On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Sam wrote: > > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM, denstar wrote: > >> At least he's given a lot of lip-service to "open government", and >> started websites and whatnot. >> >> Did Bush43 do the same thing, and I'm just being biased? > > No, Bush was honest about his intentions:)
Honest like me and you are honest. Regarding this stuff at least. Here's how I think it went down: you were raised Republican, much like I was raised Democrat. As children, we would have played together, had a great time at camp or some such. Then we grow up, become indoctrinated in our politics, and are all like -- at least politically, mind -- those Palestinian and Israeli kids, when they "grew up". Only we can talk to each other. :) >> And besides that, basically you are arguing that because Clinton >> started it, *that's* why the folk that are angry about it now, weren't >> angry about it when Bush43 was in office. > > Nope. You saying everything is Bush's fault because he set a > precedents. Meanwhile it was really Clinton that started the > wiretapping and big brother tactics as well as rendition. I'm saying that if it was principle and not opportunity, this movement would have teamed up with the last movement. Of course, /that/ movement should have teamed up with the one before it, and etc.. LOL. It started way before Clinton. BASKETBALL, ECHELON, COINTELPRO ad nausea. >> Because *really* it was Clinton's fault that Bush43 was able to do what he >> did. > > Bush hired Powell because he was a realist. He wanted to focus on > domestic issues and leave other countries in the background. 9/11 > changed everything. The Patriot Act was to stem immediate threats. > Obama promised to revoke them but then he was briefed. Now they've > been expanded. As I predicted they would be, when they were instated. I did, I swear it. As stated previously, what happened to Powell was shameful. Another mark against Bush43's administration, in my book. That was super-lame, man. >> Documentation is the difference. One way you have to "trust" people, >> another way you can trust *and verity*. > > Docs are the same. Yeah. I can see it now: "I have the TPS report in my desk. No, you can't see it. Trust me, it's there." >> Do you really not see the difference? You are the one harping on >> Blind Trust! :) > > I'm thinking it's the same people doing the same job and the same > paperwork. The only difference is the volume. Anything admissible in > court goes through the same old process. The only difference is volume? Come on man, that's all the difference in the world! You know that if you have enough of the bits -- totally non-classified material -- you can often put together "classified" information? Extrapolate, I guess the word would be? That book "Red October" was awesome. >> You didn't read that link I posted to that court ruling, did you? > > I might next time you post it. It's from epic.org. Same site I use every time. :) Pretty consistent for a randomite, I know. >> Bottom line: it is *not* legal to do what was done, and what >> apparently continues. > > Was that like one guy that got fired? They need to be watched. Yes, the watchers need to be watched. Checks and balances. Not that there won't be special teams that operate outside the law, and are disavowed and whatnot -- that's a bad ass given, ya know? -- but we can't allow that shit to go down all legit-like. T'is bad form. >> You know, you used to have to name the stuff you were looking for when >> you got the warrant. If you found something you weren't looking for, >> you couldn't use it in court. > > Don't they match a series of keywords or start from a know terrorist > source before they can listen? Sorry, that information is classified. :) >> I like that idea. It's a check on governmental power (which you are >> all for, right? You don't want an all powerful government- or do >> you?). > > What is it you think the wiretap program is? Do you think they can > just call you a commie like MLK and listen in? You think they can't? Warrants are just one way of preventing crap like that, my friend. This attitude that the ever-increasing expansion is just "same old, same old" is what "they" want. Fight the power, Sam! >> For a self-labeled conservative, it's odd that you're so gung ho about >> Big Brother. Really really odd. Maybe that's even worse for >> Republicans than the God stuff, come to think of it. > > I don't remember labeling myself conservative. I lean that way but > don't believe in labels. Too confining. > I don't like the whole big brother thing but I don't see this program > as stepping over the line. Do you think they listen to every call that > enters or leaves the US? The point is, this is Powerful