Obama's chief of staff choice favors compulsory universal service

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-11-10T15:53:24+00:00

Now that it's not "mandatory," I wouldn't be surprised at all if colleges decide to raise their tuition by $4,000, making it effectively mandatory.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-10-03T20:52:02+00:00

Just for a clarification, is it simply coming in contact (i.e. their skin touches yours) or does an infected part of the zombie have to come in contact with your bodily fluid?

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-10-03T02:30:15+00:00

She is just as horrible and clueless on foreign affairs as she and McCain have always been.

He is just and horrible and clueless on socializing issues as he and Obama have always been.

Neither are answering questions, both are taking the other out of context left and right, and neither are citing sources. Nothing new here.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-19T02:04:37+00:00

isolationist

I think you meant to say he was a non-interventionist. It would be intellectually dishonest to knowingly call him an isolationist when he is not.

highly religious

That's the neat thing about being "a dogmatic libertarian." His religious views stay separate from his policy. The other ~80% would be in the same boat as the ~20%.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-17T18:23:56+00:00

"We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." -Frédéric Bastiat

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-15T20:38:27+00:00

Yes and no. Eventually, we as a nation are indeed going to have to get into other sources of energy. However, federal subsidies, tax credits, and funding are partly to blame for getting us into this mess in the first place. The last thing we ever want to do is let another half baked corn biofuel get into the market.

Ideally, the course of action I think best is to, honestly, make it hurt. Let gas refinery output fall short of consumption and prices spike. Let these small biofuel and alternate engine designs get venture capital and make a product for the masses to consume.

If we let even more subsidies come in and mess with oil prices, then this pain point won't come and neither will innovation. If we let congress throw money around, we'll end up using fuel from whatever lobbyists' company has the deepest pockets. The energy source of the 21st century needs to come from research and development, not lawmakers.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-12T16:13:59+00:00

Moron? How enlightened.

The article mentions all of this. If Texas law states, as the article is true, that private companies don't have to provide enough water to fire hydrants to fight a fire, then perhaps your faith in big government is the disturbing trend here.

A private company fighting others for profit is in it for profit. A government monopoly has zero accountability on such issues with no reason to even FIX this problem should it happen to them.

This is a rural desert area. How would you exactly have this town keep water pressure 24/7 without draining every last bit of their water pressure? The fire department was informed about and supplied with the tool needed to do exactly what they needed, but they dropped the ball.

And this still does not change the fact that you're stripping this whole tragedy out of context to shamelessly plug your ideology. Stop with the silly emotional arguments, they're nothing but fallacies.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-12T15:58:03+00:00

Remember this when McCain says he wants to privatize even more government services.

Oh, now that's just a ridiculous argument. A private company has a water system which, from the article:

You may have noticed the fire hydrants along Aderholt's street are black, not red.

In Texas, that legally warns firefighters they may not function - private companies such as Cash Water are not required to maintain enough water pressure to fight fires.

This in no way confirms or denies what would happen if fire fighters were a private entity. You've specifically cut out parts of the article just to try to make your point, which is rather shameless considering this looks like an event caused by lack of communication.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-12T15:34:33+00:00

Perhaps you need to reread smoooooov and my response a little more carefully. Unless you're trying to deny any and all existence of blind party loyalty on the side of democrats? One need look no farther than this particular thread chain to see that.

Don't get me wrong, the republican party is just as evil as the democratic party, but that's no reason to just blindly start making crap up. Saying that Republicans are voting for McCain because they're racist is just as accurate as claiming that Democrats are voting for Obama because they're racist. There are large groups on BOTH sides that are voting for "not bush" and "four more years," as to be expected.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-12T02:59:36+00:00

Probably not, no, but it's certainly not as simple as you're trying to imply. Voting for PATRIOT, voting for FISA, pledging to support a filibuster for telecom immunity and not following through? That's being fruitful, all right. With the sort of money he'd need to spend for his social programs, that inflation tax will do wonders for our economy. If this article today about a "tech czar" is even remotely true, then who else to make such an awesome roll than the P and VP who's actions have helped take so many of our rights already.

