On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Robert Munn wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:48 PM, denstar wrote: > >> >> You sure choose weird times to put your faith in the government. >> > > Ha, I have no faith that Congress will actually do what I suggested.
Ah. So you're going to abdicate your moral responsibility to a group of people you admittedly don't think will do what you think needs to be done? >> Obama has already proven he doesn't lean too far to either direction (IMO). >> > > Except for the whole socialist thing. It's funny you don't consider that > "leaning too far". Dude, the Republicans, under Bush 43, put us far closer to the "bad" kind of Socialism than I ever thought possible. Socialism itself isn't a horrible idea. Needs of the many vs. few and whatnot makes a kind of sense. Resource management, basically. But the scary parts of what's been tried so far, to me, are the things like secret police, domestic spying (sorta serve the same purpose there, actually), lack of checks on power... All that stuff has been cheered on by the very people that are now bitching about how bad socialism is. Forrest, meet trees. > >> Which is fine, we need a unite-er. Clinton did a good job, all in >> all. Dunno if Obama can pull it off like Clinton did... guess time >> will tell. > > > That's my point. He needs to lead from the center. So why would he invite a > bitter partisan fight that he has the power to avoid? > My point is that something you think of as a bitter, polarized fight, might not actually be thus. >> I dunno... I'm pretty sure you want Obama to fail (and not just his >> policies), so that sorta slants what you predict, and makes me want to >> take it with a grain of salt, so to speak. >> > > I want the cap and trade plan to fail because it is an economic disaster for > the country. I'm not a fan of the $12 trillion in spending committed by Bush > and Obama in the last six months, but I also have no idea what the President > is up to in the bigger picture, so I suppose he gets a pass on that count. > Ultimately we need to figure out how we're going to pay for it, and so far > there is nothing on the back end to cover those costs. Has there *ever* been something on the back end to cover costs? How did Bush 43 plan on paying for the War on Terror? > We can trust the CIA to wiretap us responsibly, with little to no > >> oversight or accountability (I'm sure they'll tell us if they're >> screwing us, since that's the only way we'd know), but we better keep >> an eye on this shyster president? > > > I never said I trust the CIA. What I have said is that they were allowed a > lot of leeway in the aftermath of 9/11, and they paid back that leeway by > helping to prevent another attack. It's called a trade-off. We gave up some > privacy in the short term, and it helped the country prosecute the war > against Al Qaeda. But *who* and *what* were we at war with? These talks of wartime powers and whatnot don't really apply to terrorism. Lots of other countries have been dealing with major terrorism for years. One attack and we go all police state? We feed the fear (which is exactly the goal of terrorists, BTW) instead of fighting for our values? We give up the thing we're fighting for at the outset, because we're not willing to risk losing it? Seems counter-productive. But it did work pretty good, neh? "Vote for the other guy, you die!", remember? Yes, wonderful way to prevent terror, fight terror, whatever you want to call it. :-)p >> Eh. Maybe we won't start seeing better stuff coming out of >> politicians until we start believing them capable of better stuff. To >> some extent, at least. > > Human nature, man. Power corrupts. Here in America, the individual is pretty damn powerful. Guess that explains it, eh? Good thing we've been working getting rid of that avenue for corruption. With no power, there's nothing to corrupt, I take it. :-P The way you fight corruption, BTW, seems to be by bringing it to light. You seem content to leave that responsibility in the hands of those who have become corrupt. At least when it serves your purposes, it looks like. -- Eclecticism - every truth is so true that any truth must be false. F. H. B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:296051 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