Stuff. It is Information, Sam, Information. With the right search string I could... well, you know the feeling. There's blackmail, political shit (are those different?), and just all kinds of reasons to keep a fucking tight grip on this shit. >>> I think the judges agreed with the admin on this. >> >> Nope. The one case they actually heard they said was illegal. The >> rest were dismissed under the "state secrets" clause or whatever. > > When i searched on cases dealing with this the one that came up the > judges sided with the Bush admin. I can look it up but I'm kind of > busy responding to your comments. http://epic.org/features/surveillance.html Court Cases, third one down. Says something about "...ruled Illegal". http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/acluvnsaop081706.pdf I really liked it, but that's probably because it fit my world view or whatever. >> But in this case they couldn't. The one case, apparently. > > I thought all cases do that. At least that's what I learned from Law and > Order. I dunno, but Boston Legal has a guy named Denny. Yay! >> It's so important, it can't be taken lightly. Read that ruling man, >> it is Good Stuff! > > Tomorrow. Right on. It's not super extreme, I don't think. >> Oh. That is a sticky situation too, but I'm complaining about what >> happens to American Citizens. > > What happens to them? Illegal wire taps, for one. Paying a lot of money to invade themselves for two. Was it not you who expressed concern about spies in the government? Imagine the power of being a Listener. Heh. There are hobbyists who trump the .gov I bet, but that's besides the point. Anybody worth their salt uses encryption anyways. The poor muggles are the really exposed ones. >>> The government knew the spies but did nothing which is why he went >>> public. Is how I remember it. >> >> Does that sound logical to you, Sam? > > Sadly it does. Sustek (sp) mentioned he was bribed last summer. > Murtha, Franks Dodd and the dude with the $100k in his freezer. > Sometimes the majority blocks all investigations by congress and we > know the other branches all play to their own tunes. That's treason on a "24" scale man. I know that happens like every year on TV, but still. I think we've always taken security pretty seriously. It's part of, um, security. That said, I've defended whistle blowers, or "pentagon leaks" before, so I'm not unconvinceable. It's just a little more believable to do it to prevent a troop carrier that will endanger the troops it carries than to expose this huge spy network that, wait for it, had already been exposed internally. Only I don't think they were spies. They were just identified as being high risk or something. If what I read was true, only like 20 people lost jobs, and the rest were cleared after deeper background checks or something. People killed themselves because they got blacklisted, yo. Really cool people that might have contributed amazing works of art or some shit. Future Einsteins and potential Presidents were Aborted, so to speak. >> You are, huh? So you can assure me that no double spy covers were >> blown? If they were deep, how would McCarthy have known? > > Isn't a senator privy to that info? I'm sure the CIA would have > mentioned it to him. I honestly don't know. I would think that by it's very nature, not everyone knows everything. Intentionally, even. Remember what I said about it being better to not know, sometimes? Just not have that ability at all? Things need to be put together very very carefully, and I don't think they have been. >> And broadcasting that our government is full of spies isn't a national >> security leak, especially if true?!?! > > Not getting the word out is the risk. Especially if they have the power to gather whatever information they like, how they like, with no oversight. What good do warrants do again? Another pair of eyes, at the least, perhaps? >> The purpose was to scare a portion of American Citizens, who were >> doing nothing "wrong" besides things like making movies or being gay? > > I thought we covered that? They were guilty. I don't think you understand the breadth, depth, or scale of what McCarthy played a major role in. >> It was kind of direct with Bush43, neh? Blatant, even. > > Obama was a lawyer, I think I prefer oil men :P LOL! You know the difference between a dead snake in the road... They're all politicians, and politicians == scum. Everybody knows that. :) >> And Haliburton? > > Cheney was not connected to Haliburton while VP. Ah. Well then, I guess I was wrong. At least in the letter, if not the spirit, right? >>>> Bush43 and Cheney, etc., *personally* profited off what they did. >>> >>> You made that up and can't back it up. >> >> Ok, so Bush43 (unlike Al Gore) doesn't profit off