Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

they can have prayer in public schools back in (this helps young atheists in their identity formation anyway, and gives them something useful to rebel against) if ID and Creationism and all those other frauds are banished from public school to private Christian madrassas.

I didn't need prayer in public school to become an agnostic. All I needed was years of go-through-the-motions religious services combined with the disconnect I saw between the messages spoken to people via sermons and how many of those same people acted during "regular people" time. Then there's the question of how an all-powerful / all-knowing being would deal with the concept of six billion of his creations forming a multitude of beliefs regarding what created them.

I just don't see how people can buy into it.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

For the life of me I dont get why people want prayer in school...it serves no purpose.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Well yeah, if you consider everyone left of President Bush II to be a lefty.

One doesn't have to be nate (sadly banned before his time) or MinnFan, or even you, to be a "righty." Seriously, Richard Nixon would be a lefty under the current GOP definition of "conservative."

you demonstrate once again how you aren't middle of the road, as you claim

even some of the hardcore liberals will admit that the board skews their way. it's just common sense, given the regions this board primarily draws from.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

even some of the hardcore liberals will admit that the board skews their way. it's just common sense, given the regions this board primarily draws from.

Well, it is a college hockey board...

I think the political threads do have a greater representation of liberals and Dems than conservatives and GOPers. I wouldn't be surprised if the board as a whole went to Obama by 3:2 or so.

But I think there is a rough balance of the more, er, colorful political posters.

There was a time when posting as an economic liberal, at least, was a severe minority position, but that was 10 years, 2 failed Bush terms, one depression, and the banishment of several high profile wingnuts ago.

The web as a whole has always tended to bend towards libertarian (fiscal conservative, social liberal) positions popular among educated young (and not so young) males. Older males can't figure out how to turn a computer on and women have better things to do.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I wil admit that as soon as someone starts talking about weapons with this amount of knowledge and isn't overtly in the military or police, I get creeped out.

Seriously?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Seriously?

No. Not seriously. Hence the emoticon.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

you demonstrate once again how you aren't middle of the road, as you claim.

Not that I expect this to mean anything to you since I doubt it means anything in Arizona, though I bet Kepler will get a laugh:

I wrote for the Dartmouth Review during my 4 years in Hanover. Voluntarily even. And most (90%+) of my philosophical/political leanings haven't changed all that much since; the only one of note is I am pro-health care reform (funny how no longer being on a parental/student plan makes one realize how f'ed up the current insurance system is; thank god for state benefits through my wife's job).

The goalposts shifting doesn't make me a liberal, it means the GOP has shifted farther right and is no longer a center-right party but rather a squarely right-wing one (with the tea party on the far-right side of the GOP).

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Couple of comments...

And what was Bush's job approval shortly after 9/11? Or in the few years following? How about his old man in the wake of Desert Storm? Yeah, I can randomly grasp at numbers, too. Not sure what that has to do with Gitmo, but you keep banging away.

Comparing Obama's 50 to Bush's 35% approval...you seem to be asking why would I pick those particular points in time? Simple, Obama's 50% as most recent is the best barometer we have of his total service to date. Bush's 35% being in the last month of his stay in office was the best barometer we have of his total service. Both give us the maximum amount of service to evaluate. And anything it has to do with gitmo is buried in the numbers.

Right, except that in a shocking development, 5mn isn't telling the truth.

Chart.

44% approve to 50% disapprove. Better than Bush though, I'll give you that.

You picked one number, I picked another. The difference is that both my numbers were internally consistent using Rasmussen and the same methodology...you are comparing poll numbers of two different sources.

And I lied as much as you...which is to say not at all.

that's because you agree with 5mn. I'd say he's not one of the worst truth-stretchers (which isn't saying that much, given some of the whoppers we see around here), but he's got very slanted views on some issues and his comments likewise tilt that way very strongly, leading to some stretching. But, he's no Rover, certainly.

Everyone has a point of view. I will say that there is an issue I like to expose and that is to show that although conservatives like to talk about fiscal conservatism...when it comes to their own stuff, they are happy with more government.

