 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Jeri Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:06 PM I'd say Clinton inherited the debt from Bush (and Reagan, but the chart doesn't go back that far) and it decreased until it was zeroed out sometime 1997 - 1998, when a surplus began growing. The problem, in my opinion, is also (as GUEST,999's) the two parties are so busy re-enforcing their political identities and sticking to "What makes a good Dem/Repub" that they can't see that extremes just don't work. Don't tax and spend like crazy, then spend some more doesn't work, and tax (mostly the wealthiest) and spend doesn't work... well it DOES work, but it sure pisses off people who don't want it to work or don't like that it does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,999 Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:07 PM Right on, PDQ. I haven't read the chart but lemme say this, because it ain't rocket surgery. When I was a kid jujubes were four for a penny. Today they cost near 4 cents EACH, if ya get a really good deal. Prices are rising. Economics 101. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Jeri Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:16 PM Just the jpg of the chart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: GUEST,999 Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:20 PM I sit corrected. Thank you. However, before anyone bronzes Clinton, I know for fact he didn't do shit about the price of jujubes. THAT'S the sign of a good leader. imo. And he along with his peers failed to do so. A pox on both their houses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Jeri Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:26 PM NOW there's a TAX on Jujubes! (Seriously, a "sugar tax".) I think that's probably Obama's fault. I know where I can get some that... uh... fell off a truck, if you really need some. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:33 PM The last time the US Federal Government took in more money than it spent was 1959. Book keeping that some people call "clever" has been used to keep the public thinking otherwise. fact: It does not matter that a dollar is "off budget", it is still a dollar that the government spent and it still goes on the National Dept which our children will have to pay. The federal budget has been made to look better than it really is by several dirty tricks, one of them is stealing the excess money collected for Social Security and spending it, returning to the SS fund a huge pile of IOUs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:39 PM The last time the US Federal Government took in more money than it spent was 1959 You betcha, PeeDee! and if the income tax schedule was restored to what it was in 1959- before the Reaganite/BuShite tax cuts for the rich- it would be taking in more than its spending today. Put that in yout TeaBag & smoke it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:43 PM A tax on sugary drinks has been proposed. Increases the cost of Rum and Coca Cola! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM 1959 to 2010... 51 years. Let me see.. How many years of that did the Republicans control the Congress? And how many did the Democrats? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq Date: 13 Oct 10 - 06:22 PM This article does a reasonable job of explaining... The Myth of the Clinton Surplus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 13 Oct 10 - 09:38 PM The entire argument comes down to how the wealthiest country in the world creates a moral and civilized society... Do we do it with "govern"ment??? Or do we do it by letting the corporations, driven exclusively by profits, run the show??? Those are the two choices... Of course, the corporations are spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to create enough of a smokescreen so that this question can not be framed in such a simple manner... But that's what this is really all about, folks... Nuthin more and nuthin' less... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Oct 10 - 10:13 PM "Whatever pill that you took to get there you should continue taking... *grin* " Ain't no pill. It is being able to see through the bullshit and the way we are being manipulated. People say the corporations are controlling people to buy what they want them to buy. People have control over the corporations by buying what THEY want to buy. You are tired of manufacturing shifting to China? Don't buy the Chinese stuff. People need to be taught how to see through the advertizing that manipulates them like in first grade. Buy a happy meal get a toy. Eat froot loops. Wear Barney socks. Then the dumbass parents buy it to keep JR happy. If people didn't fall for the advertising, it would not work and the advertizing would go away. So you get them in the pocketbook. Lawyers and lobbyists can't work around it. Crooked politicians can't get around it. They would have to provide what we want not what they make us think they want. Yes, we have perfect control but not the willpower like overeating, smoking, drinking too much and spending more than we make. I often ask my wife, a teacher Why don't they teach kids about stuff like the credit card trap and how credit card companys lure