of the oil. >> >> And I'm sure Cheney didn't profit from Haliburton or anything else. > > What they did means their jobs before running the country? I thought > you were implying they made money from oil and gov contractors while > in office. I'm implying that backs were scratched, so to speak, yes. That happens a *lot* in politics, of course, but this was blatant, and I dunno about the whole corp + religious + gov mix. > > It needs to be transparent, regardless. Now *and* then. > > Why do you think a no-bid contract is not transparent? Don;t they > still go through the same reviews? I don't know. But I know [or knew, maybe it changed] this: because we buy our guns from one place, our guns are expensive and crappy. Because we buy our boots from one place, our boots are crappy and expensive. Because we buy our body armor from one place, it's crappy and expensive. Frankly, I don't know how Apple keeps it up. ;) >> Better yet, base it on principle, so we protest when it's in the red >> *no matter who is in office*. > > Owing a little money isn't my biggest concern. I'll let you know when > it hits the worry stage. > Now. LOL. You are right, we need to do something about it. >> "Abstinence Only", cut funding for Family Planning, etc., etc.. > > You think that's a Christian thing? Actually, if encouraging > twelve-year-old's not to have sex is exclusively Christian then maybe > I should convert It's socially conservative, as are several major religions. And more to the point, it's not as effective as being honest. The idea is to equip our kids, not hobble them. They need to be able to be honest with us. > When a life starts is also not exclusive to religion. I'm pro choice > yet I'm against a lot of what goes on at Planned Parenthood. These > aren't religious issues, they're common sense issues. They are moral issues, which should be up to people, not laws. Remember when anal sex was illegal? Don't try to sell me this, "it's ok here, but not here" deal. We're capable of figuring it out ourselves. We don't need Big Brother, and further, it cheapens the experience. Why do you think (if you think there is a God) God allows Sin? >> I don't see that as bad as making policy based on religious views. >> >> Not one whit. > > I agree with your statement but not with your claim. It's verifiable. Was funding cut for Planned Parenthood? Was Abstinence Only the Official doctrine, when it has been proven to be less effective than the ABCs or whatever? Those are just the easy ones. That's bad if it's "just" social conservatism, and far worse if religiously motivated. People *will* die because of that decision, if they haven't already. People who's deaths could have been prevented had not "morals" gotten in the way. It's not ethical. (Now that is a claim =]) >> Wasn't Bush43 some sort of fantastic business guru? > > Compared to Obama? Yes. Really? Obama made it because of family ties and tax loopholes? El Busho! >>> You think Saudi Royal Family were involved with 9/11? You do remember >>> Ayers group attacked us? >> >> And killed more than 3000 citizens! It was a dark day in our history, >> vividly remembered for a long time. How could I forget about the >> weathermen!? > > I've heard no evidence the Saudi Royal Family was involved. > But I like that you let small time terrorist have a pass. You're right about one thing, it's an issue of scale Were the weathermen involved to the extent that Saudi money is, you betcha I'd be all over that stank. Wouldn't you? >> Yes! They are *totally* on the same level as the Saudi family! > No, they went a different route, they're infecting the education > system. Indoctrination baby. You don't have to hide in caves. My god! You mean they're encouraging folk to revolt or some such? That is so un-American! We need a committee. An Activities Committee of some sort. Look at me trembling in my boots. I bet they'll raise 'em socialist, too! Oh noes! Poor dumb kids. >> I heard that Obama flew the Ayers family out of the country after the attack. > > Michael Moore is your hero :) The shit he talks about doesn't need embellishment, but other than that, I think he's pretty tits. Very American, somehow. >> Nothing is all roses, Sam. They grow in shit-- but the good kind of shit. > > At least you recognize it for what it is. And the need for it. It doesn't smell bad, fertilizer. >> So why is creating a bunch of jobs in the health care area bad? > > Like digging ditches and then filling them in? It's the quality that counts Quality can only go so far when faced with quantity. There's three things, pick two, so to speak. >> Do you not see our nations health as a national security issue? > > Again, nobodies against reform. And nobodies against campaign finance reform either. It has to start somewhere. And