On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:21 AM, denstar wrote: >> Not. I said the same guy probably listens in with warrants and >> without. If you trust him not to blackmail with a warrant then you >> should trust him without. > Why? With a warrant you have documentation that X listened to Y.
Only if you want to use it in court. Didn't you say they have five days after the fact to ask the judge for a warrant? > Privacy == Trust, Health Care == distrust. Although the former is > *way* more dangerous than the latter. Health Care == we're already screwed. > You don't honestly think he only did the one speech to that rotary > club or whatever, do you? One speech he didn't want to give sent him over the point of no return. It wasn't his mission, he was chosen. > I love how some music uses clips from McCarthy... How's the Obama girl doing? What about all those musicians that did the youtube vid? Any of them making a version II? I hear the Obama gear factory is closed. More jobs lost. >> Good to see you can joke about over 100m dead but get upset that >> someone didn't get applause at an award show. > I can joke about a silly concept like "communism" killing 100m. Can > concepts kill, or does it take some "human" influence? So was it four or five guys that did it? They were very busy. How do you think they pulled it off? Capitalism? > Way to shift blame off the individuals and onto a concept there, > Sambo! You sick puppy! ;) So if the concept fails blame the implementer. No matter how many attempts. >>> Even if you only count McCarthy, that's more than Zero. >> You mean years later from too much boozing? > I thought you said he went crazy over what happened? He went over the top, drank a lot, I don't know in which order. Then he died. You're the one claiming McCarthyism killed McCarthy, I'm just guessing how. >>> Look dude, people were afraid to speak their minds, and leaving the country. >> Good, that was the idea. > To be like WWII Germany? Exposing enemy spies isn't the same as concentration camps. > I'm not surprised you feel this way, you'd like to see something like > the SS and whatnot here, going by what you consider "destructive" to > the country. =) If you work for a foreign government hell bent on destroying our government I want you stooped. Giving nuke plans to Russia and China is a non-issue to you? > In your opinion. With a leak, which I thought you didn't favor, and > was really a Bad thing for National Security? It was no leak. It was a congressional report that he was chosen to release. >>> Ah yes, the "axis of evil". Iraq was *sooooooo* like WWII. >> So we should wait until untold millions are slaughter before raising a >> finger? > Iraq was going to slaughter untold millions? You really *do* think > these jokers are an Axis of Evil! They have mass-murdered already. But my point was you claimed the threats from USSR and China were used as an advantage. I asked if you thought it was good we wait for proof like millions murdered before entering WWII? If we stopped Hitler before the camps you'd be crying the same tune for him. Do you think Saddam was unfairly sentenced to death for his crimes? > Come on man. The only reason a lot of this shit goes down is because > who is friends with who. Not that again. The world is so simple to you isn't it. Like sitting around the campfire singing folk songs bitching about the man. > Is it, say, Iran that we fear? Really? You're right, let them have a nuke and let's see if they really mean it when they say they want to make Israel to disappear. > What warrants when who? Did you read that PDF, or did you just look > for something that supported your argument that what was done wasn't > illegal?!?! What PDF. Are you still stuck in the one file that you think supports your theory? This has been in the news for years. >> I'm white collar. > I'm t-shirt. I did wear a suit a couple weeks ago tho. *gasp!* > Does white collar mean you don't actually work, so couldn't be a scab? Isn't the union for laborers? Once you change collars you move out of the union. >> You're the one that is fixated on the health care. Because Obama is >> doing all the damage. > You've been pretty insistent about health care, I'm just staying on topic. > :)p > He sure as hell didn't do all the damage. Still with the Bush did it? > Religiously motivated policy? Way down. I thought we didn't find any of that. Abortion and sex ed isn't a religion only issue. Try again. > People willing to do whatever Obama wants to present a united front? Way > down. Did you see what went on with health care? > The "war" on Iraq? Down The war that failed? The surge that couldn't possibly work? Now all is well thanks to Obama? > Majority rule? Down How was Health care passed? > Hard working president? Up That's a joke right? Does he ever work? I saw a picture of him in the situation room, when JayZ wasn't using it, he had