Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-01-2009, 07:58 PM   #81
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg View Post
I already did, dude. When you cling to provincial notions, you can't just dismiss yourself from certain of the provincial notions that you know are wrong. When you cling to the notions, you espouse all of them.
I cling to no notions that I did not specifically espouse. I have espoused no racist remarks. Are you trying to say that all redneck white rich conservatives are inevitably racist? Do you think I have a secret alliance with the Ku Klux Klan? What sort of strange logic do you employ here?
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-01-2009, 08:02 PM   #82
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
I'm certain that you would take the same position on ANY organization that has had a member or employee accused of wrongdoing, right?

so if a lobbying firm had an employee who in the past was shown to have violated the law they would not be suitable for being an "advisor", right?

if a political party had a member shown to be guilty of an illegal act they too should not be an "advisor", right?

a trade organization that has experienced wrongdoing in the past, they would be disqualified from being an "advisor", right?

well? how consistent are you in your tar and feathering?
Do you really want me to drag all the ACORN crimes/frauds/etc. onto this board? Answer one additional question before I do: Do you support the continued federal support for ACORN?

If you tell me that you love ACORN and want ACORN to remain funded and supported, then I will certainly drag all the problems with ACORN into the light again...

We are not talking about a problem with a small handful of employees or minor issues here...
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2009, 08:08 PM   #83
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Now, come on Chumdawg, Mary, and Mavdog: surely one of you can start debating real issues of philosophy and economics with me.

None of you touched this:

Quote:
In his book “Democracy in America”, Alexis DeTocqeville (circa 1848) had this to say: ” A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse (a liberal gift) out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.”

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependency;
From dependency back again to bondage.
Tell me how you view our current 233 year old democratic republic and where you think we are in the above cycle. Or, if you reject the application of the above cycle to the current situation, then defend that position. Join me in real discussion now. You have called me a racist, sexist, and have told me to go f*ck myself. Now... talk

Lets call Master Obama for a beer and a discussion figuratively...
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2009, 08:45 PM   #84
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
I cling to no notions that I did not specifically espouse. I have espoused no racist remarks. Are you trying to say that all redneck white rich conservatives are inevitably racist? Do you think I have a secret alliance with the Ku Klux Klan? What sort of strange logic do you employ here?
Oh, this is rich. You don't want to be painted by a broad brush, yet you posted an incendiary piece that was made from the broadest of brushes.

You still haven't discovered the point that I am making about you.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2009, 08:57 PM   #85
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
Do you really want me to drag all the ACORN crimes/frauds/etc. onto this board? Answer one additional question before I do: Do you support the continued federal support for ACORN?

If you tell me that you love ACORN and want ACORN to remain funded and supported, then I will certainly drag all the problems with ACORN into the light again...

We are not talking about a problem with a small handful of employees or minor issues here...
the question is not "love [of] acorn', ot even "continued federal support" of acorn. but you ignored the question....

there are programs that assist low income and first time homeowners, and those programs should continue. should acorn be an accredited providor for those programs, fine.

interesting that you failed to answer the question posed....clearly you can't do so and avoid showing an inconsistency. should every group or organization that has had an employee or member found guilty of a transgresson be bared from being an "advisor" to a financial oversight board?
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2009, 09:07 PM   #86
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
Now, come on Chumdawg, Mary, and Mavdog: surely one of you can start debating real issues of philosophy and economics with me.

None of you touched this:



Tell me how you view our current 233 year old democratic republic and where you think we are in the above cycle. Or, if you reject the application of the above cycle to the current situation, then defend that position. Join me in real discussion now. You have called me a racist, sexist, and have told me to go f*ck myself. Now... talk

Lets call Master Obama for a beer and a discussion figuratively...
first, the date on "democracy in america" is off by over a decade.

second, the observations are accurate only in that voters have shown a propensity to elect those candidates who "bring home the pork". that is not handouts but economic opportunity in their home districts.

while many other nations have fallen victim to the concept which de toqueville speaks of, america has not.

obama did not campaign on a platform of largess, and obama has not changed that outlook in the policies of his administration.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2009, 09:29 PM   #87
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
Now, come on Chumdawg, Mary, and Mavdog: surely one of you can start debating real issues of philosophy and economics with me.

