 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 19 Oct 10 - 02:04 AM Hey LH, When ever you get up on your high horse about how much better Canada is better than the US, I remind you about the things you keep forgetting. It seems to me that you are representing Canada with your comparisons. Would you like it if I kept bringing up how Canada is inferior to the US in some respect? I have complimented the things I consider better in Canada. I have agreed with you whenever possible. I have been through Canada to Alaska and back. I have been all around Nova Scotia and the Canadian side of the great lakes Gaspe, Toronto, Monteral Quebec. I would like to go all the way to Inuvik and Moose Factory one day. If you want to claim I am stalking you go ahead. If I go back and find where you have claimed Canada to be superior in some aspect I guess you think that is stalking. To me it is showing someone how wrong they are. At least you don't hurl personal insults at me like Bobert does. I say when I agree with Bobert. I say when Bobert is wrong and how he is wrong and present the facts. He lights up stink bombs like "redn**ks are disgusting little hypocrits" and dares anybody to prove him wrong. Then when someone proves him wrong he gets into an ad hominem attack mode rather than to counter with anything factual. I am not a tribalist. I see the right and wrong things in everybody. I go by facts and things that exist. Reality. Not facts based on scenarios about Cartoon characters or dead actors or movie fiction. Is that a problem? I originally came here looking for lyrics for songs to sing around the campfire and I noticed all this crap about Bush is Hitler which drew me in. I state my opinion and am immediately attacked as being a Bush supporter. A hated individual. Every time I criticize Bush it is ignored. People here just have an agenda and they do not want to hear anything from anybody that disagrees. That is not the way society works. It is the way that society does not work. It is the way society breaks down into "us or them" "there is no wat we are ever going to get along with them so will will just have to fight and overpower them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Oct 10 - 10:41 PM What exactly would you like me to do, Bobert? ;-) (Keep in mind that I live in Canada, I am happy to be here, and I have no intention of moving back to the USA...I was living there once for ten years, don't wish to return there again!) Whatever it is you would like me to do, though, keep in mind that I do not do what other people want me to do, I do exactly what I want to do. But I'm just curious if you had something you'd rather I was doing, so I thought I'd ask what the heck it was... I do realize that you are facing a lot of totally aggravating shit down there during this Congressional election, and I sympathize, believe me. I also empathize. It's a pity your election campaigns aren't limited, as ours are, to only a 6 week period (if I remember right...I think it's 6 weeks). There's a lot less time here for the unscrupulous in political parties to promote hatred and engage in dirty politics, cos our campaigns are so much shorter in duration than the American campaigns, and that's regulated by Canadian law. Sawzaw is stalking me too, by the way...on just one specific issue. He keeps pretending that I am representing the whole nation of Canada when I speak and being some kind of official spokesman and defender for it. I'm not. ;-D I represent me, period. My opinions are not the offical or unofficial views of Canada, they are the private personal opinions of me. I regard the Canadian government as a big disappointment and an embarrassment, frankly...but it could be worse!!! Way worse. So I count my blessings that it isn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 18 Oct 10 - 07:31 PM BTW, again... Both Dr. King and Ghandi knew when it was time to step up to the plate... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 18 Oct 10 - 07:29 PM BTW, that last reference about my favorite art teacher being fired for being a Jew was in reference to one of my favorite painters, Paul Klee, who was indeed fired for being a Jew... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 18 Oct 10 - 06:50 PM This has nuthin' to do with Swaz. LH... Heck, he has staslked me from one website to another... He has quoted stuff that I have said on other websites... That is called cyber-stalkin... I mean, this is about policies... I believe that government best represents the interetss of the working class... Right now, the Dems seem to be the only party that has any interest in trying to creat a levl playing field... The Repubs are 100% in Boss Hog's pocket... They have resisted every concievable piece of legioslation that would benefit the working class and are trying to overturn the largest step forward for the working class since Medicare in trying to undo a bill that would deal with 50 million people without health insurance... Is it the best bill??? No... Will it help our country become more competitive and lower health costs??? Yes... That is a policy... Now Obama finally has done something that Bush never did in 8 years and that is lower the annual deficit... He should be applauded by all... But the Sawz think that using the vast cash that the right has to twist and distort is the way to go rather than say, "nice start"... That is policy... Hey, I don't give a rat's ass if it's bb or pdq or Kent ot Sawz... I don't give a rat's ass if a Dem, a Repub, a Bull Mooser does something right they are going to get credit from me for doing it... This year is the year of the lie and the Repubs have mastered it... You should hear the nightly baombardment of Dems on the TV paid for by who knows... Major attacks, too... And 100% lies... Am I angry??? Were the folks angry when the Nazis came for their friends... Heck yeah, I am... The Republican Supreme Court has been involved in the hteft of one elcetion and just so they won't have to be caught in that trick-bag again they have become legislators and opened up a clear path for the corpoartions to own every Congressman or woman out there... This has nuthin' to do with Sawz... Might of fact, I don't give art's as about Sawz... Or the other corportists here except beardedbruce who is my friend... It's all about telling the truth, trying to dispell the myth and the misonformation that Boss Hog is propagating and hoefully gettiong folks to see that it is about policies... If we can't discuss policies then we are indeed lost but Sawz won't do that... He will bring up stupid stuff that I said on another website 5 years ago rather than to get into a policy discussion... Fuck Sawz... In spite of what you think or he thinks, it ain't about either of you... Its about how we create a more just nation where rednecks don't teach their kids to harrass other kids who are different, where people have a right to the "pursuit of happiness' and where the corpoarte pigs don't win 100% of the time... Yes, I'm pissed... I would have been pissed had I been a German in 1933 and my favorite art teacher was fired because he was a Jew... These aren't times for sitting