young people in and try to keep them under their 18%+ fees for everything they buy. She can't answer because they are busy teaching them other, more important stuff so they can pay that 18%. To me, how to avoid being manipulated is the most basic thing we need to know |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Oct 10 - 10:21 PM PS: I saw a jerk on Link TV giving a lecture on using tribalism to get what you want. I wonder if he gets paid for that? I wonder if Link TV is a corporation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 13 Oct 10 - 10:47 PM Just about all media these days is corporate pablum... When we first started broadcasting, for instance, there was an attitude that we all owned a share of the public airwaves... And we had strict rules on how they could be used... The corporations back then were motivated less by profit and more by the joy of broadcasting... We actually had a Federal Communications Commission, which was supposed to be an apolitical oversight board and things worked fine until one day Boss Hog woke up and said, "Hey, if I just could own a lot of these licensed broadcasting stations I could consolidate labor" and make more money"... Well, long story short, Boss Hog also figured out that if he owned enough of these broadcasting stations that he could use them to manipulate public opinion??? And his buddies likes that, too, because they could use Boss Hogs media to manipulate public opinion on lots of different fronts... That is what we have today... Boss Hog has packed the FCC with "Yes-men" and consolidated most of the media within a small circle of himself and his buddies and they have never had it so good... Heck, when the Dixie Chicks made a comment about Bush wanting to invade Iraq it was the very next day that Boss Hog had his manipulated masses breaking Dixie Chick records in streets all across the country?!?!?!?.... I mean, what ever happened to "all" of US owning those airwaves and the days when those airwaves were used to entertain us and inform US rather than propagandize US??? The "liberal media" is the BIGGEST of all the BIGASS LIES... It doesn't exist... It is just part of Boss Hog's distraction to keep US from seeing just how much control he has of the entire deal... It is a smokescreen... It is pure bullshit... Until media is returned to the people this is what we are going to have... Corporate ownership of the discussion, the ideas, the agendas and purdy much everything... I mean, yeah... It's great to try to teach kids kids to do right but it's an uphill battle as kids are being bombarded with the corporate fight song from birth... The corporations want kids to get credit cards... They are "profitable"... Hey, if a couple hundred thousand kids drop outta college because they are buried in debt every year, so what??? Right??? That's what Boss Hog want's US to think... We are being fed a steady diet of what Boss Hog wants stuck in our brains... Not a whole lot different from the steady diet of shit that Boss Hog wants Us to eat... Kinda explains why we have the highest obesity rates in the industrialized world... Well, our brains ain't far behind in obesity... Not mine, thank God, but the population on the whole has some very defective thinkerators... BTW, that "jerk" on TV, Sawz, is one of the thousands of Boss Hog's corporation propaganda peddlers... Almost the entire media is made up of Boss Hogs shills... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Oct 10 - 05:06 AM Well, there are many Boss Hawgs, Bobert, not just one. It's a complex situation. There are a very large number of these grossly manipulative advertisers out there working for a very large number of huge commercial concerns, and their collective influence on our governments and lawmakers is massive. It's dominating the agenda, it's dominating the media, and it's dominating most people's lives. As Sawzaw points out, people have the power in their own hands to defeat these entities by not letting themselves BE manipulated, but most people aren't really aware they have that power...or they're too distracted...or they're too lazy and self-indulgent to take up the potential power they have and use it...or they're just confused. It's time that people here on this forum...and in society in general...stopped letting themselves by maneuvered into an "us and them" mentality and driven to these polarized opposite positions that the media concocts (like "liberal" and "conservative", for instance)....and actually listened to one another's deep concerns for a change rather than demonizing and attacking one another and hurling personal insults. Agreed? We are not stereotypes. We are not the monsters that we carry around in our political anxiety closets. We really DO essentially all want the same basic things. We want people to be happy and prosperous. We want people to be safe and to get good health care. We want truth in advertising and honesty in government. We want employment in good jobs for those who need work. We want justice and fairness. We want transparency. We want the truth. Agreed? Let's try, for goodness sake, to understand and respect one another instead of letting ourselves by constantly manipulated into hating and dismissing one another by the few greedy marketing