myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Big government in Europe? National socialism in America?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1926

PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bard - Great idea - WPA.

The Right's greatest hero, FDR, had the same idea. So, now you have to set up a new Fed. Agency, FUND it, administer it, design and specify the projects etc. Similar, successful, programs in mental health have gotten axed in Colo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14050

PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
we need to break the cycle of poverty and welfare

To do this, you have to fund programs as above ... supply education and training


WHY IS IT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO PROVIDE JOB SKILLS OR FUND SNOW SHOVELING IN A COMMUNITY? That paradigm PROMOTES the cycle of poverty and welfare because it IS welfare and depending on it ENCOURAGES poverty. A person who wants to be a welder or an engineer should go to welding or engineering school, all right, but WHY IS THAT THE GD TAXPAYERS' OBLIGATION?

I'd shout a heeluva lot less if you guys didn't keep saying you're not socialists, progressives, Marxists, and/or fascists when your sentences and paragraphs and pages prove you are.

None of you has yet answered a vital question: DOES THE CONSTITUTION MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO YOU? Then move to GD Cuba or
Leechistan and quit advocating the destruction of this country.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14050

PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
The Right's greatest hero, FDR ...


Huh? He was an all-time extremist left winger ... until Obama came along and is trying to outdo him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coyotewindsurf



Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 1269
Location: SF Bay

PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
None of you has yet answered a vital question...


And you haven't answered the often asked question, how do you qualify for a government disability pension yet still windsurf hours on end, scores of days per season???
Is it the taxpayers obligation to fund your hobby?

_________________
mo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5138

PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

habeas corpus, fool. Look it up, you obviously know next to nothing about the Constitution.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
feuser



Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 1395

PostPosted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
Isn't 2 years plenty of unemployment before you consider yourself on welfare? Just how long would it take before this distiction?

I mean, after one year, shouldn't you have to join the wpa or something. Push a broom, or pick up liter once a week? Enter into job training?

This is a mess, and too many old established people are out of work. But it's not big business's fault. We are all responsible to create value for our world. Be a better sweeper. Be a better salesman. Be a better windsurfer. Be a better football player. Be a better carpenter.



"Make a better X" doesn't do jack if no-one needs X... or can afford it.

Big business has sold, outsourced or killed jobs, and is now surprised that no-one can afford their product anymore. It's a race to the bottom and the bottom has been hit.

There's no way back out of this hole without vision, ingenuity and investment in entire new industries.

Unfortunately, the err.... "the shortsighted" in this country still insist to try to try to crawl out of the hole backwards; they insist that we subsidize big oil and other non-growth industry and even question public funding for education.

_________________
florian - ny22

http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14050

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When I commented a year or two ago on the far left's war on Christmas, some of you denied it. Deny this: The Tennessee GDACLU warned 137 school superintendents across the state that holiday celebrations focused primarily on one religious holiday violate the Constitutional ban on endorsement of religion. The GDACLU added that "it is especially important for people to embrace the Constitutional guarantees of the First Amendment in order to ensure that religious freedom flourishes."

Well, WHICH IS IT, you GDACLU hypocritical idiots? Why doesn't prohibiting Christmas celebrations deny us religious freedom?

Besides, the Constitution prohibits the government from ESTABLISHING a national religion, not a local government from allowing or even participating in the celebration of one.

How the hell does the GDACLU dare put the word "liberties" in its name when its all about DENYING them?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 1065

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How about this case in Washington state, another case of Political correctness, gone wrong.
I have no problems with different religions displaying their symbols etc,
But when the sign attacks the other displays, and their beliefs, some one needs to grow a pair, and say NO!



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461424,00.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coyotewindsurf



Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 1269
Location: SF Bay

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

'Tis the season and Mikey's putting his best foot forward.
isobars wrote:
Well, WHICH IS IT, you GDACLU hypocritical idiots?


Guess who's on Santa's naughty list...again.
Wink

_________________
mo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5138

PostPosted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now I don't think the right wing can argue that John Kennedy was a wimp. I think war hero might be the right term. Here's his famous 1960 speech:
Quote:
While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact ,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom; and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)— instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser — in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency — practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.


Lest you think that this is new thinking, come all ye faithful conservatives and heed the words of Thomas Jefferson, who had something to do with the drafting of the Constitution, in his letter to the Danbury Baptists:

Quote:
Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.


The differences between state sponsorship of religion, and ecumenical holiday displays are well established in law cases--and routinely ignored by evangelical ministers, matty and isobars. No wonder the Republicans want to defund education, it helps their program of prejudice and outrage immensely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group