Page 25 of 29 FirstFirst ... 1520212223242526272829 LastLast
Results 481 to 500 of 567
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #481  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    The message was the substance.
    Yes, Hope and Change is VERY substantive.

    KAM
  2. #482  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Please tell! Now I'm totally curious. What happened?
    You know how it goes, you wander about checking out all the groups who show up at protests like that with their materials, so I start talking to them and looking over their rags and they start out rational enough with some constitutional point and within 10 minutes they've gone toys in the attic the gov't is unconstitutional blah blah blah foaming at the mouth then speaking in tongues as I backed away slowly and cautiously, careful not to make any sudden movements, smiling and nodding, then turn and run!

    If it means anything to Kam I had the same experience with the Socialist Workers Party (I'm convinced the Republicans financially support that group).
  3. #483  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Yes, Hope and Change is VERY substantive.

    KAM
    Last night wasn't concrete enough for Ya?
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #484  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    You know how it goes, you wander about checking out all the groups who show up at protests like that with their materials, so I start talking to them and looking over their rags and they start out rational enough with some constitutional point and within 10 minutes they've gone toys in the attic the gov't is unconstitutional blah blah blah foaming at the mouth then speaking in tongues as I backed away slowly and cautiously, careful not to make any sudden movements, smiling and nodding, then turn and run!

    If it means anything to Kam I had the same experience with the Socialist Workers Party (I'm convinced the Republicans financially support that group).
    Well, there is a difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian. Protest groups are going to tend to be the extremes.

    I once got overtaken by some LaRouches.

    KAM
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #485  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Last night wasn't concrete enough for Ya?
    Well, you got me on that--last night certainly will have impact, that is if it stands the court challenges.

    KAM
  6. #486  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I once got overtaken by some LaRouches.

    KAM
    EXACTLY!

  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #487  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    EXACTLY!

    I never really heard of them before, and I was thinking "Get me the hell out of here."

    KAM
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #488  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    You know how it goes, you wander about checking out all the groups who show up at protests like that with their materials, so I start talking to them and looking over their rags and they start out rational enough with some constitutional point and within 10 minutes they've gone toys in the attic the gov't is unconstitutional blah blah blah foaming at the mouth then speaking in tongues as I backed away slowly and cautiously, careful not to make any sudden movements, smiling and nodding, then turn and run!

    If it means anything to Kam I had the same experience with the Socialist Workers Party (I'm convinced the Republicans financially support that group).
    Maybe groups that show up at protests like that... are a group in and of themselves?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #489  
    Hello Everyone,

    Here's an article that might interest some.

    The Price of Victory - The Daily Beast

    We're probably going to see a lot of spin on this in the coming weeks from both sides.

    KAM
  10. #490  
    I have found that there are two types of protesters... the ones who work all day and then go out and protest and the ones that skip work to protest.

    I am pegging most of the crazies that protest as the later group.
    If you like my Themes, please donate! Thanks!

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com
  11. #491  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    You know how it goes, you wander about checking out all the groups who show up at protests like that with their materials, so I start talking to them and looking over their rags and they start out rational enough with some constitutional point and within 10 minutes they've gone toys in the attic the gov't is unconstitutional blah blah blah foaming at the mouth then speaking in tongues as I backed away slowly and cautiously, careful not to make any sudden movements, smiling and nodding, then turn and run!

    If it means anything to Kam I had the same experience with the Socialist Workers Party (I'm convinced the Republicans financially support that group).

    LOL they went all "toys in the attic"... that's the first time I've heard that, and I grew up on Aerosmith.

    That made my day!
  12. #492  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    And the Kaiser Foundation is pro public-funded health care.
    Isn't Kaiser a health insurance company or an HMO?
  13. #493  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I don't believe that's how it was done, but of course repeating it often enough will make it true, right.
    Hold on here, my friend. Repeating it enough MUST make it true.

    How else would you explain those silly AT&T commercials? If they repeat them often enough, it must be true!

    Muahahahah!
  14. #494  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Sorry, ever since I ran into Libertarians while protesting the first Gulf War, I try to stay very clear of them.
    You protested the FIRST gulf war? You can't be old enough to have done that!