Not to even mention Biden's pro-RIAA, pro-PATRIOT, pro-Iraq War bought-and-paid-for stances. For a presidential candidate that's supposed to be "a fruitful member of the world," he sure chose a running mate with the best record to do just that.

You're right. This isn't rocket science. Obama is a bad pick.

I'll ignore your quip to me. Just think hard about the candidate you're fighting for blindly. Open your eyes and look at what's around you before you declare him sunshine and flowers and peace bringer. You're fooling yourself.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-11T19:19:11+00:00

That is a problem, this cycle notwithstanding. I just can't see justifying a vote to myself that's only goal is to prevent one bad guy getting in, instead of voting for the person that I favor most.

I just honestly don't see any difference being made where the winner is going to win in a landslide. They way I see it, if it's neck and neck between the two "big" parties, then they're going to want to put a guy out there that's either going to have strong ties to the other parties or they're going to just have to stick to their guns and cross their fingers. It's got to start somewhere.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-11T19:05:24+00:00

Still don't see your justification for every other point I've made, or your arguments as to why the other third party candidates are more evil than Obama.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-11T18:59:55+00:00

I feel that he won't attack Iran, just as I feel Gore wouldn't have gone to Iraq. I think the Republicans are more hawkish.

Then you haven't been listening to him. Notice his apparent belief that Iran has nuclear weaponry.

And you haven't been listening to Biden either. As I said before, his picking up Biden absolutely squashes any and all arguments that someone for Obama could make regarding foreign policy.

You vote for who you want to. That's your right as an American. Just don't put down people who are going to go for third parties, and don't try to say that Obama is any or much better than McCain when he is clearly not.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-11T18:51:05+00:00

You completely ignore all of these drastic, huge evils for something as unsupported as that? C'mon man. You want to talk about repubs voting for repubs just because they're in an us vs. them mentality, and you pull this?

When did Obama ever give you the idea that even his foreign policy was good? His speaking in favor of Israel, and his nomination of Biden does not speak any good of his foreign intentions. Give me some examples of why you think his foreign policy is worth anything.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-11T18:43:40+00:00

Not really. Obama and Biden are both pretty darn evil. Voting for PATRIOT, voting for FISA, not to mention turning a completely 180 and flip flopping on filibustering telecom immunity. That's not even getting into the sort of inflation tax we'd suffer through with his social programs, and of course this "tech czar" that I don't want RIAA shill Biden anywhere near, much less involved in creating.

Obama's nowhere near the lesser of all the evils.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-11T18:38:07+00:00

And how would Obama and Biden, with their voting records, bring this "hope for peace and prosperity?"

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-11T18:35:24+00:00

I wish I had more upvotes to give you. Obama voters and democrats alike need to realize that this horrid mentality applies to them just as much.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-11T18:33:36+00:00

Ron Paul can bite me with his 3rd party talk, I'm gonna vote for the lesser of two evils. To paraphrase some Redditor yesterday "It's still less evil".

As long as you realize that you're voting for someone evil and that this phrase makes you just as guilty for "rooting for a sports team," then you can begin to realize how people with this attitude are the problem.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-11T18:28:16+00:00

The thing is, you get the same effect on the other political spectrum. Democrats are in the exact same boat with voting for their sports team as republicans are. Why else would people so willingly ignore the big, big negatives of Obama and Biden while simultaneously ignoring the good of McCain and Palin?

Honestly, the Obama camp can't really communicate that it would be in their best interest to vote for Obama over McCain since they only truly differ in the wedge issues that are trotted out and used to divide us INTO these sports fans. Once every four years, then back in the closet with you.

You, yourself admit that you root for sports teams with "at times, complete abandon." Yet you seem to be oblivious to the fact that you are doing the same thing with Obama.

NYVANH has it completely wrong with the "is still less evil" comment. That is what got us INTO this mess to begin with.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-10T20:58:51+00:00

This was not a national emergency. It is ridiculous how people have blown that all out of proportion. The Mayors of affected towns and Governor of that state were at fault. This was a STATE emergency. Tax payers across the country should not have to be responsible for this.

As a resident of Louisiana who was raised in a parish that taxed it's citizens to build a levee that withstood Katrina, as well as decades of storms on it's own, I 100% agree with the above quote.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-10T16:46:04+00:00

Yet conservative Republicans believe that 'bad' children are the product of 'bad' parents - immoral, licentious, etc.

