Reply With Quote
lets not forget that congress signed off on this so we can stretch out the conclusion to the obvious: both parties primarily suck.
EVAY didn't mention Bush. Inaccurate much?
lets not forget that congress signed off on this so we can stretch out the conclusion to the obvious: both parties primarily suck.
You want to hear criticism? Look above. We didn't pivot to this because we want to get to the talking points this is all Bush's idea. We are saying that this is wrong and he started it and not doing anything to stop it has caused it to continue, and then the bas who's in office right now decided it's okay to violate our Cons utional rights!
You want to hear more criticism? As a member of the Democratic Party who considers himself to be rather liberal, I am calling the 44th President of the United States a coward. And using one of his lines-- "Politics as usual in Washington" to describe his actions taken yesterday. He did this for political gain because he doesn't want to be perceived as weak on Terrorism, giving Democratic member of Congress cover for the 2010 elections! Congressional Democrats strong-armed him into a position where he'd be standing on an island all by himself defending our Cons utional Rights, and he ing submitted.
So, something that got him on the National stage to begin with, the rights violated by the US Patriot Act, he has suddenly changed his opinion on! Just as President Bush changed his opinion on using the US Military for policing actions around the globe, and John McCain has my head spinning still from the actions he takes in Congress and what he has said in the 2000 and 2008 Presidential campaigns.
Today, he became just another broken politican in government. He is continuing to expand the power of the Executive Branch. Discussing this with my cousin yesterday I said the following words: "Give me a name. If you can give me a name and the man has a soul, I'll support someone else for the Democratic Ticket in 2012."
A Letter I just sent to the White House:
President Obama,
You committed a cowardly act on behalf of the people of this nation by re-newing the US Patriot Act. The Bill of Rights is not their for you to sell for political gain, Sir. For your political life, I suggest run un-opposed in 2012. If you are concerned about the long-term future of your White House and maintaining control of Congress--fine. Run to the center. Go ahead. Let the Tea Partiers support you. You've done a bang-up job so far with the power you have had. You continue to expand the powers of the Executive Branch and this must end. We will find someone who will stop this!
Prediction:
Darrin and all the liberal wackos in the board will support and vote for Obama in 2012.
I might vote for him, but I'm getting off my ass when primary season rolls around two years from now.
I agree sir.
I guess I should be relieved to know I'm not a liberal wacko...
welcome to the New World Order my friends.
Liberal, but not a wacko like some here.I guess I should be relieved to know I'm not a liberal wacko...
I think you can be redeemed.
I like to think I'm mostly center. But the whole thing is so subjective.
That is true.
No matter your leaning, most people think of themselves as centered rather than left or right.
I at least acknowledge I am to the right and libertarian rather than left and authoritarian.
Rofl.
44th verse, same as the 43rd. Keep ing that chicken, America.
I happen to believe that business is structured so in this country, and has been since the Industrial Revolution, that the individual rights of American citizens are not served. Profit is the ultimate goal of all businesses. In the interests of the people of this nation, the government has taken on that role of regulating business. We have had to produce child-labor laws, improve working conditions, overcome the violent out-bursts against labor-unions when the free-market started trying to protect its workers. I believe that products need to be inspected and regulated by the government to assure the consumer that they are safe and reliable and uniformed in production. And when they fail to meet those standards, it is our government's duty to remove them from the market-place. That is why a politican that is bribed by one of these industries is perhaps the most fundamental betrayl of their job which is ultimately to serve the American citizens.
I believe government is right to assure the safety of the American public. This includes a national defense, criminal laws with the force of removing someone from society and curbing their freedom, and in case we should be too long without a job, without the ability to work, or without the capacity to seek medical treatment when it is needed. It serves all people to provide this net so that we do not have a large-number of starving, desperate, diseased, poor that ultimately leads to societal and political up-heaval. Look at what the mere threat of that reality is doing to our political upheaval now. This is but a mild-taste of what is to come if we should fall.
