Obama's here!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc W

Neo, I feel the same way. I wouldn't join any club that would have you as a member.

Just kiddin', but dang, I couldn't resist.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

---

Exactly.

Well, you know, there are downsides to being clubless (:wah:?).
We don't have a think-group or question-band that plays on Sunday morning.
We don't have a chart in Billboard magazine for the comtemporary form of our music which adopts the aesthetics of mainstream rock and country either.
No bingo. No softball team. We don't have radio stations.

No institutionalized perks for unmembership, that I know of, at all.
It's kind of a raw deal, now that I look at at. :wow
I don't blame you for not joining!
Hmmmpff...

You have to really want to be one of us.
Not that we're even an us or a we.

Neo, you could join the Anarchist Club since they don't really have one, or at least, they reject the idea of membership. They don't even have meetings because they can never agree on a time since they feel that a common time would be enforcing someone's idea on everyone else. Imagine an anarchist baseball league. I would pay good money for a season's ticket, if they ever had a season.

I DO like the idea of a question band. My own little Christian music group is called "Lost and Found." It doesn't imply a progression from one to the other, but a constant state of waffling. :biglaugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc W

"...a constant state of waffling." :biglaugh:

---

Mmmmm... waffles.
See?
That's another thing we don't have.
Pancake breakfasts!!!
:bonk

We Canadians put maple syrup on everything. Even women, especially after running nekkid through the snow. Try it sometime.

Anyone who can hear and read should know that Obama is far from a liberal. And it only makes sense that he is centrist. He has spent his whole life trying to fit in.

Gris, I agree. The term "liberal" has a somewhat different meaning in the US than it does here in Canada and in Europe and sometimes I use one when I mean the other, especially when talking to Americans. To be a liberal in Canada is, in fact, to be a centrist, even if that centre space sometimes shifts a little right or left. I think Obama is a liberal in the Canadian sense and, as you say, that puts him very much in the centre: to the right on some issues, to the left on others, but hopefully a politician who seeks to bring people together and seeks consensus and compromise.

I guess only time will tell.

I prefer to refer to that side as "leftists" - those who believe that the government can (and should) control ever more aspects of my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc W

Gris, I agree. The term "liberal" has a somewhat different meaning in the US than it does here in Canada and in Europe and sometimes I use one when I mean the other, especially when talking to Americans. To be a liberal in Canada is, in fact, to be a centrist, even if that centre space sometimes shifts a little right or left. I think Obama is a liberal in the Canadian sense and, as you say, that puts him very much in the centre: to the right on some issues, to the left on others, but hopefully a politician who seeks to bring people together and seeks consensus and compromise.

I guess only time will tell.

---

I think Obama is an American Liberal. Still, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and form my opinion over time.

Using your definition, I think Bush was a Liberal (Canadian style)...He was left of center on education, immigration, entitlement spending, and the financial and automotive bailouts and right of center on the war. Or maybe that just speaks of how conservative I really am.

wait......

lemme git me soapbox!

http://homeschooljourney.files.wordp...3/soap-box.jpg

Conservatism itself doesn't fail, only those who are conservative can fail, and always by not being conservative enough. Like Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc W

Neo, you could join the Anarchist Club since they don't really have one, or at least, they reject the idea of membership.

---

My friend Joe is considering organizing The Slacker Party, when he gets around to it.

Me, I think I'm a Bokononist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kap'n

My friend Joe is considering organizing The Slacker Party, when he gets around to it.

Me, I think I'm a Bokononist.

---

"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."

You must mean Bakunin.

No, Bokonon.

You say Bakunin, I say Bokonon... Bakunin, Bokono, potato, potahto...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curtisstetka

I prefer to refer to that side as "leftists" - those who believe that the government can (and should) control ever more aspects of my life.