forces at the top of the power pyramid whom you characterize as "Boss Hawg". Don't let them win by turning us against each other and causing us to waste our energy in personally attacking each other when we all truly want a better life for humanity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:19 AM You are speaking for yourself, LH, and not someone who has has been raised on propaganda... Our generation may be the very last one that was taught/allowed to think... Thinking kinda comes naturally to us but is foreign to kids being brought up in a highly propagandized world where rote memory is being pushed over critical thinking in our schools... So, yeah... On one hand you are correct but on the the other perhaps giving too much credit to those who you admit "aren't really aware they have the power" to make the changes necessary to bring about "justice and fairness"... As for this forum, I have tried over and over to discuss policies and ideas and been met with "prove this" or "sources please" and when I engage on that request the threads get bogged down into disputes over stupid stuff that is no longer about policies or ideas but one right winged blogger's, who BTW may be getting paid by Boss Hog to do nuthin' but twist stats, views after anothers... This seems to be a purdy predictable way that those here on the right deal with policies and issues that they have no interest in discussin'... These diversionary tactics seem to always produce the same gridlock... And seems that they are always initiated by the same people with the same agendas... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq Date: 14 Oct 10 - 10:23 AM Presidents are held accountable for deficits on their watch. For Reagan, that would be from 30SEP1981-1OCT1989. That period shows an increase in the National Debt of $1.8 trillion Billy Clinton is held responsible for his eight years which covered 30SEP1993-1OCT2001. That period shows a rise in the National Debt of $1.4 trillion The main difference is that Clinton's minions get away with calling a $1.4 trillion dollar defecit an $81 billion surplus. Can somebody explain how that is allowed to go unchallenged in the mainstream news media? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: pdq Date: 14 Oct 10 - 10:50 AM Oh, by the way, the 2010 Fiscal Year ended on 30SEP2010 and, using correct (not doctored) accounting, the National Debt rose... $1.6411 trillion That is for one year!!! Reagan took eight years to run that much red ink and the biased news media have bashed him for that mistaket for the last 25 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Oct 10 - 10:57 AM Yes, I know well of that gridlock of which you speak, Bobert. I also know that it will never end.... (smile) ...because that's the way people are. Most really prefer talking to listening. While someone else is talking, they are not really listening to him or her, they're working on the next thing THEY are going to say instead. They're listening to the voice in their own head rather than to the other person, and that makes them unreasonable. This is true in 3-D life too. I have come to a point where I can regard all that with a certain amount of equanimity and be fairly much at peace with the fact that there are always going to be a lot of soreheads in this world, and that other people are NOT necessarily going to see something the way I see it, and there's not much I can do about it. (shrug) Okay. That's life. Why let it drive me crazy? I will try to get along with people in any case, state my view, and accept the fact that others may see it differently...without letting that turn them into my personal "enemies". If I can manage that, then I save myself a lot of stress, right? Having enemies doesn't help me in any way. The reason most people defend their views so strenuously is simply this: their views are part of their own personal identity, and they are very quick to defend their personal identity. If you go to the heart of their personal identify you will find that they, like you, genuinely do want a better and happier world for humanity. But they are usually focusing on it from some other angle, depending on their personal history and background which has shaped the way they see things. In other words: "Peace, brother!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Donuel Date: 14 Oct 10 - 12:15 PM Being manipulated is not an evil when it is done for the good. The most glaring examples of manipulation like Glen Beck and all the talking heads of FOX ranges from amateurish to expert. Colin Powell held a little vile in front of the UN in an act of wrold wide manipulation. Making policies that hide the truth or limit expression are examples of evil manipulation. Also: Tear, Redefinitions, rewriting history, opposite facts, frosting an issue with religion, emotional outbursts and repetition repetition repetition are the calling cards of right wing manipulation. Humor and facts are the basic manipulation tools of the left. What is missing from this approach is the emotional outburst and repetition. As a hypnotist I would suggest ramping up repitition and emotional presentations and even factual fear to the hilt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Donuel Date: 14 Oct 10 - 