None of you touched this:
I don't deny that Toqueville (or however it is spelled) was a great thinker, but he thought at a different time. The fact remains that if the USA wanted to take both Canada and Mexico by military might, it would be a relatively easy undertaking. If we wanted to take Great Britain, it would be easier even still. The logistics of the present day make your philosopher's ideas outdated.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 09:55 AM   #88
mcsluggo
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
mcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
It is shocking that you are entirely ignoring that we are talking about ACORN here. Do you not read the news and know the scandals with ACORN?

Backing off to a generic discussion about special interest groups is a strategy to entirely ignore the issue. The issue is that we have a group widely known to be as fraudulent and corrupt as any entity crossing the American political spectrum in a very long time (a group so obviously egregious that a Democrat Congress voted to de-fund them, albeit only for a month as they are again funded now). This is almost as bad as asking the Ku Klux Klan to advise on financial institutes. Not as bad as that (I am exagerating), but still very bad.
No, we aren't talking about acorn here. The author of the article did talk about acorn... but they did it like a magician for an audience of 5-year-olds, hoping that the feeble minded would jump at the big shiny globe in the left hand and ignore what was happening in the rest of the room. Unfortunately that strategy always appears to work.

the ARTICLE stated that the amendment called for the installment of a new advisory board with some members drawn from consumer groups. It doesn't specify who would fill this role. The author then states that since Acorn is a consumer group, this amendment is calling for <<fill in your follow up posts of "this is ACORN we are talking about, gawldarnit!!!" here>>>

they are talking about setting up an advisory board focused on consumer protection as an aspect of the overall fiancial oversight apparatus. you can have an opinion, one way or another on whether this idea has merit or not. But, s others have pointed out ALL MEMBERS of these advisory boards are stakeholders in one way or another... and this is a fact that is so obvious that it goes without saying. ****pst... there will also be high payed wall street financial barons, and mortgage brokers, and and and rich people on this board!!!!! the horrors!!! ***** But, overall, to fall for the moronic baiting acorn schlep because the board focused on consumer protection might have the audacity to have consumer groups on this board is, well, simpleminded.
mcsluggo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 09:55 AM   #89
mcsluggo
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
mcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant futuremcsluggo has a brilliant future
Default

as for the overall last x pages of carpetbombing that has gone on in this thread.... do you expect debate to follow 75 posts of random grenade throwing? this appears to be a habit of yours: occasionally dump an assload of incendiary random sniper fire all at once and then sanctimoniously whine that nobody responds to your substantive posts. I honestly can't tell if you seriously get your panties in a wad every once and a while and all at once have all sorts of crap to get off your chest, and then go WHEW!! after the cathartic exercise. Or if you just think its funny to store -em up for a while and then lob em all at once so that you get the best "hornet's nest set free in the kindergarten" effect.
mcsluggo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 06:52 PM   #90
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default



Quote:
This police booking photo provided by the Richardson Police Department shows Dallas Mavericks assistant coach Popeye Jones after he was arrested on a drunken-driving charge in suburban Dallas, Sunday, Nov. 1, 2009. Richardson, Texas, police say motorists reported a sport-utility vehicle being driven erratically and officers found the SUV stopped with Jones at the wheel. Spokesman Jonathan Wakefield says Jones declined a breath test, but officers believed he was drunk. There was a minor struggle when police tried to arrest him and Jones was taken to the ground, causing minor facial cuts
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/photo;_y..._dn102&prov=ap

Just wondering how many of you think this was an act of racial profiling or motivated by race at all.

I posted it here because (believe it or not), I am really trying to get at what causes Chumdawg to call me racist. I truly remain baffled at the charge of racism towards me. I am still hoping someone might explain it to me...
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 06:55 PM   #91
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Mavdog:
Quote:
obama did not campaign on a platform of largess, and obama has not changed that outlook in the policies of his administration.
Granted, Obama did not campaign on huge government. But, he has created it. Will you really argue with the cold hard facts of the budget and stimulus bill and other spending???