---

Amen. Problem is first the Democratic party stood for this then abandoned it. Then the Republican party stood for it and not only abandoned it, but took it to the opposite extreme. I guess the moral of the story is we're doomed, because it seems once a party becomes powerful they want to become more powerful by installing even bigger government... :-(

I think the size of government is an overblown issue. As long as individual citizens are well off and free to do as the please within reason (so, no shooting your neighbors, giving booze to 12 year olds, selling meth, that sort of thing, but definately NOT saying people cant get abortions, do stem cell research, smoke in their own damn homes, buy a gun) it doesnt matter if that bounty is coming from the private sector, the public sector, a combination of both.

I just want obama to restore my university's funding so I can have some class choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redb

I think the size of government is an overblown issue.

---

The larger the government becomes the less it serves the people and the more people must serve the government. The founding fathers wanted to create a government that was in service to the people and the language they used is very clear on that. We have lost our way, plain and simple.

.............Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cwilliamrose

The larger the government becomes the less it serves the people and the more people must serve the government. The founding fathers wanted to create a government that was in service to the people and the language they used is very clear on that. We have lost our way, plain and simple.

.............Bill

---

That is assuming that the founding fathers were 100% correct and it is always in our best interest to follow their advice. I will admit they were very, very, very intelligent and knew a LOT, but they have been dead for 2 hundred years and the way the world works now is fundamentally different than the way it has ever been. Im not arguing either way, I would like to point out, just that we need to have ideas relevant to our times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cwilliamrose

The larger the government becomes the less it serves the people and the more people must serve the government. The founding fathers wanted to create a government that was in service to the people and the language they used is very clear on that. We have lost our way, plain and simple.

.............Bill

---

Bingo - impossible to argue with that. It's bass-ackwards. It IS supposed to serve us, not vice versa. That is a huge part of the reason why O'bama was elected (at least it was his sales pitch).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redb

That is assuming that the founding fathers were 100% correct and it is always in our best interest to follow their advice.

---

They could not foresee the need for the FDA or regulating interstate commerce, transportation or the stock market. There are some things the federal government is uniquely positioned to handle. Most of what they do does not fall into that category. I believe the federal government could be 30% of it's current size and do all we require. Anything not done at the federal level could be done locally if the people were willing to fund those things. Right now we have very little to say about what the federal government spends our money on. We (the people) need more control of our government and big government makes that impossible........Bill

Of course the Founders were not 100% correct. They were human and fallable. That's why there's a mechanism for changing the Constitution. The mechanism is deliberately slow and requires a lot of consensus to do so.

Obviously, that's been thrown out the freaking window.


I believe it makes a HUGE difference what size the government is.

More government = less freedom. What's confusing about that? The more taxes gathered, the less choices people can make for themselves. The more some government operation crowds out and destroys private enterprise, the less choices people can make.

Personally, I don't want to live as a ward of the state, where my "bounty" is doled out according to what some politician thinks is appropriate for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curtisstetka

Of course the Founders were not 100% correct. They were human and fallable. That's why there's a mechanism for changing the Constitution. The mechanism is deliberately slow and requires a lot of consensus to do so.

Obviously, that's been thrown out the freaking window.


I believe it makes a HUGE difference what size the government is.

More government = less freedom. What's confusing about that? The more taxes gathered, the less choices people can make for themselves. The more some government operation crowds out and destroys private enterprise, the less choices people can make.

Personally, I don't want to live as a ward of the state, where my "bounty" is doled out according to what some politician thinks is appropriate for me.

---

A-FREAKIN'-MEN!!!

+1000!!!

I do not think it is so cut and dry to say smaller government is necesarrily better. The argument between public and private is complicated and I think both sides have valid arguments but I will point out that I feel that this country has a long way to go before we are really in the realm of big government.

And most swedes and finns and dutch dont have a problem with their governments which are HUGE relative to ours. And most of them feel their nations are a lot more free than america. Whether they are right or not is not my concern, nor an issue I want people to get angry about. Im just saying that there are a lot of people who feel free living in a country with 70% income taxes on the highest income levels.

If you want to be a socialist you should move to a socialist country like Sweden where you can be taken care of. Then you'll see why they have such a high alcoholism rate - they are very unmotivated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gris

If you want to be a socialist you should move to a socialist country like Sweden where you can be taken care of. Then you'll see why they have such a high alcoholism rate - they are very unmotivated.

