| Name: |
lamont
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Hey MM.....
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 8:44:36 AM
|
Have you noticed the vitriol spewed from an anonymous poster seems to get more agressive and "personal" as the evening hours progress? You know, the name calling and such. Just an observation from an ignorant conservative. And, by the way Hound and Architech, I have no problem calling myself a "Conservative." Do you have a problem calling yourself a "liberal?" Just curious.
|
| Name: |
Lady
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Hey MM.....
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 9:00:10 AM
|
I'm pleased to be a liberal..........
From Merriam-Webster: Liberal
Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c: ample , full
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5: broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism ; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Hey MM.....
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 9:33:12 AM
|
I have no problems with some of my beliefs that you would label as "liberal", but I don't like being labeled and put in a little pigeon hole where you assume you know all about my beliefs.
Lamont -- you are turning into a "me too" poster. Do you not have any original thoughts? And why do you have to enlist MM? Why don't you just say what you want to say on your own since you are so proud of being labeled?
|
| Name: |
alahusker
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Hey MM.....
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 9:54:22 AM
|
Hound, Lady?? Any comments on my post, 'can we agree on something?'
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Your call
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 10:29:06 AM
|
Pleased to be what part?
1: Empowered, not responsible.
2: Generous with other peoples’ money.
3: Lacking moral restraint.
4: Unable to understand simple concepts.
5: Wanting to change our Constitution.
6: Admiring the government of the UK.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Where do you get this stuff?
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 10:35:53 AM
|
Are you mainlining some conservative Kool Aid?
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Where do you get this stuff?
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 11:20:16 AM
|
Don't have to - just view it as a liberal interpretation of the supplied definition. Makes sense to me, no Kool Aid needed for this one. I happen to be a fiscal conservative and social liberal.
|
No one asked you.
How much extra are you sending the government ... since as a liberal you believe the governemnt can spend your money better than you. Or are you like most liberals ... as long as it does not effect your pocketbook you are all in favor of taking someone elses hard earned dollars that you are jealous of or never made enough of yourself to have.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Hey MM
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 1:03:32 PM
|
Lamont
I just came home from the office for lunch. I suspect that will surprise all you wing nuts that a "liberal" actually works for a living. I am an architect with my own small practice doing work for private clients. I have never had a government commission. Am I a liberal? No, I'm worse, I'm a true moderate. I consider each issue on a case by case basis. Sometime I come down on the conservative side, some time on the liberal, and often in the middle. Tell me how any thinking and responsible citizen could do otherwise!
PS: my voting record First time 64-Johnson, 68-Nixon, 72-Nixon,76-Carter, 80-Carter, 84-Reagan, 88-Bush, 92-Clinton, 96-Clinton, 00-Gore, 04-Bush, 08-Obama. What's yours?
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
architect
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 1:23:40 PM
|
Since you are only 50% right ... I would never higher you as an architect with that record like that. Too dangerous. I noticed Johnson, Carter, Gore and Obama ... there is a pattern there. All of them believed and pushed socialist agendas. Hard to understand how you came to your senses with Reagan and Bush 1 the first time around and Bush 2 the second time around. Does your design work go to similar extremes?
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
architect
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 1:26:27 PM
|
also ... did you really think Carter did such a good job in his first term that he earned your vote for a second term. At least I give you credit to recognize your short comings and see the light to vote for Reagan for a second term.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Where do you get this stuff?
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 1:26:39 PM
|
I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal too. So why would you post something like this? I don't get it.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Careful Lamont
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 1:42:57 PM
|
Pretty soon you will labeled be a little twerp, arrogant, master of the universe, horse's behind, etc. I am very jealous of my reputation here. Oh, I forgot about my mindless spewing of facts.......imagine the concept......"mindless" spewing of facts. What an oxymoron (and for those of you who need the definition we have Lady always at the ready to tap into Webster's).
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Now Really WW
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 1:43:13 PM
|
Read you post again --
You know, some of us believe in a certain amount of social responsiblity after we've provided for our own needs. That used to be an American value. We send a lot of money overseas -- to Africa and other 3rd world countries, so what really is wrong with helping fellow Americans? Don't you think we are a stronger country as a whole when we maintain some kind of standard of living, not just for a few, but for everyone that was born here?
I give quite a bit of my income to charity every year. I do it with an open heart because I want to help other people (although admittedly, quite a bit goes to animal rescues). I don't envy other people for what they have -- I envy other people who are able to open their hearts and give to help others.
Seriously, WW -- you've said you have, what 3 houses and an extensive wine cellar, and probably all the other trappings of your success. But, will buying yet another house or toy make you feel as good as giving to others? See, I already went through my "acquisition" stage so I already know the answer -- because I know what I do for others is making the world a better place.
Now, do I think that the government is the best organization to direct money? No. Neither at the federal or state level.