hopefully not get repealed shortly thereafter. Heh. >> An infrastructure concern? Like building roads and channeling rivers? > > More like the big dig than the Hoover Dam. I will extrapolate that there really was a program where people just did pointless stuff to be employed. Dig holes, eh? You know, the phone company (according to an old phone guy) put people to work replacing filaments in burnt bulbs, vs. putting them out of work. Laughable, right? >>> It's beyond that, All the knowledge we gained was tremendous. Now >>> Obama wants to farm it out. >> >> So he invented government contracts, eh? >> >> Boeing is a government run deal, right? Has been for years? >> >> Most our other "flight" related stuff is run by the .gov, right? > > Damn, all these years we've been spending all that money and it's > Boeing and Northrop all along. Obama is one smart to recognize that > and cut the fat. If we're lucky, there will be a pentagon leak when things get too crazy. >> Sure. But your point is that people don't do it based on principle, >> or else they'd be up in arms about Obama. > > Ones and Zeros again. Balance may be achieved by adding up ones and zeros. Kinda funny to think about adding zeros, I'll give you that. >> Changing the power structure. > > Didn't he run as an R and lose? I can't remember what this is referring to and paging up at this point would be insanity. "They're the same and yet different", perhaps would work here? >> Obama didn't really shake things up as much as you'd have us believe, >> or seem to believe yourself. > > There's enough bad decisions and inaction that scare me. Alright. This go around it was health care. I bet you the next one is the budget. It *is* pretty nice to have a guy in there who basically delivers. I think Bush43 was only really productive for like, what, the first 100 days? I know you hate it, and think it spells the end of America as we know it, but it is progress. We can't sit around and argue about what the "best" way to do things are forever. >> I have a love/hate relationship with labels. I do especially hate it >> when someone labels me a "man" or a "minority" (or "majority", even!) >> though. > > I don't mind being a minority but most people don't notice. It's more relational to numbers vs. anything else. The minority in this frame of reference is the majority in the other. I learned a lot about numbers -- those numbers specifically -- growing up. It's why things like the Crucible and our form of government are basically pretty cool. One is a work of art and the other could use some tweaking, but it *is* a system, after all. >> Man, Powell got shafted. Another reason I think Bush43 sucked nuts. > > You still crying about the UN speech? You know they found they shells > in his report. Too late, nobody cares since it didn't make it into the > Michael Moore movie. More than just that. Some musician was on NPR, back in the day, when all this stuff was going down, and he just really nailed it. It's always sad to see a waste of potential. Ah well, that's life. Folk are free to choose. And I wouldn't pick another way if I could. >> I bet the next president is a Hispanic lass (or whatever the >> appropriate label would be, no offense intended). Pow! > > Maybe a Jew. Now that's just crazy talk. Didn't they just get the right to vote like 50 or a hundred years ago? >> There's a pretty bad ass republican chick running for governor here in >> NM. Not the one that's in all the adds and is apparently a favorite >> with the republicans, though. That made me sad. The Republicans >> don't seem to like balanced individuals. > > I'm thinking your balance is a little wonky, same for me. So long as you keep your perspective -- or, situational awareness, if you will -- and don't bash your skull into the concrete, it's smooth sailing anyway. People will even marvel at how you don't fall down. And if you do fall down, make it look like you did it on purpose. >> It's not a view, it's a memory. You think it was easy for Regan? > > It was easy to make fun of Reagan. Musicians always go against the > R's. It's like that kid that said when I was 16 my dad was an idiot > but when I turned 24 he was a genius? How did he learn so much so > quickly? > Musicians never get that revelation but the fans do. Mostly. That seems like a rather encompassing statement. And if true, perhaps there's something not exactly unfair about it; it /is/ art. I'm a, what do you call it when you can easily feel, or imagine, what other people feel? Empathic. Yeah. People are beautiful. This mix of all this stuff. Some people only see the roses, others, the fertilizer, but together it's awe inspiring. Levels and levels of beauty. I almost shed a tear when Bush43 was booed in that stadium. I don't think he was