---

I didnt say they were right, just that they felt that way. Its not fair to say that they are just wrong about the way they feel just because its not the same way we think. Especially when they feel the same thing about us.

Korea is nearly twice as productive per work hour and they have nationalized health care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redb

I didnt say they were right, just that they felt that way.

---

Maybe they feel as powerless as some of us do because the government is so large they have little to say about anything.

One other thing the founding fathers said when they created the government is that it is our duty to change to a new system of government if the one we have no longer works. I feel were there now and it should be dismantled and rebuilt in the image of the original design. Of course if I got serious about doing that, they'd throw me in jail for treason.......Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redb

I didnt say they were right, just that they felt that way. Its not fair to say that they are just wrong about the way they feel just because its not the same way we think. Especially when they feel the same thing about us.

Korea is nearly twice as productive per work hour and they have nationalized health care.

---

I NEVER said they were wrong in their thoughts. Please don't put words in my mouth that aren't there. I just said YOU should go live there since you seem to be pushing socialism. This country was not created in the scheme of socialism - quite the contrary.

BTW - I am all in favor of national health care. You're wrong again about me there. See what happens when you ASS-ume things.

I rarely comment on politics.

Here's my little take,
it's far worse than politicians.
And this is one of the "behind the scenes tin foil hat scenarios" that inevitably takes place:
Big Government breeds entrenched bearuecrats <sp> that are unaccountable, unelectable, and make rules that become law by no legislation! That is the worst, ugliest aspect of big government. Nixon created many of these alphabet soup agencies, and it has grown exponentially ever since.
(He wasn't the first, by any means...FDR paved the way!).

Oh,and for the most part, kill the lobbyists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cygnus X1

Oh,and for the most part, kill the lobbyists.

---

If you took most of the functions of the federal government out of their hands and passed them to the local level, lobbyists would have a very hard time influencing policy and legislation.........Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gris

I NEVER said they were wrong in their thoughts. Please don't put words in my mouth that aren't there. I just said YOU should go live there since you seem to be pushing socialism. This country was not created in the scheme of socialism - quite the contrary.

BTW - I am all in favor of national health care. You're wrong again about me there. See what happens when you ASS-ume things.

---

First of all your ASS-ume thing is lame. Everyone knows assuming makes an ASS out of U and ME D: (I mainly meant to say that I didnt agree with them, looking back at what I wrote I can see why you would take it that way, my apologies.)

And I really take offense to that bolded remark. This is my country just as much as it is yours, if I want it to be socialist then I am free to vote for it to be so. With >75% of my generation going to college, it may turn into that, and then you will be free to leave.
Im sure people said "this is america, get out if you dont like it" to the former slaves who didnt like that they couldnt vote because of grandfather clauses. People said the same thing to people who looked at the patriot act with skepticism.

The founding fathers envisioned a country where religion had no influence, yet I dont see gay marraige because religious groups (especially the mormons with the recent prop 8 thing) overwhelmingly dont want it.

You're right, Kap'n. Bokonon. I had forgotten my Vonnegut.

The big trouble with American politics today (besides all the rancor) is that any elected national official has to spend about 60% of the time raising money. That's what they do all day.
And you know what that leads to -- a lot of whoring out to big-money interests.
I felt that this is just what happened over the last 12 years.
A lot of the crises we've got now are because some cutie-pies got in there and changed the laws and various policies. Sub-prime mortgages? All the brokerage laws?
Even the oil crisis -- that little event that wiped out Detroit in one summer -- was not owed to oil shortages. It was because of anonymous brokerage houses betting on oil futures. Again, thanks to "little tweaks" in the laws.

I like Obama. I'm glad my kids finally get to hear a president who sounds intelligent. I haven't heard too many of them in my lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redb

And I really take offense to that bolded remark. This is my country just as much as it is yours, if I want it to be socialist then I am free to vote for it to be so. With >75% of my generation going to college, it may turn into that, and then you will be free to leave. Im sure people said "this is america, get out if you dont like it" to the former slaves who didnt like that they couldnt vote because of grandfather clauses. People said the same thing to people who looked at the patriot act with skepticism. The founding fathers envisioned a country where religion had no influence, yet I dont see gay marraige because religious groups (especially the mormons with the recent prop 8 thing) overwhelmingly dont want it.

