Umm... All hail king Barry?
-
Synaptrik wrote:
cavalier view
How so? What makes me think the entire issue is completely dishonest, is the fact that they only want to impose this on radio. Because of course radio is the only place that conservatives hold a majority. TV and print are FAR more dangerous. People have to actively decide to go listen to radio specifically for the views it represents. Most people want news, and get heavily liberal news almost by default. Which is why FNC is so vilified. If they really wanted fairness, they'd suggest cleaning up "news" and set all the partisan commentary aside somewhere where you would have to seek it to get it, like radio. Of course the left would never go for that, because they'd mostly fail, as they have with radio. Propaganda pisses me off no matter where it's coming from. I disdain somebody telling me what to think even when I agree with most of it. When I want to be encouraged in my own views, I want Rush and Hannity. When I want to be enraged by the enemy, I want Maddow and Olberman. When I want news, I want news. I suppose 2 out of 3 ain't bad, but number three is extremely important, especially for those who are easily swayed by propoganda.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Well, I should first clarify my position in not supporting the fairness doctrine. Its stupid to say the least. I only meant cavalier in assuming that liberal talk radio doesn't have the audience. They do, but they don't champion their successes and numbers the way conservatives do. I consider this a fault on their part and a quality on the conservatives. Such that it tends to skew the numbers a bit when measuring success.
This statement is false
-
No, it softens it. It recognizes that this wasn't cooked up specifically for Barry. The title refers to the devistating possibility that exists nonetheless. All I'm saying is, every time this moron has proposed this in the past it's never made it to vote (made it to committee the first time only), but that it may have a more sympathetic audience this go round.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Understood. One thing though... the colorization of Obama as Barry, Uhbama, etc... it seems that if the conservative position is solid enough, these would be completely unnecessary and might in fact detract some... just my opinion though.
This statement is false
-
Understood. One thing though... the colorization of Obama as Barry, Uhbama, etc... it seems that if the conservative position is solid enough, these would be completely unnecessary and might in fact detract some... just my opinion though.
This statement is false
I believe you are right. It betrays my personal distaste for having him in office. Which is somewhat childish, which is never helpful. And now that I say that, I can really see it. Thanks for pointing that out. I have nothing against the guy personally. Hell, I assume he's a nice guy. I just think that everything he wants to do will be destructive. My personal feelings are further compounded by the belief that there is a good possibility that he doesn't even hold the office legally. My biggest personal weakness is that complaining tends to be my favorite outlet for dealing with stress induced by situations I have no control over. And this administration fits that scenario. Point taken, and not lightly.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Oakman wrote:
the UK's Prime Minister who is elected by 50%+1 of one house of Parliament
Incorrect. In the UK we have members elected to parliament using a "first past the post" system. The UK Prime Minister is the leader of the political party that has gained the most members of parliament in the Westminster general election, however, there are notable exceptions. The political party gaining the most members elected to parliament is not usually the political party that has gained the most amount of votes in said general election or indeed percentage of votes. The leader of most political parties at Westminster gain that role usually after some convoluted procedures and rules that are peculiar to said political party with each political party having their own rules and procedures that they follow, and are not subjected to any vote by any ordinary members of the public.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
are not subjected to any vote by any ordinary members of the public.
That's what I said, Richard. Hesjhe's elected by a majority of the lower house. I just said it in American.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
I believe you are right. It betrays my personal distaste for having him in office. Which is somewhat childish, which is never helpful. And now that I say that, I can really see it. Thanks for pointing that out. I have nothing against the guy personally. Hell, I assume he's a nice guy. I just think that everything he wants to do will be destructive. My personal feelings are further compounded by the belief that there is a good possibility that he doesn't even hold the office legally. My biggest personal weakness is that complaining tends to be my favorite outlet for dealing with stress induced by situations I have no control over. And this administration fits that scenario. Point taken, and not lightly.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Well, you set the bar for people on all sides of these issues. Myself included. If we're not careful we might just end up with some respectful debates. :laugh: But the top 4 threads remind me that we'll still only be part way there. [addition]
BoneSoft wrote:
I have nothing against the guy personally. Hell, I assume he's a nice guy. I just think that everything he wants to do will be destructive.
I truly believe that we all love America and really just want it to be better, but differ on the route to take and the model of what that means. One of the things I thought was truly remarkable following 911 was how it crystallized that. People who had been at odds bonded behind being American. I think we need more of that, but its a shame that it might take a tragedy to get it. [/addition]
This statement is false
-
John Carson wrote:
Noone can "stay in power as long as he likes" merely because of the absence of term limits.