Will you really say that the government has not gotten out of hand in using democracy to vote for outlandish spending which is what Alexis DeTocqeville warned about...
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 07:05 PM   #92
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsluggo View Post
No, we aren't talking about acorn here. The author of the article did talk about acorn... but they did it like a magician for an audience of 5-year-olds, hoping that the feeble minded would jump at the big shiny globe in the left hand and ignore what was happening in the rest of the room. Unfortunately that strategy always appears to work.

the ARTICLE stated that the amendment called for the installment of a new advisory board with some members drawn from consumer groups. It doesn't specify who would fill this role. The author then states that since Acorn is a consumer group, this amendment is calling for <<fill in your follow up posts of "this is ACORN we are talking about, gawldarnit!!!" here>>>

they are talking about setting up an advisory board focused on consumer protection as an aspect of the overall fiancial oversight apparatus. you can have an opinion, one way or another on whether this idea has merit or not. But, s others have pointed out ALL MEMBERS of these advisory boards are stakeholders in one way or another... and this is a fact that is so obvious that it goes without saying. ****pst... there will also be high payed wall street financial barons, and mortgage brokers, and and and rich people on this board!!!!! the horrors!!! ***** But, overall, to fall for the moronic baiting acorn schlep because the board focused on consumer protection might have the audacity to have consumer groups on this board is, well, simpleminded.
Hats off to McSluggo. The above is the first logical, well thought out rebuttal to anything I have posted. I re-read the article and McSluggo is correct. The article implies that the amendment to the bill is about ACORN, when that is not really borne out to closer investigation.

I will (and always have) admit when/where I am wrong.

It may be that Mavdog was trying to say the same thing, but she was unable to capture meaning/language adequately to portray the message that McSluggo effectively communicated. So, Mavdog, if you meant the same thing, then I apologize to you as well.

Still, I would love for McSluggo or any other to discuss the issue of "zero liability voters" and the state of the economy and government spending plans/policies. In other words, any frank and well written discussion regarding the current state of our nation and the underlying philosophical points of economics would be most welcome.

So... stick around and talk to me McSluggo. As to catharsis with many scattered points, the majority center around the central theme of economics.

I do enjoy a good discussion (enjoyment in catharsis) and so far McSluggo fits that bill. Would that the others could match you and "talk" to me...
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 07:07 PM   #93
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg View Post
I don't deny that Toqueville (or however it is spelled) was a great thinker, but he thought at a different time. The fact remains that if the USA wanted to take both Canada and Mexico by military might, it would be a relatively easy undertaking. If we wanted to take Great Britain, it would be easier even still. The logistics of the present day make your philosopher's ideas outdated.
The author of the above noted statement said nothing about military conquest or military susceptibility. The logic of the author is accurate to what he was talking about yesterday, today, and tomorrow: He discusses the danger of a Democracy voting itself benefits/finances that are unsustainable and destructive.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 07:11 PM   #94
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Wmbwinn:
Quote:
Tell me how you view our current 233 year old democratic republic and where you think we are in the above cycle. Or, if you reject the application of the above cycle to the current situation, then defend that position. Join me in real discussion now. You have called me a racist, sexist, and have told me to go f*ck myself. Now... talk

Lets call Master Obama for a beer and a discussion figuratively...
Mavdog:
Quote:
first, the date on "democracy in america" is off by over a decade.
I have noticed in the past, that Mavdog loves to tackle insignificant details while ignoring the meat and potatoes of a discussion.

It has been 233 years since 1776. If you wish to pick a different year to date our country, then fine. But, who cares??? On to the real details please...
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 09:13 PM   #95
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
Granted, Obama did not campaign on huge government. But, he has created it. Will you really argue with the cold hard facts of the budget and stimulus bill and other spending???

Will you really say that the government has not gotten out of hand in using democracy to vote for outlandish spending which is what Alexis DeTocqeville warned about...
the stimulus bill does not enlarge government, the vast majority of $ went to the private sector.

really, do you read what you post before you hit the enter button?
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 09:15 PM   #96
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn
I have noticed in the past, that Mavdog loves to tackle insignificant details while ignoring the meat and potatoes of a discussion.

It has been 233 years since 1776. If you wish to pick a different year to date our country, then fine. But, who cares??? On to the real details please...
didn't read my post very well did you?

try again.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 10:23 PM   #97
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
the stimulus bill does not enlarge government, the vast majority of $ went to the private sector.

really, do you read what you post before you hit the enter button?
we are apparently having a semantic problem (problem with meanings and applications of words).

