AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Oh, so you don't mean they should have equal standing like you first said. You mean they should have equal access. Of course that means that those that can pay the filing fees will have access that is MORE EQUAL.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I agree. But where you and I apparently disagree is that I don't think Medved was doing that. There is a difference between using a Bible passage as illustration and using a Bible passage as proof. And there is a difference in using the Bible to rebut improper interpretations of the Bible, which is what Medved was doing in my opinion, and in holding the Bible up as authority for policy.

Using the Bible to rebut improper interpretations of the Bible is valid when the issue is theological or spiritual. When the issue is political, scripture will be misused. Medved did the same cherry-picking and stretching of analogies that liberal commentators are accused of.

1 Reply

@parados,

Whatever Parados. I'm not in the mood for hair splitting or a war of semantics with you today. For the record, going back to my birth and going forward to my death, any references by you as to what I think, what I mean, what I believe, what I inferred, what I intend, what I want, or what I hope for etc. etc. etc. is most probably coming out of your hat in your own strange little world, and most likely has absolutely no substance in fact.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I agree. But where you and I apparently disagree is that I don't think Medved was doing that. There is a difference between using a Bible passage as illustration and using a Bible passage as proof. And there is a difference in using the Bible to rebut improper interpretations of the Bible, which is what Medved was doing in my opinion, and in holding the Bible up as authority for policy.

Using the Bible to rebut improper interpretations of the Bible is valid when the issue is theological or spiritual. When the issue is political, scripture will be misused. Medved did the same cherry-picking and stretching of analogies that liberal commentators are accused of.

No I don't think so. Medved is a Jew raised as a Jew and therefore was no doubt very thoroughly schooled in the contents of the Torah. His interpretation of the passages he used as illustration are very close the interpretation I was taught. So while your distaste for mixing Bible and politics is normal for you and understandable, it is also understandable that he, as one who knows his Bible, would choose to use the Bible to dispute incorrect interpretations. I was surprised at how astute and insightful he was re New Testament passages as well as I don't think he is a Christian.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

But he'd prefer going back to the Old Testament and the Torah but especially Lascivious...er, Ludicrous...er, Leviticus.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

it is also understandable that he, as one who knows his Bible, would choose to use the Bible to dispute incorrect interpretations.

Why is using the bible to support the idea of a progressive tax system an "incorrect interpretation", whereas using the bible to support a flat tax is a "correct interpretation"?

1 Reply

@old europe,

That's because Foxie supports what the bible says - written two thousand years ago. We can point out all the errors, omissions and contradictions in the bible, but that will be useless. Foxie believes waterboarding is not torture - in accordance with her christian faith.

0 Replies

http://s456.photobucket.com/albums/qq289/LindaBee_2008/th_TEAPARTY.jpg

It is things like this that drives conservative tax payers absolutely crazy. A lapse in judgment, yes. Intended to be irresponsible, no. But this is the photo that cost us more than $350,000.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05082009/photos/af_photo.jpg

Any halfway skilled kid could have photoshopped the same photo for at most a few bucks and probably come up with better color, composition, and effect. But the hard earned taxes of hundreds or thousands of American families was erased via that one little stunt done in a time when hundreds of thousands are losing their jobs every month. And you can't tell me that all of that was ordered by one junior aide without permission to do so from a lot of other folks.

It is easy to believe that they are so out of touch with the common man, that they just don't care any more.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I agree that it was wasted money and a dumb idea, but it also represents about 4 minutes of our costs in Iraq, every day. So. If we are truly looking to save money, let's start saving it...

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

One thing we have to do is stop justifying or excusing or giving things a pass because THIS doesn't cost as much as THAT or THEY did it too or were worse. Every tax payer dollar should be precious and given equal attention to be sure that we're getting maximum benefit with minimum unintended negative consequences. Of course if we did that, we would probably balance the budget this month.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

One thing we have to do is stop justifying or excusing or giving things a pass because THIS doesn't cost as much as THAT or THEY did it too or were worse. Every tax payer dollar should be precious and given equal attention to be sure that we're getting maximum benefit with minimum unintended negative consequences. Of course if we did that, we would probably balance the budget this month.

I agree, mostly because we would cut our military budget in half.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Isn't it interesting that conservatives bitch about all the pennies on the dollar spent by Obama compared to what Bush wasted? All while Bush destroyed our economy, and Obama has worked to save it.

