9/11 changed everything. The Patriot Act was to stem immediate threats. Obama promised to revoke them but then he was briefed. Now they've been expanded. > Documentation is the difference. One way you have to "trust" people, > another way you can trust *and verity*. Docs are the same. > Do you really not see the difference? You are the one harping on > Blind Trust! :) I'm thinking it's the same people doing the same job and the same paperwork. The only difference is the volume. Anything admissible in court goes through the same old process. > You didn't read that link I posted to that court ruling, did you? I might next time you post it. > Bottom line: it is *not* legal to do what was done, and what > apparently continues. Was that like one guy that got fired? They need to be watched. > 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. Don't they match a series of keywords or start from a know terrorist source before they can listen? > 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?). What is it you think the wiretap program is? Do you think they can just call you a commie like MLK and listen in? > 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. I don't remember labeling myself conservative. I lean that way but don't believe in labels. Too confining. I don't like the whole big brother thing but I don't see this program as stepping over the line. Do you think they listen to every call that enters or leaves the US? >> 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. When i searched on cases dealing with this the one that came up the judges sided with the Bush admin. I can look it up but I'm kind of busy responding to your comments. > But in this case they couldn't. The one case, apparently. I thought all cases do that. At least that's what I learned from Law and Order. > It's so important, it can't be taken lightly. Read that ruling man, > it is Good Stuff! Tomorrow. > Oh. That is a sticky situation too, but I'm complaining about what > happens to American Citizens. What happens to them? >> 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? Sadly it does. Sustek (sp) mentioned he was bribed last summer. Murtha, Franks Dodd and the dude with the $100k in his freezer. Sometimes the majority blocks all investigations by congress and we know the other branches all play to their own tunes. > You are, huh? So you can assure me that no double spy covers were > blown? If they were deep, how would McCarthy have known? Isn't a senator privy to that info? I'm sure the CIA would have mentioned it to him. > And broadcasting that our government is full of spies isn't a national > security leak, especially if true?!?! Not getting the word out is the risk. > The purpose was to scare a portion of American Citizens, who were > doing nothing "wrong" besides things like making movies or being gay? I thought we covered that? They were guilty. > It was kind of direct with Bush43, neh? Blatant, even. Obama was a lawyer, I think I prefer oil men :P > And Haliburton? Cheney was not connected to Haliburton while VP. >>> 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. What they did means their jobs before running the country? I thought you were implying they made money from oil and gov contractors while in office. > It needs to be transparent, regardless. Now *and* then. Why do you think a no-bid contract is not transparent? Don;t they still go through the same reviews? > Better yet, base it on principle, so we protest when it's in the red > *no matter who is in office*. Owing a little money isn't my biggest concern. I'll let you know when it hits the worry stage. Now. > "Abstinence Only", cut funding for Family Planning, etc., etc.. You think that's a Christian thing? Actually, if encouraging twelve-year-old's not to have sex is exclusively Christian then maybe I should convert When a life starts is also not exclusive to religion. I'm pro choice yet I'm against a lot of what goes on at Planned Parenthood. These aren't religious issues, they're common sense issues. > I don't see that as bad as making policy based on religious views. > > Not one whit. I agree with your statement but not with your claim. > Wasn't Bush43 some sort of fantastic business guru? Compared to Obama? Yes. >> 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!? I've heard no evidence the Saudi Royal Family was involved. But I like that you let small time terrorist have a pass. > Yes! They are *totally* on the same level as the Saudi family! No, they went a different route, they're infecting the education system. Indoctrination baby. You don't have to hide in caves. > I heard that Obama flew the Ayers family out of the country after the attack. Michael Moore is your hero :) > Nothing is all roses, Sam. They grow in shit-- but the good kind of shit. At least you recognize it for what it is. > So why is creating a bunch of jobs in the health care area bad? Like digging ditches and then filling them in? It's the quality that counts > Do you not see our nations health as a national security issue? Again, nobodies against reform. > An infrastructure concern? Like building roads and channeling rivers? More like the big dig than the Hoover Dam. >> 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? Damn, all these years we've been spending all that money and it's Boeing and Northrop all along. Obama is one smart to recognize that and cut the fat. > Sure. But your point is that people don't do it based on principle, > or else they'd be up in arms about Obama. Ones and Zeros again. > Changing the power structure. Didn't he run as an R and lose? > Obama didn't really shake things up as much as you'd have us believe, > or seem to believe yourself. There's enough bad decisions and inaction that scare me. > 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. I don't mind being a minority but most people don't notice. > Man, Powell got shafted. Another reason I think Bush43 sucked nuts. You still crying about the UN speech? You know they found they shells in his report. Too late, nobody cares since it didn't make it into the Michael Moore movie. > I bet the next president is a Hispanic lass (or whatever the > appropriate label would be, no offense intended). Pow! Maybe a Jew. > 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. I'm thinking your balance is a little wonky, same for me. > It's not a view, it's a memory. You think it was easy for Regan? It was easy to make fun of Reagan. Musicians always go against the R's. It's like that kid that said when I was 16 my dad was an idiot but when I turned 24 he was a genius? How did he learn so much so quickly? Musicians never get that revelation but the fans do. Mostly. > They did most of the work. That's the beauty of a great leader, make them lose without firing a shot. >> I think we'll surrender soon. > > LOL! To who? Medical Marijuana is spreading, it won't be long now before the man realizes it's a lost battle. >> 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)? You notice we're friends with many nations we don't trust. That house of cards thing again. The radials are at like 48%. We would rather deal with pretend friends than have to deal with sworn enemies owning all that wealth. > If only he had been as good (or as bad) as Clinton! Man, think of the > ammunition-- "You