The stimulus bill spent an outrageous amount of money when the money was obtained by printing it and/or borrowing it from international sources. The issue of spending that "big" is an example of "big" government. There is more than one definition of "big" government. I did not claim the stimulus bill created new government agencies, which is apparently the only definition of big government you considered.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 10:27 PM   #98
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Chumdawg: I was reading a book today and I think I incidentally fell right onto your definition of racism. I think I now know why you consider me a racist.

But, before I make that assumption, I want you to answer a question to see if I am indeed on the right path. It bothers me immensely that you or anyone else might actually think I am a racist.

So, here is the question/proposal:

Will you define "equality" for me the way you understand it in regards to race or any other factor. I think my failure to understand you hangs on this issue. I think we view "equality" in very, very, very different ways.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 10:27 PM   #99
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
didn't read my post very well did you?

try again.
you confuse the hell out of me. What are you trying to say now? Maybe McSluggo can help you articulate your arguement?
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 11:12 PM   #100
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
Chumdawg: I was reading a book today and I think I incidentally fell right onto your definition of racism. I think I now know why you consider me a racist.

But, before I make that assumption, I want you to answer a question to see if I am indeed on the right path. It bothers me immensely that you or anyone else might actually think I am a racist.

So, here is the question/proposal:

Will you define "equality" for me the way you understand it in regards to race or any other factor. I think my failure to understand you hangs on this issue. I think we view "equality" in very, very, very different ways.
You want me to define equality, the way I understand it? Equality is a characteristic two or more things share if they each have the same amount of some measurable property.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 11:34 PM   #101
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg View Post
You want me to define equality, the way I understand it? Equality is a characteristic two or more things share if they each have the same amount of some measurable property.
EUREKA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, I understand you!!!

I was right. I figured it out while reading a good book. It dawned on me why you so dislike me and think I am racist...

It really bothers me that you think I am a racist. Now, I at least understand why you think that I am a racist.

I am going to go get the book and quote it in the next post. Equality before the law and in the sense of the civil rights movement never meant what you said it means. But.... Equality does mean what you said it means in the words of Master Obama...

More in a minute...
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2009, 11:50 PM   #102
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

For Chumdawg....

Quote:
Equality, as understood by the Founders [of the country/USA], is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law. Moreover, equality should not be confused with perfection, for man is also imperfect, making his application of equality, even in the most just society, imperfect. Otherwise, inequality is the natural state of man in the sense that each individual is born unique in all his human characteristics. Therefore, equality and inequality, properly comprehended, are both engines of liberty.

The Statist [philosophy of improving society by central government efforts], however, misuses equality to pursue uniform economic and social outcomes. He must continuously enhance his power at the expense of the self-government and violate the individual's property rights at the expense of individual liberty, for he believes that through persuasion, deception, and coercion he can tame man's natural state and man's perfection can, therefore, be achieved in Utopia. The Statist must claim the power to make that which is unequal equal and that which is imperfect perfect. This is the hope the Statist offers, if only the individual surrenders himself to the all powerful state. Only then can the impossible be made possible.

President Barack Obama made this point when lecturing the Wesleyan University graduating class of 2008 during his campaign: "[O]ur individual salvation depends on the collective salvation."
So... since I am a White man who is a doctor and who has a better than average salary and since I oppose the redistribution of wealth via government action, then I am a racist. I am opposed to socialized equality of private property and monies.

By the way, the good book I am reading is "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto". The author is Mark R. Levin. The info is in chapter 2, pages 16 and 17
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by wmbwinn; 11-02-2009 at 11:59 PM. Reason: provide a reference, book source/author
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2009, 12:40 AM   #103
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I have no idea what point you think you just made.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2009, 08:53 AM   #104
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
we are apparently having a semantic problem (problem with meanings and applications of words).

