SG Broadband Community

I watched Fahrenheit 41.11 last night. Wow. Watching that movie did re-enforce some ideas that I've held for a long time. I shall list them.

1. Politicians are scum
2. Politicians are Republicans
3. Politicians are Democrats
Therefore, both parties are scum. Simple really.

brembo wrote:I watched Fahrenheit 41.11 last night. Wow. Watching that movie did re-enforce some ideas that I've held for a long time. I shall list them.

1. Politicians are scum
2. Politicians are Republicans
3. Politicians are Democrats
Therefore, both parties are scum. Simple really.

You've earned yourself a cookie! Chocolate Chip or Oatmeal?

As long as it's gluten free and the eggs used were organic from free-range chickens.

How dare anyone disagrees with obama or brings up the fact that he's black, you know if you do, you're a racist.

I like this new troll.

Multiple Miggs. He tossed some baby batter at Agent Starling in Silence of the Lambs, mentioned a smell too.

1. Politicians are scum
2. Politicians are Republicans
3. Politicians are Democrats
Therefore, both parties are scum. Simple really.

That is such a red herring. Where do you think politicians come from? They aren't from outer space. They aren't manufactured in a factory. They are us. Do you think just because someone stays away from politics, they are a better person? It's illogical to say that politicians are scum.

This thread is still alive?

Sarahnn wrote:That is such a red herring. Where do you think politicians come from? They aren't from outer space. They aren't manufactured in a factory. They are us. Do you think just because someone stays away from politics, they are a better person? It's illogical to say that politicians are scum.

Easto wrote:This thread is still alive?

It's not only alive, but I've enjoyed mixing it up with my old buds here.

I've been pretty complacent about past grievances with Presidents but Obama is just wayyyy too far to the left for America and when he says we can learn from Europe, that's when I write him off. Every country in the world has determined its destiny by configuring American culture and policy into their own goals, not the other way around.

That's because our country was conceived differently than Europe, the Middle East, and the Far East through no fault of our own. We had to do what worked best to make us the Nation we are today and Obama is not pleased. Well, he can go run for office in France or any other leftist, elitists strongholds. We are a republic under a brilliantly devised Constitution and with all our faults and failings we still ain't broken.

Anyone want to borrow my soap box?

Easto wrote:This thread is still alive?

actually I wonder if this is a record thread considering it's only been up for 7 days and has 1700 views and 170 replies and it should earn extra worthiness because of the thread starter's comeback status !

Dan wrote:actually I wonder if this is a record thread considering it's only been up for 7 days and has 1700 views and 170 replies and it should earn extra worthiness because of the thread starter's comeback status !

Speedguide is one of my homes on the internet. I've just been preoccupied with other stuff..... this is a wonderful group.

Easto wrote:This thread is still alive?

Its the power of a dedicated troll.

YARDofSTUF wrote:Its the power of a dedicated troll.

Who, me?

Sarahnn wrote:That is such a red herring. Where do you think politicians come from? They aren't from outer space. They aren't manufactured in a factory. They are us. Do you think just because someone stays away from politics, they are a better person? It's illogical to say that politicians are scum.

When you can prove to me that the majority of politicos vote for what their voters want, rather than what keeps them in the powerbase I'll concede the red herring. Otherwise, I shall stick by my assertion that careeer politicians are overwhelmingly scumballs.

mnosteele52 wrote:Well said

The entire platform he ran on is CHANGE, and the only changes I have seen are for the worse... or at least they are more apparent than with past presidencies.

Hold on a second. I think that Paft has the right idea although it's a bit misdirected imo.

If big business is a factor in the downfall of the US...then why are you faulting Obama for not improving the financial situation of these same big businesses? I'm simply asking you to look at it from a different perspective. By improving the financial situation, aren't we therefore enabling the corporatocracy? It's a bit of a catch 22. I feel that we need to find ways to enable small businesses to succeed.


I am in no way defending him, but through his failures, he might actually be helping to mitigate the issue. We vote for candidates...not CEO's. Too many corporations have a stranglehold on our elected officials and the political process.

What really pisses me off is when foreign corporations/entities help finance American political campaigns.

Sarahnn wrote:I think that those who disapprove of the patriot act have no knowledge of what it actually contains, nor how it works on behalf of U.S. citizens, not against them.

This is also one of the most bipartisan pieces of legislation in action today. And it is aimed corrrectly at terrorists. It was conceived after the Oklahoma bombing and refined and buiilt upon until Bush finally signed it into action.

Here's a site that may interest you.

http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/subs/add_myths.htm

Terrorism isn't an existential threat to the United States. Period.

Would you like to trade data on this?

brembo wrote:When you can prove to me that the majority of politicos vote for what their voters want, rather than what keeps them in the powerbase I'll concede the red herring. Otherwise, I shall stick by my assertion that careeer politicians are overwhelmingly scumballs.