I do agree that the flying stunt was uncalled for at a time when hundreds of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs. Something about Washington DC seems to destroy their common sense, and it affects both liberals and conservatives.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Isn't it interesting that conservatives bitch about all the pennies on the dollar spent by Obama compared to what Bush wasted? All while Bush destroyed our economy, and Obama has worked to save it.

I do agree that the flying stunt was uncalled for at a time when hundreds of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs. Something about Washington DC seems to destroy their common sense, and it affects both liberals and conservatives.

is "stepping on a dollar to pick up a dime" the right saying?

but yeah, the flyby idea was a clinker to start with. if nothing else, take footage of af one when it's actually being used for something. and as foxy mentioned, do some voodoo.

could have been composited with footage from anywhere ya wanted on an avid. or even final cut pro, for that matter. (both are cpu based video editorial systems).

2 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

The movie industry does that all the time, and people can't tell what's real and what's made up on the screen.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The movie industry does that all the time, and people can't tell what's real and what's made up on the screen.

exactly. you would not believe how many "exotic locations" reside on a hard drive. it costs so much to build single use sets now, that if it's going to be too specific, it's cheaper to hire on a bunch of sgi artists.

the last star wars was nearly all green screen. "Sanctuary" on sci-fi channel is the same.

i'm actually surprised they didn't think of it. kids these days ! Laughing

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

The problem with photoshopped pictures is that there are programs that can tell if it was photoshopped.

The program checks the pixels and using an algorithm can tell if something was added.

Of course the faked photo would have been cause to accuse Obama of faking the photo. The administration can't win on this one.

1 Reply

@parados,

But its use for the general public - if that's the reason they made it - won't make any difference. I'm not sure its value one way or the other to the public would have changed, except the government could have saved money, and they wouldn't have frightened the New Yorkers unnecessarily.

0 Replies

And not to throw water on glowing reports that we may be at the bottom of the recession, it is instructive to note that the jobless claims did not really retreat in April if you don't include the government new hires in the equation.

Quote:

April's net job loss total actually was somewhat misleading: Private-sector employment actually fell by 611,000 jobs, but government hiring, which added 66,000 jobs, mostly for the upcoming census, offset some of them.

Although April's job numbers reflect a welcome slowing of the downturn, a deeper look suggests that it will be a long, hard climb back to full employment. The number of long-term unemployed " those out of work for 27 weeks or longer " continues to rise alarmingly.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/67789.html

Those government 'new hires' are another problem for MACs (Modern American Conservatives or Classical Liberals) who value small, efficient, effective government. Those 66,000 new salaries may be mostly temporary for the census, but some will no doubt still be there when the recession does end and the tax payers will be paying them. The fastest growing segment of society right now is government.

We have already seen with Social Security and Medicare that the pool of taxpayers is not unlimited and there comes a time that there are not enough taxpayers to pay the benefits. Would not the same principle apply when it comes to government employees? When there are more government employees than tax payers, what happens then? Or more importantly, when there are more people depending on tax payers to support them than the tax payers are will to support, will we then get the reform that is necessary to return the country to solvency?

Do we need 66000 more people to prepare for the census? Why not take folks working in those agencies that are supposed to be racheted down to do that? It is simply insane.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

That's been in Obama's plan; to hire people. What's your problem? You hate to see people with jobs? You didn't seem to mind when Bush created government jobs.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Apparently not only is the intent to greatly increase the government payroll, but to reduce private sector jobs:

Quote:

Many Hires Needed for Budget Goals
Tens of Thousands Could Be Added to Federal Payroll
By Philip Rucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 3, 2009; Page A01

President Obama's budget is so ambitious, with vast new spending on health care, energy independence, education and services for veterans, that experts say he probably will need to hire tens of thousands of new federal government workers to realize his goals.

The $3.6 trillion plan released last week proposes spending billions to begin initiatives and implement existing programs, and given Obama's insistence that he would scale back the use of private-sector contractors, his priorities could reverse a generational decline in the size of the government workforce.

Exactly how many new workers would be needed remains unclear -- one independent estimate was 100,000, while the conservative Heritage Foundation said it is likely to be closer to a quarter-million.

Administration officials said they cannot determine overall hiring projections until the president's full budget is released this spring, but acknowledged that significant new hiring will occur.

"It is premature to be making any assumptions about overall federal employment levels," White House budget director Peter Orszag said. "We have no desire to bloat bureaucracy -- indeed, just the opposite -- and the budget will not do that."

more here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/02/AR2009030202935.html

It is curious how one can add tens of thousands of employees to the government payroll, reduce private sector contracts, and not bloat the bureaucracy. Perhaps somebody with better math skills than mine could explain that to me?

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know