View Full Version : Obama...
...so far?
No transparency; plenty of obfuscation.
Lying about the pork in the stimulus bill.
Bipartisanship means "my way or the highway".
Pelosi is tougher; dumber, too.
Well, then.
It is change.
Sort of.
I guess.
pentomato
02-14-2009, 03:04 AM
...so far?
No transparency; plenty of obfuscation.
Lying about the pork in the stimulus bill.
Bipartisanship means "my way or the highway".
Pelosi is tougher; dumber, too.
Well, then.
It is change.
Sort of.
I guess.
So it remind you of Bush ant the republicans after they took power?
Times change right? Cry baby, you have 8 years to do so.
They lie about pork, Bush and company lied about Iraq, they killed thousands of kids, of course it doesn't matter to you, they weren't Americans. lol
By the way, your Obama is a lier, it is getting old, you are going to have a heart attack man, relax, embrace the man.
...so far?
No transparency; plenty of obfuscation.
Lying about the pork in the stimulus bill.
Bipartisanship means "my way or the highway".
Pelosi is tougher; dumber, too.
Well, then.
It is change.
Sort of.
I guess.
So it remind you of Bush ant the republicans after they took power?
Times change right? Cry baby, you have 8 years to do so.
They lie about pork, Bush and company lied about Iraq, they killed thousands of kids, of course it doesn't matter to you, they weren't Americans. lol
By the way, your Obama is a lier, it is getting old, you are going to have a heart attack man, relax, embrace the man.
Anyone with an opinion - anyone at all.
pentomato
02-14-2009, 03:15 AM
So it remind you of Bush ant the republicans after they took power?
Times change right? Cry baby, you have 8 years to do so.
They lie about pork, Bush and company lied about Iraq, they killed thousands of kids, of course it doesn't matter to you, they weren't Americans. lol
By the way, your Obama is a lier, it is getting old, you are going to have a heart attack man, relax, embrace the man.
Anyone with an opinion - anyone at all.
You seem nevers man, relax, Obama loves you lol
devilsadvocate
02-14-2009, 03:30 AM
...so far?
No transparency; plenty of obfuscation.
Lack of transparency in what? I'd like to know.
Lying about the pork in the stimulus bill.
What "pork" did he lie about? I felt he was very honest about it.
Uwq94F0uzSg
Bipartisanship means "my way or the highway".
Well I think you'll find that both sides take that view, so there's your bipartisanship.
Found this site -
The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
Lack of transparency in what? I'd like to know.
Lying about the pork in the stimulus bill.
What "pork" did he lie about? I felt he was very honest about it.
Uwq94F0uzSg
Bipartisanship means "my way or the highway".
Well I think you'll find that both sides take that view, so there's your bipartisanship.
The lack of transparency?
He said he'd have EVERY BILL posted online for a minimum of FIVE DAYS before a vote for purposes of PUBLIC REVUE.
Surely you remember this promise.
Big Nancy posts it at 11pm the night before an early-morning vote - it's a thousand pages of gobblety-gook IN PDF FORMAT.
In case you didn't know, PDFs cannot be keyword-searched for content; there is literally no way to review this mess.
If this is what passes for transparency in your liberal book, well...
And the pork?
He said, in his address, that there was "no pork, no earmarks" in the stimulus whatsoever.
Now I realize you wouldn't recognize a pig if it bit you on the ass, but people who do found the parts they were allowed to examine absolutely loaded with the stuff.
And you think this guy is the greatest thing since sliced bread/Abraham Lincoln.
Besides all that, it seems Big Nancy is really running the show:
"I want this bill passed before I leave for my glorious self-congratulatory trip to see the Pope tomorrow or else!"
Well, you won't be able to blame it on Republicans, anyway - this is gonna be the biggest tits-up in legislative history.
clocker
02-14-2009, 02:32 PM
Well, you won't be able to blame it on Republicans, anyway - this is gonna be the biggest tits-up in legislative history.
And how will this be determined?
What will be the benchmark?
Well, you won't be able to blame it on Republicans, anyway - this is gonna be the biggest tits-up in legislative history.
And how will this be determined?
What will be the benchmark?
Why, common sense, of course:
Using long, drawn-out processes to put money into circulation to meet an emergency is like mailing a letter to the fire department to tell them your house is on fire.
To use an analogy that falls closer to hand, if this were a processor*, it would be the i7 Extreme Edition.
It will create a benchmark.
Edit-
*-and if processors were bad things-
clocker
02-14-2009, 03:22 PM
Nah-uh.
You leave yourself an infinite amount of wiggle-room.
