Forums » Off-Topic
I really don't see the logic in that. We don't attack anyone unprovoked (at least not in a couple hundred years), why do we need to apologize for being successful?
Professor, I just love the way how you are selectively blind to the facts, citing only the ones that benefit your argument, and either ignoring or outright dismissing the arguments of others, regardless of their validity. How very partisan of you.
I will gladly discuss facts. Please point one out, instead of pointing out my "blindness." It does no help to make such a statement, I'd rather if I were wrong have a real discussion and realize it. I don't think I'm wrong, but I honestly would like to see what fact you think destroys my argument.
Also, I haven't felt very partisan lately. I think both parties are taking this country toward socialism. I'm not ready to jump parties yet, I think we need to revitalize the Republican party so that it once again is the home of conservatism. It really hasn't been for 20 years.
Also, I haven't felt very partisan lately. I think both parties are taking this country toward socialism. I'm not ready to jump parties yet, I think we need to revitalize the Republican party so that it once again is the home of conservatism. It really hasn't been for 20 years.
I'm looking at some of the stuff Bobby Jindal is saying, and I might just write him in when I vote in November, if I thought there was any way it would work. Why didn't we nominate this guy? He's a million times better than any of the three front-runners, and better than Thompson and Romney were as well, I think.
Also, I'm pretty sure the whole world has turned completely upside-down. The Republican party has become a party of spineless capitulators, and France, a country I've never been even slightly fond of, has elected a very conservative president who is more pro-America than Clinton, Obama or even McCain. I wish it were possible, whoever wins, to trade them off for Nicolas Sarkozy.
Also, I'm pretty sure the whole world has turned completely upside-down. The Republican party has become a party of spineless capitulators, and France, a country I've never been even slightly fond of, has elected a very conservative president who is more pro-America than Clinton, Obama or even McCain. I wish it were possible, whoever wins, to trade them off for Nicolas Sarkozy.
Interestingly, the French nation is not content with Sarkozy. They'd probably send him to you postage paid, if they could get someone better in return (Ségolène Royal perhaps).
Apparently enough liked him that he got elected. The interesting thing is that a conservative got elected there at all, and my own party, supposedly the home of conservatism, threw the real conservatives (Thompson and Romney) under the bus because they weren't "electable." Bullshit. I hate the idea that to beat a liberal like Clinton or Obama, we need to run another liberal. I don't like that if I want to vote for McCain, not only is it simply the (barely) lesser of three evils, but it's like crossing party lines.
Of course lots of French people don't like Sarkozy. No one likes it when someone says you don't get your allowance unless you keep your room clean. That goes against everything socialism is all about! And of course the media both there and here will paint him in a bad light because of that. They won't like it, but unless he buckles under the pressure like Bush did (which is the real reason Republicans are unhappy with him, not because of his ideology), he will be very good for France. This is the first time I can say "Frenchman" with a straight face. Also, seriously listen to that speech. Why don't Hillary, Obama or McCain sound so patriotic and inspiring when they speak? Why does it take a Frenchman?
Of course lots of French people don't like Sarkozy. No one likes it when someone says you don't get your allowance unless you keep your room clean. That goes against everything socialism is all about! And of course the media both there and here will paint him in a bad light because of that. They won't like it, but unless he buckles under the pressure like Bush did (which is the real reason Republicans are unhappy with him, not because of his ideology), he will be very good for France. This is the first time I can say "Frenchman" with a straight face. Also, seriously listen to that speech. Why don't Hillary, Obama or McCain sound so patriotic and inspiring when they speak? Why does it take a Frenchman?
It's not that simple, Chaos.
I'm sure. I don't live in France or personally know any French people. But I've seen/heard/read several statements and speeches of this Sarkozy guy, and I'm more inspired by him than McCain, Clinton or Obama, and that depresses me. We do have conservatives we could have nominated, but a significant portion of my party is stupid enough to think that compromising with liberals actually works. We compromise, they don't, and everyone gets screwed.