I'm not denying that. I'm saying that it's the nature of our species to be corrupted by power.

JawZ wrote:
What really pisses me off is when foreign corporations/entities help finance American political campaigns.

They'll have to compete with our own corps now after that Supreme Court ruling.

I just love this obama recession, don't you ?
[

JawZ wrote:Hold on a second. I think that Paft has the right idea although it's a bit misdirected imo.

If big business is a factor in the downfall of the US...then why are you faulting Obama for not improving the financial situation of these same big businesses? I'm simply asking you to look at it from a different perspective. By improving the financial situation, aren't we therefore enabling the corporatocracy? It's a bit of a catch 22. I feel that we need to find ways to enable small businesses to succeed.


I am in no way defending him, but through his failures, he might actually be helping to mitigate the issue. We vote for candidates...not CEO's. Too many corporations have a stranglehold on our elected officials and the political process.

What really pisses me off is when foreign corporations/entities help finance American political campaigns.

I agree, what I'm referring to are his statements of changing politics in Washington during his campaign. He has done nothing but the same old thing but even worse in my opinion. I think ALL politicians are liars, Republican and Democrats, I choose the lesser of the evils and my beliefs tend to side with Republicans more than Democrats. But Obama is in a different league than other Democratic Presidents of the past, to me he is VERY liberal and is trying to take this country in the wrong direction. The governments job is to govern not completely own and control as in a socialist countries. His mindset is very socialistic (if that's a word), the whole Government Healthcare is what he will be remembered for more than anything..... it's not the governments place to provide me or anyone else with healthcare, it's MY responsibility to provide myself and my family with healthcare. I don't have a problem with the government stepping to to "govern" the way many things are done with healthcare, to help make it more competitive and fair.... but they have no business running it as they want to do.

JawZ wrote:Terrorism isn't an existential threat to the United States. Period.

Would you like to trade data on this?

Yes, I would love to trade data on your statement.

Where would you like to begin?

Sarahnn wrote:You said that State Governments are just as corrupt as the Federal government. I could turn that around and say that the Federal Government is as corrupt as State governments. Thats what I meant by not being germane to my point.

I was not addressing your points.

Perhaps this would make him a bit more likable.

David wrote:I was not addressing your points.

Actually you were. I brought up the States rights issue when I said that the conflicting ideologies that I see are that Bush left much of the problems to the individual states to solve, while Barry is using the Federal Government to seize control of most of the decision-making to Miggs.

It was then you decided to add that the State Govs. were as corrupt as the Feds. You took my observation, which was not addressed to you, in a totally different direction and I responded even though it was not germane to my original point. So, let's not play this, "I wasn't talking to you nonsense". Threads are built on everyone's comments, David.

David wrote:Perhaps this would make him a bit more likable.

Id like to qualify that I don't know if this was addressed to me or not, since that is a mitigating factor in your participation on this thread, David. But, I would like to respond.

What I liked about George Bush and/or dislike about Barry Obama has nothing to do with their appearance. If Bush had attacked and demeaned Clinton for the problems he had to confront as the newly elected President, I would not have liked it and thought that Bush was being petty and my respect for him would have been diminished. I judge my leaders with the same criteria across the board as I go to the polls to vote.

Sarahnn wrote:Id like to qualify that I don't know if this was addressed to me or not, since that is a mitigating factor in your participation on this thread, David. But, I would like to respond.

What I liked about George Bush and/or dislike about Barry Obama has nothing to do with their appearance. If Bush had attacked and demeaned Clinton for the problems he had to confront as the newly elected President, I would not have liked it and thought that Bush was being petty and my respect for him would have been diminished. I judge my leaders with the same criteria across the board as I go to the polls to vote.

Didn't the Bush admin point some acusing fingers at Clinton when questions were being asked about why/how the events of 9/11 unfolded? I'm pretty sure that the group in the Whitehouse did in fact try and pin some blame on Clinton once the dust settled.

brembo wrote:Didn't the Bush admin point some acusing fingers at Clinton when questions were being asked about why/how the events of 9/11 unfolded? I'm pretty sure that the group in the Whitehouse did in fact try and pin some blame on Clinton once the dust settled.

That's been mentioned twice now in this thread. I'm hoping that someone can supply me with a link that verifies that. To my knowledge, Bush never publically blamed the previous administration for his inadequacies as President.

Sarahnn wrote:Actually you were. I brought up the States rights issue when I said that the conflicting ideologies that I see are that Bush left much of the problems to the individual states to solve, while Barry is using the Federal Government to seize control of most of the decision-making to Miggs.

It was then you decided to add that the State Govs. were as corrupt as the Feds. You took my observation, which was not addressed to you, in a totally different direction and I responded even though it was not germane to my original point. So, let's not play this, "I wasn't talking to you nonsense". Threads are built on everyone's comments, David.