Pick a metric (or two) and pin the determination to it.
Nah-uh.
You leave yourself an infinite amount of wiggle-room.
Pick a metric (or two) and pin the determination to it.
Nah-uh, yourself.
As I remember, you predicted the Patriot Act would be a precursor to absolute Fascism, complaining about infringement on your library usage, etc.
Scattershot and dire predictions abounded, yet nothing at all came of it.
"Oh, Lord, they're gonna tap our telephones!!!?
Nothing came of that, either.
Metrics?
I don't need no stinking metrics.
The goose/gander analogy springs to mind.
devilsadvocate
02-14-2009, 05:29 PM
The lack of transparency?
He said he'd have EVERY BILL posted online for a minimum of FIVE DAYS before a vote for purposes of PUBLIC REVUE.
Surely you remember this promise.
Big Nancy posts it at 11pm the night before an early-morning vote - it's a thousand pages of gobblety-gook IN PDF FORMAT.
In case you didn't know, PDFs cannot be keyword-searched for content; there is literally no way to review this mess.
If this is what passes for transparency in your liberal book, well...
well then that would be a promise broken or not yet kept. But you said no transparency, and perhaps not with the 5 days but the bills are online, so what exactly do you feel he has kept from us?
On the stimulus If you look at the link 100% posted in his pre election promise he said "non emergency" bills. Now you may not agree that the stimulus bill is an emergency but he and many others do.
Other than that he's only been in office a few days and had more important things to deal with. Apparently they have people working on the program. If in say 3 months time it still isn't running as promised I will grant your point.
And the pork?
He said, in his address, that there was "no pork, no earmarks" in the stimulus whatsoever.
Now I realize you wouldn't recognize a pig if it bit you on the ass, but people who do found the parts they were allowed to examine absolutely loaded with the stuff.
I refer you to the video, it's a spending bill...that's the point, as long as it creates/keeps jobs in place the whole fucking thing is supposed to be one big pork feast.
I do enjoy watching people like Lindsey Graham going on the news decrying the spending going to states. Then when asked if their own state should refuse the money the 180 comes in. It's almost as if they secretly want this bill.:whistling
And you think this guy is the greatest thing since sliced bread/Abraham Lincoln. Wow thanks, I didn't know that, I must remember you have mind reading abilities and you know what people think more than they do
BTW now it's over, I was for Barr, but only because of the other choices.
Besides all that, it seems Big Nancy is really running the show:
"I want this bill passed before I leave for my glorious self-congratulatory trip to see the Pope tomorrow or else!"
Well, you won't be able to blame it on Republicans, anyway - this is gonna be the biggest tits-up in legislative history.The dems and Obama were upfront about their agenda, as were the republicans. The voters made their choice.
Your religious right socially conservative evangelical talking points are just sounding like bitter cry baby whining, not thoughtful, or even factual disagreement or debate.
I'll call the whaaaaambulance
devilsadvocate
02-14-2009, 05:31 PM
"Oh, Lord, they're gonna tap our telephones!!!?
Nothing came of that, either.
Are you sure about that. Seems they tapped everything except our garbage cans
well then that would be a promise broken or not yet kept. But you said no transparency, and perhaps not with the 5 days but the bills are online, so what exactly do you feel he has kept from us?
On the stimulus If you look at the link 100% posted in his pre election promise he said "non emergency" bills. Now you may not agree that the stimulus bill is an emergency but he and many others do.
Other than that he's only been in office a few days and had more important things to deal with. Apparently they have people working on the program. If in say 3 months time it still isn't running as promised I will grant your point.
And the pork?
He said, in his address, that there was "no pork, no earmarks" in the stimulus whatsoever.
Now I realize you wouldn't recognize a pig if it bit you on the ass, but people who do found the parts they were allowed to examine absolutely loaded with the stuff.
I refer you to the video, it's a spending bill...that's the point, as long as it creates/keeps jobs in place the whole fucking thing is supposed to be one big pork feast.
I do enjoy watching people like Lindsey Graham going on the news decrying the spending going to states. Then when asked if their own state should refuse the money the 180 comes in. It's almost as if they secretly want this bill.:whistling
And you think this guy is the greatest thing since sliced bread/Abraham Lincoln. Wow thanks, I didn't know that, I must remember you have mind reading abilities and you know what people think more than they do
BTW now it's over, I was for Barr, but only because of the other choices.
Besides all that, it seems Big Nancy is really running the show:
"I want this bill passed before I leave for my glorious self-congratulatory trip to see the Pope tomorrow or else!"