his knees on the table. At least his golf game is getting good I think. > It's not all sunshine and rainbows, but give credit where credit is due. Yeah, real hands on with that spill in the gulf. > I watched that PBS show about the health care bill. WOW! That show > was *not* all lovey dovey on Obama. But I was impressed, nonetheless. > Obama is amazing. Love him or hate him, he achieved his goal. Against the will of the people. That's scares me. > The the goal wasn't war, BTW. (me poking fun at how this is better > than that was) Is that why Afghanistan is falling apart? Iraq is sliding back into chaos? Maybe it should be about the wars and jobs instead of health care. > So the Tea Party would /actually/ be just fine with paying more taxes? They always say that. > Because they're fiscally responsible? Or advocate fiscal responsibility? If we need to raise taxes for reasonable things than fine, stop with the useless pork. The TARP was a disaster that failed beyond our wildest dreams. Now they want more. > I just don't mind it so much for health care as for War. The "war" > and tax cutting had already screwed us, though you say we wouldn't > have had any problem paying for it. It would have been paid eventually. Now not. > I don't see you calling for more taxes to balance the budget. In > fact, you diss Democrats for raising taxes to cover spending. Raising taxes doesn't always help but we've been over this. > You want to eat your cake and have it too. If we stop threatening to raise taxes, don't let the Bush tax cuts expire, stop being hostile to business with things like health care reform, we will get more jobs and more tax revenue. That's just common sense. > Bush43 was *sooo* altruistic. Yeah. That's what the history books will say. Finally we agree. > You honestly think Bush43 worked harder than Obama has?!?! I thought everyone knew that. >> Maybe we should start in kindergarten, it's just life saving information. >> Can't believe you're still running with the people died from no condom >> lesson line. > I'm running with the line that Science Trumps Religion, as far s the > Government goes. I read that MA will soon offer condoms to all ages in public schools. What age do they start school? Five I think. > Or that it should. Do you have stats that say Abstinence only works > better? Or are you arguing it should be about morals vs. statistics? All the studies but one are five years old or older. The one that came out last year claimed it works for that age group. I don't feel like looking it up. > No one I've known has ever said "oh, I'm pregnant, I'll just go get an > abortion", not even whores. Anecdotal. >>> I will feel like a failure if my daughter doesn't think she can tell >>> me she's pregnant. >> Doesn't PP encourage them not to tell the parents? > What? That's putting the cart before the horse. How so, I thought you knew PP was more than just a scrapper factory? > And no, they do not encourage it. Not as policy or some such, that I know of. Are you sure? > But does personal privacy bug you, personally? People telling my child it's the norm to hide things from me does. I work hard to maintain her trust. > Do you think dads killing their daughters for being "unclean" is super > cool or something? Does shit like that even fit into your worldview? So scrap her and return her is the answer? She needs to be removed from that home. > Or are all parents automatically good parents because they are parents? We have laws to protect children against abuse. Do you think we should change the law to assume all parents are murderers and move guardianship of all children under 18 to PP? >>> BTW, abstinence only leads to a lot of crap like this. Kids too >>> scared to tell their parents what is going on in their lives for fear >>> of being judged. >> >> I call BS. > > Parents putting pressure on their kids is alien to you? Your claim that abstinence only leads to a lot of crap like this. Being a child could lead to that. It's the parents job to build the trust not the schools. Endorsing sex in school won't change that, it will hinder. > But that's not here or there. Your original claim was that > educational institutions cheer when the economy and job market do > poorly. As jobs go down education goes up. I still stand by that theory. > I'm not trying to lead the conversation. You've done lots and *lots* > of threads about it. Not so much about the other shit: You're thinking of Judah and Gruss. >> Wiretaps? Current wiretapping is increased. Actually Clinton used to >> do it far more often. >> The wars? No end in sight. >> Gitmo? Still open. >> Drone killings? Way up. > which you only seem to trot out opportunistically. Where are all the > threads about the other stuff? 