Nope, but if there is an absence of term limits, it makes it easier to stay in power for a long time. No-one has said that this and this alone will make all the difference. And your attempts at claiming that someone did so reflect badly on your arguments, not ours.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Nope, but if there is an absence of term limits, it makes it easier to stay in power for a long time. No-one has said that this and this alone will make all the difference. And your attempts at claiming that someone did so reflect badly on your arguments, not ours.
I never denied that an absence of term limits makes it easier to stay in power for a long time. In the one case is is (legally) impossible. In the other it is possible and FDR proved it. And your attempts at claiming that I did so reflect badly on your arguments, not mine.
John Carson
-
Synaptrik wrote:
That 11 divided by 3 is irrational.
A rational number, by definition, is a number expressible as a ratio of two integers. Rational is rational.
John Carson
-
Synaptrik wrote:
That 11 divided by 3 is irrational.
A rational number, by definition, is a number expressible as a ratio of two integers. Rational is rational.
John Carson
Well, if you insist on ruining some light hearted humor, you've succeeded. You might also find, now that you decided to turn the pedant onto me, that you would get a better reception with your viewpoint if you left biting insulting comments out of your posts. I, in fact would probably side with you more, except that you come off like a childish disrespectful jerk and that nullifies any argument you present. In fact, I've had to remind myself that I agreed with one of your views after your attitude put me off of it. Quite the success story there if your aim is to get any kind of message across. Keep up the good work.
This statement is false
-
Well, you set the bar for people on all sides of these issues. Myself included. If we're not careful we might just end up with some respectful debates. :laugh: But the top 4 threads remind me that we'll still only be part way there. [addition]
BoneSoft wrote:
I have nothing against the guy personally. Hell, I assume he's a nice guy. I just think that everything he wants to do will be destructive.
I truly believe that we all love America and really just want it to be better, but differ on the route to take and the model of what that means. One of the things I thought was truly remarkable following 911 was how it crystallized that. People who had been at odds bonded behind being American. I think we need more of that, but its a shame that it might take a tragedy to get it. [/addition]
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
I truly believe that we all love America and really just want it to be better
I used to. And for the most part I still do. However, there are some Americans that not only hate America, but want to change in fundamentally or destroy it trying. I don't think many of those people are public, but I don't know who they are. And I believe most of them are using the Democrat party to try to do this. People like the Institute for Policy Change (Cora Weiss), Samuel Rubin Foundation, National Lawyers Guild, and IPCs many many other satellite affiliates. But that's another story. For the most part, I'm with you, and believe that most Americans truely have the countries best interests at heart but just have vastly different ideas of how to make things better. But the rift between the two main camps seems to be widening, which is not a good thing since most people can't understand at all how the other side thinks already. More people are going to have to be able to realize that we are all on the same side, and that people who disagree aren't their enemy just because they disagree. I don't know what it will take to make more people come to that realization though. I kind of wish I'd been here after 9/11, all I got were second hand stories of how people had come together. I moved to Japan on 9/16/01 and didn't come back until early 2003.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
are not subjected to any vote by any ordinary members of the public.
That's what I said, Richard. Hesjhe's elected by a majority of the lower house. I just said it in American.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Sorry Jon, what you said, even in your best American, is not what happens. The lower house (The Commons) is the elected members of parliament as assembled. They represent a variety of political parties, usually the big three - Labour, Conservative & Liberal Democrat. Take, for instance, the Labour party. Once, the leader was decided by the Labour Party members of Parliament only. That changed in the late 1980's/early 1990's (can't remember exactly when but it was all to do with being once again electable what with Labour going into a political wilderness) so that an "electoral college" was established. The leadership of the party was then to be decided by a combination of (1) the Labour Party Members of Parliament, (2) The Trade Unions, and (3) by ordinary party members across the UK, not exactly one party member one vote. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats also have their systems of electing their leader. Labour being the largest political party in the Commons automatically makes the Labour leader as Prime Minister. Those members of Parliament representing other parties have no say in who the Prime Minister will be.