Well, you won't be able to blame it on Republicans, anyway - this is gonna be the biggest tits-up in legislative history.The dems and Obama were upfront about their agenda, as were the republicans. The voters made their choice.
Your religious right socially conservative evangelical talking points are just sounding like bitter cry baby whining, not thoughtful, or even factual disagreement or debate.
I'll call the whaaaaambulance
My objections are factual.
Fact.
I also said, "So far...", and you may re-read the title and first post of this thread to verify.
Speaking of "whaaaaa..." I suggest you stop making excuses and defend him on the merits.
"Oh, Lord, they're gonna tap our telephones!!!?
Nothing came of that, either.
Are you sure about that. Seems they tapped everything except our garbage cans
I am sure about that, and I don't deal with the way things "seem".
That is precisely your problem - you spout off about how you "feel" and the way things "seem".
The skepticism you practice so universally during a republican administration has been totally disabled for Obama.
Go ahead, tell me how you'll denounce him or his policies if he does something you disagree with.
It'll never happen.
Rat Faced
02-15-2009, 12:48 AM
On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.
Seven United States Attorneys were dismissed by the United States Department of Justice on December 7, 2006. Senior members of the White House and the Department of Justice participated in compiling the list of dismisees. The USA Patriot Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, which was signed into law on March 9, 2006, extinguished the former 120-day term limit of interim United States Attorneys appointed to fill vacated offices. This in effect gave the U.S. Attorney General greater appointing authority than the president, since the interim U.S. attorneys did not need Senate confirmation, and the presidential nominees do. (An interim U.S. attorney's term expires upon the confirmation and swearing in of a presidentially appointed U.S. attorney, if one is put forward. Critics have claimed the dismissals were either motivated by desire to install attorneys more loyal to the Republican party or as retribution for actions or inactions damaging to the Republican party. At least six of the eight had positive internal Justice Department performance reports.
Adam McGaughey, the webmaster of a fan site for the television show Stargate SG-1, was charged with copyright infringement and computer fraud. During the investigation, the FBI invoked a provision of the Act to obtain financial records from the site's Internet Service Provider. The USA PATRIOT Act amended the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to include search and seizure of records from Internet Service Providers.
Summit, New Jersey invoked the USA PATRIOT Act to defend itself from a lawsuit over removing homeless people from its train station.
The city said that its conduct is protected by the Patriot Act and that a homeless man's federal lawsuit should be barred. The city cited a section of the law regarding "attacks and other violence against mass transportation systems."
In November 2005, Business Week reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of "National Security Letters" and had obtained one million financial records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions". This didn't just include financial records, but credit records, employment records, and in some cases, health records.
Furthermore, this information is databased and maintained indefinitely by the FBI. Previous legislation required that federal law enforcement destroy any records harvested during an investigation that pertained to anyone deemed innocent. The Patriot Act superseded that and now the records are maintained indefinitely. According to the legislation, they may be "shared with third-parties where appropriate" yet no where in the legislation does it define who these third parties are or what conditions would be deemed appropriate for the sharing of such records.
Public libraries have been asked to turn over their records for specific terminals. A few have filed suit, because the National Security Letters that they were presented with were very sweeping, demanding information not just on the individual under investigation, but on everyone who had used specific terminals at the libraries during given time windows. Since many of the users in one case were minor children, one library felt that it had an obligation to notify the parents. The FBI has disagreed and the case is now working its way through the court system.
A National Security Letter can be issued by any FBI agent with the rank of Field Supervisor or above, at their discretion. It does not require a judge or probable cause, as does a search warrant.
In May 2004, Professor Steve Kurtz of the University at Buffalo reported his wife's death of heart failure. The associate art professor, who works in the biotechnology sector, was using benign bacterial cultures and biological equipment in his work. Police arriving at the scene found the equipment (which had been displayed in museums and galleries throughout Europe and North America) suspicious and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
The next day the FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Department of Homeland Security and numerous other law enforcement agencies arrived in HAZMAT gear and cordoned off the block surrounding Kurtz's house, impounding computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment, and detaining Kurtz without charge for 22 hours; the Erie County Health Department condemned the house as a possible "health risk" while the cultures were analyzed. Although it was determined that nothing in the Kurtz's home posed any health or safety risk, the Justice Department sought charges under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act—a law which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act.
A grand jury rejected those charges, but Kurtz is still charged with federal criminal mail and wire fraud, and faced 20 years in jail before the charges were dropped.
Supporters worldwide argue that this is a politically motivated prosecution, akin to those seen during the era of McCarthyism, and legal observers note that it is a precedent-setting case with far-reaching implications involving the criminalization of free speech and expression for artists, scientists, researchers, and others.