1% compared to 90%, you tell me why *I* > keep the focus on health care. All except drone killings you can check the archives. >>> 12 is old enough to know about condoms, don't you think? >> No. > So your kid will be educated on the street. What a smart way to shape her! > My god man, you don't think 12 year olds know about Sex? Or are curious? > You'd prefer they learned in school apparently? Oh, I get it. Never. > *That* will keep them from experimenting! I see the logic: no sex > means no need to tell 'em how to be safe about it! You let the schools teach your kids and I'll deal with mine how I see fit at the time. > But no, this is different. I'm wondering if it's something in the milk... Still a lot of flat chested girls around. May they're lactose intolerant. > I wish we could rely on common decency-- things like churches-- but we > can't. That's one of the better purposes of government, IMO. > > To help care for the sick and the poor, without all the religious > baggage that can come from religious efforts in this area. And to be > clear, I don't think all religious people push their religion while > pushing charity, just that it happens enough to be a stereotype. > (heh). I didn't think any did. They're usually pretty good about charity separate from religion. > I wonder if you are desensitized to the sheer volume of sex in our > society? Or the sheer power of hormones? That book Strong Father mentions in the old tv shows parents always had separate beds. Now it's hard to find a prime time show that doesn't have both in the bed at the same time. > This is all about being able to resist peer pressure. You don't equip > your kid to do that by keeping her in the dark. So give the 12-year-old a condom and tell her to only use it when she wants to? >> Maybe we should teach them kama sutra too, don't want them to do it >> wrong and get discouraged. > I pray to god you don't teach like this. (Throwing the baby out with > the bath-water.) I thought that's what you were doing? They're all going to have sex at twelve so give them condoms. > I'm not advocating we give them PTSD, man! Just arm them with a > little knowledge. Context. Who decides what info when? The board of ed? >> So we shouldn't have went to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, we should >> have just called the Saudi Royals names. Oh I got it, we should have >> sent the IL senator to use his smart power and they would have >> apologized and the world we be one big happy. > Did I say Afghanistan? I forgot, that's the good war right? > We should have used the death and destruction we suffered to achieve > more, IMO. Extracted every ounce of "counting". Iraq was part of an > agenda. fucking LAME. It's now a free country, not so lame. >>> To each their own. Some prefer war. I think it's hell. Some prefer freedom. I'm glad Saddam is no longer a threat to the US. >>> I think violence should be the last resort. >> It was > With Iraq? Yes. Wasn't it like a 10 year cease fire being violated daily until we finally just resumed an existing war? > What about "first strike"? What kind of lame-brained strategy is that? You mean first blood? Loved that movie. >>> But my point was more, "what if our terrorists were out terrorizing >>> other countries?". >> How does that play into our discussion? > The [innocent in your left eye] Saudis? So if 11 American civilians went to another country and tried to over throw it, that country should declare war on the US? That's the kind of war you think is necessary? >> Stop reading the NY Times? > I don't. But I wonder if I could stop associating with people that do. JK, it's a good paper as long as you can recognize the bias. >> Are you for war in Dafur? Is that the necessary evil? Who decides? > We do. How do we decide? Did we make a decision? > I just don't understand how you can see him as any worse, if not a > good bit better, than the last guy. I don't see how you can't. > Or, rather, I think maybe I do. Ditto :) > You don't see McCarthyism the way most people do, The coined phrase talking point? No. > you don't want Religion pushed out of government, I don't want or see religion in government. > you trust the Watchers, but not Legislature You trust the same watchers. > I mean, of course you'd like Bush43 better than a "S"ocialist > "liberal" like Obama. Obama is not a leader. He is not leading. The country is getting worse every day he's in office. > I'm a pinko liberal (anarchist, really, but that's really what we have > all the time, when you think about it, so...), of course I like Obama You're bought the slogan and refuse to admit it's not real. >> The Tea party doesn't have a leader. That's because it really is grassroots. > I think there are a *lot* of people out there who wouldn't mind seeing > a less powerful government. Not you. They should run the auto industry, the banks and now health care. What's next carbon emissions? > But there is National Security to consider. We can reduce the feds power while maintaining a strong military. > Obama is a puppet? It would be hard work just to