in the middle contemplating rocks... B~ It's about |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Oct 10 - 06:12 PM Absolutely!!! ;-D Only we have 5 parties to play with up here, which is more fun in some ways, and it spreads the hostility around more ways too, which means we're under less stress over it. The worst possible setup for national stress (short of a dictatorship) is a 2-way party split right down the middle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 18 Oct 10 - 06:04 PM LH, You mean that Canada has the same level of government that the US has- The best than money can buy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Oct 10 - 06:00 PM Sounds to me like you are just clinging negative emtions, searching high and low for something to fight about with Sawzaw (or someone else on the "right"), Bobert, and you are miffed that I'm attempting to be a peacemaker. I am NOT evenly balanced between Right and Left. I'm very much to the Left, as you know, and I do NOT stand on the sidelines, I speak out, but that doesn't stop me from recoginizing some good points that I may share in common with ANY person I'm talking to, regardless of what side of the political line they are on. (I share a great deal in common with you, and less with Sawzaw...but still a goodly amount.) I can see the good in other people whom I disagree with, but you get annoyed when I point it out. Well, I can take that, cos they got mad at Gandhi and Martin Luther King over that too! ;-) And they got mad at Jesus, because he loved EVERYONE! Your experience of love and respect starts with you, Bobert. Just like it starts with me or anyone else. If you wait for the rest of the world to change first and wait for them to extend the first kindness and understanding to you, you might wait for a loooooong time, brother. They might be just as stubborn as you are about it. You might wait forever. I agree wholeheartedly with your final comments about corrupt election financing. Yes, that is the problem. The elections are bought and paid for in advance for by the richest in the land...and that goes for sure regardless of whether it's a Democrat or a Republican who gets elected. Both those parties are bought and paid for, as are all our Canadian political parties...by the richest in the land. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 18 Oct 10 - 05:39 PM You are projecting again, Swaz... I mean, when you get bored you find threads that have long been gone, resurrect them with new and im unimproved Saws-attacks on me... Hey, I'm a counterpuncher... You don't punch at me and you won't get punched back... Pure and simple... Until you quit yer little ballgame then expect incoming 'cause I ain't gonna take yer crap and not fire back... And, LH... You ain't this all knowin', all seein' innocent bystanding sayer of wisdom... You don't mind gettin' on that both side's horse and riding it... Problem is that there are times when standing on the sidelines ain't the right thing to do... Like in Germany in the 30's... I mean, what we have here ain't about Dems and Repubs as much as the wholesale theft of the American democracy... Yeah, in this election that means that money is going to the Repubs in amounts that have never been seen... maybe you think all is fair in love, war and politics and choose not to stand up and say, "Man, this is fucked up... The Repubs have a news network that blairs Repub propaganda 24/7 that is very much not how he "public'airwaves were ever intended to ne used... You have a Supreme Courth that has decided that corporations are no entities but people and are throwing hundreds of millions diollars secretly attacking every Democrat in the country and then you have the RNC... The Dems have the DNC and maybe $10M for labor unions... I mean, given that the candidate that spend the most wins 90% of elections it is wrong for anyone to say "Both sides are guilty and should play nice"... I mean, there are times to sit on the sidelines... This ain't one of them... I don't give a rat's ass if you don't like Dems or Repub or whoever... We have a seriouasly flawed system of financing elections and it has come down to one side getting so much corporate cash that is isn't really an election anymore... It is a purchase... There hasn't been anything like this since maybe the 1890s when the robber barons tried to buy the government... Looks like this time they are going to pull it off... B~ B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 18 Oct 10 - 02:48 PM Anybody who brags on their accuracy should care if what the said was right or wrong. Anybody except a blowhard that is. "no brag just fact" Yer doin' a heckuva job keeping the location of the Lake Pontchartrain Dam hidden from those terrorists that want to blow it up though. "if you think both should be legal then my apologies" Again, I never said anything about what should be. Keep on saying what I want or what I said without quoting me. I can play the same game if you want. You keep slipping farther away from reality. I try to find something I agree with in what you say and I say so when I can find it. However you do the opposite. Apparently think that disagreements are better and more constructive than agreements. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM Try to stop seeing each other as the classic "liberal" or "conservative" cultural stereotype that bounces around in your imagination, and you'll do much better at communicating clearly with one another... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 18 Oct 10 - 12:46 PM Leased/bought??? Who cares, Sawz??? Bottom line, it was a used plane... I really don't get yer fascination with this??? As fir pot and prostitution??? Hey,s if you think both should be legal then my apologies... If not, then you think the mean ol' gov-mint should be engaged in enforcing prohibition laws... One or the other... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 18 Oct 10 - 11:51 AM Bobert: "You want the government to go out and bust pot smokers and protitutes" You can knock it off with the I sad bullshit Bobert. If somebody did that to you you would be yelling BIGASS LIE. If you want to claim I said or I want something, quote me. Again let's go by facts. Bobert: "Sawz don't do reality" Bobert: "That's what Obama did... He bought a "beater", refurbrished it the best he could and over a hundred people been flyin' on that sumabich ever since" Not your kind of reality Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Oct 10 - 11:01 AM The primary REAL purpose of any political party power structure is to maintain and enlarge its power. That's what wrong with the idea of political parties, and that is what makes them corrupt. They seek power, first and foremost, and they do it by attacking competing parties in any way possible...fair or foul. That's what you see happening. Your media sources and pundits mostly encourage that divisive process. The best thing that could possibly happen would be to abolish all political parties from here on in, have only independents run for public office, and form a legislature from those elected independents after the election. They could then elect from amongst themselves a president, and a vice president...whoever they collectively decided was best for those jobs...in a free vote of all elected members. Legislation could then be proposed by any seated member, discussed and debated by all seated members, and voted upon. This would be a far more honest and responsible system than a party-based system. It wouldn't be immune to corruption...but it would be far less prone to it. Most importantly of all, it would stop dividing the public into 2 hostile factions who detest each other! And that is the major problem with your present system...it is based on hostile divisions. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I hear Americans endlessly fighting their usual partisan battles and I think, "Yeah, right. It's like listening to people on the Titanic bitching about how to arrange the deck chairs, while the ship plows on steadily toward the iceberg." We have the same problem in Canada. The political parties themselves have ruined our democracy and turned it into an unrepresentative joke that is held in contempt by the vast majority of the voters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 18 Oct 10 - 10:41 AM Well, back to "unpopular views" of the Obama administartion... Here's one that the Repubs and righties will hate: The Obama administration actually decreased the annual budget deficit for 2010 from the $1.4T that represented the budget that Bush left for 2009 to $1.3T... Now, of course, the righties won't gove Obama any credit for this and will change the subnect to use the national debt figures which don't reflect that progress... Might of fact, the righties will use every concievable accounting trick in the book to twist reality into their usual mythology... But, hey... Facts is what they are regardless of the rightie blogger cut 'n pastes that Sawz will certainly post following this encouraging bit of reality... But then again, Sawz don't do reality... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Oct 10 - 10:16 AM You're quite right, Bobert, that everyone breaks some law now and then, no matter what their pretensions are. We have all jaywalked or exceeded the speed limit or broken some other law at some time or another. That's life. Like I said, people are imperfect beings....and civil laws are imperfect also. There are cases where a civil law does not properly fit the real life situation, and everyone knows that, but cops STILL feel that they must enforce it because that's what they're trained to do. This can lead to some very silly and unnecessary situations from time to time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 18 Oct 10 - 08:16 AM Yeah, LH. but I don't speed anywhere except on the interstate where you have to... If it says 35 I do 35 (or less)... I also don't cheat on my income taxes... I mean, if the law says I can donate some piece of junk car to the Salvation Army and take a big tax deductaion I don't do it... Might of fact, I don't take any tax deductions for charities I give to... I mean, I think everyone breaks some law... Even jay-walking is illegal but people do it but, like you, I walk to the corner and cross when I'm supposed to... BTW, ya'll... Sounds as if California is going to vote to legalize pot... That is a start even if Obama says he'll bust you anyway... This is one area where the Repubs (and some Dems) will be put in an uncomfortable position... But I do undersatnd the Obama administration's position on this... I mean, it would be hypocritical on my part to support states being able to pick and choose from a menu of federal laws to enforce (or not)... I don't believe that states should be able to do that no matter what the law is... That's the kinda thinking that brought us the Civil (which it wasn't) War... Meanwhile, I will continue taking a risk... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 18 Oct 10 - 12:46 AM Sawzaw...the question of legality vs illegality is an interesting and complex one without one simple answer. On the one hand, it's simply unwise to do anything illegal...not because it's necessarily immoral or morally wrong....but merely because it puts you in danger of the forces of the law. Let me explain that. In most societies there are some laws that are stupid, archaic, unjust, and just downright wrong. Why? Well, because human beings are imperfect, and imperfect beings sometimes enact stupid, unjust, archaic laws that don't actually make any sense, but are the result of cultural prejudices or muddled thinking. That, in my opnion, is the case with the marijuana laws...just as it was once the case with the laws banning alcoholic beverages during Prohibition. In both cases you had a stupid, unjust, oppressive, and totally impractical set of laws enacted by people with good intentions, but people having no idea how foolish they were being when they passed those laws...laws which could only make the situation far worse and provide a windfall for organized crime. However....and this is a BIG however....I personally do my utmost not to break even a stupid, unjust, and oppressive law for one simple reason: NOT because I respect that law! No sir. I obey that law because I don't wish to put myself at risk of the forces of the law who are people with little imagination and little mercy. Why should I risk my own freedom by violating their stupid, unjust law???? It's far easier and wiser for me to obey it even THOUGH I know it's a stupid and unjust law. So I obey it. People are foolish to imagine that civil law is the ultimate moral authority in life. It isn't. It wasn't made by God, it was made by men, and men make mistakes. I do not worship the temporal decisions of men nor take them as gospel, but I do realize that I would put myself at unnecessary risk by breaking a stupid law, therefore I obey it even though it is asinine...as in the case of the illegality of marijuana....and also because I'm not interested in getting high anyway. But I don't imagine for a moment that the forces of the law hold any high moral ground in enforcing such an asinine law. They don't, and the law is wrong. Bobert obviously feels that he is willing to risk the illegality of smoking marijuana because he likes the stuff. Fine with me, but he is, of course, risking an entanglement with the law. That doesn't make him immoral, it just means he's facing a legal risk that I am not facing. He's not boasting about smoking grass, he just happens to like it. Fine with me. It's not a moral issue at all, it's a legal issue, and I don't care one way or the other, but I do hope he doesn't get in any trouble for it, because he's not a criminal. The law is a bunch of established cultural ideas and habits that have been written down, and cultures are often very foolish about a number of things they do. To make marijuana illegal is, in my opinion, utterly foolish, and the law that does so is a useless one that helps nobody, but only robs people of free choice in a matter where they should have free choice. It is a bad, undemocratic law, a violation of personal freedom. Period. There are some bad laws in all societies, and it behooves all men of conscience to speak out against them vigorously and work for their repeal. Your American revolutionaries knew that, and that's why they finally revolted against the English crown. Mere technical legality under any regime is not necessarily truth OR justice! Remember that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 17 Oct 10 - 07:20 PM Well, Sawz... You want the government to go out and bust pot smokers and protitutes... Right??? I mean, sho nuff sounded like that in yer post... Then I point out that the government does that... And you go "huh"??? That's what I mean... You want lots of government to enforce laws that you ***like***... That is inconsistent with the anti-government crap that you and the rightie bloggers that you post say you want??? What next is it that ya'll want the government to do fir you... Hey, here's one fir ya' to ponder... Close down all government funded schools??