The FBI used the USA PATRIOT Act 13 times to request journalists that had interviewed computer intruder Adrian Lamo to preserve their notes and other information while they petitioned the Department of Justice for a subpoena to force the reporters to hand over the information. Journalists involved included newspaper writers, wire service reporters, and MSNBC writers. The Department of Justice did not authorize the subpoena requests because the language of the subpoena violated the Department's guidelines for a subpoena request, rather than recognition of any reporter/source privilege. The requests to preserve information were dropped. In some cases, the FBI apologized for the language of the request.
Of course there are loads of examples of people being arrested due to the Patriot Act for legitimate "Anti-Terrorism" investigations, which were then released without charge after a few weeks.. by which time they'd lost their Job etc :whistling
Seven United States Attorneys were dismissed by the United States Department of Justice on December 7, 2006. Senior members of the White House and the Department of Justice participated in compiling the list of dismisees. The USA Patriot Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, which was signed into law on March 9, 2006, extinguished the former 120-day term limit of interim United States Attorneys appointed to fill vacated offices. This in effect gave the U.S. Attorney General greater appointing authority than the president, since the interim U.S. attorneys did not need Senate confirmation, and the presidential nominees do. (An interim U.S. attorney's term expires upon the confirmation and swearing in of a presidentially appointed U.S. attorney, if one is put forward. Critics have claimed the dismissals were either motivated by desire to install attorneys more loyal to the Republican party or as retribution for actions or inactions damaging to the Republican party. At least six of the eight had positive internal Justice Department performance reports.
Adam McGaughey, the webmaster of a fan site for the television show Stargate SG-1, was charged with copyright infringement and computer fraud. During the investigation, the FBI invoked a provision of the Act to obtain financial records from the site's Internet Service Provider. The USA PATRIOT Act amended the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to include search and seizure of records from Internet Service Providers.
Summit, New Jersey invoked the USA PATRIOT Act to defend itself from a lawsuit over removing homeless people from its train station.
The city said that its conduct is protected by the Patriot Act and that a homeless man's federal lawsuit should be barred. The city cited a section of the law regarding "attacks and other violence against mass transportation systems."
In November 2005, Business Week reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of "National Security Letters" and had obtained one million financial records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions". This didn't just include financial records, but credit records, employment records, and in some cases, health records.
Furthermore, this information is databased and maintained indefinitely by the FBI. Previous legislation required that federal law enforcement destroy any records harvested during an investigation that pertained to anyone deemed innocent. The Patriot Act superseded that and now the records are maintained indefinitely. According to the legislation, they may be "shared with third-parties where appropriate" yet no where in the legislation does it define who these third parties are or what conditions would be deemed appropriate for the sharing of such records.
Public libraries have been asked to turn over their records for specific terminals. A few have filed suit, because the National Security Letters that they were presented with were very sweeping, demanding information not just on the individual under investigation, but on everyone who had used specific terminals at the libraries during given time windows. Since many of the users in one case were minor children, one library felt that it had an obligation to notify the parents. The FBI has disagreed and the case is now working its way through the court system.
A National Security Letter can be issued by any FBI agent with the rank of Field Supervisor or above, at their discretion. It does not require a judge or probable cause, as does a search warrant.
In May 2004, Professor Steve Kurtz of the University at Buffalo reported his wife's death of heart failure. The associate art professor, who works in the biotechnology sector, was using benign bacterial cultures and biological equipment in his work. Police arriving at the scene found the equipment (which had been displayed in museums and galleries throughout Europe and North America) suspicious and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
The next day the FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Department of Homeland Security and numerous other law enforcement agencies arrived in HAZMAT gear and cordoned off the block surrounding Kurtz's house, impounding computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment, and detaining Kurtz without charge for 22 hours; the Erie County Health Department condemned the house as a possible "health risk" while the cultures were analyzed. Although it was determined that nothing in the Kurtz's home posed any health or safety risk, the Justice Department sought charges under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act—a law which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act.
A grand jury rejected those charges, but Kurtz is still charged with federal criminal mail and wire fraud, and faced 20 years in jail before the charges were dropped.
Supporters worldwide argue that this is a politically motivated prosecution, akin to those seen during the era of McCarthyism, and legal observers note that it is a precedent-setting case with far-reaching implications involving the criminalization of free speech and expression for artists, scientists, researchers, and others.
