The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in U.S. v Barack Obama

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

CStanley — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:50:32 -0000

Hemm...about that pressure thing....
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/03/obama-thr...

You don&#39t see anything wrong with the president cheering on the angry mobs one day (and then trying to tone it down the next when it was getting out of hand) and then telling these bankers that he&#39s the only one standing between them and the pitchforks? How is that not an abuse of his power?

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

HemmD — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:16:29 -0000

My only problem with 58 is every morning when I look in the mirror, I can see the eyes of that 20 year old looking back and saying "What the hell have you done to me?"

When I was in my early 50s, I always said that the only thing I wanted for my birthday was dyslexia so that I could be 25 or 35 again. :)

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

CStanley — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:50:32 -0000

Hemm...about that pressure thing....
http://hotair.com/archives/...

You don't see anything wrong with the president cheering on the angry mobs one day (and then trying to tone it down the next when it was getting out of hand) and then telling these bankers that he's the only one standing between them and the pitchforks? How is that not an abuse of his power?

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

AustinRoth — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:25:20 -0000

CS -

"A side note- isn&#39t it funny how our points are climbing now that people can&#39t ding them when they get ticked off because they&#39re losing an argument?"

Yeah, funny about that. Or knocked down just for having a &#39wrong&#39 opinion.

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

AustinRoth — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:23:11 -0000

58? Thanks, now I feel better. You&#39re old!

HA HA HA HA!

Everything is relative, isn&#39t it? 48 or 58, back when we WERE in our early 20&#39s, there was no difference to us. Anything more than, say, 32 was old. No need to cut it finer.

Oh well, I am older, but refuse to grow up. :)

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

CStanley — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:49:04 -0000

AR, I was away from my &#39puter yesterday so a belated response on the "GIVE" Act.

I honestly don&#39t know what to make of it at this point, but it certainly bears keeping a watchful eye on.

The name itself is so Orwellian as to raise eyebrows. And yet, people in both parties have proposed various forms of this throughout the years, and it can be benign. I do think some of the provisions have that feeling of getting the pavers out for that road to hell...but I also think it&#39s too soon to judge that there&#39s any intentional foray into Brownshirt or Hitler Youth territory.

A side note- isn&#39t it funny how our points are climbing now that people can&#39t ding them when they get ticked off because they&#39re losing an argument? ;)

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

HemmD — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:16:29 -0000

My only problem with 58 is every morning when I look in the mirror, I can see the eyes of that 20 year old looking back and saying "What the hell have you done to me?"

When I was in my early 50s, I always said that the only thing I wanted for my birthday was dyslexia so that I could be 25 or 35 again. :)

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

AustinRoth — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:25:20 -0000

CS -

"A side note- isn't it funny how our points are climbing now that people can't ding them when they get ticked off because they're losing an argument?"

Yeah, funny about that. Or knocked down just for having a 'wrong' opinion.

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

AustinRoth — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:23:11 -0000

58? Thanks, now I feel better. You're old!

HA HA HA HA!

Everything is relative, isn't it? 48 or 58, back when we WERE in our early 20's, there was no difference to us. Anything more than, say, 32 was old. No need to cut it finer.

Oh well, I am older now, but refuse to grow up. :)

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

CStanley — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:49:04 -0000

AR, I was away from my 'puter yesterday so a belated response on the "GIVE" Act.

I honestly don't know what to make of it at this point, but it certainly bears keeping a watchful eye on.

The name itself is so Orwellian as to raise eyebrows. And yet, people in both parties have proposed various forms of this throughout the years, and it can be benign. I do think some of the provisions have that feeling of getting the pavers out for that road to hell...but I also think it's too soon to judge that there's any intentional foray into Brownshirt or Hitler Youth territory.

A side note- isn't it funny how our points are climbing now that people can't ding them when they get ticked off because they're losing an argument? ;)

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

HemmD — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 22:02:50 -0000

Funny, I found the less I trusted myself, the more I trusted others- including the man. I&#39m 58, and may just be experiencing my second childhood.

Good example, I just about had a heart attack just now when I typed out my age. I know I was just 20 something not too long ago. What the heck happened? What cruel game is this?

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

AustinRoth — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:53:44 -0000

I actually am an optimist, very much so. I just distrust government. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Actually, I distrust authority in general. I am 48, and still don&#39t trust the man. He is trying to put us down!.

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

HemmD — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:38:26 -0000

We&#39re really going to have to work on that cynicism, it&#39s bad for the soul.

I overcame mine so don&#39t give up hope. Remember, you have to be an optimist or this crappy world will get you down. :)

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

AustinRoth — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:07:09 -0000

I, too, come from German heritage.

This is just one of those that has the feel of &#39the road to hell, good intentions, etc.&#39

Couple that with my general cynicism towards all politicians, and a firm belief that all government programs grow and expand their power, and in doing so become more corrupt, well...

You haven&#39t been around this board enough to know, but I have mentioned before I am Jeffersonian in my opinion on how to keep government in check.

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

HemmD — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:02:50 -0000

Funny, I found the less I trusted myself, the more I trusted others- including the man. I'm 58, and may just be experiencing my second childhood.