I believe that the Bill of Rights is the living portion of our system and it lives because the US Cons ution is flawed. Amendments have allowed us to correct our laws without scrapping our system of government, needing revolution by war. By ratifying an Amendment to the Cons ution, the do ent is able to remain relevant to our American ideals of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as those ideals face new and unimaginable cir stances as the world continues to change. That is what is meant by "progressive."
I believe we have have right to privacy, as it is an individual liberty. I believe that we have a right to be free from persecution of religion as much as we have the right to express that same religion. I believe there are duties of American Citizenship, and these include: taxation, voting, and remaining loyal to our ideals. It is us, the people, who must be viligant against trampling on these rights. We have been empowered with the tools to let it be known. Power carries with it too many temptations, and therefore, clouds judgement. We must make a stand and say: "This is not right." It is our duty, whether we threaten to throw someone in prison for this or not.
If you are willing to drive down a publicly-owned road, visit a public-libary, gather in a public-location, have your snow removed, have emergency-relief plans in place, have a place to address your grievences, if you have filed a grievence against someone in court or had the state do it for you, then you have used someone else's tax dollars. You have stood on the shoulders of the people paid them before you. And whether you make a dollar of five trillion, it is the duty as a citizen, to pay them. It is a part of the agreement you have with this government. If you have a problem with that, you are free to leave. No one is stopping you.
And written into this contract, by logistics alone, to achieve, to be inventive in the open-market, to provide revenue to the state, to know the American Ideals, to be able to express yourself, to not have to use that safety-net unless you are forced to, we must provide equal access to education.
And if these beliefs make me a Nazi or a Communist or a Patriot, so be it. I believe it and you will have to end me to get me to sit down and shut up.
Last edited by Darrin; 03-02-2010 at 08:58 AM.
Which is - or could be - great. In a free-market you can't have profits without serving the consumers well. The better you serve the consumers, the bigger the profit. Ergo, in this situation where profit is the ultimate goal it's great news for the consumer.
The problem is when the shortest way to the profit is not to satisfy the consumer but the legislator and the regulator - as it frequently happens in the current mixed economy. The profit remains the ultimate goal, but the way to maximize it is by spending the resources satisfying not the consumer but the politicians and the bureaucrat. Which is obviously bad news for the consumer.
We?
Nowadays, you can apply the child-labor laws you want in, say, China or Vietnam. If they're enforced, you're just condemning more generations to poverty. China today is where the US were yesterday. Those kind of laws are only effective when they aren't needed any more.
What if consumers don't want products uniformed in production? More importantly, what if the standards defined by the government are bad? So bad that ? Why can't non-government ins utions do the same thing? They've been doing it for centuries. Even today, the ISO is not a public ins ution. Most standards organizations are private bodies. Most standards - from the VHS format to buttonholes on the left and buttons on the right side of men's shirts - were created and protected by privates. Why do you need the government doing this think when it's virtually impossible for politicians to have such an extensive knowledge about all the products from all the industries? Isn't it much easier to allow consumers to decide which standards they like and favour to survive - VHS over Beta, QWERTY over AZERT? I thought you were in favour of consumers, but now you want to take this power away from them? Why do you hate consumers? Why do you trust politicians so much?
Sure, only the state can have the coercive power necessary to punish people who try to curb the liberty of others.
Do you want to remove the freedom of those people? I hope not.
If you believe that it's a good thing to provide a safety-net, why can't you just contribute to the existence of one with the collaboration of your peers who share your opinion?
I agree with you that a safety-net is a necessary and good thing to exist. The difference is that I don't want to impose my view and opinion on others. Why don't you want to allow other people to see things differently than you and act accordingly? Why do you want to dictate the way they should apply their wealth? I thought you were in favour of individual rights; but it seems now it's only the individual rights of those who share your opinions and world-view.
Ideals? Well, maybe, but life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are very practical things in my mind. "New and unimaginable" cir stances? What does that mean?I believe that the Bill of Rights is the living portion of our system and it lives because the US Cons ution is flawed. Amendments have allowed us to correct our laws without scrapping our system of government, needing revolution by war. By ratifying an Amendment to the Cons ution, the do ent is able to remain relevant to our American ideals of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as those ideals face new and unimaginable cir stances as the world continues to change. That is what is meant by "progressive."