The FBI used the USA PATRIOT Act 13 times to request journalists that had interviewed computer intruder Adrian Lamo to preserve their notes and other information while they petitioned the Department of Justice for a subpoena to force the reporters to hand over the information. Journalists involved included newspaper writers, wire service reporters, and MSNBC writers. The Department of Justice did not authorize the subpoena requests because the language of the subpoena violated the Department's guidelines for a subpoena request, rather than recognition of any reporter/source privilege. The requests to preserve information were dropped. In some cases, the FBI apologized for the language of the request.
Of course there are loads of examples of people being arrested due to the Patriot Act for legitimate "Anti-Terrorism" investigations, which were then released without charge after a few weeks.. by which time they'd lost their Job etc :whistling
Ah, a bunch of quotes.
From where, please?
devilsadvocate
02-15-2009, 02:37 AM
It appears Obama will sign the stimulus on Tuesday, which if you include the day it was posted and the day of signing that makes 5 days posted online So it looks like he's getting there
In case you didn't know, PDFs cannot be keyword-searched for content; there is literally no way to review this mess.
That's not really accurate. It depends on how they're made.
If it's all scanned pages or something then you're screwed, but ones made up of text, like the ones you get when you create pdfs in OO Writer, are searchable.
It appears Obama will sign the stimulus on Tuesday, which if you include the day it was posted and the day of signing that makes 5 days posted online So it looks like he's getting there
"Getting there"?
When it's entirely within his power to 'be there' right out of the box, "getting there" ain't good enough, chum.
In case you didn't know, PDFs cannot be keyword-searched for content; there is literally no way to review this mess.
That's not really accurate. It depends on how they're made.
If it's all scanned pages or something then you're screwed, but ones made up of text, like the ones you get when you create pdfs in OO Writer, are searchable.
Back to the point I just made, Snee - Obama is the boss (just ask him), and there is no reason whatsoever to post the bill in PDF to begin with.
I can only conclude that, considering his awesome degree of tech-savvy, he knew full-well what he was doing.
Of course, it's kinda curious that he's jaunting around the country doing the cheerleader thing while the House and Senate are conjuring the bill.
He must have given them carte blanche to do as they pleased, eh?
Back to the point I just made, Snee - Obama is the boss (just ask him), and there is no reason whatsoever to post the bill in PDF to begin with.
I can only conclude that, considering his awesome degree of tech-savvy, he knew full-well what he was doing.
It's not that I want to make this about a file format or anything (but tbh, it's more interesting than Obama to me, he's just that bland guy I'm hoping will be less of a screw-up than the last one).
...But there are reasons to put stuff in a pdf rather than, say, a .doc. One good reason would be that PDFs tend to keep their formatting better and will display roughly the same with most readers, assuming there's no weird interactive stuff or barcodes.
Having said all that. I have nothing to add about the actual topic. I'll assume you lot have been paying better attention to what he's actually been doing wrt the listed stuff than I.
Rat Faced
02-15-2009, 02:22 PM
Ah, a bunch of quotes.
From where, please?
You know how to Google too, you could try and disprove any of 'em. Fact.
However your not alone.
In UK Local Authorities have used "Terrorism Legislation" to prosecute people for things so minor as Dogs Fouling public footpaths and people leaving their Bins so full as to be unable to close properly..
Someones bin is too small for the size of their family and the obvious corrective activity is not to give 'em a bigger bin, but to use legislation concocted to fight terrorism to take 'em to court. :lol:
Fact.
Enable people to abuse the rights of others, and they will. Or, put a way you'll understand.."The Road to Hell is paved with 'Good Intentions'".
devilsadvocate
02-15-2009, 03:56 PM
"Getting there"?
When it's entirely within his power to 'be there' right out of the box, "getting there" ain't good enough, chum.
TBH those signatures were for his base, The Schip bill in particular would be his big thank you and pay back dig at the past blockage.
I'd still like to know just what it is you feel he hasn't been transparent about?
As I said he may have broken a promise and signed those bills he said were on his first thing to do list before the 5 days, but they were and still are online for viewing.
So tell me, please, what in any of those bills is not on display? What is he covering up?
Ah, a bunch of quotes.
From where, please?
You know how to Google too, you could try and disprove any of 'em. Fact.
However your not alone.
In UK Local Authorities have used "Terrorism Legislation" to prosecute people for things so minor as Dogs Fouling public footpaths and people leaving their Bins so full as to be unable to close properly..
Someones bin is too small for the size of their family and the obvious corrective activity is not to give 'em a bigger bin, but to use legislation concocted to fight terrorism to take 'em to court. :lol:
Fact.
Enable people to abuse the rights of others, and they will. Or, put a way you'll understand.."The Road to Hell is paved with 'Good Intentions'".