look like you're > working that hard. Yeah, I get tired on by 18th all the time. > That's more "lube" than Bush43 gave. Wasn't he always on vacation? Never worked from that ranch of his. Rode his bike a lot I think. >> They lost there conservatism and they're trying to get it back. > They should talk to Ron Paul. ;-) Too bad he's nuts. >>> It's trickle down economics. :) >> You obviously don't understand that phrase. > I freely admit that I don't see the logic. Abstractly, sure, but in > application? It's been worse than the attempts at socialism. Make it easy to start and run a business. More businesses will be created. They will hire people. The business and the people will pay taxes and buy goods. Not so complicated. Make it difficult and expensive to start or maintain a business and businesses will stop expanding, won't buy more goods or pay more taxes. > Give the banks a lot of money, don't regulate them, because it's in > their best interests to loan it right back out. The banks being forced to make bad loans backed by the government has nothing to do with trickle down economics. It's trickle up poverty. > Rich people stay rich by investing their money. (Let's ignore the > concept of "interest" for now, o.k.?) Not everyone that is rich was born rich. We're talking about starting and expanding businesses not John Kerry's portfolio. >> I only defend the parts you attack. > I wasn't attacking the Tea Party, I was attacking the Tea Party > seeming to attack health care more than fiscal responsibility in > general. Health care was the largest abuse of fiscal irresponsibility that was the straw that broke the camel's back. There's a lot more abuse right now but Health care make the headlines. I think because people like you think people against it also like to kill kittens and push old ladies in wheelchairs down stairs. > You can't deny that there's a partisan element to this whole deal. You mean because they're against the liberal spending blitz? You got me there. > The Tea Party hasn't been exactly courting Democrats why telling the > Republicans to get off their jock. They've been influencing the GOP races to be more conservative. Not sure that's even an option with the party line voters across the isle. > With the current Republican party make-up, there's that whole > religious string attached. I think there are a lot of > constitutionalists who are turned off by the whole "stop pushing > religion out" mentality. True, but you get their vote and ignore the nutty requests. They won't switch sides. >>> It's just a piece of paper, really. >> You do know Bush never said that right? > Oh, if only reality were so cut and dry. :-) > Big Lies are their own truth. Crazy, right? So are facts but they don't matter to some. >> Protecting Poland is being fiscally responsible. You need to look at >> long term costs of another world war. > WWI, the war to end all wars. Wasn't that the Great War? > Why not. I like chess! We should play next time I'm driving through your state. >> Let's say you <add> really really </add> like your house but would >> think it would be helpful to have another bathroom. > I don't think it's about liking, it's about infrastructure. > Sometimes adding a bathroom isn't just adding a bathroom. So better to always knock down and start over because you never know. What if the new structure was inferior? Maybe it was built with Chinese drywall. > That said, why not reform the health care stuff versus repeal it? It's too far reaching. They will try to reform it once it's repealed. > It's similar to the weather, and yet people think we have all this > control over it. We don't even understand the effects of our > "control", IMHO. But we can review history and get a broad idea. We know everything going on now is NOT working. That is obvious right? >> You mean cutting taxes, which in turn generated more tax revenue, and >> then spending that new money? Sounds like pay as you go. > You make it sound so easy! It's really not that complex. >>> No new tech gadgets in years. Last big buy was 2 grand for a TV, 2 years >>> back. >> That's a lot of money. > I was doing my part for the War. You sent money to Japan to support the war? >> Wouldn't you prefer to fix the system rather than let the government >> take it over and decide what care you deserve? > > It wasn't fixing itself. Seems like we require a lot of hype to affect > change. The could have done incremental changes. Look at how well these same people helped out in the gulf. You sure you want them running health care? > I'm bummed things worked out as they did, as far as the money goes. I > wanted to spend a good chunk of it on Alagad. Who knows what might > have been... alas. > > Ah well. Somehow it will all work out for the best; it always does. Time will tell. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:321924 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