Why are those duties of American Citizenship? Because you believe those should be the duties? Isn't one of the "ideals" liberty? Doesn't that mean that one has the liberty to not vote? How can one be loyal to the liberty of not voting while complying with the duty of voting?I believe we have have right to privacy, as it is an individual liberty. I believe that we have a right to be free from persecution of religion as much as we have the right to express that same religion. I believe there are duties of American Citizenship, and these include: taxation, voting, and remaining loyal to our ideals.
Anyway, as long as you don't want to fine or jail people for not complying with your take on what are duties there's no harm.
Agree. It makes your inclination to concentrate so much power in the hands of a few politicians even more bizarre.It is us, the people, who must be viligant against trampling on these rights. We have been empowered with the tools to let it be known. Power carries with it too many temptations, and therefore, clouds judgement. We must make a stand and say: "This is not right." It is our duty, whether we threaten to throw someone in prison for this or not.
.If you are willing to drive down a publicly-owned road, visit a public-libary, gather in a public-location, have your snow removed, have emergency-relief plans in place, have a place to address your grievences, if you have filed a grievence against someone in court or had the state do it for you, then you have used someone else's tax dollars. You have stood on the shoulders of the people paid them before you. And whether you make a dollar of five trillion, it is the duty as a citizen, to pay them. It is a part of the agreement you have with this government. If you have a problem with that, you are free to leave. No one is stopping you
You're wrong. You aren't free to leave. One would be free to leave if one could simply say: meh, I'm illiterate, I don't know how to read, so why should I care about libraries? Nah, I don't want to spend my money in books, I prefer to spend it somewhere else. Libraries, banks, trains, classical music concerts, etc, etc.
You say it's part of the agreement one has with the government. You see, the problem is I surely don't remember agreeing to such a thing.
Sieg Heil!And written into this contract, by logistics alone, to achieve, to be inventive in the open-market, to provide revenue to the state, to know the American Ideals, to be able to express yourself, to not have to use that safety-net unless you are forced to, we must provide equal access to education.
Where's that ing contract in which all those things are written? Link? I mean, I believe you when you say that such a contract existed and that you agreed with it, but I'm starting to suspect there's a big scam here - many people weren't made aware of this contract and their signatures were probably falsified.
Anyway, it's very noble of you to provide equal access to education. How do you do that? Donations to schools? You use part of your revenues to fund scholarships?
There's very little separating a Nazi from a Communist, a Socialist from a Fascist. They're basically the same: they have a vision on how human society should function, how things should be organized, what people should pay for, what products and services they must acquire, what companies they should own, what consumers should buy, how persons should spend their money and all that - and they use the coercive power of the state to impose their particular world-view and pet-causes to others. Like a mad scientist whose lab is a political community they do their experiments using as subjects their fellow human beings. Like them, you have that blueprint for the present and future of society - so the difference is merely of detail and ultimately unimportant.And if these beliefs make me a Nazi or a Communist or a Patriot, so be it. I believe it and you will have to end me to get me to sit down and shut up.
This is not true. There are short-term and long-term decisions made in a any business. To keep production costs down and maintain namebrand, short-term, the consumer is not served. It is only when public perception hardens and namebrand and reputation falls apart, and this is the long-term effect, that business eventually is removed from the marketplace. The free-market rids itself of them because the consumer is not served. In the interim, it takes a catalysmic event for such a reputation to fall apart.
Apply what is said above to the Toyota recall. In 2000, in the UK, and again in 2002 in Canada, Toyota made recalls to their carpets because of sudden execeleration. They continued to manufacture the same car and sell it in the United States, advertising how safe they are. They own 16-18% of auto sales in the US. That is a large-chunk of GDP and GNP. That effects us all, whether you bought a Toyota or not. And how I found out about this was a government oversight hearing.