You miss my point, which is that anyone can find "facts" or "testimony" on the web to support a viewpoint or opinion.
In the past, you've relied to a great extent on info/data you've gotten from U.N. sites, which I regard as horseshit, in the main - you can believe anything you like, but the provenance of web content is pretty iffy, to my mind, and I prefer to make a case in other ways for the most part.
Besides all that, you did Google the stuff, and you know where it came from - if you choose to present it as fact, why not provide proper linkage.
More on point, none of what you "quoted" bothers me terribly, from a mathematical standpoint, anyway.
With a population of over 300 million people, any numbers you regard as out-of-whack are bound to be impressive, but what has ever come of this tremendous haul of data?
Where are the millions of people wrongly sentenced to jail, etc.?
You may try to make a case over the issue of privacy, but that is a relative thing as well; I am struck currently by a section of the stimulus package that has to do with our (seemingly) impending national health care system - there will be a decision-making body (what this has to do with "stimulus" is a mystery to me, but there it is), tasked to determine whether a person of a certain age and state of health will be eligible for any of a myriad of expensive/life-saving medical procedures, based on actuarials.
So-
A faceless government entity will consult this person's medical history and issue a proclamation of worthiness...and no concerns about privacy are to be raised?
How does that fit with the left's heretofore unassailable and iron-clad defense of privacy issues vis a vis, oh, let's say...abortion?
I know I'm asking a lot of you here, but, gee whiz, Rat -whattya think?
devilsadvocate
02-17-2009, 02:25 PM
Well that's just bullshit, and I might add not the first limbaugh twisted point you've used as "facts" in this thread.
Well that's just bullshit, and I might add not the first limbaugh twisted point you've used as "facts" in this thread.
What's Limbaugh got to do with anything.
Find some "facts" of your own.
Rat Faced
02-19-2009, 06:28 PM
Frankly j2, terrorists wanted to change our way of life.
Result: All these "anti-terrorism" laws that totally destroy what our countries stand for.
Ergo, The Terrorists win.
"Numbers" mean nothing. If only 1 innocent persons life was wrecked due to these laws, then we lost.
In a country of Millions, where it is more likely that you'll be run over than blown up..
I'd rather they spent the Billions on road safety and take the risk, thanks.
And if they didn't use national security as a motive to invade our privacy some more that'd be just super. And that goes for politicians here too :dabs:
Frankly j2, terrorists wanted to change our way of life.
Result: All these "anti-terrorism" laws that totally destroy what our countries stand for.
Ergo, The Terrorists win.
"Numbers" mean nothing. If only 1 innocent persons life was wrecked due to these laws, then we lost.
In a country of Millions, where it is more likely that you'll be run over than blown up..
I'd rather they spent the Billions on road safety and take the risk, thanks.
I don't agree that the terrorists won, and I don't agree that wrecking one person's life means we've lost.
Hell, our IRS wrecks more lives domestically than terrorists or the Patriot Act, but they're a government organ, and so escape the label.
I'm curious that you'd "take the risk" on terrorism, though.
Also, I'd like you to expand on the idea of terrorist "laws totally destroying" our country(s).
I am (and have been all of my adult life) dissatisfied with many things I have to live with in my country, but I am by no means whatsoever of the opinion it has been "totally destroyed".
The WTC, on the other hand...
Rat Faced
02-20-2009, 08:29 PM
I didn't say they totally destroyed our countries.
I said they totally destroyed what our countries stood for. Big Difference.
Neither country can now take the moral highground, however its the smaller things such as Freedom of Expression and Free Association as well as the Big Brother mentality I'm looking at.
Hell, this country just turned away a Dutch Politician and 2 US Christian preachers.
I may not agree with anything that these cunts say, but until recently we could justifiably claim we'd fight for their right to express it.
We lost. Fact.
I didn't say they totally destroyed our countries.
I said they totally destroyed what our countries stood for. Big Difference.
Neither country can now take the moral highground, however its the smaller things such as Freedom of Expression and Free Association as well as the Big Brother mentality I'm looking at.
Hell, this country just turned away a Dutch Politician and 2 US Christian preachers.
I may not agree with anything that these cunts say, but until recently we could justifiably claim we'd fight for their right to express it.
We lost. Fact.
I'll grant there are some things needing attention; your examples fit the bill.
We haven't lost, though; not yet.
We need something along the lines of a scratch start.
The_Martinator
02-25-2009, 06:47 PM
I hope you guys don't mind me intruding a bit. Obviously I don't know as much about American politics as you.