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq Date: 17 Oct 10 - 07:03 PM Yes, on November 2 the public will tell Obama what they think of his administration and the Congressional Democrats. I looked at a whole buncha web sites and even Dem-leaning ones concede at least 5 Senate seats. Dick Morris, architect of Clinton's re-election campaign in 1996, says Dems will lose bigtime. The American people are being insulted by the Democrat attack ads that are so vile and so trurthless that we want to send a message to the bastards who are running them. Christine O'Donnell, Meg Whitman, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Sharron Angle are all more intelligent than VP Joe "Foot-In-Mouth" Biden and they are being attacked unmercifully by the news media, showbiz activists and even by NOW. The public does not see devil horns when they look at Sarah Palin nor do they see a witch when they look a Christine O'Donnell. All these ladies are normal Americans and most of us would be proud to have any one of them represent us in Congress. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Date: 17 Oct 10 - 06:39 PM Sixteen more days and counting! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Oct 10 - 02:03 PM More reading for the economics perfesser: The Federal National Mortgage Association—FNMA or Fannie Mae was founded as an agency of the federal government as part of the New Deal in 1938. Its function was to create a secondary market for mortgages, meaning that Fannie Mae, rather than originating loans to homebuyers, would buy mortgages (and their expected payment streams) from community banks and thrifts. In 1968 Fannie Mae was transformed into a private-sector company with shareholders, and its official connection with the government was transferred to the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA or Ginnie Mae). The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) was chartered in 1970 as another government-sponsored enterprise in the secondary mortgage market; it too is owned by shareholders. The ostensible purpose of Fannie and Freddie is to promote homeownership. The two GSEs buy mortgages and bundle them into mortgage-backed securities, which are sophisticated derivatives that slice and dice the incoming monthly mortgage payments such that outside investors can (in theory) limit the risk of their real-estate investments. By providing a huge and liquid secondary market for mortgages, Fannie and Freddie make it more lucrative for others to originate mortgages. Make no mistake about it: The official mission of Fannie and Freddie is to cause banks to lend to applicants who would be rejected in the absence of government meddling. This point needs to be stressed as analysts wonder, "Why did banks make so many bad loans?" All of this raises an obvious question. How exactly do Fannie and Freddie achieve their goal of promoting more mortgage origination than would have occurred in a free market? The answer is that these GSEs enjoyed implicit—and now explicit—government backing. Until quite recently, the official position of the federal government has been that Fannie and Freddie were private companies, earning private profits to be distributed to private shareholders. No taxpayer money stood behind them. However, investors suspected the GSEs were too big and too symbolic to be allowed to fail. Consequently, investors were willing to lend money to Fannie and Freddie—by buying bonds issued by these two GSEs—at lower interest rates than these same investors would have charged a truly private firm that performed Fannie's and Freddie's operations. Because their bonds were presumably guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government—meaning the IRS and printing press— Fannie and Freddie were able to gain a huge share of their market; they directly owned or guaranteed roughly $6 trillion in mortgages. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 17 Oct 10 - 01:49 PM "more government in our lives that Sawz wants" How did you twist my words into that? You want government to control your health care and mandate people buy insurance but you accuse me of wanting it. What was Fannie and Freddie's part in that big rich man ripoff? At the behest of the Dodds and Franks in the Democrat controlled Congress they bought every shit smeared scrap of paper presented by the banks. And did they get a bail out? I never hear abut the GSE bail outs from the moral left wingers only the wall street bail outs. I didn't suck down anything except some hot home made soup and I don't own a peace pipe so I am aware of reality. Reality is tough but you need to try it sometime. Reality: The two largest housing GSEs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own and/or securitize upwards of 70% of the residential mortgage loans in the United States. In 1999, The New York Times reported that with the corporation's move towards the subprime market "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s. In 1995, Freddie Mac began receiving affordable housing credit for buying subprime securities, and by 2004, HUD suggested the company was lagging behind and should "do more." Senior and Executive Vice Presidents at the two organizations will get retention bonuses, most of which have nothing to do with performance. Fannie Mae executives will receive bonuses between $470,000 and $611,000. Freddie Mac has not yet released the exact amounts, or even a range, for their anticipated bonuses. The Freddie Mac plan pays bonuses in four installments with only the final payment having anything to do with performance. The government has invested more taxpayer dollars into the two mortgage-backers than it has into AIG. Last year, the two institutions lost about $108 billion. Unlike AIG, where the CEO has asked bonus recipients to return at least half of their bonuses, there is no such compromise at Fannie Mae. (remember that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have made large political contributions in recent years, and even our president was one of the top three benefactors while in the Senate) The CEO of Fannie Mae, Herb Allison, said in a company-wide email today, that eliminating the bonuses would jeopardize our ability to fulfill the mission the government has given