a bad person, and I don't think Regan was either. In fact, I wouldn't wish them not to have been, if that makes sense. Everything fits together so wonderfully. It's just, well, it's just cool. If the end is coming, that's beautiful too. >> They did most of the work. > > That's the beauty of a great leader, make them lose without firing a shot. Yup. Spreading and confusion in your opponent doesn't hurt. >>> I think we'll surrender soon. >> >> LOL! To who? > > Medical Marijuana is spreading, it won't be long now before the man > realizes it's a lost battle. I hope so, but look how long "morality" has hindered Science? Remember that study Regan quoted, where they killed that poor monkey, and blamed it on the herb? The War on Drugs was like that age's Iraq war, come to think of it. And you're saying this age's health care system? >>> Whatever the reason we're like lunch money victims now. Not something >>> you should boast about. >> >> But we should be pals with the Saudis (a single example I'm sticking with)? > > You notice we're friends with many nations we don't trust. That house > of cards thing again. The radials are at like 48%. We would rather > deal with pretend friends than have to deal with sworn enemies owning > all that wealth. We'd rather deal with a military than a democracy, too. More stable or some such. That doesn't make it especially ethical or even moral. But practical, perhaps. >> If only he had been as good (or as bad) as Clinton! Man, think of the >> ammunition-- "You came into office with a surplus!!!". > >> The government shouldn't be in the business of "saving" religions. > > Did you forget the pilgrims already? Did you read the constitution? It wasn't "religion" they were saving, it was "the freedom of". Is the government saying people can't pray? That would make me angry. I'd be super pissed. Is that what's happening? Are places of worship being turned into parking lots? And I don't mean lots for "super churches". I mean like labyrinths being destroyed and idols defaced. People getting killed. By the government, because of their religion. That, my friend, I would fight to the death against. >> Does Christianity really need government support to be a viable religion? > > No. But the people have a right to religious freedom. I was unaware that we were lacking in that regard. Aren't there 38 symbols on headstones, so to speak? >> I don't think it needs "help" from the government, however. > > I don't thing the government should make laws banning religion. I must be out of the loop. I thought it was anal when the new boss came in several years ago and made folk stop putting up Christmas decorations (they weren't even "Christian" Christmas decorations) but I understood the reasoning. I still thought it was a lame move, but there were bigger issues to address. Pick your battles and all that rot. >> So long as it's for the One religion, right? > > You know I'm Jewish right? I was thinking maybe, when I saw the "or a Jew" line above, but not really, no. My gaydar is notoriously bad as well. :) >> I don't think the government has been regulating right. > > The government screws up a lot. They also get it right a lot. I believe you. You aren't as single-sided as some, myself included at times, portray. >> Fighting DVD pirates is like, super important, you know. > > Are they still fighting that fight? Copyrights are so bogus. See! Like peas in a pod. *That's* the stuff we could use to garner support from the poles. It's also a battle far harder to "win" than removing or adding words to the pledge of allegiance. I wonder why we spend so much time fighting about things like that than fighting Big Money's influence over our system. >>> No, our foreign policy is on par with president Carter's. >> >> It's that bad? > > Yes. Did you notice NK sunk a SK ship and China is baking NK. Iran is > laughing at us. Putin mocks us. It goes on. The leaders may be talking crap, but the people love us. It's the people who matter, they're the ones with the power. When they realize it. >> I'm just saying I don't think it's as emotion free as you are implying. >> >> I'm sure it was all based on pure logic though, you're right. That's >> how our political system is powered. By logic. > > Your logic is clouded :) My logic is insane, and yet logical, when explained. Or so I tell myself. I do get weird headaches sometimes tho... ;) >> Democrats don't do lock-step like the Republicans. > > Not when it stinks that bad, but they always come around when Pelosi > turns the thumb screws. It's only fair that they get a shake. And they didn't get the ship in the best of shape to begin with. Something had to get done, and to do big things, it takes a team. The bigger the team the better tho, which is why I'd like to see more