12:22 PM sawz kudos for the change in tone and reason, be it from understanding or a pill. Doug R. thank you for paying for my common defense, mortgage, handicap disability, food and energy needs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Donuel Date: 14 Oct 10 - 12:24 PM also the roads, water, schools, police, fire department, center for disease control and 4th of July parties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 14 Oct 10 - 12:38 PM Be more than happy to "listen" to people who have real thoughts, LH... But if all they are doing is regergitating bumper sticker policy position propaganda, count me out... You can't have a discussion with someone who is eat up ignorant... "We want our country back", "Obama is trying to take our guns", "We want freedom" are ***not*** policy positions... PDQ's rightie stats about "deficits" are not helpful because they are crafted by paid statisticans to to twist information into soethging it clearly isn't... I mean, I'll talk policy as long as we are dealing will facts rather than bullshit... I can smell right winged corporate bullshit a mile away... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Oct 10 - 12:38 PM And the public libraries. And the conservation areas and parks. All achieved through taxation. All achieved by socialism, without which it is simply impossible to even have a modern and functioning society. We (at least in the USA) need a new understanding of a few basic words in the language. "socialism" is one of them. The word socialism is constantly misused by American politicians and pundits for propaganda purposes in order to scare people who have, it seems, little or no idea of what socialism actually is. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. It is a normal social thing that takes care of certain societal necessities that can't be taken care of in any other way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 14 Oct 10 - 01:59 PM "when it is done for the good." Who decides that? Which tribe? News flash to Bobert: Link TV bills itself as being untainted by corporations. They regularly air the "documentary" movie about how evil corporations are. Boss Hogg is a Democrat, on yer side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Amos Date: 14 Oct 10 - 02:03 PM Let's not get all loosey goosey about the word socialism, LIttle Hawk. There is a world of diffwerence between socialism as the word is used to describe the form of government, and the word as used to describe the socially compassionate attributes of a republican form of government. The key difference is the ownership of themeans of production, which in a democratic republic is private ownership. A socialist country owns the factories, mines, and utility plants. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 14 Oct 10 - 03:03 PM Please use "socially compassionate" in a sentance. Mugger on the street: "Please be socially compassionate and hand over your wallet before I blow your fucking head off." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Oct 10 - 03:33 PM What you are speaking of is "all-or-nothing" socialism, Amos, and it is precisely that interpretation of the word that I object to, Amos. I believe in a system that embraces both socialism and capitalism, using each in the areas best suited to them, and doing so through a democratic and representative form of government with a strong set of civil rights enshrined in law. That is basically the system already in place in most of the western world, the only problem being that the major banks and major corporations are not being properly regulated at present, and they have a degree of influence which they should not have over public policy. They also OWN the mass media outlets! Words are tricky. Words can be used to confuse and misdirect. The only way to avoid being misdirected by a word such as "socialism" is for the one using the word to be allowed to fully explain exactly what he means when he's using it. And that requires a patient listener, right? I have explained what I mean when using it. Are most TV watchers patient listeners? Is patient listening being encouraged by the mass media? Are patient explanations given proper air time? I think you know the answer to those questions! ;-) "No." Obama is a very patient explainer, but he's talking to a public that is mostly unaccustomed to patient listening, because it requires far too much mental effort! On top of that, Obama's sitting in the belly of the beast there in Washington. Because of that, I fear that he is very restricted in what he can really do, despite having the best of intentions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Oct 10 - 03:48 PM By the way, when it comes to owning the means of production in a country...that is, the factories, the mines, and the utility plants, I would be in favour of most of them being owned privately. By "most", I mean probably at least 95% of them. I do, however, think it is wise if the largest public utilities, such as Hydroelectric power, for example, are publicly owned and regulated...or at least partially so, so that people can choose either one or the other. In Canada, for example, we have a publicly owned broadcasting outlet (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - CBC) alongside