us to address the housing crisis. My moral compass does not include illegal moonshine and smoking illegal pot. I don't lecture people on morality while doing illegal things and bragging about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 16 Oct 10 - 09:43 PM Well, well, well.... So now it's down to more government in our lives that Sawz wants... Hmmmm??? The boy can't seem to make up his mind if it's more government or less that he wants... I mean, what if Boss Hog woke up one day and thought that dock-sider shoes didn't quite fit into Boss Hog's plans for his perfect world??? I mean, then yo got cartels makin' 'um is Chinese seat shop and bringin' them shoes into the country on mules from Mexico... I mean, LH is right... You are being silly, Sawz... But beyond that you have no moral compass as to what government shoudl do or not do... You just and pick and choost from yer own persaonl menu what you like or don't and think that should be enough... Problem is that you don't seem to have a clue waht the word or concept of what "freedom" means if you want to set the rules to yer likin' and screw everyone else... Totally inconsistent philosophy... BTW, I'm home now... Sucked down a couple chilly ones and got reaquainted with Mr. Peace Pipe... But I ain't "shitfaced"... Maybe a little buzz from the hit of pot... As fir crime and cops... The rich stole hundreds of billions of dollars from some rather innocent people with the crappy mortgages they ***sold*** to the working class... Rather than us cops to bust folks doin' stuff where there are ****no victims**** why not spend that money going after the real croooks??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Oct 10 - 09:01 PM Yeah, me too, Sawzaw. There have got to be 10 billion different reasons why some kids turn out great and others don't. I can't possibly track them all down, but I think some of them are a result of good parental guidance (or lack of it) while others are a result of the intrinsic character of the child, regardless of the parental guidance or lack of it. Still others may be a result of societal forces around the child. We can all think of examples at either extreme. Parenting is the most complex job and the biggest responsibility in the world, in my opinion. A lot of people have children who probably shouldn't...because they're just not mature enough themselves yet. I don't know what anyone can do about that. It's just the way of the world. People like to have sex... One of the things one has to deal with and learn to accept, not just now but since the world began, is that things aren't perfect out there. Or "in here". ;-) And they never will be. That gives us something to aim for, eh? It's a good motivator. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Oct 10 - 07:48 PM LH: I have seen people with well behaved, polite and successful children. I have seen people with spoiled, lazy, children that are dead weights on society. I suppose that the children made the choice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Oct 10 - 05:30 PM Dear Mr Obama: You should have listened to the American people when you were shoving stimulus and health care reform down their throat. That's what you get for playing tribal politics. Time for the "we know what's best" elitists to wake up. API Analysts in both parties say all major indicators tilt toward the Republicans. President Barack Obama's policies are widely unpopular. Congress, run by the Democrats, rates even lower. Fear and anger over unemployment and deep deficits are energizing conservative voters; liberals are demoralized. Every day brings fresh evidence of Democratic officials virtually abandoning House members whose re-election bids seem hopeless. Republicans are expanding the field to pursue races that once appeared unattainable. In the coming week, Republicans or GOP-leaning outside groups plan to spend money in a 82 House races that they see as competitive or within reach of a last-minute upset. Democrats, desperate to hold their losses to three dozen seats, plan to run TV ads in 59 races in the remaining days. But their chief House campaign committee has recently canceled millions of dollars worth of advertising for struggling Reps. Steve Driehaus and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio, Suzanne Kosmas of Florida, Betsy Markey of Colorado and Steve Kagen of Wisconsin. They are shifting some of that money to incumbents once considered safe, such as Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva. But in a sign of the election's volatility, they also are helping viable incumbents they had expected to be trailing significantly — South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, for example. The Democrats' House campaign committee raised almost $16 million in September and has $41.6 million in the bank. That's a big fund raising advantage over the GOP's House campaign committee. But the figures are misleading because heavy spending by outside groups, which often hide their donors' identities, clearly favors Republican candidates... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Oct 10 - 04:55 PM Sawzaw - It wouldn't worry me at all if my son smoked grass. Most of the finest friends (and best people) I've known in my life have smoked grass or do smoke grass, and it didn't make any of them into bad people. I'd be quite disturbed if my daughter became a prostitute, but I'd also be quite disturbed if she did a variety of other things, like... - join the Republican Party - join the Conservative or Liberal parties of Canada - enlist in the roller derby - become a female boxer - join the army - dye her hair green and spike it - get multiple body piercings etc..... So I'd be disturbed. Fine. It would still be her decision once she reached age 18, and it would be her business as a self-governing adult, and I would have to accept it even if I didn't like it. I am not here to avoid all possible disturbances, Sawzaw, I am here to allow other people, including my children, the freedom to be whom they honestly wish to be. And what do I get in return? The freedom to be who I honestly wish to be. You betcha! I am here to govern myself, not to govern you or my daughter or my friends or the guy who lives across the street. If people don't steal, lie, assault others, commit fraud, murder, rape, bully or commit other obviously anti-social acts (most of which are listed in the 10 Commandments), then I have no bone to pick with them. They are free beings who must decide for themselves how to live. If they do not deliberately hurt someone else just to please themselves, then they are not breaking the basic laws of human morality...and civil law should not bother them. There are various collective customs we follow (such as our conventional ideas about clothing and nakedness), and that gets complicated...but it's another discussion. It's not a moral question in that case. It's a question of what people are generally used to, that's all. **** You're absolutely right about the credit cards. I have 4 of them. I get discounts on stuff through all of them, I don't overspend, and I always pay them off right on time, so they get no interest payments from me. All it takes is a little self-control. People need to realize that the power is in their own hands, and they can use these things in a way that benefits them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Oct 10 - 02:53 PM "Everybody got a credit card" So do I. Three of them. I get rebates from mine. I just got one that pays me a 3% rebate from purchases at Home Depot and Lowes. 