The goalposts shifting doesn't make me a liberal, it means the GOP has shifted farther right and is no longer a center-right party but rather a squarely right-wing one (with the tea party on the far-right side of the GOP).

It just seems that starting with a few sarcastic comments from Reagan to a witch hunt on Clinton (that had nothing to do with the booming 90s) to the W years...things have really spun out of control. Maybe its aging boomers that are accentuating the shift. Dunno.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Not that I expect this to mean anything to you since I doubt it means anything in Arizona, though I bet Kepler will get a laugh:

I wrote for the Dartmouth Review during my 4 years in Hanover. Voluntarily even. And most (90%+) of my philosophical/political leanings haven't changed all that much since; the only one of note is I am pro-health care reform (funny how no longer being on a parental/student plan makes one realize how f'ed up the current insurance system is; thank god for state benefits through my wife's job).

The goalposts shifting doesn't make me a liberal, it means the GOP has shifted farther right and is no longer a center-right party but rather a squarely right-wing one (with the tea party on the far-right side of the GOP).

I'm just judging you by what you say here, which is all I can go by since I don't know you beyond your postings here. But, I'd say 80-90 percent of the time you say something around here, it's coming from a liberal, rather than conservative slant. Maybe it's just the issues you choose to weigh in on are the issues you happen to be more liberal on.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Everyone to my left is a communist. Everyone to my right is a fascist.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Everyone has a point of view. I will say that there is an issue I like to expose and that is to show that although conservatives like to talk about fiscal conservatism...when it comes to their own stufff, they are happy with more government.

On fiscal conservatism, I blast anyone who isn't fiscally responsible whether Republican or Democrat. And anyone whose been around here awhile knows I blasted Bush a whole lot for his lack of fiscal conservatism. The last couple years the Dems have had the rudder, so they inevitably take a lot of the heat for now.

By definition, if someone is constantly advocating more spending on lots of stuff and bigger government, they aren't a fiscal conservative. So I guess you're chasing after people who aren't fiscal conservatives (of whom there are people in both the Republican and Democratic camps), which is fine with me, but do it regardless of political party, not just to Republicans, which is what I've observed you doing most of the time.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

But it is also important to remember that a .22 CAN kill a human and that .22 long rifle round can travel up to a mile.

I don't know, most days I can barely clear both lanes of I-394 before it shatters someone's Subaru window. I'm kidding, you're right. Firearms should not be compared to toys. Although if depressed people had a better understanding of ballistics, they would be better equipped to do the job right with a higher-powered gun and not drive up coma care costs.

 

[XYZ]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Comparing Obama's 50 to Bush's 35% approval...you seem to be asking why would I pick those particular points in time? Simple, Obama's 50% as most recent is the best barometer we have of his total service to date. Bush's 35% being in the last month of his stay in office was the best barometer we have of his total service. Both give us the maximum amount of service to evaluate. And anything it has to do with gitmo is buried in the numbers.

I made the leap from the Gitmo comment by whoever -> TBA's comment -> Your defense. It appears Gitmo wasn't the driver behind the latter two, which makes the lack of relevancy of Obama's approval ratings to the initial Gitmo comment...irrelevant, for I appear to have erred (first time ever, amazingly).

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'm just judging you by what you say here, which is all I can go by since I don't know you beyond your postings here. But, I'd say 80-90 percent of the time you say something around here, it's coming from a liberal, rather than conservative slant. Maybe it's just the issues you choose to weigh in on are the issues you happen to be more liberal on.

That's probably because most present day issues are full of derp; neither party cares about economic issues, and since the GOP won most of the social issues from the 90's and early 2000's, the goalposts of todays social issues are farther right.

Affirmative action is on the downslope.
The 2nd amendment has been incorporated to the states, and SCOTUS has said it applies to individuals.
Reasonable limits on abortion are ok.
Hell, Rehnquist even started limiting Congress's power under the Commerce Clause for the first times in 60 years.

The GOP should've taken the wins on the social side and focused on winning the economic side. But instead, they went full derp, especially post 9/11. And you never go full derp. (to steal a line from Tropic Thunder).