un-polarization. To an extent. We don't want a government that's *too* effective. >> Again, I think that's a good thing. More governmental (requires >> compromise, communication, etc.), IMHO, and less "team"-ish. > > So when the R's are for something it's bad, and when they're against > something it's bad. You're on the winning side all the time. The good stuff gets lost in the noise. I know that's a fucking hilarious comment, coming from me, but still. That's just in general. I cheered for the campaign finance reform stuff, I think that was an R driven deal. I applaud investigations into domestic spying, no matter who does it. >>> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/Ten-Myths-About-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts >>> >>> Furthermore, tax revenues in 2006 were actually above the levels >>> projected before the 2003 tax cuts. Immediately before the 2003 tax >> >> Hey, look, the theory works! We went from having money to being in >> debt, but not as much debt as predicted! > > Yeah, that whole 9/11 thing messed up the books.Or does that not count? It's a ready excuse, I'll give you that. I've never seen our country so united though, we could have done amazing things. Not that the protests and riots and whatnot weren't amazing, in their own way. >> Of course, I don't really see how going from a surplus to a deficit is a >> "plan". > > Surplus was because we took SS money with a promise that the money > would be paid back in ten years because the economy would boom for 20. > Then the Dot-com bubble hit, a recession then 9/11. But you still > don't know where the money went. Money is fictional these days, man. There's no gold at the end of that rainbow. It's all based on "feelings" and whatnot, too. Crazy, right? >> But I guess we should be happy it wasn't as bad as we thought it would be? > > Tax cuts raised revenue, even though you mock that theory as idiotic, > when presented with proof you spin it. > The spending went up, yeah bad thing that, but the tax cuts raised tax > revenue. Just not enough to keep up with the excessive spending. It's more the implementation that I mock. I get the theory, and it's awesome that CEOs are making oodles of cash, but the idea is actually to spread the wealth around (don't laugh, it's true), and that ain't been happening. >> Call it a success? > > Worked when Kennedy, Reagan and Bush did it. I'd call that a success Maybe sometimes it seems like you're doing something good when you aren't, really. Everyday peeps have not been making as much more, relatively, as the rich peeps have, over time. Maybe that's just the nature of things... but we're pretty famous for trying to control nature, neh? >> Wow. I can see the whole of economics is encompassed by that headline alone. >> >> Sounds like someone has an easy solution to our economic troubles. > > You do realize that study was done to prove the stimulus worked. I don't know, economics seem kind of complicated to me. Money is Powerful Stuff. Maybe it doesn't matter who's making the money, so long as someone's making more. If a multitude of 100k gubbmint jobs are on the horizon tho... hrm... >> I do like easy solutions. Kill the dog and it's not sick, right? > > Welcome to our new health care. Remember "Made in the USA"? >> When I said going to Iraq wasn't the best move. > > Who did? I won't tell you ratted but I want to know. I'll deal with him or > her. Thanks, but I can't get you into this. They're powerful people, and you've got a family. I can handle it. >> Bush43 made it an art tho, and even easier for Obama to do. > > Are people camping next door to the Obama's. Sometimes they force your > hand. Since code pink and the gays have turned on Obama it's getting > harder to do a meet-n-greet. I think Obama *ROCKS*! I liked Clinton too though. >> Man I wish "you guys" had stood up back then. With "us". Folk on the >> same side, theoretically. > > You weren't bitching about money, you were bitching about war or > anything Bush did. Someone told you he was an idiot and you bought it > hook line and sinker. Yes, it was a carefully constructed facade. We were bitching about everything. Of course money was on the list. Some people find military spending more palatable than others, however you or I may feel. We gotta reform that defense spending too though, you know. Regulate. >> Take money away from Planned Parenthood? Advocate sexual practices >> that cause more harm than good? > > Why are you so interested in little girls having sex and getting > abortions? Aren't there more pressing issues like a collapsing health > care system? Exactly, right? Our government spends an inordinate amount of time on stuff science or society at large should be concerned with, and ignores the more pressing