thousands of privately owned radio and TV stations. People can choose to listen to one or the other or both. When they choose CBC radio (which many do) they get a radio program with NO advertising, and with all kinds of wonderful information and art programs and great music that you CAN'T get on the privately owned stations, because it's not deemed profitable enough! This is a very good alternative for listeners, and people can choose for themselves what they like to listen to. That's democracy! Again, as you see, I am not speaking in "all-or-nothing" terms when I speak of socialism. All-or-nothing approaches are usually detrimental to a society, in my opinion, and they are usually embraced by political fanatics, not by democratically motivated individuals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: DougR Date: 14 Oct 10 - 04:02 PM Donuel: You are welcome. Pdq: You answered your own question: because the mainstream media is biased to the left. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Greg F. Date: 14 Oct 10 - 04:29 PM ...the mainstream media is biased to the left. Ah, Douggie, you old asshole, you - you mean like Fox news and the Wall Street Journal perhaps? The shibboleth of the "Left Wing Media" tho dear to the hearts of the mindless right since Tricky Dick Nixon is complete and utter bullshit. But what else would one expect from ol' Douggie-boy? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 14 Oct 10 - 05:11 PM Hey, if being a socialist is not having yer danged credit card hit every time you rive out of yer driveway, havin' a cop stop someone from robbin' you, having fire department put out yer fire then count me in... In other words, "Privatize this!!!" B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Oct 10 - 05:25 PM You don't have to be either "a socialist" or "a capitalist", you just have to be a free thinking human being who is flexible enough to see the good in both socialism AND capitalism, and to see how to use both to create a decent and prosperous society. The Right and the Left will forever bitch about how the media are mainly serving the purposes of the other side. And the media take delight in reinforcing those divisive attitudes, because it fuels conflict, causes controversy, and that draws in more listeners. People are attracted to controversy. The media in the USA, however, are on average so much farther to the Right than the media in Canada or western Europe, that for someone to complain that they are serving "the Left" verges on the utterly absurd. ;-D Be that as it may, people believe what they wish to believe, don't they? And that depends mainly on their past cultural background, not their powers of reason or objectivity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Bobert Date: 14 Oct 10 - 07:51 PM Oh, bull, LH.... The right has had control of the media since they convinced the FCC to allow one company to own 1100 radio stations... Who owns these stations, LH??? Poor people??? Middle class working people??? Black people??? Muslims??? Liberals??? Get real!!! You ain't runnin' for no office so you can get that Melba Milk Toast crap and stuff it... It's 100% Prime Bullshit... There was a time in the 60s and 70s when you cold have argued that point and maybe had a leg to stand on... These days the media is owned 100% by the corporatists who don't like regs... That means they don't like liberals... Like I said, "Get real"... Come on over the bridge to the millenium... It won't hurt... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Unpopular Views of Obama Administration From: Sawzaw Date: 15 Oct 10 - 10:43 AM Salt LAke Tribune "Rep. Jim Matheson signed a letter to the White House on Tuesday requesting a personal meeting to urge Obama to "reverse a decision" by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to cut next year's CUP funding... ...said he would be happy to help the White House find wasteful spending elsewhere, while insisting that the CUP must be finished for taxpayers to see a return on their spending.The law is explicit: cutting this funding won't save taxpayers one dime, since the federal share is paid back with interest by Utah water users, If no water is delivered, then Utahns won't have to pay, and hundreds of millions of dollars will have been wasted." Federal taxpayers already have pumped $450 million into the project, money the delegation argues would be paid back if the government continues to fund the six-unit project, which eventually will bring water from eastern Utah's Uinta Basin to the Wasatch Front's Bonneville Basin. So far, the project has funneled water as far as Strawberry Reservoir. A final segment would bring it through a massive tunnel to a finished pipeline linking it to a water-distribution network along the Wasatch Front." We need turtle tunnels not water tunnels for humans. Only turtle tunnels save or create jobs. |
|
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 |
|
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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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 - 08:49 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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~ |
.jpg){kind=link}