-
Sorry Jon, what you said, even in your best American, is not what happens. The lower house (The Commons) is the elected members of parliament as assembled. They represent a variety of political parties, usually the big three - Labour, Conservative & Liberal Democrat. Take, for instance, the Labour party. Once, the leader was decided by the Labour Party members of Parliament only. That changed in the late 1980's/early 1990's (can't remember exactly when but it was all to do with being once again electable what with Labour going into a political wilderness) so that an "electoral college" was established. The leadership of the party was then to be decided by a combination of (1) the Labour Party Members of Parliament, (2) The Trade Unions, and (3) by ordinary party members across the UK, not exactly one party member one vote. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats also have their systems of electing their leader. Labour being the largest political party in the Commons automatically makes the Labour leader as Prime Minister. Those members of Parliament representing other parties have no say in who the Prime Minister will be.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The leadership of the party was then to be decided by a combination of (1) the Labour Party Members of Parliament, (2) The Trade Unions, and (3) by ordinary party members across the UK, not exactly one party member one vote.
Okay, but once that vote is taken, is there not a formal vote by the House of Commons? And when a vote of confidence or a budget vote is taken, surely at these times there is no referring the vote to outside souces? The MPs vote. Isn't that the case?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Synaptrik wrote:
I truly believe that we all love America and really just want it to be better
I used to. And for the most part I still do. However, there are some Americans that not only hate America, but want to change in fundamentally or destroy it trying. I don't think many of those people are public, but I don't know who they are. And I believe most of them are using the Democrat party to try to do this. People like the Institute for Policy Change (Cora Weiss), Samuel Rubin Foundation, National Lawyers Guild, and IPCs many many other satellite affiliates. But that's another story. For the most part, I'm with you, and believe that most Americans truely have the countries best interests at heart but just have vastly different ideas of how to make things better. But the rift between the two main camps seems to be widening, which is not a good thing since most people can't understand at all how the other side thinks already. More people are going to have to be able to realize that we are all on the same side, and that people who disagree aren't their enemy just because they disagree. I don't know what it will take to make more people come to that realization though. I kind of wish I'd been here after 9/11, all I got were second hand stories of how people had come together. I moved to Japan on 9/16/01 and didn't come back until early 2003.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not merely. It takes extra effort - controlling the census, flooding a society with emigrants who you are certain will vote for you once naturalized. You know, things like that...
Even taking this at face value, what does it have to do with term limits? Would a succession of Democratic presidents be hugely different from one president that kept getting re-elected? And would not the Democratic party itself likely choose to change its nominee after a few terms? I think the census thing is way overblown. The migrant thing is more politically significant; changing demography is producing a shift in US politics (though migrants are not "certain" to vote Democrat). However, it is paranoia to regard it as a Democratic plot. There are powerful economic forces behind the migration flow and business is among its strongest supporters. The Republicans under Bush did nothing effective to change the situation.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Even taking this at face value, what does it have to do with term limits? Would a succession of Democratic presidents be hugely different from one president that kept getting re-elected? And would not the Democratic party itself likely choose to change its nominee after a few terms?
John, the simple point is that the democrats, as always, are going to do evertything they can to consolidate their hold on power. And they will get away with it regardless of how aggregious their behavior is precisely because they have so many apologists out there such as yourself. What Obama has already done is orders of magnitude worse than the sum total of everything Bush is accused of doing. And no one gives a shit.
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.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Anyone who can stay in power as long as he likes by buying off groups of voters is a dictator, democracy or no democracy.
So the Tweedledee and the tweedledum party have been able to stay in power 148 years. (You, yourself, in your saner moments have said that the Republicans and Democrats aren't all that different and that the true conservative cause (whatever that is) is not served by either of 'em.) Any dictatorship is an Oligarchy with a strong front man. There have been times when we have strong men and times when we have had weak ones, but the true power mongers faces change only with the generations. Bill Clinton recently pointed out, correctly, I think, that many of the changes in society that Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican) proposed were actually implemented by his cousin, Franklin (a Democrat.) Later, Richard Nixon fulfilled the campaign promises of Adlai Stevenson by taking us off the gold standard and recognizing China. Your "national hero," Bush, tried really hard to grant amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens who still consider themselves native of a foreign power, doubled the national debt (Roosevelt was very cautious about that, comparatively) and nationalised the banks. You think your vote matters? Hah!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
So the Tweedledee and the tweedledum party have been able to stay in power 148 years. (You, yourself, in your saner moments have said that the Republicans and Democrats aren't all that different and that the true conservative cause (whatever that is) is not served by either of 'em.)