The stimulus bill spent an outrageous amount of money when the money was obtained by printing it and/or borrowing it from international sources. The issue of spending that "big" is an example of "big" government. There is more than one definition of "big" government. I did not claim the stimulus bill created new government agencies, which is apparently the only definition of big government you considered.
you should alert everyone when you conjure a new definition.

if you are saying that the obama administration is responsible for the 30% increase in fy2009 federal spending, you fail.

do research on the author of the fy2009 federal budget.

hint: it was not the obama administration.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2009, 08:55 AM   #105
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
you confuse the hell out of me. What are you trying to say now?
yes, you are very confused. that's the point.

re-read the post, see if you can straighten yourself out of your confusion.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2009, 09:35 PM   #106
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg View Post
I have no idea what point you think you just made.
You defined equality as having equal property. To use your own words,
Quote:
Equality is a characteristic two or more things share if they each have the same amount of some measurable property.
Generally, racism is defined (by Webster) as:

Quote:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Most people using the words racism and equality would generally regard the two words as being in conflict or opposites. In other words, equality between races would be the opposite of racism. Inequality between races would be related to the idea of racism.

Now, all people have different skills, abilities, strengths, weaknesses, etc. and so the definition of equality is crucial to understanding a person's "take" on racism.

It appears that Chumdawg and Master Obama view "equality" in terms of private property, possessions, or money. People are equal in the eyes of Chumdawg and Master Obama when they have equal stuff. And, it appears to me that based on that definition of equality, that the associated definition of racism would be inequality in property, possessions, money (stuff) between races. In other words, if the general White population is richer than the general Black population, then that is racism. And, it is racist to support a system that allows such inequality.

Therefore, the principles the country was founded on are fundamentally racist IF WE ACCEPT the definition of "equality" as being related to possession of equal stuff.

Re-consider what I posted from Levin:

Quote:
Equality, as understood by the Founders [of the country/USA], is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law. Moreover, equality should not be confused with perfection, for man is also imperfect, making his application of equality, even in the most just society, imperfect. Otherwise, inequality is the natural state of man in the sense that each individual is born unique in all his human characteristics. Therefore, equality and inequality, properly comprehended, are both engines of liberty.
Do you see the issue of divergence between the original ideas of the Founders and the current ideas of Master Obama and Chumdawg???? The Country was founded on the above definition of "equality". Obviously there were some stark imperfections in the application of that definition of "equality" since slavery was allowed. Obviously, it took some time to make that correct.

But, the original definition of "equality" had nothing to do with the equal possession of stuff/money/property.

Racism (as viewed as the opposite of equality considering race relations) under the original definition of "equality" would be to not live freely under a government based on race. Racism would be to not keep the fruit of your own labor (property/money/stuff) based on a race determination. Racism would be to be treated differently in court based on your race.

The underlined definitions of racism is what I had in my mind before. I had a miserable time understanding why Chumdawg would call me racist. But, once I saw Chumdawg's definition of "equality", then I understood Chumdawg's (and Master Obama's) definition of racism. Chumdawg and Master Obama view racism as inequality in private property/money/stuff along racial lines (for whatever reason such may be present) and it is racist to continue any system that doesn't directly "right" such an inequality.

Now, just because I have come to this understanding does not mean:
1)that I am sure I understand you. You may read this and determine that I still do not understand you. If such is the case, PLEASE help me understand why you call me a racist.

And, it does not mean:
2)I agree with you. I reject wholeheartedly your definition of "equality" and your associated view on racism
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2009, 09:39 PM   #107
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
yes, you are very confused. that's the point.

re-read the post, see if you can straighten yourself out of your confusion.
Direct me to the post(s) I should read to sort out what you want to talk about.

Most of your posts were rants/anger. I am looking for the purported content.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2009, 09:42 PM   #108
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog View Post
you should alert everyone when you conjure a new definition.

if you are saying that the obama administration is responsible for the 30% increase in fy2009 federal spending, you fail.

do research on the author of the fy2009 federal budget.

hint: it was not the obama administration.
I am talking about the budget and stimulus bill and other spending passed by the current Democrat controlled Congress working in cooperation with the current Administration.

You may re-call that I was not a fan of Bush's economic policies and that I was not a fan of McCain either. I have problems with them all.

So, pointing at Bush is not a "gotcha" moment. Bush was a moron in regards to economic policy also.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2009, 09:54 PM   #109
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Um...dude...this is kinda embarrassing, but you need some help with either your reading comprehension abilities, the depth of your vocabulary, or both. You completely misread, or misunderstood, what I wrote.