came into office with a surplus!!!". > The government shouldn't be in the business of "saving" religions. Did you forget the pilgrims already? Did you read the constitution? > Does Christianity really need government support to be a viable religion? No. But the people have a right to religious freedom. > I don't think it needs "help" from the government, however. I don't thing the government should make laws banning religion. > So long as it's for the One religion, right? You know I'm Jewish right? > I don't think the government has been regulating right. The government screws up a lot. They also get it right a lot. > Fighting DVD pirates is like, super important, you know. Are they still fighting that fight? Copyrights are so bogus. >> No, our foreign policy is on par with president Carter's. > > It's that bad? Yes. Did you notice NK sunk a SK ship and China is baking NK. Iran is laughing at us. Putin mocks us. It goes on. > 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. Your logic is clouded :) > Democrats don't do lock-step like the Republicans. Not when it stinks that bad, but they always come around when Pelosi turns the thumb screws. > Again, I think that's a good thing. More governmental (requires > compromise, communication, etc.), IMHO, and less "team"-ish. So when the R's are for something it's bad, and when they're against something it's bad. You're on the winning side all the time. >> 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! Yeah, that whole 9/11 thing messed up the books.Or does that not count? > Of course, I don't really see how going from a surplus to a deficit is a > "plan". Surplus was because we took SS money with a promise that the money would be paid back in ten years because the economy would boom for 20. Then the Dot-com bubble hit, a recession then 9/11. But you still don't know where the money went. > But I guess we should be happy it wasn't as bad as we thought it would be? Tax cuts raised revenue, even though you mock that theory as idiotic, when presented with proof you spin it. The spending went up, yeah bad thing that, but the tax cuts raised tax revenue. Just not enough to keep up with the excessive spending. > Call it a success? Worked when Kennedy, Reagan and Bush did it. I'd call that a success > 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. You do realize that study was done to prove the stimulus worked. > I do like easy solutions. Kill the dog and it's not sick, right? Welcome to our new health care. > When I said going to Iraq wasn't the best move. Who did? I won't tell you ratted but I want to know. I'll deal with him or her. > Bush43 made it an art tho, and even easier for Obama to do. Are people camping next door to the Obama's. Sometimes they force your hand. Since code pink and the gays have turned on Obama it's getting harder to do a meet-n-greet. > Man I wish "you guys" had stood up back then. With "us". Folk on the > same side, theoretically. You weren't bitching about money, you were bitching about war or anything Bush did. Someone told you he was an idiot and you bought it hook line and sinker. > Take money away from Planned Parenthood? Advocate sexual practices > that cause more harm than good? Why are you so interested in little girls having sex and getting abortions? Aren't there more pressing issues like a collapsing health care system? > Tell me "some" drugs are bad? Try to make me stop drinking or smoking > or whatnot? That's not religion. Who told you you can't drink? Ah blue laws.Those are old county level laws not federal. > See, the Tea Party seems to be about taxes more than anything else. You're not getting it. They aren't upset the Bush tax cuts will expire. They don't thing they're over taxed. They think the government is going out of control with spending, because Bush started it (OK), and the country will go bankrupt or their grandchildren will be overburdened with taxes. > That's well and good, more power to 'em, but my freedom is more > important to me than the taxes I pay. Why are you mixing wiretaps and taxes? > Without freedom, I have no control of the taxes I pay. Get it? No. > There's always taxes, and death, but what do they say about Freedom? It's gone because of what Bush started? > I happen to see the invasion of privacy and whatnot as more pressing > concerns than the money, but to each their own. Now I get it. You can only focus on one issue at a time. Did you ever complain to Obama about what he's doing or do you wait until you can rant on Bush? > 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? I don't know what success is. If it means DC stops the insanity and takes a little responsiblity then yes. If you think it means a third party then no, that will give the win to the dems again. Remember Perot. > I want the tea partiers to succeed. For the sake of the country, or > some noble ideal like that. They don't like Obamacare. They want it gone. > So far, it seems like an opportunistic movement. If you want success, > people like me shouldn't see it that way. That's shallow. >> Notice a lot more homeless now? > > As opposed to when? Somehow, "time" fits in here. Last year. > Obama (or the Democrats) and health care have already increased the > homeless population? Are you for real? Is the ink even dry? You do know unemployment is near 10% for a o long time and earnings for those employed are down. But we ain't seen nothin yet. Just wait until that health care crap kicks in. > Don't you ever get tired of portraying things so simplistically? If I make it to complex I have to explain it. > Maybe Bush43 is really an evil genius who just wanted us all to think > he wasn't very sophisticated... Or was that the press. Quayle, Reagan, Bush and now Palin. Seeing a trend or are republicans really stupid? > Perhaps Usama chose then because he hated daddy and the Bushes are > daddy's friends? You do know Osama is Saudi? But not from the Saudi Royal family. > Do you think it would be "better" if some private entity was in charge of it? They would go bankrupt every time there was a recession. That's a no. > Dude, I'm a pothead. Like I'd remember something like that. Your remember way to much for a pothead. > Anyways, it was one of Clinton's campaign promises, so ha! > > Democrats really get it done, don't they? How many voted for it? Funny how Clinton campaigned on it yet was hesitant about not vetoing it a third time. What were you saying about principles and the health care compromise? >>> 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. Come on Maud working the unemployment window? I guess you didn't see it. > We'll save money if people aren't going to emergency rooms to treat > toothaches. I thought they determined the emergency room will be the everything care clinic. Since it's covered. > We already had to pay, as you are well aware. I think we can > potentially pay less this way. Nobody but you thinks that. >> 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. Definitely not. This list is way more left then the real word. > Morals are up to society, not laws. Civilization needs structure. Is murder a moral issue? What about all those ethics laws? > Interesting how often things like the ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:319736 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