    I feel even older now! Thanks for that!
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #495  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    Isn't Kaiser a health insurance company or an HMO?
    Same benefactor, same roots, but the foundation is no longer officially affiliated with Kaiser Permanente. I'm not sure to what extent the same people are involved with both.
  16. #496  
    Quote Originally Posted by sublimobile View Post
    Again, President Reagan enacted the largest increase in Social Security spending in its history.

    for you to say that is a democratic idea is disingenuous, as I quickly learning most everything you say is.

    Now, lets talk about Clintons budget that recieved not a single republican vote. How did that end? Ya, you know...a big, fat surplus.
    Lets face it, much of that "plus" was due to the dot.com phenomenon, and that fact that he implemented a massive tax increase while slashing some major costs (primarily the military and wellfare).

    Your point is taken, but I'm just saying you can't connect those two facts and not recognize that's a small part of the story.

    Oh, and remember when the democrats put all that surplus in a "lock box"?

    Who picked that lock and spent it? Answer: both parties. But, that's why I don't respect Congress - regardless of party.
  17. #497  
    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    Prove it..
    The Cato Institute

    At Cato there is exhaustive number crunching by the leading economist on this issue who would be far better at educating you than I would be.

    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    So they shouldn't enact this bill because other systems are broken? We'd never get anything done ever. .
    We can't pay for one, how do we expect to pay for the other? Piling on is not the solution to anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    Prove it against what the CBO says.
    The CBO is not exactly the pillar of accuracy - particularly when a bill's language is modified to meet a certain political palatable figure and hides a significant portion of the cost, i.e. forcing people to pay for insurance is a tax by any other name. In fact most estimates by the CBO fail to predict the final costs acurately. But in general, look at the original estimated cost given by Congress for Medicare, and then what the actual cost is now.

    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    You have to understand how foolish a statement like that is. I mean you do actually know that, right?
    Just because you disagree or fail to understand does not make it foolish

    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    I don't even understand what that means.
    See.

    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    It's the position of reality, sometheing the waxing philosophical libertarians have trouble with.

    There's a difference between believing they do not exist and they do not matter. Libertarians (sorry guys) don't matter.
    Your statement that it is reality still does not make it so. As a political party, I agree the Libertarian Party has been marginalized by the oligarchy. But independants do matter, in fact they determine most elections. And many of them could be viewed as entertaining libertarian thinking, in that they are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. So again, you should probably not assume your beliefs are the only ones that matter, because for election purposes, it is the fringe that matters the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    That's absurd. The Supreme Court has been very aggressive ever since Marshall. That's hundreds of years. Libertarians would call Marshall an "activist" court and he took over 211 years ago.
    I think you mean progressive. And yes, the progressive movement started before FDR's court packing scheme. But that scheme sure advanced the social justice agendy farther that the proceding century an a half. What you don't seem to want to hear is that the Supre,e's rulings are definitive. Supreme Court dulings are not codified, like say the Constitution is, and can always be altered by the next Supreme Court ruling. They simply state they are overturning it and it is done. So when their ruling are influenced by the politics of the day, like in FDR's time, they need not be set in stone forever. Therefore the misinterpretation of the commerce clause, for instance, making it so powerful as to render the entire rest of the constitution invalid can be overturned with one single reasoned opinion, like priveledges and immunities clause could be reinstated with a gun rights ruling. To sum up, the Court's admittedly progressive view on judicial legislation could turn at any moment.

    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post

    This is why people ignore libertarians. They pretend that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are islands and nothing came after so they don't bother to learn about case law after that has as much standing as the Constitution. So they whip the less informed and bemoan the fact that no one understands the Constitution and quote the 10th and 14th amendments, all the while completely ignorant to the court cases that have already settled the law they complain about.
    The issue is not that the Supreme Court's ruling are ignored, but that the Supremem's have ignored the constitution to reach their results. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. When interpreting any law, you first look at the plain meaning of the statute, then at the legislative intent, and only then do you fall back upon case law. What the Supreme's have done, particularly since FDR's threat to their independence is to skip the first two steps. But that still doesprevent a latter, more reasoned ruling, can overturn bad precedent. Case law is fluid and, unfortunately for the progressives, the Constitution is not so much, as in that it requires amendments.