Here's a European opinion: It can't be much worse than it was. If a president comes to your country and he looks like he doesn't really give a shit about where he is and why, then it doesn't look good. hopefully when that president is black he knows how it is to be showed to the side, so he won't do that to others and will show some respect to the country he's visiting.
At any rate, America has been through tougher times, you'll get through this too. You can't expect too much from politicians, there's a lot of money involved and in those cases people tend to loose their minds.
MrDudePants
02-27-2009, 05:36 AM
In case you didn't know, PDFs cannot be keyword-searched for content; there is literally no way to review this mess.
Someone's been listening to Rush Limbaugh.
DLOQ4vKl_3Y
Ignore the title, posted by another retard like yourself. This guy couldn't even understand that you CAN keyword-search PDF files, when it was right there in front of him, when he was UPLOADING IT!
In case you didn't know, PDFs cannot be keyword-searched for content; there is literally no way to review this mess.
Someone's been listening to Rush Limbaugh.
DLOQ4vKl_3Y
Ignore the title, posted by another retard like yourself. This guy couldn't even understand that you CAN keyword-search PDF files, when it was right there in front of him, when he was UPLOADING IT!
You do Olbermann - who are you calling a retard, retard?
"Uploading it"?
Wtf?
clocker
02-27-2009, 11:50 AM
You may try to make a case over the issue of privacy, but that is a relative thing as well; I am struck currently by a section of the stimulus package that has to do with our (seemingly) impending national health care system - there will be a decision-making body (what this has to do with "stimulus" is a mystery to me, but there it is), tasked to determine whether a person of a certain age and state of health will be eligible for any of a myriad of expensive/life-saving medical procedures, based on actuarials.
So-
A faceless government entity will consult this person's medical history and issue a proclamation of worthiness...and no concerns about privacy are to be raised?
Can you point me to this section of the bill please?
Rat Faced
02-27-2009, 07:52 PM
If its not Universal, then its worthless
MrDudePants
03-01-2009, 10:13 AM
Someone's been listening to Rush Limbaugh.
DLOQ4vKl_3Y
Ignore the title, posted by another retard like yourself. This guy couldn't even understand that you CAN keyword-search PDF files, when it was right there in front of him, when he was UPLOADING IT!
You do Olbermann - who are you calling a retard, retard?
"Uploading it"?
Wtf?
"You do Olbermann" WTF!?
And! And, I said, so clearly "when it was right there in front of him, when he was UPLOADING IT!" meaning of course, that, when the person who "uploaded" -- like when you send a video file to a web server via PHP, ASP, MySQL, etc. -- he failed to realize that you can keyword-search PDFs and he even had a video explaining that you can keyword-search PDFs right there in front of him, which you failed to realize as well, yet the YouTube user continued to upload the video, and criticize Olbermann.
And, YOU are retarded.
You do Olbermann - who are you calling a retard, retard?
"Uploading it"?
Wtf?
"You do Olbermann" WTF!?
And! And, I said, so clearly "when it was right there in front of him, when he was UPLOADING IT!" meaning of course, that, when the person who "uploaded" -- like when you send a video file to a web server via PHP, ASP, MySQL, etc. -- he failed to realize that you can keyword-search PDFs and he even had a video explaining that you can keyword-search PDFs right there in front of him, which you failed to realize as well, yet the YouTube user continued to upload the video, and criticize Olbermann.
And, YOU are retarded.
Me?
Retarded?
Well, then.
It seems I have your attention, don't I?
That's good, then - don't go away, please.
clocker
03-03-2009, 02:01 AM
...so far?
No transparency; plenty of obfuscation.
Lying about the pork in the stimulus bill.
Bipartisanship means "my way or the highway".
.
If it's budget time, it's good to be a red state. And it's very good to be Mississippi.
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense, Mississippi has won the earmark contest in the omnibus budget package.
Mississippi Republican Sen. Thad Cochran led his colleagues by raking in more than $470 million in 204 earmarks. Mississippi's junior Republican, Roger Wicker, pulled in more than $390 million. The totals can't be added together because the figure includes earmarks each received solo and with others, so the same earmark could be in both senators' column. Cochran, on his own, pulled in roughly $76 million and Wicker brought home $4 million.
Cochran's $76 million ranks him sixth among solo earmarkers. (Earmarks can be requested individually, with other members of Congress or along with the president.)
Senate Democrats and Republican ate roughly the same amount from the government trough on a solo basis, although Democrats have one and half times as many members. Democratic members secured about $677 million in individual earmarks; Republicans brought home $669 million. Those solo figures, however, don't tell the entire story, because about six billion more was requested by groups of lawmakers.