Here is Webster again, to help you out:

PROPERTY: 1 a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing ... d : an attribute common to all members of a class

Examples: the class of "letters in the English alphabet" and the class of "positive integers less than 27" are equal in terms of the property of size, or number. Something weighing a thousand pounds and something weighing half a ton are equal in terms of the property of weight. All American citizens--well, at least for the sake of argument here--are equal in terms of the property of having been guaranteed by the US Constitution the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Evidently you thought I meant the secondary definition:

2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate

Go re-read the definition I gave you of "equality" and get back to the drawing board. I know you didn't mean any ill will by your glaring mistake, but I do want to be sure you get this right.

Last edited by chumdawg; 11-03-2009 at 10:00 PM.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2009, 10:15 PM   #110
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg View Post
Um...dude...this is kinda embarrassing, but you need some help with either your reading comprehension abilities, the depth of your vocabulary, or both. You completely misread, or misunderstood, what I wrote.

Here is Webster again, to help you out:

PROPERTY: 1 a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing ... d : an attribute common to all members of a class

Examples: the class of "letters in the English alphabet" and the class of "positive integers less than 27" are equal in terms of the property of size, or number. Something weighing a thousand pounds and something weighing half a ton are equal in terms of the property of weight. All American citizens--well, at least for the sake of argument here--are equal in terms of the property of having been guaranteed by the US Constitution the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Evidently you thought I meant the secondary definition:

2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate

Go re-read the definition I gave you of "equality" and get back to the drawing board. I know you didn't mean any ill will by your glaring mistake, but I do want to be sure you get this right.
Well, I stated that I was worried that I might not fully understand you yet. So, here is your earlier quote again:
Quote:
Equality is a characteristic two or more things share if they each have the same amount of some measurable property.
So, using the Webster definition of "property", then the statement becomes:
Equality is a characteristic two or more things share if they each have the same amount of some measurable quality or trait peculiar to an individual or thing. Or, Equality is a characteristic two or more things share if they each have the same amount of some measurable attribute common to all humans.

Now, I have not learned anything from these new definitions of equality. Individuals are not equal in their traits and characteristics and weaknesses and strengths.

Now, you used the example from the Declaration of Independence that we have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (it wasn't the Constitution but I am not picking at you for that detail). Equality of races would be for all races to have an equal opportunity/right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, I still have no idea why you think I am a racist. This has not done anything to illustrate the workings of your mind in regard to you calling me a racist.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by wmbwinn; 11-03-2009 at 10:22 PM. Reason: typo, spelling error corrected
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2009, 10:21 PM   #111
wmbwinn
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,043
wmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud ofwmbwinn has much to be proud of
Default

Now, when you used the word "property", you say that you did not mean money, possessions, etc. (physical/economic stuff).

But, I will persist that that is exactly what Master Obama means.

I will quote him again:

Quote:
You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
The above is an excerpt from a 2001 interview with Barack Obama that was originally broadcast on Chicago Public Radio, WBEZ. You can find dozens of blogs and links to that interview.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/10/2...a-the-marxist/

that link takes you to the audio to hear him say it if you so wish.

I still think that Master Obama's definition of racism is exactly what I explained above. His goal is social justice through redistribution of wealth to create equality in private property/monies/etc.
__________________
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
wmbwinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2009, 10:36 PM   #112
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
Now, I have not learned anything from these new definitions of equality. Individuals are not equal in their traits and characteristics and weaknesses and strengths.
I realize that my definition shone no new light for you. How could it have? Everyone knows what "equality" means.

The part you added above, however, does much to shed light on where you yourself stand. Of course there are individual differences in traits and characteristics and weaknesses and strengths. Of course. It is when you believe that those individual differences can be generalized to entire groups, or races, of people that you experience racism and the like.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2009, 10:43 PM   #113
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
Direct me to the post(s) I should read to sort out what you want to talk about.

Most of your posts were rants/anger. I am looking for the purported content.
"rants/anger"? you are confused.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2009, 10:50 PM   #114
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
I am talking about the budget and stimulus bill and other spending passed by the current Democrat controlled Congress working in cooperation with the current Administration.

You may re-call that I was not a fan of Bush's economic policies and that I was not a fan of McCain either. I have problems with them all.

So, pointing at Bush is not a "gotcha" moment. Bush was a moron in regards to economic policy also.
you incorrectly posted "Granted, Obama did not campaign on huge government. But, he has created it. Will you really argue with the cold hard facts of the budget and stimulus bill and other spending???"

