Obama eschews European Socialism

Oakman

Mike Gaskey wrote:

hope 'n change thingy.

Forget about it? I have great hopes for a change to come about in 2010. ;)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Rob Graham

Unless Obama & Co. manage to change the way the votes are counted. Expect an assault on the electoral college (in the name of "democracy") next. And expect the next census to shift the balance of power as much as they can craft to the coasts and big cities.

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

And expect the next census to shift the balance of power as much as they can craft to the coasts and big cities.

You are really cynical, Rob. I admire that in you. Somehow, I expect Hugh Gregg to lead the floor fight against rewriting the census. It seems unclear whether Obama intends on moving the entire Census Bureau under his direct control, or whether, perhaps, he'll insist that a new bureacracy be formed specifically to handle the 2010 census. However, as I read the enabling regulations, the data in the 2010 census is not intended to be used before 2012, since it's not due until Dec 31, 2010.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Rob Graham

Oakman wrote:

You are really cynical,

Few things in my life experience have given me cause to be otherwise.

Oakman wrote:

unclear whether Obama intends on moving the entire Census Bureau under his direct control, or whether, perhaps, he'll insist that a new bureacracy

I think funding Acorn to do the counting will distort things quite enough, but expect Obama to seize just as much control as congress is willing to go along with, and not a bit less.

Oakman wrote:

However, as I read the enabling regulations, the data in the 2010 census is not intended to be used before 2012, since it's not due until Dec 31, 2010.

True. That makes the 2010 election quite crucial, don't you think?

kmg365

Oakman wrote:

enabling regulations, the data in the 2010 census is not intended to be used before 2012, since it's not due until Dec 31, 2010.

Not sure what it would take to change that. I'm sure someone is working that issue.

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

Few things in my life experience have given me cause to be otherwise.

I've been married thrice, so me, too. ;)

Rob Graham wrote:

That makes the 2010 election quite crucial, don't you think?

Does a bear crap in the forest? Is God Jewish? Basically, I have come to believe it is America's goal-line stand. (Please tell me I don't sound like Stan at his worst :sigh:) I just ate lunch watching the Prez make a speech on his plans for Education. You will be glad to know that there is no problem the American schools have that cannot be fixed by throwing large amounts of money at it. :cool: He did mention longer school years and holding teachers accountable - but, of course, we need to pay them more if they are only going to get 30 days vacation and actually have to produce results. Thank God for this - I was afraid we would have to start offering challenges and rewards to bright kids and hurting the feelings of the dummies.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Synaptrik

Rob Graham wrote:

but expect Obama to seize just as much control as congress is willing to go along with, and not a bit less.

One thing is for sure. Its refreshing to see people who supported this with Bush opposed to it with Obama. And no, I don't support this with either president. But I distinctly remember a whole lot of support for Bush's abuse of power. War-time yada yada, Lincoln did it.. yada yada... Nice to see that you do find cognitive dissonance with this behavior.

This statement is false

Synaptrik

Oakman wrote:

hurting the feelings of the dummies.

Why would you wish to ridicule someone for an accident of birth?

This statement is false

Oakman

Synaptrik wrote:

Its refreshing to see people who supported this with Bush opposed to it with Obama.

I don't think you meant Rob, but it might read to some, as if you did. I agree that there are plenty of flipfloppers out there who, because a different party or philosophy is in power now complain about what they applauded and cheer, what they deplored. The truth, as I see it, is that Obama is simply better at coming up with ways to pick the pockets of our kids than Bush was and yet Obama owes a great debt to Bush for showing him the way.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Rob Graham

Synaptrik wrote:

But I distinctly remember a whole lot of support for Bush's abuse of power. War-time yada yada, Lincoln did it.. yada yada...

I think you are confusing me with either Stan or Red. Obama has already exceeded Bush's reach in many cases. I think the cognitive dissonance might be yours.

Stan Shannon

Rob Graham wrote:

I think you are confusing me with either Stan or Red.

I'm certainly not the flip-flopper. I fully support Obama's power grab. Just as I supported Bush's and would have supported Lincoln. That isn't to say I agree with them. But when people get elected they should try to do what they said they would. I hope republicans are taking notes. I blame every abuse of power on congress. They are the one's not doing their jobs.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Rob Graham

Stan Shannon wrote:

I blame every abuse of power on congress. They are the one's not doing their jobs.

I agree heartily.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

I fully support Obama's power grab. Just as I supported Bush's and would have supported Lincoln.

Mugabe? Chavez? al-Bashir?

Stan Shannon wrote:

But when people get elected they should try to do what they said they would.

The way Lenin did, and Adolph Schicklegruber.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

I hate to break the news to you, Jon, but social organizataion requires leadership. One would have thought you would have learned that in the Army.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

One would have thought you would have learned that in the Army.

I also learned the meaning of "frag him" - always a useful concept when leaders turned out to have graduated CW Post ROTC. ;) Leadership, Stan, is not a synonym for lawbreaking with impugnity. Nor is the concept that the ends justifies the means particularly Jeffersonian.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

a useful concept when leaders turned out to have graduated CW Post ROTC.

Which is why I'm glad I never had to lead anyone in combat... :~

Oakman wrote:

Leadership, Stan, is not a synonym for lawbreaking with impugnity.

Unless lawbreaking with impugnity is what is required. But, again, that determination is why we have congress. When they say the president is breaking the law with impunity, I will listen. Until then, he can do whatever the hell he pleases for all I care.

Oakman wrote:

Nor is the concept that the ends justifies the means particularly Jeffersonian.

Louisiana.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

Which is why I'm glad I never had to lead anyone in combat...

As one field first put it to me, it's easy - just yell "follow me!" and start running - but remember to run towards the black pj's.

Stan Shannon wrote:

When they say the president is breaking the law with impunity

Your faith in Pelosi and Reid is touching. But hardly believable in a man of some intelligence. Kind of like saying, "As soon as the canary swallows the cat, I'll get a dog."

Stan Shannon wrote:

Louisiana.

Good point.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

Your faith in Pelosi and Reid is touching.

Are you kidding? Pelosi and Reid are two of the most trustworthy people in politics. My faith in them will be amply rewarded, I'm sure.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.