    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    Of course. Not only do libertarians have exclusive rights to the intent of the founding fathers, but no one else cares about their rights.
    The founding fathers were kind enough to write down most of their intent for us. Maybe Libertarians are the only ones who read them? Libertarians certainly seem to be the ones fighting hardest for your rights. Much more so that the Democratic Machine has in the last 40 years, despite the "liberal" moniker.

    Quote Originally Posted by biggyfred View Post
    You wake up to the sound of an alarm that was required to meet a government specification on safety because otherwise the free market would create a product that killed you... [ edited due to repetition] ...And then, settled in your home for the evening, you fire up the old intertubez and shoot off a missive complaining about government interference in your life because of the 10th and/or 14th amendment and demand a conversation about natural rights.

    No thanks.
    I am not the one making demands.

    Most of what you wrote, i.e. that Government is the only thing keeping your toaster from killing you, is based upon a mistaken belief that the toater manufacturer could somehow turn aa profit from killing people. Since profit is the only thing driving the market (unlike in politics) you can predictable say that unless you can generate a profit in eliminating your consumers, you would want them to stay alive long enough to buy more toasters. But that is just simple logic. What you also do not realize is that most of the other progress in safety, efficiency, useability, is driven by free market innovation - in order to sell more stuff at profit. If someone does make a toaster that kills someone, they can be sued for damages weather there is a Cabinet level position of toaster safety of not, thus driving down their profit margin. Indeed most of the "regulations" you rely on above to keep yourself safe from harm were created after law suits and other consumer action or demand had already made the market alter. Airbags were not required in autos untill the market developed them as a selling point for safer cars, etc. Typically legislation is far slower to respond to safety concerns that the market and court systems are. Take this most recent gargantuan legislation as an example. If you are currently sick and waiting for Government to give you free health care, you'd be cold and stiff before your wait was over. The market, since it is not inefficient by design, can adapt much faster than the Governement which is. And what I mean by inefficient in this case is that legislative process was designed not alow laws to be be instituted on a whim, but were to be debated and discussed and altered if needed. That is the very point of a bi-cameral legislative branch. Debate, and thus dely are inherrant to the system. Now you add the political process itself, which constitutes the politcal equivelants of bribes and blackmail, waste, fraud and abuse, and you have a system that is, and never will be, more efficient than a free market system.

    But this is not just some pie in the sky fantasy as you would like to believe. There exists all around us a vibrant, unregulated, and untaxed black or grey "free-market" that provides a whole host of services. Like the neighbor who can fix your car; even though unlicensed, he is skilled at what he does and can fix your car better, faster, and for less money than your licensed mechanic in town who has to charge more to cover his various Government licensure and regulations. Or the woman who does your wife's hair in her kitchen for a fraction of what it would cost in a hair-technician licensed salon. These services provided are generally better and less than expaensive than the ones where government has involved itself. The only negative is they are marginalized from utilizing the judicial system for grievances, but otherwise operate better than a controled-market system. Again, pretending free-markets would fail when we have everyday evidence of their success doe not mean it does not exist.

    So again, while you might think freedom and its preservations is merely an intellectual exercise, your opinion is not fact and you do not do yoursefl a service by beleiving it is.
    VisorPhone Clone
    (Please do not thank me - I find it scary)
  18. #498  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    You protested the FIRST gulf war? You can't be old enough to have done that!

    I feel even older now! Thanks for that!
    Yup, I was in college during Gulf War I. When I became a news and politics junkie.
  19. #499  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Yup, I was in college during Gulf War I. When I became a news and politics junkie.
    Wow, you have aged well. The miles and years have been much less kind to me. I would have guessed you MUCH younger from that picture.
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #500  
    Quote Originally Posted by sir_mycroft View Post
    So again, while you might think freedom and its preservations is merely an intellectual exercise, your opinion is not fact and you do not do yoursefl a service by beleiving it is.
    Excellent post.

    KAM

Posting Permissions