| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/19/2008 05:21:05 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
LOL I was watching Family Guy Blue Harvest last night.
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Alrighty! (Puts the blaster back in the holster) :-P |
|
Classic that ones my fave! Family Guy RULES! |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 09:58:26 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Why is it that any thread that uses the word "conservative" or "liberal" ends up an argument about U.S politics?? |
Because the two terms are mainly used to characterize the two predominant political factions in the US and their ideologies? |
Well, our two main parties use even the words in their names, and I don't see every thread turning into a Canadian political rant. There must be more to it than that. Maybe Americans just like to argue? :) |
|
|
|
08/20/2008 09:48:07 AM · #153 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Why is it that any thread that uses the word "conservative" or "liberal" ends up an argument about U.S politics?? |
Because the two terms are mainly used to characterize the two predominant political factions in the US and their ideologies? |
Well, our two main parties use even the words in their names, and I don't see every thread turning into a Canadian political rant. There must be more to it than that. Maybe Americans just like to argue? :) |
I think American conservatives have turned the word "liberal" into a kind of slander. They use it as though if they don't spit it out quickly, they'll get some kind of disease. It's a shame. And, despite the fact that one of the two major parties in this country is actually called "Liberal", Canadians, as they are for some reason wont to do, are following suit. Read the comment noise at the Star for some examples of this kind of cretinous behaviour. |
|
|
|
08/20/2008 10:51:25 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by Louis:
[I think American conservatives have turned the word "liberal" into a kind of slander. They use it as though if they don't spit it out quickly, they'll get some kind of disease. It's a shame. And, despite the fact that one of the two major parties in this country is actually called "Liberal", Canadians, as they are for some reason wont to do, are following suit. Read the comment noise at the Star for some examples of this kind of cretinous behaviour. |
Actually the ultra-Liberals of the US have turned the word to mean Socialist or Communist. |
|
|
|
08/20/2008 05:43:36 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by jprezant:
Seriously. I'm gonna start it. Who wants in? |
What are you unhappy with? I know it's meant as a joke, but a photo site only for non-conservatives would be about as silly as an encyclopedia exclusively for conservatives. ;-)
Oh, and speaking about spending, debt, etc.:
 |
That's a cute cartoon. But, as we all know, or should know, the President isn't the one in charge of the purse-strings of the U.S. Treasury. That control rests with the Congress. The President can only sign or veto the spending bills passed by the Congress, and, even if he vetoes them, they can, with enough votes, override his veto and spend the money anyway.
And, although the cartoon doesn't show it, there was also a budget deficit under the Carter administration that preceded the Reagan administration.
Carter, a Democrat, served for 4 years, from 1977 to 1981.
The U.S. House of Representatives was controlled by the Democrats for the entire 4 years.
The U.S. Senate was also controlled by the Democrats for the entire 4 years
There was a deficit - under a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress.
Reagan, a Republican, served for 8 years, from 1981 to 1989.
The U.S. House of Representatives was controlled by the Democrats for the entire 8 years.
The U.S. Senate was controlled by the Republicans for the first 6 of those 8 years, and by the Democrats for the last 2 years.
There was a deficit - under a Republican President and a predominately Democratic Congress.
Bush, Sr., also a Republican, served for 4 years, from 1989 to 1993.
The U.S. House of Representatives was controlled by the Democrats for the entire 4 years.
The U.S. Senate was controlled by the Democrats for the entire 4 years.
There was a deficit - under a Republican President and a Democratic Congress.
Clinton, a Democrat, served for 8 years, from 1993 to 2001.
The U.S. House of Representatives was controlled by the Democrats for the first 2 of those 8 years and by the Republicans for the last 6 years.
The U.S. Senate was controlled by the Democrats for the first 2 of those 8 years, and by the Republicans for the last 6 years.
There was a surplus - under a Democratic President and a predominately Republican Congress.
Bush, Jr., a Republican, served for 8 years, from 2001 to 2009 ( God willing ).
The U.S. House of Representatives was controlled by the Republicans for the first 6 of those 8 years and by the Democrats for the last 2 years.
The U.S. Senate was controlled by the Democrats for the first 2 of those 8 years ( except for a 6 month period when Republicans were in control ), then by Republicans for the next 4 years, and then by the Democrats again for the last 2 years.