---

WRONG on all counts, again. Under your desired big government nation, it's a lot more mine since I'm sure I've paid a few hundred grand in taxes more than you, LOL. BTW, I have three college degrees, including a doctorate - but, I didn't any of them to figure out that socialism is not the way. If you are lucky enough top raise some kids you will figure that one out! Again wrong, I despise the 'Patriot' Act. Over-the-top wrong (and offensive) comparing yourself to a slave. Badly wrong, yet again, thinking that gay rights were defeated on account of religious interests (there weren't enough of them to do it - it took the black vote to kill it). Wrong again, prospectively, if you assume I am anti-gay rights or believe religion has any place in politics. Basically, you are just wrong, wrong, wrong all the time because you are very young and do think before opening mouth and inserting foot. Live a few more decades then get back to us with, hopefully, some wisdom... ;-)

:-)

In order to avoid issues I will simply quote simon & garfunkel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the boxer

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest

---

I will still say though, that age clearly has no correspondance to intelligence, maturity, or reading comprehension. I think George W. Bush and Sarah Palin prove that point beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redb

I will still say though, that age clearly has no correspondance to intelligence, maturity, or reading comprehension. I think George W. Bush and Sarah Palin prove that point beyond any shadow of a doubt.

---

Well, that's the dumbest thing you've said yet. One or two examples or exceptions don't prove anything. Tis mathematically, or rather statistically, unsupportable. You have taken statistics, no? You do understand the concept of sample size, no? You are so illogical it's humorous. Everyone (except you) knows experience is invaluable. Next thing you will be telling us you are more qualified to fly a jetliner than the experienced pilot, because you read a book on it. The only thing that is not funny is how disrespectful you are to others, including those who have lived three times as long and know a hundred times more than you about life, as well as those who have served this country and lost family members in service to preserve a free, not socialist or communist country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gris

Well, that's the dumbest thing you've said yet. One or two examples or exceptions don't prove anything. Tis mathematically, or rather statistically, unsupportable. You have taken statistics, no? You do understand the concept of sample size, no? You are so illogical it's humorous. Everyone (except you) knows experience is invaluable. Next thing you will be telling us you are more qualified to fly a jetliner than the experienced pilot, because you read a book on it. The only thing that is not funny is how disrespectful you are to others, including those who have lived three times as long and know a hundred times more than you about life, as well as those who have served this country and lost family members in service to preserve a free, not socialist or communist country.

---

learn to take a joke.

and get some hooked on phonics, your reading comprehension is EPICLY horrible.

p.s. I may be an ass, but youre old.

No, wrong again (I've lost count of how many times you've been wrong). I scored off the charts on reading speed and comprehension, as well logic. IIRC I got one of the highest scores on record on the LSAT (if you know what that is). FWIW, it involves digesting and analyzing massive amounts of print under severe time constraints. Are you ever right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gris

No, wrong again (I've lost count of how many times you've been wrong). I scored off the charts on reading speed and comprehension, as well logic. IIRC I got one of the highest scores on record on the LSAT (if you know what that is). FWIW, it involves digesting and analyzing massive amounts of print under severe time constraints. Are you ever right?

---

Im not impressed by your internet character's fictional accomplishments. I probably wouldnt believe you even if you had shown in this thread a simple ability to read and glean information from text. You are a joke, "sir", you are ridiculous, "sir", you need to get a life, "sir", but most of all, you need to learn how to fucking read.

At least a child is aware of his/her lack of mental development.

You are truely, unquestionably - not trolling, joking or exaggerating - a person whom I would NEVER consider the words of to be worth listening too.


In other words, words that you may actually understand, you are a fool. An old man whose brain has finally given up on trying to muster any real intelligent thought.