issues. Years of data says abstinence only isn't as effective as the ABCs, yet somehow there's an argument about it? It's like pushing for ID in science class. >> Tell me "some" drugs are bad? Try to make me stop drinking or smoking >> or whatnot? > > That's not religion. Who told you you can't drink? Ah blue laws.Those > are old county level laws not federal. Legislating morality. It may not always be religiously motivated, but the two are bedfellows. >> See, the Tea Party seems to be about taxes more than anything else. > > You're not getting it. They aren't upset the Bush tax cuts will > expire. They don't thing they're over taxed. They think the government > is going out of control with spending, because Bush started it (OK), > and the country will go bankrupt or their grandchildren will be > overburdened with taxes. Why did that Hightower guy think that Big Money was behind the Tea Party? >> That's well and good, more power to 'em, but my freedom is more >> important to me than the taxes I pay. > > Why are you mixing wiretaps and taxes? Just prioritizing. :) >> Without freedom, I have no control of the taxes I pay. Get it? > > No. It's the difference between government serving us, and us serving government. >> There's always taxes, and death, but what do they say about Freedom? > > It's gone because of what Bush started? It doesn't come easy? I don't know, something like that. Ours have been eroding for ages- log before Bush. >> I happen to see the invasion of privacy and whatnot as more pressing >> concerns than the money, but to each their own. > > Now I get it. You can only focus on one issue at a time. Did you ever > complain to Obama about what he's doing or do you wait until you can > rant on Bush? The problem isn't Bush, nor even the Dread Socialist, Destroyer of our Great Country, Obama. It's us. >> Look bro, I'm just trying to tell you how to get a little more >> traction, if you are a tea party supporter. You want the movement to >> succeed, right? > > I don't know what success is. If it means DC stops the insanity and > takes a little responsiblity then yes. If you think it means a third > party then no, that will give the win to the dems again. Remember > Perot. Ah. That "new party" stuff wasn't meaning literally a new party. Most of that is just semantics anyway. We have more than 2 parties, and nothing keeps a party to a platform. >> I want the tea partiers to succeed. For the sake of the country, or >> some noble ideal like that. > > They don't like Obamacare. They want it gone. If that is all they are after, they are lame, and probably are just corporate tools. The way you were talking, it sounded like it was about responsible government spending. They must want cuts to the defense budget and whatnot too, right? Down with pork projects? Etc..? >> So far, it seems like an opportunistic movement. If you want success, >> people like me shouldn't see it that way. > > That's shallow. It's true. Do you really want to see a responsible government, or /just enough/ change to keep up the charade? >>> Notice a lot more homeless now? >> >> As opposed to when? Somehow, "time" fits in here. > > Last year. Yes. I don't think it's because of what happened recently though. More the housing bubble. Which we totally saw coming but what the hell, ride it, right? Where was the Tea Party then, with their fiscal smarts? ;) >> Obama (or the Democrats) and health care have already increased the >> homeless population? Are you for real? Is the ink even dry? > > You do know unemployment is near 10% for a o long time and earnings > for those employed are down. > But we ain't seen nothin yet. Just wait until that health care crap kicks in. Earnings for the middle class have been stagnant for the last 10 years, if you believe [some] economists. After a bubble pop like that, what did you expect? Smooth sailing? Or do you consider "balance" picking your cake and choosing it too? >> Don't you ever get tired of portraying things so simplistically? > > If I make it to complex I have to explain it. Simple as it needs to be, but no simpler. >> Maybe Bush43 is really an evil genius who just wanted us all to think >> he wasn't very sophisticated... > > Or was that the press. Quayle, Reagan, Bush and now Palin. Seeing a > trend or are republicans really stupid? Luckily I have other senses than the press. I don't think Palin suffers from poor speaking skills. >> Perhaps Usama chose then because he hated daddy and the Bushes are >> daddy's friends? > > You do know Osama is Saudi? But not from the Saudi Royal family. Didn't mean to imply he was literally a prince, but he's sorta turned on The Family so to ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:319741 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