1% on everything else. I got a $2k rebate on my Chevy pickup and my wife got $3K back on her last Pontiac. 3% on gas. All just by buying things we had to buy anyway, not crap we don't need. The secret is having the will power to not overspend and pay it off every month. Also it is much easier than buying with checks or cash and online. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Oct 10 - 02:43 PM So give us a lecture on self-righteousness. Even better lecture Bobert on self-righteousness. Would it be ok if your daughter was a prostitute? If your son smoked grass? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Oct 10 - 12:14 PM Sawzaw, you are being a silly man... ;-) Get serious. Number one: I am not a representative of the Canadian government. The Canadian government has NOT legalized marijuana and our police are also stupidly wasting their time persecuting users here. Number two: I speak for ME, not for my government. My opinions are MINE, not Canada's. Rethink the whole thing, okay? You are talking to an individual here, not a nation. Regarding prositution, it is indeed a far better idea to legalize and regulate prostitution than to keep it illegal. That has been done in Nevada and in Holland (but not in Canada) and that legalization has resulted in far less crime in regards to prostitution and far safer working conditions for the prostitutes. It has also resulted in far better medical protection for the prostitutes. It has not benefited the pimps. You cannot eliminate prostitution by bringing in laws, it will always be with us, but you can greatly improve the situation by legalizing and regulating it to protect the workers. The real crux of this matter, Sawzaw, is that you want to force other people to live the way you choose to live...to live by your ideas of what's moral and what isn't. You wouldn't like it if someone tried to force you to live their way, but you want to force them to live your way. That's not freedom, pal, that's a dictatorship according to YOUR personal tastes and your desires. I don't smoke marijuana. I don't want to. But I will not interfere with another person's freedom to do it if they like to. It doesn't hurt anyone else if they do! And I don't want to hire a prostitute. I don't need that. But if another person wants to hire a prostitute, I will not interfer with his freedom to do that or her freedom to do that work either. It doesn't hurt anyone else if they do! Things that don't hurt anyone else and that are done by the free choice of the adult person involved are NOT crimes. They are lifestyle choices. No person has a right to force others to adopt his lifestyle choices....nor to restrict others from adopting their lifestyle choices. It is only fear that motivates you to control others, Sawzaw, and it's an irrational fear....either that or it's just self-righteousness. I refer you to your Bible...Love casts out fear. And self-righteousness is a sin. Jesus showed no prejudice against prostitutes. Neither should you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Oct 10 - 11:27 AM LH: If we legalize such and such the crime will go away. Just ask NAMBLA. Pimps will disappear and become staunch members of society if we legalize prostitution. The morally superior Canadian government has that figured out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Oct 10 - 11:02 AM Sawzaw - They will do what organized criminals always do. They will shift their attention to other profit-making areas such as: prostitution, car theft, smuggling, fraud, protection rackets, crack cocaine, heroine, etc. Your point is a pointless one. I am not trying to protect organized crime....I am trying to protect the civil rights and lives and freedom of the millions of perfectly ordinary, harmless people who use marijuana and who are NOT criminals, and I am trying to HELP the cops fight REAL crime instead of wasting their valuable time on something that simply doesn't matter. Organized crime people can only be dealt with in two ways: 1. deprive them of a lucrative business opportunity (Remember the grand opportunity they were given by Prohibition? They were deprived of that opportunity when Prohibition was ended.) 2. prosecute them and imprison them with the full force of the law...but DON'T prosecute their victims in the ordinary public! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Oct 10 - 10:49 AM Ok Bobert, I apologize for accusing you of being shitfaced and stoned at your Son in law's Maw in law's house. LH: What will the murderous drug cartels do when weed is legalized and their source of income is kicked out from under them? Do they get a job and become Sunday school teachers or what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 16 Oct 10 - 10:33 AM Having any law at all against people smoking or otherwise injesting marijuana if they want to is absolutely asinine. It plays directly into the hands of organized crime, and in no way protects the public. It is repressive, dictatorial, unnecessary, ineffective, and stupid to criminalize the use of marijuana. Anyone in government who supports the criminalization of marijuana use is a damned fool, at least as applies to that particular issue. And I would like to add to that: I do NOT smoke or injest marijuana, and I have no desire to, but I don't believe in stopping other people from doing so, because in a genuinely free society that is THEIR business, not mine or anybody else's. They should also be allowed to privately grow it for their own use, because THAT is their business too. And not anybody else's. If the cops stopped worrying needlessly about people growing or smoking marijuana, they could get something USEFUL done with all the time and money they would save. If it was legal to grow marijuana at home for your own use, the big drug cartels could not make a profit from it, and they'd lose that business! ***** Bobert, you slut, I see you grabbed the 100th post! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 16 Oct 10 - 08:48 AM Actually, Sawz... Ol' Hillbilly was neither "shitfaced or stoned" last night... Ya' see, I'm staying with my son-in-law's mother-in-law's house and showing the utmost respect to her and her house... But today is our last day in NC so maybe tonight will be different tho getting "shitfaced or stoned" ain't something I engage in too often these days... Okay, may a couple beers and a *single* puff from the "peace pipe" but neither gets me either "shitfaced or stoned" so... ...guess again... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 16 Oct 10 - 01:31 AM Bobert, obviously shitfaced and stoned tonight because his supreme intelligence has been questioned and his ego bruised, is gonna love this. Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the U.S. government will "vigorously enforce" federal law against marijuana if California voters elect to legalize the drug next month. In a letter to former administrators of the DEA, Holder stated that the Department of Justice "strongly opposes Proposition 19." "If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens," Holder wrote. "Regardless of the passage of this or similar legislation, the Department of Justice will remain firmly committed to enforcing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in all states." The letter was released at a press conference Friday morning at the L.A. Sheriff's Headquarters Bureau. Sheriff Lee Baca said that his deputies will work with federal authorities to continue to pursue marijuana violations even if Prop. 19 passes. District Attorney Steve Cooley, who is running for attorney general, said that if he is elected and Prop. 19 passes, he will likely advise law enforcement agencies that the initiative is unconstitutional. In response, the Drug Policy Alliance, a pro-19 advocacy group, argued in a press release that the voters will get to decide state law. "There is nothing in the United States Constitution that requires the state of California to criminalize anything under state law," said Stephen Gutwillig, the group's California director. "If California decides to legalize marijuana through the passage of Proposition 19, nothing in the Constitution stands in the way." While marijuana will continue to be illegal on the federal level, Gutwillig predicted that the U.S. government will not have the resources to pursue marijuana violations at the local level. L.A. City Attorney Carmen Trutanich also appeared at the morning press conference, where he argued that Prop. 19 is "exactly what the cartels need." In fact, according to a recent Rand Corp. study, Prop. 19 would drive Mexican cartels out of the California market, cutting into their profits by around 2-4 percent. If the federal government does not take steps to prevent interstate smuggling, then California-grown pot could dominate the entire U.S. market, cutting cartel profits up to 23%. On Thursday, Trutanich wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte, asking the Department of Justice to seek an injunction to prevent Prop. 19 from going into effect. Trutanich also asked whether the federal government would withhold federal funding from the city for "any reason arising out of enactment of Proposition 19, such as for an alleged failure to meet our drug-free workplace obligations." In Holder's letter, which is dated Wednesday, the attorney general does not go into such specifics. He does say, however, that the DOJ "is considering all available legal and policy options in the event Proposition 19 is enacted." Awwwwwwwwww Mannnnnnnnn! That Obama is a real party pooper. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Oct 10 - 10:22 PM Yes, 5 parties is good, because as you say, it means that the power must be shared between several points of view, and no one party can easily dominate the agenda. The best thing about the present Conservative party in power is: they do not possess a majority. Thank God! They must bargain with some of the other parties to pass legislation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 15 Oct 10 - 10:12 PM Actually, LH... 5 parties is a lot better than 2 ... Makes folks do that coilition stuff... You know, talk to each other and make deals... The US is outta the compromising and deal making business... Take a super majority (60%) to get anything done that is positive (or negative)... That is a serious problem 'cause these super majorities only come around about every 40 years or so and then we get stuff like Medicare or Civil Rights and then we go another 40 years of gridlock... The problem here is that we have progressives who wiggle these super majorities once a generation and put thru stuff that, yeah, tries to redistribute the wealth back to the working class... The recent health care reform bill is one of those... Then the righties get all pissed off and throw "socialism" around as if public libraries is like Stalin or Mao-ish and get the least educated all lathered up and then its another 40 years before anything else gets passed that moves the US closer toward being a civilized nation... I guess the silver linin' is that the rednecks never quite can convince 60% of the people that their ideas make any sense so, in spite of the corporations blasting away with their propaganda, we still have at least 41% of the population that can still, ahhhh, friggin' think beyond the propaganda... But, hey, I will be the first to admit that I am gettin' a little scared that the corportist's stars might be linin' up in a manner that they just might buyout the last remnants of what used to be a constitutional democracy and we will be revisiting Germany in 1933.... I mean, progressives that I know have always been willing to find "common ground" but the righties??? Not so... They have no interest in compromise... So, yeah, I envy yer 5 parties... We are kinda screwed and even though there are a lot of progressives in the Dem party, there aren't enough and they don't have the micropphone... The US is basically screwed... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Oct 10 - 09:52 PM They're both evil parties, Sawz! ;-) Now, as for Canada, well...we have more or less 5 parties here, and I think they are all somewhat evil. It's a little hard to tell which order to rank them in, though. The most evil one is often the one that's in power, since it's easire to accomplish evil objectives when in power than when out of power. The very reasonableness of this country, though, tends to limit the lengths of evil that they can go to once in power. The present Conservative government is one of the worst we've had so far, in my opinion, but they're still not half as bad as either the Democrats or the Republicans. It would be like comparing Woody Allen to Al Capone. ;-) Bobert, you better tell Spaw about that 1-800-FART4fre thing ASAP. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 15 Oct 10 - 09:02 PM Well, sheet fire, son... Everybody got a credit card... The crdit card companies see to that... Heck, couple hundred thousand kids quit college every year 'cause of them... Boss Hog Visa is thinkin' about issuin' 'um to new borns... But firget that plastic stuff... Boss Hog Vias gonna just take the baby before it leaves the hospital and implant one of them Smart Tag thingies in the baby in case it uses the automatic door to get out of the hospital... But good news... The push/pull doors will still be free until 2016... And what about "Free Fart Fridays"??? Yup, save 'um up, folks 'cause Boss Hog Visa gonna have on Friday a month where you can really stink up the joint... Of course, in order to get your Free Fart Friday yer gonna have to sign a contract to not go with Corporate Pig Master Card for at least one year... But wait!!! If you sign up today for Free Fart Friday Boss Hog, being the benevolent hog that he is, will also throw in 2 free "silent sams" to be used in church that can be used anytime you need 'um... Sorry ya'll... Ol' hillbilly gotta get signed up quick 'cause they said this was a limited offer... BTW just call 1-800-Fart4Fre and be the envy of all of yer neighbors... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 15 Oct 10 - 08:49 PM All you flinty, sharp eyed Saints and superior people who are above the ordinary people like LH [whom I like to spar with over the sainthood status of Imperial Canada] and I, still ain't figgerd out who Jim Matheson is and who supports him. It's a real trifecta. Here we got the "good" party against the "evil" party. Turtle tunnels winning out over tunnels for people and unfair campaign financing all in one snowglobe of human turmoil. It exemplifies the futility of tribal politics. Meanwhile the media, authors and talking heads get richer off of the conflict they promote. I am going to go downstairs and heat up a can of turtle soup. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Oct 10 - 08:33 PM Hey, Bobert, what do they do if you don't HAVE a credit card to bill, call a swat team to hunt you down as a known subversive? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 15 Oct 10 - 08:31 PM "ordinary people like you and Sawzaw" Thank you Bobert. you were kidding about all that see a shrink stuff? I knew it. It is just trolling for jollies to Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Oct 10 - 07:01 PM That Smart Tag device sounds like what the corporates have been dreaming of, Bobert. Imagine...a penny a breath...10 cents for a fart...25 cents for a sneeze...10 bucks for an orgasm... I bet they've got science labs working on it right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 15 Oct 10 - 06:50 PM I don't feel I am wasting my time with Sawz, LH... I think of him as a sparring partner... And he is very good at that... lol... As for the divide and conquer??? Yeah, that ***is*** what they think they are doing and with most folks that is exactly correct... Doesn't work with e because I really don't give a rat's ass about Dems or Repubs but policies... I'm kinda a policy wonk... Of course we are now living in some very difficult times with Reaganomics dieing a slow but sure death and only the fringers like Sawz and his buddies keeping it alive thru any means necessary... But t will die... Maybe not this year but it is such a bogus economic system that even George Bush I once coined it voodoo economics 30 years ago and he hit the nail on the head... There will come a point in time when even Sawz will give up on trickle down/supply economics that milks all the wealth to the already wealthy... BTW, LH... We have something called "Smart Tag" 'round these parts... It's a little box that when you go thru the toll gates deducts money from yer credit card... Boss Hog would like these things implanted in everyone so that when you go to the park to walk yer dog you walk thru a gate and "bango"... Back yer car out of the driveway and "bango"... Take a deep breath of air and "bango"... Go up to a drinking fountain and "bango"... Get arroused and "bango" (that was a joke to see if yer paying attention...lol...)... But really... There is no end in sight to privatization... But, hey, I'm an open minded guy so hey... If they want to do that, fine... Just be sure that everyone is provided a decent paying job and all will be fine... B~ B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:34 PM Those are precisely the kind of things I am talking about when I use the word "socialism", Amos...socially compassionate and useful services which are funded by our taxes and managed by different levels of government. Things like, as you said, Public Libraries Fire Departments Trash Collection and Waste Processing Sewers Public Water Works Port Management Public Parks Management Playgrounds Schools Highways etc... Those ARE ALL forms of socialism, Amos, and they are very good forms of socialism which work extremely well in a predominantly capitalist society. You are simply being an obstreporous, nitpicking, pestiferous bandar-log when you say that they are not socialism. Be off with you, sir! Get thee hence to a Starbucks and see if you can impress the other latte-drinkers with your verbal sophistication and your sesquidpedalian adventures in obfuscation. ;-D (I say that with a smile on my face and a twinkle in my pretty brown eyes...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 15 Oct 10 - 01:02 PM Sawz: HEre are some examples of "socially compassionate" activties which are not profitable in themselves but which are NOT socialism: Public Libraries Fire Departments Trash Collection and Waste Processing Sewers Public Water Works Port Management Public Parks Management Playgrounds to name just a few. You don't HAVE to be an asshole, you know. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq Date: 15 Oct 10 - 12:03 PM Ken Salazar was a poly sci major in college and went on to get a law degree. He is a lawyer and political hack. He has no knowledge or background in conservation, science or natural resource management. He reminds me of the power-hungry Carol Browner who was a Leftist dropout from UC Brekeley. How does one person have the power to end this water project in Utah? Who gave Salazar the power to declare a 6 month moritorium on oil drilling in the Gulf? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 15 Oct 10 - 11:17 AM You must have forgotten to read my final paragraph, Bobert! Yes, the mass media chains are owned by a few fabulously rich people, and they dutifully spout the propaganda that pushes the marketing and controlling agenda of those rich people. But even more importantly, the media play the divide and conquer game all the time. They do that by constantly provoking "liberals" against "conservatives", Democrats against Republicans, Blacks against Whites, Christians against Muslims, and so on. Wherever they can find a sore point and a division, they pour salt onto the wounds and drive people into further conflict. That gets ordinary people like you and Sawzaw to waste your energy fighting with each other on some forum rather than joining together to take on the real forces that are oppressing you. Now do you get what I'm talking about? The media DO like liberals...just like they like conservatives...because without BOTH liberals AND conservatives they can't play the great divide and conquer game that disempowers all of you and lets their rich bosses walk away with the spoils. There are well known "liberal" shows and personalities who ridicule conservatives. There are well known conservative shows and personalities who ridicule liberals. You know their names and their personalities. You cheer for the ones who ridicule the other side. That's the way the nedia wants it. They do not want agreement and concord, they want conflict between ordinary people, because conflict between ordinary people moves the agenda of the rich and powerful forward every time. More police state. More security. More laws. More war. Less civil rights. More fear. More control. That's the name of the game. Divide and conquer. "You can always get one half of the poor to kill the other half of the poor for you." - Boss Tweed in Gangs of New York |