There was ( is ) a deficit - under a Republican President and a predominately ( though just barely ) Republican Congress.
Here's what I think we can gather from the above:
A Democratic President and a Democratic Congress ( Carter ) leads to a budget deficit.
A Republican President and a Democratic Congress ( Reagan; Bush, Sr. ) also leads to a budget deficit.
A Republican President and a Republican Congress ( Bush, Jr. ) also leads to a budget deficit.
A Democratic President and a Republican Congress ( Clinton ) leads to a budget surplus. And it appears that this is the ONLY combination that produces a budget surplus.
So, it looks as though, if you want a budget surplus, you should vote for Obama, but turn the Democrats out of the House and Senate.
Oh, and just for the record, it is a mis-statement to refer to "Bush tax cuts" for the wealthy ( or anyone else for that matter ). The tax cuts were passed by the Congress and signed into law by Bush - not the other way around. They should be called the "Congressional tax cuts". |
|
|
|
08/20/2008 08:57:41 PM · #156 |
| and....segway to....nudity in pictures on FM...again |
|
|
|
08/20/2008 09:46:06 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I think American conservatives have turned the word "liberal" into a kind of slander. |
Actually I think it's due to stories like this. |
|
|
|
08/20/2008 09:55:00 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Louis:
I think American conservatives have turned the word "liberal" into a kind of slander. |
Actually I think it's due to stories like this. |
What does that story have to due with liberalism and why the word has had a negative connotation attached to it by some in the us? |
|
|
|
08/20/2008 10:03:15 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Louis:
I think American conservatives have turned the word "liberal" into a kind of slander. |
Actually I think it's due to stories like this. |
What does that story have to due with liberalism and why the word has had a negative connotation attached to it by some in the us? |
Well, when the "head Liberal" is a hypocrite it could make the word "Liberal" have a negative connotation couldn't it? |
|
|
|
08/20/2008 10:12:40 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Louis:
I think American conservatives have turned the word "liberal" into a kind of slander. |
Actually I think it's due to stories like this. |
What does that story have to due with liberalism and why the word has had a negative connotation attached to it by some in the us? |
Well, when the "head Liberal" is a hypocrite it could make the word "Liberal" have a negative connotation couldn't it? |
I'm not seeing the hypocrisy here, the guy has a brother in another country that he barely knows and has met a few times, what's that mean?..nothing. A non story. |
|
|
|
08/20/2008 10:24:10 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Louis:
I think American conservatives have turned the word "liberal" into a kind of slander. |
Actually I think it's due to stories like this. |
What does that story have to due with liberalism and why the word has had a negative connotation attached to it by some in the us? |
Well, when the "head Liberal" is a hypocrite it could make the word "Liberal" have a negative connotation couldn't it? |
I'm not seeing the hypocrisy here, the guy has a brother in another country that he barely knows and has met a few times, what's that mean?..nothing. A non story. |
Exactly. He wants to dole out BILLIONS and BILLIONS of our money to needy people he's never met yet his own brother lives in a shack smaller than most bathrooms? No hypocrisy there? Seriously? |
|
|
|
08/20/2008 10:57:54 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Exactly. He wants to dole out BILLIONS and BILLIONS of our money to needy people he's never met yet his own brother lives in a shack smaller than most bathrooms? No hypocrisy there? Seriously? |
Would it make you feel better if he say gave a plush government job, an office and chauffeur to his brother... I somehow doubt it. This is one of those "Chicken shit" stories that he can't win regardless of what steps he takes.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/20/2008 11:10:08 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Phil:
Exactly. He wants to dole out BILLIONS and BILLIONS of our money to needy people he's never met yet his own brother lives in a shack smaller than most bathrooms? No hypocrisy there? Seriously? |
Would it make you feel better if he say gave a plush government job, an office and chauffeur to his brother... I somehow doubt it. This is one of those "Chicken shit" stories that he can't win regardless of what steps he takes.
Ray |
Why would he give him a plush Government job Ray? Why would you ask such a question? Is this really the argument that you're trying to make?