I couldn't care less of if you admire bush or not, or agreed with bush or not, or if you have a photo of mccain on your wall, the fact is your post was wrong.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2009, 11:03 PM   #115
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wmbwinn View Post
I still think that Obama's definition of racism is exactly what I explained above. His goal is social justice through redistribution of wealth to create equality in private property/monies/etc.
no, the "goal" is equality of economic opportunity, of "economic justice".

you make a giant leap in ascribing to obama the idea that one group of people's wealth is taken to give to those who had been oppressed. that is never stated, implied nor advocated.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2009, 06:46 PM   #116
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

You go barry...

Quote:
President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents -- spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.
In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.
That price tag came with a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush's for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2009, 12:02 PM   #117
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Our inexperienced radical left wing community organizer at work... You go Barry...Nice deficit reduction..hmm what was his statement in Feburary???

Quote:
2/22/09 6:58 AM EST
President Obama will announce Monday that he plans to cut the nation’s projected annual deficit in half by the end of his first term, a senior administration official said Saturday.
Quote:
In a bold but risky year-end strategy, Democrats are preparing to raise the federal debt ceiling by as much as $1.8 trillion before New Year’s rather than have to face the issue again prior to the 2010 elections.
going UP, UP,UP!!!
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2009, 02:57 PM   #118
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Nice go Democrats. Raise the debt limit astronically so that :
1. You can keep spending like there is no tommorrow and
2. So you can try to keep it from the people who's money you are stealing.

Yea...talk about ethics...

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats plan to allow the government's debt to swell by nearly $2 trillion as part of a bill next week to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The amount pretty much equals the total of a year-end spending spree by lawmakers and is big enough to ensure that Congress doesn't have to vote again on going further into debt until after the 2010 elections.
The move has anxious moderate Democrats maneuvering to win new deficit-cutting tools as the price for their votes, igniting battles between the House and the Senate and with powerful interest groups on both the right and the left.
The record increase in the so-called debt limit - the legal cap on the amount of money the government can borrow - is likely to be in the neighborhood of $1.8 trillion to $1.9 trillion, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Friday.
That eye-popping figure is making Democrats woozy but is what is needed to make sure they don't have to vote again before next year's midterm elections. The government's total debt has nearly doubled in the past seven years and is expected to exceed the current ceiling of $12.1 trillion before Jan. 1.

dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2009, 03:00 PM   #119
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

So I'm sure Barry's going to veto this one right?

Tarp ain't enough. 1trillion stimulus ain't enough, average fed worker pay at 71K ain't enough, let's jack up all of our buddy groups 10% while we bust the budget.

Can't say we are not getting what we voted for however..

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate is poised to clear away a Republican filibuster of a huge end-of-year spending bill rewarding most federal agencies with generous budget boosts.
The $1.1 trillion measure combines much of the year's unfinished budget work - only a $626 billion Pentagon spending measure would remain - into a 1,000-plus-page catchall spending bill that would give Cabinet departments such as Education, Health and Human Services and State increases far exceeding inflation.
After a 60-36 test vote on Friday in which Democrats and a handful of Republicans helped the measure clear another GOP obstacle, the bill was expected to win on Saturday the 60 Senate votes necessary to guarantee passage. A final vote is expected Sunday.
The measure provides spending increases averaging about 10 percent to programs under immediate control of Congress, blending increases for veterans' programs, NASA and the FBI with a pay raise for federal workers and help for car dealers.
It bundles six of the 12 annual spending bills, capping a dysfunctional appropriations process in which House leaders blocked Republicans from debating key issues while Senate Republicans dragged out debates.
Just the $626 billion defense bill would remain. That's being held back to serve as a vehicle to advance must-pass legislation such as the debt increase.





dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2009, 04:44 PM   #120
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

1.1 Trillion buys a lot of votes.

Quote:
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Federal agency operations got a boost Sunday as the Senate approved a $1.1 trillion spending bill that Republicans said will cost too much as the country continues to grapple with tough economic times.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
fw: aint bigotry a hoot, got a bit fluffy in here, it's bush's deficit too, notsmarterthan5thgrdr, tag wasting, wmbtrichinosis

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.