No worries, PC. Clinton will continue to rip her own party's guts out through its backdoor, and we'll wind up with McCain, the least of the three evils.
It's not ideal, but with any luck he'll be forced out by old age after one term.
It's not ideal, but with any luck he'll be forced out by old age after one term.
Blech. You're right but McCain makes me extra queasy for proclaiming to represent me. That idiot thinks he's got the Republican vote no matter what (doesn't he remember how we screwed up and threw Bush senior under the bus for one major mistake?), so he's campaigning to the liberals he thinks love him, because the media has propped him up for so long. He's too stupid to see how the media has used him to tear apart the Republican party.
The only thing we have going for us is that the Democrat party is in even worse shape. If Obama wins the nomination, Florida and Michigan will be too pissed off to vote for him, and so will many women, so McCain will win. If Hillary wins the nomination, black people (and women who think Hillary is too evil to represent them) won't vote for her, and McCain will win. Democrats can't win without overwhelmingly winning the black vote. It all depends on how many Democrats are too pissed off to vote vs. how many Republicans are willing to cross party lines and vote for McCain.
I almost hope Hillary wins, so that it's a Democrat and not a Republican who brings this country to its lowest depths. Then maybe Republicans will wake up and remember they're conservatives, because I really believe the Republican party is still the best hope for conservatism. Sadly, it looks like we're going to have to hit rock bottom before we're willing to do what it takes to rebuild this country to what it is supposed to be. We may see a complete restructuring of both parties in the near future (I hope so), and it will be interesting and frustrating to watch.
The only thing we have going for us is that the Democrat party is in even worse shape. If Obama wins the nomination, Florida and Michigan will be too pissed off to vote for him, and so will many women, so McCain will win. If Hillary wins the nomination, black people (and women who think Hillary is too evil to represent them) won't vote for her, and McCain will win. Democrats can't win without overwhelmingly winning the black vote. It all depends on how many Democrats are too pissed off to vote vs. how many Republicans are willing to cross party lines and vote for McCain.
I almost hope Hillary wins, so that it's a Democrat and not a Republican who brings this country to its lowest depths. Then maybe Republicans will wake up and remember they're conservatives, because I really believe the Republican party is still the best hope for conservatism. Sadly, it looks like we're going to have to hit rock bottom before we're willing to do what it takes to rebuild this country to what it is supposed to be. We may see a complete restructuring of both parties in the near future (I hope so), and it will be interesting and frustrating to watch.
barack wins and everyone is happy, how's that for a good ending?
It would be a good ending if the "everyone is happy" part went with it. None of the candidates brings that to the table.
Sorry, Epada, no happy comes with Barack. Take me, for example. I slave away at a job I may or may not actually enjoy, for aproximately 80-90 hours a week on a normal week. I get many weeks where that number jumps into the 100+ hour range. I do get a whopping 4 weeks of vacation a year, but I'm too busy to use them.
Why do I do it? Because it pays pretty well (just shy of a quarter mill a year), abet in US dollars. I'm young (just turned 27), and I live pretty frugually (when I'm not buying d'Yquem and laying it away for the future). I hope to actually save up a lot of money and enjoy it when I'm older... and to do so, I'm trading away entire years of my younger life. I expect to be paid for giving up 6-7 days a week, excepting anywhere between 5-0.5 hours of sleep a night. To clarify, I don't go anywhere in the morning, except to work. I don't go anywhere at night/in the early morning, except home to shower and sleep--most nights I leave the office, anyway. I'm fine with this, so long as I'm compensated for having absolutly no life.
However, I have to live in NYC to do this job: the cost of living and the state and city tax rate are already the highest in the nation. But! Despite the fact that I work nearly 'round the clock for my salary, and I already have to spend more of it just to live than any other part of America, I'm taxed at a rate of 35% by the Federal government. Not very progressive, since it fails to take into account how hard I have to work and what else I have to give up for that money. But fine, I lose just shy of 50% of my income, over $100,000 a year, to taxes of various sorts, almost none of which go to public goods or services of which I can take advantage.