But, my hat is off to Warren Buffet and the Gates for their generosity. And I don't think you can say either of them are anti-capitalism, can you? And I don't think they envy anyone else either, do you?
|
| Name: |
Lady
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Careful Lamont
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 1:49:36 PM
|
Nope. You've been able to define "mindless" quite well.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Now Really WW
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 1:54:53 PM
|
The thing is ... I give a lot to charities and do a lot of volunteer work. I do that because I want to and because I want to give to the causes I believe in.
I DO NOT need government thinking for me and taking more of my hard earned money so they can waste it on more government jobs and wasteful spending.
When I give a dollar to charity the charity gets $1. When the government "takes" another dollar from me, only a small portion goes to those in need since most of it is playing for the waste in goverment to play with those dollars before anyone see a penny.
Same with this stimulus & budget bill. The reason most will not even start to be spent until later this year or next is because it takes so long for the government to do anything. If they gave it in tax cuts to business and individuals, it gets faster results and puts people to work quicker ... isn't that the goal? Or is the goal just bigger government so people think government is the answer and not free enterprise?
All projects are the economy is starting to turn ... so it has nothing to do with the stimulus package and God forbid a second stimulus package. It has to do with the feredal reserve lowering interest rates and the discount rate to zero. Same thing that has brought us out of every other recession.
Granted this one was a bit more complex due to the democrat created credit crisis ... but that was being addressed through TARP and adding liquidty to the banks.
WE DID NOT NEED THE STIMULUS BILL ... THAT WAS OBAMA'S DESIRE TO CREATE BIGGER GOVERNMENT AND MORE SOCIALISM !!!!!!!!!!!
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Something we agree on
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 1:58:36 PM
|
I don't think we needed the stimulus bill either. But wasn't the stimulus package leftover from Bush/Paulson?
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Something we agree on
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 2:00:46 PM
|
Shame on you .... no it was not! Obama "tried" to get Bush to work on it ... I am sure to say that he started it or that it was a joint effort. But Bush would not have any part of it. Good for him.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Something we agree on
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 2:06:00 PM
|
But wasn't Obama saying that he would not remove the pork because it was "old business" and not his stimulus?
Anyway, at least we're in agreement that we didn't need it regardless of whose idea it was. I am seriously worried about the new Obama budget. I've heard a number of economists say that it could bankrupt the country -- and at the very least, it will leave future generations with a huge debt burden. You know, in some ways it's ironic -- we're telling people that they need to get out of debt, and not overspend and create debt; yet our government can't seem to take it's own advice.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Now Really WW
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 2:10:53 PM
|
and BTW ... what is Obama doing ... he is going to phase out the tax deduction to charities starting at $250m.
If he is so concerned with helping people and not just bigger government so they control more funds ... then he would not do that. Will people still give .... sure ... but I doubt to the same level.
The bottom line is Obama wants governemnt to control all the purse strings ... he wants to eliminate freedom of choice if it involves taxes.
THAT IS WRONG !
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Yet another liberal insult
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 2:12:21 PM
|
We now have a trifecta with three liberal posters all of who are mean spirited and love to throw out insults rather than trying to compete in the arena of ideas. Thank you Lady, I almost thought you might be the exception to the rule but nope, you are of the same ilk.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Something we agree on
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 2:14:10 PM
|
The bill was not even drafted until Obama took over. On the pork ... Obama just broke a campaign promise plain and simple. He said he was not going to fight to have the pork removed since he did not want to delay the bill because it was so critical. Even though the spending did not start immediately.
Yet, his people drafted the bill and somehow added the provision allowing the bonuses to the AIG folks, then acted like they were outragged that it was in the bill that the wrote.
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Yet another liberal insult
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 2:16:03 PM
|
They are all the same ... if you don't agree with a liberal then they start calling names since they can not defend their own position and they don't like to be shown how their position does not make sense.
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Where do you get this stuff?
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 2:20:13 PM
|
Lady provided the definition and stated that she was proud to be a liberal. There was no picking of certain parts in a list of wide-ranging sections, just a blanket "I am liberal hear me roar". Rather than quoting something from Her Majesty's Book and fitting myself in a cookie cutter form, I would describe MY thoughts. I believe in small Government, few restrictions on personal liberties, guard the coast, deliver the mail, care for the general welfare, personal responsibility, The Bill of Rights, States rights, "all other powers". Easy.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Yet another liberal insult
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 2:29:49 PM
|
I know its pretty predictable but I always hold out hope that one day I will come across one that doesn't always let the discussion or debate devolve into petty insults. One day maybe.....
I would say that Hound can at times but with my posting demeanor (which is not the most charitable) I get under her skin and she gets angry and starts calling me names. GF and I used to go at it but we exchanged some personal emails and have a good understanding that it isn't personal even when we vehemently disagree on a topic. Architect is a new poster and he seems to drive by at times and hurl insults but I don't know him as well. Lady is grenade tosser and that is the extent of her input.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Obama's role in this??