Good example, I just about had a heart attack just now when I typed out my age. I know I was just 20 something not too long ago. What the heck happened? What cruel game is this?

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

HemmD — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:50:29 -0000

I know that&#39s the fear you have, but my german heritage thinks that makes a lot of sense.

Seriously, I think the non-participation thing is to stop that very criticism. It would be decidedly at bad thing if all Obama&#39s youth started to march in support of a plan. That, I believe was the point of the bill introduced. It was an attempt to remove volunteerism from political and religious meddling.

Hitler youth had a political affiliation (Nazism) and a religion (Hitler). Obama&#39s volunteerism is closer to the peace corps, only inside America. That&#39s change I can believe in.

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

AustinRoth — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:53:50 -0000

HemmD -

If you want to take the &#39volunteerism&#39 bill and turn it into quasi-military service, quite frankly you are getting into Hitler Youth and Brownshirts territory. (Damn, I HATE being the one to invoke Godwin&#39s Law).

Persuading? Ok, so, you go to your local bank for a loan to handle a credit crunch. The bank says, sorry, you are too high a risk.

So now you go to your local loan shark, who gladly loans you money in, say, November of last year. It is now March of this year. You need yet more money. You draw up a plan to show him how you plan to replay him, and why you need additional money to get there.

He says, &#39I will draw up a new plan for you, and decide how you will earn and spend your money, what you will do for a job, and I think it is is your best interests that you do what I &#39suggest&#39.

Persuasion?

Anyway, time to stop this thread, as we have both (I think) thown our best out there. Let&#39s go find a new one to commandeer! The TMV Thread Pirates. ;)

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

HemmD — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:46:26 -0000

CS

If you want to argue if the complete collapse of our economic system is not existential, I&#39d defer. Not because you&#39re right, mind you :); just because it&#39s a value judgment.

I would say that since the US went off the gold standard, America&#39s well being hangs upon the economic confidence that the rest of the World holds in us. If the confidence goes, so goes trade and credit. Two pretty big criteria for judging our survivability.

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

HemmD — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:38:15 -0000

CS and AR

I admit, we kind of got into the tall grass on this one. :)

Let&#39s narrow this down to a simple question. Obama is persuading, not ordering. There is no law against persuasion.

Just to throw a wrench into the bill you mentioned. Don&#39t Armed forces personnel agree to similar stipulations? You can&#39t advocate for a particular candidate while dressed in your uniform, can you? Just thought I&#39d add to touch of chaos....

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

AustinRoth — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:07:13 -0000

HemmD and CS -

OK, that is what I get for not doing more research last night.

First, the bill has been passed by both Houses, and now awaits Obama&#39s signature.

However, I went to www.govtrack.us, and read (skimmed) the final bill as passed. Sec. 1304 (Section 125) (the nasty one in question) was indeed repealed in its entirety.

Always best to go to a primary source for accurate information.

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

HemmD — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:39:53 -0000

AR
oops
that was meant to say "he&#39s NOT done much to disbelieve..."

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

HemmD — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:37:45 -0000

If Obama signs that piece of legislation, I&#39ll be beside you on the barricades. Remember, Obama said that the bonus tax bill appeared unconstitutional, and the move died in the Senate. The majority of the bonuses were returned however. The bad bill was snuffed out by his words and bonuses returned. No law was made or broken, but persuasion was applied. The Obama principle in a nutshell.

I go back to my original proposition, Obama wants to bring change to Washington, both sides of the aisle require it. I&#39ve said repeatedly, I may be naive about Obama; however, he&#39s not done much to date to make me disbelieve his stated purpose. The closest he&#39s come so far is the wire tap laws Bush created and Obama has not disavowed. I watch that front very closely.

AR - A great inter-change! I hoped you benefited as much as I did. A good debate is not about winning, it&#39s about learning. Thanks man

ps
Don&#39t forget your helmet.

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

AustinRoth — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:33:05 -0000

CS - I know this thread has been going on forever, but look up a couple posts to the one I directed at Chris last night. You heard about that, the cute little First Amendment restrictions they are adding to "GIVE"?

As someone else pointed out elsewhere, there real insidiousness of this revolves around the fact that kids will AHVE to volunteer if they want certain school loans for college now, but over time, history shows that quickly ANY financial assistance to people below a certain age will require it, and the system will end up modified so that almost ALL kids need that financial assitance.

Also, go do some primary research of your own on HR 1388 if you have not already. See what type of &#39training&#39 they must get, and what kind of &#39volunteer duties&#39 they will do. I will bet it reminds you things you hav seen described in other countries that use a different political system than we do.

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

CStanley — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:23:18 -0000

Right, Hemm- that&#39s why I pointed out the difference between the situation then vs. now. It was an existential crisis for the union then, and that&#39s why history has judged Lincoln to have been right in using emergency powers and getting the i&#39s dotted and t&#39s crossed after the fact. The same type of crisis does not exist now- the Constitution and the Union are not at risk from the economic crisis.

Re: U.S. v Barack Obama

AustinRoth — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:53:44 -0000

I actually am an optimist, very much so. I just distrust government. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Actually, I distrust authority in general. I am 48, and still don't trust the man. He is trying to put us down!.