My compliment on your telepathic skills, my response was intended toward Paft. It would seem that I was mistaken not to include his quote for the sake of clarification. There was no "nonsense" involved. Was is the difficulty in directing a comment to an individual post without concern if it were germane to another? I responded to your rather general thread question with two simple links, easily obtained by Google. For better or worse, quite a bit has been accomplished under the auspices of the current administration. Questioned asked and answered, beyond that it becomes ad hominem and inflammatory rhetoric based on a clash of ideologies.

The clash of ideologies as it implies to Katrina and the bailouts have less to do with who makes the decisions, but from where comes the resources to manage catastrophes. Many local government have been crippled by natural disasters, duplicity or simple poor decision making. The federal government does have more tools at its disposal to assist locals. Stepping in with aid and guidance toward reconstruction, is not equivalent to a take over.

-david

Sarahnn wrote:Id like to qualify that I don't know if this was addressed to me or not, since that is a mitigating factor in your participation on this thread, David. But, I would like to respond.

What I liked about George Bush and/or dislike about Barry Obama has nothing to do with their appearance. If Bush had attacked and demeaned Clinton for the problems he had to confront as the newly elected President, I would not have liked it and thought that Bush was being petty and my respect for him would have been diminished. I judge my leaders with the same criteria across the board as I go to the polls to vote.

It should be clear that there was humor as its intent, but an underlying metaphor to their similarities as well.

I might surmise that you have a diminished opinion of Mr. Cheney.

-david

David wrote:For the most part, state governments are every bit as corrupt as the federal. The expediency of communication and travel has permitted Washington to orchestrate better from afar

The comparisons of the US to Rome are common, though we have not been around as long as the great empires of the past.

While it's true that state governments are generally as corrupt as the federal, they're easier for the people to hold sway over. Honestly, I'd love to see the governments with the most power be closest to their population (city/county), but in the practical world that has no chance of happening. At least on the state level, changes can still be made, even if they take a long time to happen.

David wrote:My compliment on your telepathic skills, my response was intended toward Paft. It would seem that I was mistaken not to include his quote for the sake of clarification. There was no "nonsense" involved. Was is the difficulty in directing a comment to an individual post without concern if it were germane to another? I responded to your rather general thread question with two simple links, easily obtained by Google. For better or worse, quite a bit has been accomplished under the auspices of the current administration. Questioned asked and answered, beyond that it becomes ad hominem and inflammatory rhetoric based on a clash of ideologies.

The clash of ideologies as it implies to Katrina and the bailouts have less to do with who makes the decisions, but from where comes the resources to manage catastrophes. Many local government have been crippled by natural disasters, duplicity or simple poor decision making. The federal government does have more tools at its disposal to assist locals. Stepping in with aid and guidance toward reconstruction, is not equivalent to a take over.

-david

I agree with your second paragraph except that when local governments fail, it is not an open invitation to allow a broader expanse of government to take responsibility for it's repair..

My apologies for intruding on your conversation with Paft. I can see now that I should have kept my opinion to myself.

brembo wrote:Didn't the Bush admin point some acusing fingers at Clinton when questions were being asked about why/how the events of 9/11 unfolded? I'm pretty sure that the group in the Whitehouse did in fact try and pin some blame on Clinton once the dust settled.

Yeah he did. Sarahnn did ask for a link and I didn't find one initially when I looked momentarily earlier, but I do recall that happening. They absolutely blamed Clinton some.

-UPDATE-

Here is one link I just found.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/30/bush-blames/

They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy… After September the 11th, 2001, we’ve taught the terrorists a very different lesson: America will not run in defeat and we will not forget our responsibilities.

(Conveniently, Bush doesn’t mention any terrorist attack that occurred during his father’s administration.)

Roody wrote:Yeah he did. Sarahnn did ask for a link and I didn't find one initially when I looked momentarily earlier, but I do recall that happening. They absolutely blamed Clinton some.

-UPDATE-

Here is one link I just found.

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/30/bush-blames/

I hear the President saying that all past U.S. responses to terrorist attacks were miscontrued by the enemy as a lack of courage on our part instead of diplomatic appeasement to handle al quaida as criminals and not enemy combatants. He was referring to the mindset of the terrorists over the decades, not the failures of the last administration. Further, he was not making excuses for any inadequacies to handle terrorists. George Bush deserves more credit for holding back the al quaida than any past admin. Talk about desparately grasping for straws.

Remember that Obama has blamed the bush administration to the point that when Brown won the election in Massachusetss, a Democratic stronghold after kennedy died, obama said his party lost to a Republican because Bush made the voters so angry, that they voted for a Republican!!! There is no comparison! Obama's platform from day 1 has been the Bush blame game. And it has done nothing for our country but make our President look petty.