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 2:42:58 PM
|
I actually wonder what his role is in this process anyway. It seems to me that the bulk of the pork in the budget originated with Dem leaders in Congress and Obama is going along for party-line or ideological reasons or a combination of the two. For sure this is their budget and not Bush's. Bush was involved in TARP but nothing of any significance since then as best I can recall.
Many of you will recall one of my biggest fears with Obama was his inability or lack of desire to buck the party line. It seems like that's the way this is turning out.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
architect
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 4:22:16 PM
|
WW, he is a moderate. My experience with moderates is they stick their finger in the wind, see which direction it is blowing and go in that direction. Because they lack core beliefs they are able to justify voting for a Carter and then a Reagan, for a Bush and then an Obama. For example, if you were a fiscal conservative and you looked at Obama's record you could never vote for him unless you were wishy washy in your beliefs and/or because the momentum was going in the direction of BO that's the way you vote.
I had asked architect for his core beliefs a while ago when he informed me he was a moderate. I am truly curious but he never responded. The reason a moderate can't or won't tell you their core beliefs is because either they have none or if they do and they admit to having voted contrary to their core beliefs it calls into question whether they really believe in anything or if they are just moral relativists.
Someone like Lady is a self professed liberal. She will vote for an Obama regardless of what he says or does as long as he supports her core beliefs. In that regard she is very honest. Hound is a bit of an enigma to me but I think she was so profoundly opposed to the Iraq war that she was willing to abandon her fiscal conservative principals and vote for Obama. Also, for her it was easier because she is a socially liberal (which by that I assume she supports abortion but maybe there is more to it than that). She has expressed some buyer's remorse but on the whole she is not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.....yet anyway.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Where do you get this stuff?
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 6:27:21 PM
|
If those are your beliefs, then fine. But to just put them out there, with no qualifiers seems kinda fishy.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Now Really WW
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 6:34:10 PM
|
I agree to a point, but then Reagan deleted all our sales tax deductions.
My guess is that Obama wants money to flow in a particular direction and feels the government will best make sure that happens. I've never liked forced charity of any kind.
My question to you is this: Could you support additional taxes that went to building/re-building the infrasructure of the US? Not social programs.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
architect's core beliefs
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 6:53:51 PM
|
(1) Gov't never has the right and should not be given the power to snoop into or dictate my private affairs.
(2) Gov't should stay out of the economy unless the economy for whatever reason stops functioning. When it does the government may need to spend to start the economic bloodstream flowing. One of the elementary principals of economics is the movement of capital (spending). When private money stops flowing the public sector money must take up the slack. The economy has to have a flow of capital to function and it does't really care where the capital comes from.
(3) Religion as you practice it should guide your personal life. It should not be used by government give one religious group power over another religious or over those without religious beliefs.
(4)Except in response to actual attack, our nation should always place diplomacy over military action. We should stay out of the affairs of other nations unless they are an immediate and direct threat to our security. This was not the case in Viet Nam or Iraq. It is true in Afganistan and Pakistan.
Being a Georgian, I will admit to voting for Carter the first time out of state pride. The second time and in each other election except 2008, I voted for the candidate who seemed generally less extreme either left or right. I voted for McCain in the Ga. primary in 2000. In 2008 I voted for Obama because McCain sold his soul to the most extreme elements of a party that has itself become too extreme for its own, the nation's, and the world's best interest.
|
| Name: |
MartiniMan
-
|
|
| Subject: |
architect's core beliefs
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 7:52:52 PM
|
OK then, that is an interesting set of core beliefs and I'm OK with the Jimmy Carter vote rationale, especially given the times. As for your other beliefs I am surprised that the one issue about McCain overruled all the other core beliefs. I am of the opinion that Obama is at odds with almost every one of your beliefs except maybe the religion one.
I do have a question for you about number 2. When government uses "public sector money" to take up the slack where exactly does that money in the public sector come from? Since government creates nothing I think you would agree that the money is either taken out of the private sector in the form of taxes or is printed (ie, government debt that increases the deficit or worse yet they simply print it causing hyper-inflation). It seems to me at least with the current economic crisis that government was the problem (CRA/Fannie/Freddie) in distorting the markets and is not the solution (and I am completely and intentionally ignoring which party was at fault).
As for religion simply guiding your personal life would it also be fair to say that the government should not dictate religious beliefs or force a religious person to go against their beliefs? Or is it a one sided equation?