Without regulation, how many people would have to die because of Toyota's business practices before their name-brand and reputation falls apart and the market cleanses itself of it? It was only after government oversight that Toyota issued this recall. It was only after government oversight that Consumer's Reports dropped them as the third-best car in the marketplace.
It is a concern that in the lieu of government standards, that a business will change its practices if the business is not entirely regulated. And as draconian as that may sound to someone who believes in the magical forces of the free-market, let's look at the Credit Card industry. The Credit Card industry lobbied Congress for the right to charge whatever APR they wished because that was going to go away in the comprehensive package passed last year. That is important because existing consumers who have paid their bill on time, have never violated their contract, have had limits dropped. If you thought you had a line of 15,000 dollars and they send you a notice in the mail saying you only have 8,000 credit, then you have no way of coming up with 7 grand, do you? You're over your limit, time to jack your APR. They have done nothing wrong, and the market is punishing them at a time we can't afford it. Does this sound like it serves the consumer?
If they miss one payment, the industry is allowed to charge an APR that was not agreed to in your contract! So, if your rate was 21.3% after the introductory time, they decide to change it to 35.0% if you miss one payment, and we're in the middle of people losing jobs, of people being laid-off, not being able to find a job. So, you default on the debt. You have to file bankruptcy. You have to go into the Government safety-net. You have spend taxpayer dollars to get out this mess when they could've just left you alone and you would've paid your card on-time!
It does serve the consumer--long-term. It means less people using Credit Cards, more savings. And it means, eventually, these people padding their profit-margins right now, will be out of business. However, how many people's credit and citizens' buying-power will be ruined in the interim? How are we supposed to recover if businesses keep doing this crap?
What kind of logic is this? Murder continues to happen, but we have the ability to remove the perpretrator from society, to punish them. And that is similar to what had to be done with regards to working-conditions and child-labor laws. We had to remove businesses that ignored these laws.Nowadays, you can apply the child-labor laws you want in, say, China or Vietnam. If they're enforced, you're just condemning more generations to poverty. China today is where the US were yesterday. Those kind of laws are only effective when they aren't needed any more.
Really? So you want to buy a DVD to play in your player, but you don't want it to work when you get home? And to not know if it's your player or the DVD? You want someone to advertise a feature on a product and get it out of the package and discover that the reason you bought this thing, doesn't work. I understand what you are saying--a small-town bakery that makes its own bread doesn't apply to uniformed standards. That's fine. But I want my computer to work when I take it out of the package.What if consumers don't want products uniformed in production? More importantly, what if the standards defined by the government are bad?
As for the standards, we are not setting limits on a specific industry unless you can prove a public hazard. The market is free to innovate.
I don't trust large business, it has nothing to do with the consumer. The consumer is the one who has to suffer when practices are out of alignment of public-good. I don't trust politicians, but I do trust the US Government system to hear a grieveance when I have one. Clean-up the politicians, don't throw out the baby with the bath-water.I thought you were in favour of consumers, but now you want to take this power away from them? Why do you hate consumers? Why do you trust politicians so much?
Why do you think that business always does what is the interests of people?
Because that will only help people who think and act like you. It will not meet individual needs. The difference between your mother buying you clothes and handing them to you and you shopping for the clothes that fit you.If you believe that it's a good thing to provide a safety-net, why can't you just contribute to the existence of one with the collaboration of your peers who share your opinion?
I've stayed at private charities. They felt that spiritual healing was as important as providing me a bed. Me, a devout atheist, had to attend two three-hour sessions in their church (Wednesday and Sunday). I'm not spiritually bankrupt, and they assumed that I was. It was in the rules. You did not eat in the mornings until you were up at 6AM and in the prayer room. You had to stay there for, at least, one-hour. And I had nowhere to go with this complaint, because they are entirely privately-funded, despite the fact they are one of only two shelters in the county in which I reside. I could leave anytime I wanted, but I had nowhere to go. And believe me, I did leave.I agree with you that a safety-net is a necessary and good thing to exist. The difference is that I don't want to impose my view and opinion on others.
