"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:web.4b623c39e9f0323c34d207310@news.povray.org...
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> > Compare the number of lies spread about Obama
> > (in comparison to the amount
> > of true stories), explained here: ...

> An interesting sociological observation that could perhaps be proven with
> research is the following.  I've done a lot of browsing on political
websites,
> and I think that I see a lot more sexual references interspersed into the
nasty
> things said about Obama than I ever did in reference to Bush.

I've not seen any significant number of sexual references for either. You
are probably thinking of Clinton.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:10:21 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> What some people, including me, find so idiotic about this is McCain
> ***ran on*** the idea that we should freeze spending, as a solution to
> the economic problem. Now that Obama is doing it, McCain is whining that
> it doesn't, "Go far enough!".

Yep.  I had a debate with some self-confessed ultra-conservatives who 
were railing against Obama for the bank bailout.  I rather pointedly 
asked if they would have rather had unemployment skyrocket with all these 
banks and auto companies failed so they could be complaining about that 
instead.

Not a single one had an answer to that question.

Because truth be told, if Obama had said "let the banks and car companies 
fail", they'd have been screaming about that instead, about how Obama was 
causing unemployment to skyrocket.

It's a case where there was no way to win.

Of course, now that the Democrats have lost Ted Kennedy's seat in the 
Senate, we're pretty hosed; after all, they only have the second largest 
majority in 32 years in the Senate, control of the house and the white 
house.  With that lack of power, there's no way they'll be able to get 
anything passed without giving some serious concessions to the Republican 
*-19* vote majority in the Senate.

I'm pretty fed up with the Democrats right now.  I think I'm voting 
independent next time around.  They control 2 of 3 branches of government 
and *still* can't get anything done.  What a bunch of tossers.

> Seeing the right react to everything done by Democrats, including when
> those things are the very ideas they **themselves** ran on, is like
> watching the two clones running for President on Futurama:

LOL, that is a great one.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2/1/2010 10:15 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm pretty fed up with the Democrats right now.  I think I'm voting
> independent next time around.  They control 2 of 3 branches of government
> and *still* can't get anything done.  What a bunch of tossers.
>
Sadly, it *is* possible to blame the president for a lot of it. There 
was a statement made on a blog when he was running, by the blogger that, 
"My greatest fear is that he is someone that badly wants to be liked by 
everyone, and this will result in him not doing anything if its making 
the opposition unhappy.", or something to that general effect. Its not 
*precisely* the case, but he is trying to bridge a gap between a 
political party that is what the conservatives where, in too many ways, 
in the 30-40s, with one whose membership seems to belong to nothing but 
evangelical, right wing, churches, or just got off the bus from the 
national institute of the insane, which has a special wing set aside for 
people who are perpetual liars. What is left of the "core" of the 
republicans is being sidelined by the nutcases, the nutcases think 
*anything* vaguely liberal is evil, especially if you suggest that the 
world isn't run by a religious version of Andrew Ryan from Bioshock, and 
his ultra-libertarianism and rampant conspiracy theories, and members of 
the Democrats are even turning out, like in the case of Liberman, to be 
bloody sleeper agents.

But, they have spent so damn long "compromising" at every turn, 
including on their own principles, and moving right of center, that, 
without someone willing to stand up and say, "This will stop.", not, "I 
really wish, if you would like, hopefully, that you will sort of stop 
this, not that you are really doing it.", they can't do anything but 
what they did for the last several decades, and compromise everything.

I love that Obama stands up and says that people are being 
obstructionists and doing stupid things, especially in the last few 
speeches, but he has got to get past the assumption that the people 
holding the puppet string in the Republican party give a crap about 
being wrong, doing wrong, or fixing problems, unless it helps them 
personally.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:34:09 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> I love that Obama stands up and says that people are being
> obstructionists and doing stupid things, especially in the last few
> speeches, but he has got to get past the assumption that the people
> holding the puppet string in the Republican party give a crap about
> being wrong, doing wrong, or fixing problems, unless it helps them
> personally.

Agreed.  He needs to stop talking about doing things and just do them.

I'm also inclined to agree with Doris Kearns Goodwin (who was on Jon 
Stewart's show last week) who said that Obama and the Democratic 
leadership in the Senate should just let the GOP filibuster - then people 
can see what a bunch of tossers *they* are.

I often feel that the whole of DC just needs to have a big cage put 
around it; then we'll have locked up a fairly significant number of 
criminals who peddle in influence over laws.

But I think the real solution would be to return political positions to 
being an unpaid (and cannot-accept-gifts under ANY ANY ANY circumstances) 
positions.  Give them a studio apartment in DC and a stipend, but never 
let them forget that they work for the *people*.  Take away the salaries, 
the high-end health plans, and all of the benefits.  Make it truly a 
public service that they fulfill.

And put term limits in place.

But of course for any of these things to happen, those in power have to 
decide to put those restrictions on themselves.  Like *that* will ever 
happen.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message

> But I think the real solution would be to return political positions to
> being an unpaid (and cannot-accept-gifts under ANY ANY ANY circumstances)
> positions.  Give them a studio apartment in DC and a stipend, but never
> let them forget that they work for the *people*.  Take away the salaries,
> the high-end health plans, and all of the benefits.  Make it truly a
> public service that they fulfill.

Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm thinking
in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes) and
much more to lose by doing so. Then send packs of hungry lawyers after them
to uncover any wrongdoing.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/4/2010 6:05 PM, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson"<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote in message
>
>> But I think the real solution would be to return political positions to
>> being an unpaid (and cannot-accept-gifts under ANY ANY ANY circumstances)
>> positions.  Give them a studio apartment in DC and a stipend, but never
>> let them forget that they work for the *people*.  Take away the salaries,
>> the high-end health plans, and all of the benefits.  Make it truly a
>> public service that they fulfill.
>
> Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm thinking
> in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes) and
> much more to lose by doing so. Then send packs of hungry lawyers after them
> to uncover any wrongdoing.
>
You, you make them poor, it leads to corruption, not away from it. The 
#1 thing causing problems right now is that companies and private 
groups, and sometimes people, funnel large amounts into electing 
someone, then expect them to do what they want, usually by bribing them 
with more money to help with X pet project, or the next re-election. 
Needless to say, a recent supreme court decision is just going to make 
this stupid idiocy worse. The last thing you need is to make it a field 
that only crazies and the corrupt want to even try to get into, because 
it pays shit to work at it.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm thinking
> in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes) and

Oh yes. Because we all know that really, really rich and well-rewarded 
people never do evil things to get even more money.  NOT!  :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b6bb03b$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm
thinking
> > in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes)
and

> Oh yes. Because we all know that really, really rich and well-rewarded
> people never do evil things to get even more money.  NOT!  :-)

Of course not, hence the "pack of hungry lawyers". However, IME, poor and
badly-rewarded people are so readily corrupted and manipulated (as they have
much more to gain and much less to lose) that I wouldn't trust any important
and powerful job to them.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm 
>> thinking
>> in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes) 
>> and
> 
> Oh yes. Because we all know that really, really rich and well-rewarded 
> people never do evil things to get even more money.  NOT!  :-)
> 

So cynical for one so young :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:05:04 -0700, somebody wrote:

> Don't you want the exact opposite?

Nope, because if you do the opposite, then they make a career out of it.  
Politics *shouldn't* be a career, it should be a term of service to the 
public.

Jim

Post a reply to this message