Sarahnn wrote:I hear the President saying that all past U.S. responses to terrorist attacks were miscontrued by the enemy as a lack of courage on our part instead of diplomatic appeasement to handle al quaida as criminals and not enemy combatants. He was referring to the mindset of the terrorists over the decades, not the failures of the last administration. Further, he was not making excuses for any inadequacies to handle terrorists. George Bush deserves more credit for holding back the al quaida than any past admin. Talk about desparately grasping for straws.

Remember that Obama has blamed the bush administration to the point that when Brown won the election in Massachusetss, a Democratic stronghold after kennedy died, obama said his party lost to a Republican because Bush made the voters so angry, that they voted for a Republican!!! There is no comparison! Obama's platform from day 1 has been the Bush blame game. And it has done nothing for our country but make our President look petty.

That was one example Sarahnn and far from grasping for straws. If you don't read that as a personal ding at Carter and Clinton for being soft on terror then you are reading it wrong. You asked for one example. I gave it to you and it's a legit complaint. How about showing just a little bi-partisanship here and recognize that Bush wasn't nearly as perfect as you suggest and he has in fact dinged past Presidents.

Bush disregarded Clinton's warning regarding Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden when he went into office. That's not an opinion it's a fact. Only after 9/11 went down did he wake up to the reality that Clinton brought to his attention.

Btw, here is another example.


http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/ec ... sh_cheney/

"When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession," Bush said in a speech at a Mississippi high school. "Then our economy was hit by terrorists. Then our economy was hit by corporate scandals. But I'm certain of this: We won't let fear undermine our economy and we're not going to let fraud undermine it either."

For what it's worth I agree with President Bush that although there was a surplus when he went into office there was still signs of the economy taking a hit. Regardless you stated Sarahnn that you wanted an example of him blaming something on the previous administration and this is yet more proof of that.

Roody wrote:Btw, here is another example.


http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news/ec ... sh_cheney/



For what it's worth I agree with President Bush that although there was a surplus when he went into office there was still signs of the economy taking a hit. Regardless you stated Sarahnn that you wanted an example of him blaming something on the previous administration and this is yet more proof of that.

Once again, where does Bush say any of this is Clintons fault?

You fail to show me where Bush is pointing the finger at anyone for the situation he inherited when he took office.

But on the other hand you have this:

"The White House has no plans to give up on its blame-Bush strategy. A White House adviser says that George W. Bush and his policies created "the hole we're in," and President Obama will keep reminding the country of the economic "mess" he inherited. Obama takes frequent jabs at his predecessor for leaving him an economy that was teetering on the brink of collapse, and White House aides say he won't stop anytime soon. At a meeting Wednesday with Senate Democrats, for example, Obama rejected Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln's call for him to move to the center. Obama said, "If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression ... the result is going to be the same."

No President before obama has ever tried to tear down the morale of this nation by pointing a finger publically at the last President.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/oba ... ategy.html

Only a small petty man would try to bring down one of his colleagues in the most exclusive office on this globe in order to defer criticism for his own inability to handle his affairs.

Sarahnn wrote:Once again, where does Bush say any of this is Clintons fault?

Bush states he when he took office we were heading into a recession. Who exactly do you think he is criticizing? Honestly Sarahnn if this is going to turn into some situation where you deny criticism by ignoring the obvious then there is nowhere else to go in this thread.

Pretty unreal that you base your entire argument over the fact of whether a specific name is mentioned or not. Essentially you are saying that any criticism Bush offered up regarding Clinton was okay as long as he didn't specifically state Clinton's name. That is beyond absurd. In particular when it's obvious he is criticizing Clinton.

That kind of argument is beneath you.

Sarahnn wrote:Yes, I would love to trade data on your statement.

Where would you like to begin?

Let's begin with your data. What data supports your theory that terrorism is an existential threat to the US? I think we should start there because it's the sole basis for your support of the Patriot Act.


I will show you that terrorism is not an existential threat to the US and therefore the Patriot Act is unnecessary.

Roody wrote:Bush states he when he took office we were heading into a recession. Who exactly do you think he is criticizing? Honestly Sarahnn if this is going to turn into some situation where you deny criticism by ignoring the obvious then there is nowhere else to go in this thread.

Pretty unreal that you base your entire argument over the fact of whether a specific name is mentioned or not. Essentially you are saying that any criticism Bush offered up regarding Clinton was okay as long as he didn't specifically state Clinton's name. That is beyond absurd. In particular when it's obvious he is criticizing Clinton.

That kind of argument is beneath you.

No, you are in denial. There is no comparison. Clearly obama has played the bush blame game ad nauseum and Bush let the chips fall where they may by acknowledging a recession. You know what? I've given my side of this discussion. And I have not attacked you on what is beneath you. You are using me to dodge bullets. It's okay.