For solo earmarks, nobody beat out Sen. Bob Byrd (D-W.Va.), last year's appropriations committee chairman. The defender of earmarks took home $123 million. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) came in second, with $114 million. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) rounded out the top three, bringing home $86 million by himself.
Republican leader Mitch McConnell is bringing $51 million back to Kentucky and Democratic leader Harry Reid earmarked $27 million for Nevada. They ranked tenth and seventeenth, respectively.
Louisiana did well, too. Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu took in the third-most joint and solo earmarks, bringing home $332 million for local projects. Her Republican colleague, Sen. David Vitter, pulled down the fifth-most at $249 million.
The Louisianans straddled Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin, the chairman of the agriculture committee, who brought back $292 million.
Rural and small-state voters were the big winners on an absolute and on a per capita basis, even though it was big states and urban areas that have delivered Congress and the White House to Democrats. Of the top ten earmarking senators, only Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.; $77 million solo; $235 combined), represents a large state and only three of the top ten are blue states. In the top 20, only six blue states are represented.
Apparently it's not "pork" when practiced by Republicans.
MrDudePants
03-03-2009, 05:47 AM
"You do Olbermann" WTF!?
And! And, I said, so clearly "when it was right there in front of him, when he was UPLOADING IT!" meaning of course, that, when the person who "uploaded" -- like when you send a video file to a web server via PHP, ASP, MySQL, etc. -- he failed to realize that you can keyword-search PDFs and he even had a video explaining that you can keyword-search PDFs right there in front of him, which you failed to realize as well, yet the YouTube user continued to upload the video, and criticize Olbermann.
And, YOU are retarded.
Me?
Retarded?
Well, then.
It seems I have your attention, don't I?
That's good, then - don't go away, please.
What the fuck!?
Write in English, you illiterate republican.
Though I shouldn't disgrace other languages by grouping you in with them.
If it's budget time, it's good to be a red state. And it's very good to be Mississippi.
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense, Mississippi has won the earmark contest in the omnibus budget package.
Mississippi Republican Sen. Thad Cochran led his colleagues by raking in more than $470 million in 204 earmarks. Mississippi's junior Republican, Roger Wicker, pulled in more than $390 million. The totals can't be added together because the figure includes earmarks each received solo and with others, so the same earmark could be in both senators' column. Cochran, on his own, pulled in roughly $76 million and Wicker brought home $4 million.
Cochran's $76 million ranks him sixth among solo earmarkers. (Earmarks can be requested individually, with other members of Congress or along with the president.)
Senate Democrats and Republican ate roughly the same amount from the government trough on a solo basis, although Democrats have one and half times as many members. Democratic members secured about $677 million in individual earmarks; Republicans brought home $669 million. Those solo figures, however, don't tell the entire story, because about six billion more was requested by groups of lawmakers.
For solo earmarks, nobody beat out Sen. Bob Byrd (D-W.Va.), last year's appropriations committee chairman. The defender of earmarks took home $123 million. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) came in second, with $114 million. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) rounded out the top three, bringing home $86 million by himself.
Republican leader Mitch McConnell is bringing $51 million back to Kentucky and Democratic leader Harry Reid earmarked $27 million for Nevada. They ranked tenth and seventeenth, respectively.
Louisiana did well, too. Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu took in the third-most joint and solo earmarks, bringing home $332 million for local projects. Her Republican colleague, Sen. David Vitter, pulled down the fifth-most at $249 million.
The Louisianans straddled Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin, the chairman of the agriculture committee, who brought back $292 million.
Rural and small-state voters were the big winners on an absolute and on a per capita basis, even though it was big states and urban areas that have delivered Congress and the White House to Democrats. Of the top ten earmarking senators, only Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.; $77 million solo; $235 combined), represents a large state and only three of the top ten are blue states. In the top 20, only six blue states are represented.
Apparently it's not "pork" when practiced by Republicans.
I've already told you, I am not a republican.
Fact is, Obama signed off on it, he was the one who said, "no pork, no earmarks", so the arrow points at him.
Me?
Retarded?
Well, then.
It seems I have your attention, don't I?
That's good, then - don't go away, please.
What the fuck!?
Write in English, you illiterate republican.
Though I shouldn't disgrace other languages by grouping you in with them.
See above.
Seems you want to pick a fight - have at it, please.
clocker
03-03-2009, 12:40 PM
I've already told you, I am not a republican.
So you don't like anybody.
Funny how most of your vitriol is directed at Democrats.
I've already told you, I am not a republican.
So you don't like anybody.
Funny how most of your vitriol is directed at Democrats.
Yes, it is funny sometimes.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.