Because the infrastructure of this nation is not free. It costs money. This is an investment in safety. For police, for not letting anyone become too desparate, and for you to know that we will get help you when you need it. If you want to lobby Congress and the Federal Government how that money is used, go right ahead. No one is stopping you.Why don't you want to allow other people to see things differently than you and act accordingly? Why do you want to dictate the way they should apply their wealth? I thought you were in favour of individual rights; but it seems now it's only the individual rights of those who share your opinions and world-view.
James Madison had a cellphone connected to the internet, did he? George Washington could imagine the Great Depression? Thomas Jefferson was writing laws to fight Al Qaeda? Is the government allowed to access what is on your phone without your knowledge or consent? That is an issue posed before our courts and part of what President Obama just allowed to happen in the name of fighting terrorism. The right to individual freedom needs to be re-defined because of the rise of technology. New and uninmaginable cir stances.Ideals? Well, maybe, but life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are very practical things in my mind. "New and unimaginable" cir stances? What does that mean?
I don't want to jail people, but I feel that to have a government that respresents everyone, we need as much participation as possible.Why are those duties of American Citizenship? Because you believe those should be the duties? Isn't one of the "ideals" liberty? Doesn't that mean that one has the liberty to not vote? How can one be loyal to the liberty of not voting while complying with the duty of voting?
No, it doesn't. We have elections and that is why we have to be on-guard against anyone who removes checks-and-balances, even in the name of safety and progress. We cannot assume all politicians are corrupt, or we will never hold them to account. The system is designed to not have enough power to run the entire government, even if you wanted to. You have to rape our system to do it.Agree. It makes your inclination to concentrate so much power in the hands of a few politicians even more bizarre.
Do you remember agreeing not to murder or steal? You can be put in prison for it. Do you remember signing the contract that allows you to peacefully assemble? Did you ratify the Cons ution of the United States? Did you approve the interstate highway? You were born into it.You say it's part of the agreement one has with the government. You see, the problem is I surely don't remember agreeing to such a thing.
Well, community supports are important because a child is likely to emulate what works in his community. Libraries, for one. Whether you make 5 dollars or 5 trillion, giving you access to history, literature, and computers. That's the good stuff we do. The bad is gerrymandering our school districts so that a community that cannot stand up has no revenue to impove that situation over time.Anyway, it's very noble of you to provide equal access to education. How do you do that? Donations to schools? You use part of your revenues to fund scholarships?
I think I saw that on Glenn Beck yesterday! He was telling me that because I think we're not perfect and need to address inconsistencies in our laws, access to education, that I am progressing to one of the extremes--be it Communist or Facist. I took great offense to that. He's demonizing me so that when the market collapses, my head will be the first on the chopping block and we won't look on George Bush and say "He's the problem! He did this!" without someone saying "Yeah, it's the damn progressives!" instead of saying " ing Republicans and their damned wars!"There's very little separating a Nazi from a Communist, a Socialist from a Fascist. They're basically the same: they have a vision on how human society should function, how things should be organized, what people should pay for, what products and services they must acquire, what companies they should own, what consumers should buy, how persons should spend their money and all that - and they use the coercive power of the state to impose their particular world-view and pet-causes to others. Like a mad scientist whose lab is a political community they do their experiments using as subjects their fellow human beings. Like them, you have that blueprint for the present and future of society - so the difference is merely of detail and ultimately unimportant.
And, hopefully, the free-market will give him a job because he has yet to say anything against them
You think someone will run against obama from the lib wing?
Yes, most definitely. I'm not sure that he or she will be electable, but this is the type of race that a candidate gets into to drive the centrist back to the left (or right as the case may be). I don't know who will run, but I will be keeping my ears and eyes open next year, right around this time, to see who will run. And my vote will not go in complete opposition to my party. I will vote for whomever will do the most good, but I will attempt to solve this problem with my legs, my mouth, and my energy.
Nader is probably your best bet, or the LP. No Dem will run against BHO. They are going to use the primaries to try and elect a moderate repub.
lol@Obama
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