Just want to make sure we're on the same page here. If you're a millionaire you'd allow your brother to live in a 6x9' shack on a dollar a month? Leave the silly "plush Government job" rebuttal out of it this time if you don't mind.
I don't want to leave the assumption that I'm a McCain fan. In fact, I can't make my mind up which candidate I dislike more; however, this is totally ridiculous and extremely hypocritical. |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 01:05:15 AM · #164 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Why would he give him a plush Government job Ray? Why would you ask such a question? Is this really the argument that you're trying to make?
Just want to make sure we're on the same page here. If you're a millionaire you'd allow your brother to live in a 6x9' shack on a dollar a month? Leave the silly "plush Government job" rebuttal out of it this time if you don't mind. |
Wait so Barack's brother who wasn't even born until Barack was in college and who he has only met twice is somehow supposed to be considered family now? Just because of the link of genetics? They're not really family in my mind. Why should he treat that man any differently than all the others his "billions and billions" will go to support? Even if it were hypocrisy, is it a bad thing that he wants to help other people? |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 01:23:22 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Phil:
Exactly. He wants to dole out BILLIONS and BILLIONS of our money to needy people he's never met yet his own brother lives in a shack smaller than most bathrooms? No hypocrisy there? Seriously? |
Would it make you feel better if he say gave a plush government job, an office and chauffeur to his brother... I somehow doubt it. This is one of those "Chicken shit" stories that he can't win regardless of what steps he takes.
Ray |
Why would he give him a plush Government job Ray? Why would you ask such a question? Is this really the argument that you're trying to make?
Just want to make sure we're on the same page here. If you're a millionaire you'd allow your brother to live in a 6x9' shack on a dollar a month? Leave the silly "plush Government job" rebuttal out of it this time if you don't mind.
I don't want to leave the assumption that I'm a McCain fan. In fact, I can't make my mind up which candidate I dislike more; however, this is totally ridiculous and extremely hypocritical. |
Why would anyone support a family member that they barely know?
|
|
|
|
08/21/2008 07:59:37 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Wait so Barack's brother who wasn't even born until Barack was in college and who he has only met twice is somehow supposed to be considered family now? |
Ummm, yes. A brother that is born no matter the age of the older siblings is still a brother isn't he? If you had a brother born while you were in college, and you were now a millionaire, would you have only seen him twice in his lifetime? Would you allow him to live in a 6'x9' shack on a dollar a month? You really, really think that's okay? Seriously?
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Why should he treat that man any differently than all the others his "billions and billions" will go to support? |
It's not HIS billions and billions he is promising to give away. It's yours and mine. And he should treat him differently because it's his frigging brother. To allow your own brother to live in such conditions while telling us how you're going to spend our tax money on the poor outside of America is extremely sad and totally ridiculous.
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Even if it were hypocrisy, is it a bad thing that he wants to help other people? |
Of course not - and it is hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 08:11:13 AM · #167 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why would anyone support a family member that they barely know? |
Spaz, the fact that he barely knows his own brother nor helps him out pretty much makes the point of how the word "Liberal" in America is often associated with a kind of slander and hypocrisy. You really don't see the hypocrisy in taxing us to help out the poor in other countries while his brother lives on a dollar a month?
I'm not defending the other side of things as we all know how hypocritical the so called Conservative leaders have been in recent (and not so recent) years. What I am saying is that we need to hold all of them accountable for their actions (or in this case, the lack thereof) no matter what side of the spectrum we are on politically. When I see the defense of such blatant hypocrisy it's eerily similar to the "Conservatives" who think Bush can do no wrong either. |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 10:20:11 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Why would anyone support a family member that they barely know? |
Spaz, the fact that he barely knows his own brother nor helps him out pretty much makes the point of how the word "Liberal" in America is often associated with a kind of slander and hypocrisy. You really don't see the hypocrisy in taxing us to help out the poor in other countries while his brother lives on a dollar a month?
I'm not defending the other side of things as we all know how hypocritical the so called Conservative leaders have been in recent (and not so recent) years. What I am saying is that we need to hold all of them accountable for their actions (or in this case, the lack thereof) no matter what side of the spectrum we are on politically. When I see the defense of such blatant hypocrisy it's eerily similar to the "Conservatives" who think Bush can do no wrong either. |
No, I don't see the hypocrisy. What would be hypocritical is giving his brother special treatment.