Enter B. Hussein Obama, and his "progressive" hope. He wants to tax my entire income for social security that I won't get (there's a cap on how much I'll get in a payout, no matter how much I pay in--and it will have collapsed by then anyway), and he'd love to increase the Federal income tax rate. At that point, for every dollar I "earn," I will actually get to have less than fifty cents. Of course, I won't get any of the time I invest to get that money back--B. Hussein Obama expects me to keep toiling away as I do, just so that over half of what I make in an enviroment of ever increasing costs can go to support a bloated Federal government (and the human swine who suckle at its teat).
The only people who would be happy are idiots, who don't get what Obama means... and those who are lazy, unproductive hangers-on, who know exactly what Obama means and are chomping at the bit for it to happen, since it's not their money or their lives at issue.
Into which category do you fall?
Why do I do it? Because it pays pretty well (just shy of a quarter mill a year), abet in US dollars. I'm young (just turned 27), and I live pretty frugually (when I'm not buying d'Yquem and laying it away for the future). I hope to actually save up a lot of money and enjoy it when I'm older... and to do so, I'm trading away entire years of my younger life. I expect to be paid for giving up 6-7 days a week, excepting anywhere between 5-0.5 hours of sleep a night. To clarify, I don't go anywhere in the morning, except to work. I don't go anywhere at night/in the early morning, except home to shower and sleep--most nights I leave the office, anyway. I'm fine with this, so long as I'm compensated for having absolutly no life.
However, I have to live in NYC to do this job: the cost of living and the state and city tax rate are already the highest in the nation. But! Despite the fact that I work nearly 'round the clock for my salary, and I already have to spend more of it just to live than any other part of America, I'm taxed at a rate of 35% by the Federal government. Not very progressive, since it fails to take into account how hard I have to work and what else I have to give up for that money. But fine, I lose just shy of 50% of my income, over $100,000 a year, to taxes of various sorts, almost none of which go to public goods or services of which I can take advantage.
Enter B. Hussein Obama, and his "progressive" hope. He wants to tax my entire income for social security that I won't get (there's a cap on how much I'll get in a payout, no matter how much I pay in--and it will have collapsed by then anyway), and he'd love to increase the Federal income tax rate. At that point, for every dollar I "earn," I will actually get to have less than fifty cents. Of course, I won't get any of the time I invest to get that money back--B. Hussein Obama expects me to keep toiling away as I do, just so that over half of what I make in an enviroment of ever increasing costs can go to support a bloated Federal government (and the human swine who suckle at its teat).
The only people who would be happy are idiots, who don't get what Obama means... and those who are lazy, unproductive hangers-on, who know exactly what Obama means and are chomping at the bit for it to happen, since it's not their money or their lives at issue.
Into which category do you fall?
Category C: Leave the country before the new President is sworn in.
Well, its a good thing that the choosing of policy is the preview of the Legislature, then, Lecter since the President technically only has the power to refuse policy (with the exception of appointments and treaties).
I'm aware of separation of powers, vIsitor. I'd sooner have the president ready to veto such robbery by congress, rather than ready, willing, and able to enact it.
Also, it's purview. Try to avoid words that are bigger than your brain, 'kay?
Also, it's purview. Try to avoid words that are bigger than your brain, 'kay?
Easy come easy go.
vIsitor, you don't think that having a puppet like Obama in the White House won't embolden Pelosi and others to pass all the socialist legislation they can think of while their advantage lasts? Democrats can take advantage of a situation in a way that Republicans have never been good at. There are also judicial nominations to consider, which is a bigger and bigger deal as our Supreme Court increasingly considers itself to be a legislature, and not an American one. I'm sure Lecter's more knowledgeable than me in that area.
What we have here is a country in kind of a Fight Club like scenario of only being able to build itself back up by hitting rock bottom first. I'd really rather not have to go that far.
What we have here is a country in kind of a Fight Club like scenario of only being able to build itself back up by hitting rock bottom first. I'd really rather not have to go that far.
What makes Obama a puppet?