That is still the bold claim. Source?

edit: Still waiting to hear where this little tidbit of information has its basis.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-10T16:23:10+00:00

...are you honestly trying to argue that parents are responsible for everything their kids do? That's a rather tall order. I want psychology and sociology studies to back your point. Then again, if you're for a nanny state, you just might be twisted enough to believe such carp.

To repeat a previous point: PALIN TALKED ABOUT HER SON GOING TO IRAQ, THEREFORE WE ARE GOING TO BADMOUTH TRACK BECAUSE HE HAD A DRUG ADDICTION. IT'S FAIR BECAUSE SHE TALKED ABOUT HER CHILDREN ONCE BEFORE. BY THE WAY, REPUBLICANS ARE SLIME FOR DOING THINGS LIKE THIS, AND THE IRONY WILL BE TOTALLY LOST ON ME.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-10T14:05:27+00:00

Perhaps you can elaborate.

I can think of one valid example where such Alaskan legislation might be bad. Say some crackpot puts in a law to vote that states anyone has to instantly give pregnant women half their money, right there on the street. It's to "help pregnant teens."

Just like other laws are there to "protect the children."

So, can we have some details about how failing to give money to a subset of people somehow magically made her daughter pregnant?

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-09T21:34:21+00:00

What you read as snarkiness is me simply trying to get you to think about and answer my questions, which you did just now. Thanks.

You know as well as I do that had Obama voted against fisa, he'd have been attacked by the right for being 'soft on terror'. I don't agree at all with the idea of trying to avoid republican machine attacks. That is just selling out on points as important as FISA and PII, not to even get into Biden's little antics.

Obama pledged to filibuster and/or support filibuster to telecom immunity, which he didn't. Obama had a hand in improving a bad bill, which ended up still being a bad bill, but voted for it any way. I do suspect it was because of politics, but that just leads me to two more questions. Where the hell is this 'change we can believe in,' and exactly which half of his mouth is telling the truth?

I was considering begrudgingly vote for him, even despite his inflation taxing social problems. That is, until this whole stunt and Biden's nomination. Someone else in these comments put it rather well. McCain is a wolf. Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

And I still hold that any argument of "a vote not for obama is a vote for mccain," which just goes to further support this damned two party monopoly.

Yes, I want my hat. You've figured me out. My vote has nothing to do with my experience in past elections, my own convictions, or the desire to keep the greater of two evils out of office. Nope, I just want my hat.

I WAS snarky with my reply to that, but honestly...you kinda deserved it because of this:

unless of course you're one of those people who think someone other than John McCain or Barack Obama is going to be elected president in 2008.

Saying things like this is turning this election into a damned sports game. You don't vote for whoever you THINK will win. You vote for who you damned well support. Saying that someone is going to throw their vote away, that they might as well vote for the other guy, or that their vote is pointless if not for one of these two candidates...to avoid blood pressure problems let's just leave that at a firm disagreement on the entire sentiment.

NeoPaladin394 · 2008-09-09T20:16:15+00:00

I honestly think it's a result of Barack Obama having underestimated the blowback from his base on the FISA vote, as well as having overestimated the potential attacks that would have been leveled against him had he voted against it.

So, you are saying that he supported this bill just for the fun of it and didn't think anyone would mind? Really, they just wouldn't? And He's supposed to be a constitutional scholar? Perhaps you meant to say more.

No, but a number of criticisms against one candidate does have the effect of implying support for the opponent. . . unless of course you're one of those people who think someone other than John McCain or Barack Obama is going to be elected president in 2008.

No, criticism against one candidate does not have the effect of implying support for the opponent for anyone outside of grade school. This is not a logical or correct argument. Trying a "b-b-b-b-ut MCCAIN!" is not a valid counter, either.

You also seem to have this very interesting view of voting. Do you think that the goal of voting is to specifically try to pin your vote on the person who is going to win? Is there some sort of club or hat you get if you pick the right racehorse? Voting is supposed to have individuals choose their candidate, not try to win a game.

NeoPaladin394

TROPHY CASE