The guy is his brother only by genetics. I can tell you that if a long lost brother suddenly appeared on my doorstep, destitute and with irrefutable proof that he was indeed my sibling, I would not hand him a big wad of cash and say "Here, go live like a king."
For all intents and purposes the guy is just as much a stranger as any other Kenyan.
Message edited by author 2008-08-21 10:22:43. |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 10:35:06 AM · #169 |
Ray's right about this one. No matter what Obama does, or does not do regarding this brother of his, he loses. If he sets him up for life, or gets him out of his shack, or gives him a leg up, or helps him get a better job, he'll be accused of politically profiteering from the misfortunes of his own blood. If he does nothing, he'll be seen as inhumanely cold-hearted.
I don't know, or really care, what he should or shouldn't do, but the political predicament he's in is surely obvious to everyone, Phil included. If he can see the analogous hypocrisy in defending Obama no matter what he does, surely Phil can perceive the political quagmire this situation is for him. |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 10:48:11 AM · #170 |
you can't start this!
what would the forums be without rightwing bible quoting evolution denying people? |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 10:48:57 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by Phil:
Spaz, the fact that he barely knows his own brother nor helps him out pretty much makes the point of how the word "Liberal" in America is often associated with a kind of slander and hypocrisy. You really don't see the hypocrisy in taxing us to help out the poor in other countries while his brother lives on a dollar a month? |
Phil, what do you suggest Obama should do that would protect him from criticism from his political rivals on the matter of his brother? |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 10:49:44 AM · #172 |
| I have two "half" sisters. One from my mother, whom I was raised with to a point. The other from my father, whom I've never met. I don't even know her name. I consider her a complete stranger and would not know her if I passed her on the street (I wouldn't know my father either since the last time I set eyes on him I was 1 year old). DNA does not represent family to me. |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 11:26:59 AM · #173 |
| Aren't we ALL supposedly related? I will cheerfully accept donations for a larger house, my brothers. ;-) |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 11:49:54 AM · #174 |
Originally posted by jprezant:
And in answer to your question...about what I mean by the thread...
I was just sick of creating a photograph that might have some element of suggestive content, and having it get thrashed because Jesus frowns upon naked human bodies. I have nothing against religion or conservatives, but I do think if your going to be judging art, you need to be able to separate your personal beliefs sometimes, and understand what the artist was trying to do.
...and yes, I know art is subjective...but at least the technicals of art are somewhat objective...and you can take a non-biased approach to how a photograph was executed..maybe that would help a bit. |
I don't normally respond in rant threads, however....
I think it works both ways. Most challenge photos having to do with faith, particularly Christianity, tend to get marked down by those who do not share that beleif. Sometimes it's even outright mocked.
It won't change - and that's why I seldom post in rant. Some people will continue to mark down anything with sexual or violent implications, some dislike any faith based, prayer or religious subjects - others don't like kids or pets. My point is that your choice of topic is not alone in having it's detractors. Don't worry about it, shoot great photos, and appreciate those who share your vision. |
|
|
|
08/21/2008 12:41:10 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by Phil:
Spaz, the fact that he barely knows his own brother nor helps him out pretty much makes the point of how the word "Liberal" in America is often associated with a kind of slander and hypocrisy. You really don't see the hypocrisy in taxing us to help out the poor in other countries while his brother lives on a dollar a month? |
Phil, what do you suggest Obama should do that would protect him from criticism from his political rivals on the matter of his brother? |
I'll answer this and point it toward all of the above responses.
You seem to be looking at this from a political nature while I am looking at it from another angle. What he could do NOW is not the point. His brother just today didn't become this way. Of course, if he jerks him up and starts being a part of his life now it will look like it was politically motivated (which it obviously would be as he's had years to do so). My question to you is this: why is this even being questioned? Why does it matter about what he should do now? Why is it not about what he should've done then? Why is it not that if he cares so much about the poor and underprivileged he didn't start with his own blood?
Having a half brother/sister that you wouldn't know if you passed in the street is one thing. Having a brother you know that lives in a 6x9' shed on a dollar a month while you're promising billions of dollars in aid to the poor is another. |
|