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

if depressed people had a better understanding of ballistics, they would be better equipped to do the job right with a higher-powered gun and not drive up coma care costs.

You have to balance doing the job right with not spraying the far wall.

Doing it outside would be more polite.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The GOP should've taken the wins on the social side and focused on winning the economic side. But instead, they went full derp, especially post 9/11. And you never go full derp.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Everyone to my left is a communist. Everyone to my right is a fascist.

Thanks, Bob.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

On fiscal conservatism, I blast anyone who isn't fiscally responsible whether Republican or Democrat. And anyone whose been around here awhile knows I blasted Bush a whole lot for his lack of fiscal conservatism. The last couple years the Dems have had the rudder, so they inevitably take a lot of the heat for now.

By definition, if someone is constantly advocating more spending on lots of stuff and bigger government, they aren't a fiscal conservative. So I guess you're chasing after people who aren't fiscal conservatives (of whom there are people in both the Republican and Democratic camps), which is fine with me, but do it regardless of political party, not just to Republicans, which is what I've observed you doing most of the time.

I'd like to see a balancing of the budget as much as the next guy, but I'm not out to blast people for having preferences on their govt spending.

Its just there are people who criticize everyone else about spending...but then have their own very high priority spending programs. Frequently they justify their support of these programs by saying 'ya, but its only a couple of programs out of thousands that the federal govt has.' Well everyone has their couple of high priority spending programs...the difference is that they're programs that are different than the ones you support. And before you know it we have a massive govt with programs everywhere...all of which have die hard advocates.

If you put fiscal conservatism at the top of your list of priorities...that means you really need to support cutting your programs as well. If not, your just like everyone else about spending, even while unjustifyably criticizing others as supporting big spending.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

On fiscal conservatism, I blast anyone who isn't fiscally responsible whether Republican or Democrat. And anyone whose been around here awhile knows I blasted Bush a whole lot for his lack of fiscal conservatism. The last couple years the Dems have had the rudder, so they inevitably take a lot of the heat for now.

By definition, if someone is constantly advocating more spending on lots of stuff and bigger government, they aren't a fiscal conservative. So I guess you're chasing after people who aren't fiscal conservatives (of whom there are people in both the Republican and Democratic camps), which is fine with me, but do it regardless of political party, not just to Republicans, which is what I've observed you doing most of the time.

I'm interested in them being fiscally responsible, they have to spend money, they just don't have to waste so much. I've worked in, started, taken over, owned, merged with, shut down and re-engineered companies, departments, divisions etc. and even the best run shop can stand a 5-10% reduction in expense with little impact to results. They will tell you that quality will suffer, morale will nosedive, customers will leave, progress will stop and they just can't do it with less. Then you tell them that if they can't you can find somebody who can in a few weeks and miraculously they can get the job done and spend less.

Now imagine none of those entities ever had to report a profit, never had to justify growth, never had to let somebody go, never had to take home less if they spent more, never had to effectively bid contracts, never had to tie promotions to revenue or profits, never had to hit a target to achieve a bonus...what % do you think could be reduced out of that organization with little impact to results?

I've seen irresponsible spending before...but usually it catches up with the person, department or company.

The complete lack of balls in DC is staggering and they keep coming back to 'Finance' (taxpayers) and saying they need more funding. Imagine how much more we could do for education, healthcare, SS etc. if we just had the fortitude to crank out 15% waste from the current budgets and redirect it where we have deficiencies?

But, that will never happen. Merry Christmas.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The complete lack of balls in DC is staggering and they keep coming back to 'Finance' (taxpayers) and saying they need more funding. Imagine how much more we could do for education, healthcare, SS etc. if we just had the fortitude to crank out 15% waste from the current budgets and redirect it where we have deficiencies?

No, they don't. They keep telling finance they don't need as much money even though they're already blowing through it quicker than a (insert your own metaphor here). See, e.g., the Bush tax cuts and their extension.

When was the last time the feds came back to the populace and said, "you know what, sorry, but we have to increase taxes to pay for all this shiat."