I have never said they are not different. The Republican party remains, at its heart, what it has always been - a pro-buisness, pro free market party. It is not, and has never been, a conservative party. Its leadership has been more willing to acknowledge the perceived leftward shift in American civilization since FDR than it has to fight for a true conservative agenda. They are a centrist party that courts conservatives. The democrats are controlled entirely by leftists. They are a leftist party that courts centrists. Its a big difference. Not as big as I would like, but big enough.
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.
-
John Carson wrote:
Even taking this at face value, what does it have to do with term limits? Would a succession of Democratic presidents be hugely different from one president that kept getting re-elected? And would not the Democratic party itself likely choose to change its nominee after a few terms?
John, the simple point is that the democrats, as always, are going to do evertything they can to consolidate their hold on power. And they will get away with it regardless of how aggregious their behavior is precisely because they have so many apologists out there such as yourself. What Obama has already done is orders of magnitude worse than the sum total of everything Bush is accused of doing. And no one gives a shit.
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What Obama has already done is orders of magnitude worse than the sum total of everything Bush is accused of doing.
:confused: :confused:
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
So the Tweedledee and the tweedledum party have been able to stay in power 148 years. (You, yourself, in your saner moments have said that the Republicans and Democrats aren't all that different and that the true conservative cause (whatever that is) is not served by either of 'em.)
I have never said they are not different. The Republican party remains, at its heart, what it has always been - a pro-buisness, pro free market party. It is not, and has never been, a conservative party. Its leadership has been more willing to acknowledge the perceived leftward shift in American civilization since FDR than it has to fight for a true conservative agenda. They are a centrist party that courts conservatives. The democrats are controlled entirely by leftists. They are a leftist party that courts centrists. Its a big difference. Not as big as I would like, but big enough.
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The Republican party remains, at its heart, what it has always been - a pro-buisness, pro free market party.
Drink all your koolaid, there's a good little boy.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What Obama has already done is orders of magnitude worse than the sum total of everything Bush is accused of doing.
:confused: :confused:
John Carson
You want to talk about overblown, John. Accusing Bush of wiretapping phones was overblown. Accusing him of torture was overblown. Accusing him of invading IRaq for oil was overblown. Accusing him of being a liar was overblown. That is what defines overblown. This[^] is not overblown. It is a flagrant assualt upon the heart of American democracy. ANd the fact that it can be done with such blatant impunity and disregard for even the slightest concern from the vast mass of reporting services is trully horifying, although not in the least bit surprising.
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.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The Republican party remains, at its heart, what it has always been - a pro-buisness, pro free market party.
Drink all your koolaid, there's a good little boy.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
Drink all your koolaid, there's a good little boy.
The kool aid is all yours, pal.
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 wrote:
Drink all your koolaid, there's a good little boy.
The kool aid is all yours, pal.
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The kool aid is all yours, pal.
Really? and whose would that be? Surely you're not quite stupid enough to accuse me of being a running dog liberal. Or are you?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
You want to talk about overblown, John. Accusing Bush of wiretapping phones was overblown. Accusing him of torture was overblown. Accusing him of invading IRaq for oil was overblown. Accusing him of being a liar was overblown. That is what defines overblown. This[^] is not overblown. It is a flagrant assualt upon the heart of American democracy. ANd the fact that it can be done with such blatant impunity and disregard for even the slightest concern from the vast mass of reporting services is trully horifying, although not in the least bit surprising.
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Accusing Bush of wiretapping phones was overblown.
No, factual.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Accusing him of torture was overblown.
No, factual.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Accusing him of invading IRaq for oil was overblown.
Agreed.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Accusing him of being a liar was overblown.
No, factual.
Stan Shannon wrote:
This[^] is not overblown. It is a flagrant assualt upon the heart of American democracy.
Talk about overblown!! A dispute over ways to come up with population estimates, with maybe a couple of percent at issue. About as significant as whether or not it rains on election day. I don't have any strong views on how the census should be done. In Australia, it is a strict head count with no sampling. I just don't see it as a big deal either way. I do, however, think that these issues should be determined by an independent body, just as I think the drawing of electoral boundaries should be done by an independent body.
Stan Shannon wrote:
ANd the fact that it can be done with such blatant impunity and disregard for even the slightest concern from the vast mass of reporting services is trully horifying, although not in the least bit surprising.
I don't know about Fox News, but the New York Times, the Washington Post, various television networks and many other media outlets have covered the census controversy. Perhaps you need to read more widely.
John Carson