I think most of us would agree with your guiding principal about the use of military force. I know I do. But you act as if your opinion about the threat posed by Iraq was evident to all back when the war started. Recognizing you don't believe this to be the case, and in fact it may not be, isn't it still conceivable that the administration after having looked at all the intelligence believed that Iraq posed a threat? Isn't it conceivable that the administration relied on the very same intelligence that so many Democrats in Congress relied upon when they supported the administration before the politics changed and they no longer supported it? I know you don't believe this is true but isn't it at least conceivable?
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
architect's core beliefs
|
|
Date:
|
3/27/2009 8:32:17 PM
|
(1) In 2000 McCain ran on his core beliefs and was creamed by Rove and the hyper evangelicals. In 2008 he abandoned his core beliefs to secure of the Republican nomination. Do you really want a man who will sell his soul for 30 pieces of silver to be your president?
(2) You are right, government creates nothing. Therefore anytime it does anything for the common good be it winning a war or reviving the economy it must either tax the citzenry or print money. I prefer the former.
(3)In the past our government has attempted to deprive persons of the right to practice of their religion (laws restricting catholics, jews, mormans, muslims, etc). Hopefully those days are over. If the government doesn't outlaw abortion doesn't force anyone to have an abortion. If the government allows the death penalty doesn't keep anyone from demonstrating against the death penalty. If the government decides to recognize civil gay marriage it doesn't force a single priest or preacher to perform gay marriage.
(4) Assume W didn't have good info that countered the intell that he used to justify the Iraq adventure, and I don't assume such, don't you think that once he learned the info was very very wrong he owed it to the American people, the families of the dead service members and the people of Iraq at least a bit of contrition if not an outright admission of a royal screw up and an apology?
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
architect's core beliefs
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 10:46:58 AM
|
on #4 .... I disagree completely with your position that it was wrong ... but he owes no apology. Whether you agree we needed to take Husain out or not, he would not respect and honor the united nations mandates, and he demonstrated he would work with terrorist and build weapons of mass destruction. And BTW evidence was found, it may not have been to the level Clinton, Bush and the EU intelligence said ... but it did prove the guy was planning something.
By taking the war to Iraq it created a position to fight terrorist cells and keep the country safe for eight years as they were on the run and could not organize attacks.
I do wonder how our softer approach will work. Deplomacy does not work with terrorists. And why should it, nothing was taken from them or done to them to justify their actions. They are terrorist because they do not agree with the western life style and want to disrupt if not destroy it. What diplomacy will work to change that thinking.
|
| Name: |
architect
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Bush and Iraq
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 12:19:52 PM
|
WHERE IS AND WHERE WAS BIN LADEN????
|
| Name: |
water_watcher
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Bush and Iraq
|
|
Date:
|
3/28/2009 3:41:29 PM
|
doesn't matter ... he was stopped for 8 years and so what if he is living in a hole somewhere. he was stopped from functioning while cell by cell was destroyed.
Lets see what happens under Obama. He has already started to negotiate with Iran and they gave him the finger. N Korea has decided to test Obama and started missle tessting again. Maybe if he talks nice to them they will stop too.
Get real and wake up that dictators do not negotiate and if they do they only do it to buy time or because it is in their best interest. it does not change their behavior. N Korea has proven that over and over. So did Iraq, so does Iran.
|
The hardline approach does not work in the Middle East. It just gives more fuel to the fundamentalists.
Look back to why Iranians took hostages in the first place. It was because the US backed a Dictator who murdered his own people. When we stopped supporting him, he fell, the fundamentalists took over and they took us hostage.
The roots of Al Kayda are in our first invovlement in Pakistan and Afghanistan when we equipped them and supported them, and then dumped them when the Russians pulled out. Just shut them down.
I still maintain that Iraq did not pose a national security problem to the US. The plan was just to take over Iraq on the way to Syria and Iran. They didn't expect what happened in Iraq. We didn't need to go there. We needed to be in Afghanistan and attack the northern regions of Pakistan where the terrorists hang out.
I also maintain if we were really after "terrorists" we would have bombed the Sudan, because they are known to be both fundamentalist and terrorist breeding grounds. The sad truth is we can never win in the Middle East, as long as we are dependent on their oil. It's a very, very complicated political situation.
And I used to be a Middle East desk officer. I've been to a lot of these places many times.
|
I believe you. but in the meantime we need to protect ourselves and our people. sometimes a stick works. We tried over and over under Clinton to ignore smaller attacks and untimately we got 9/11.
As for oil ... i agree. But I don't agree things will change when we don't need their oil, in fact it may be worse. But if we really wanted to get off the middle east oil addiction, we would change drilling regulations here in the US to make that happen quicker while alternatives are developed.
I have said before .... there are very high oil rich areas in the US that has been restricted. I say open them up immediately and add a special tax on just those areas over a certain amount .... say $50 a barrel. So if oil goes up the government gets more revenue to fund alternative energy sources.
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
North Carolina Lakes
»
Lake Wylie
Login
|
Home
