Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Eric Holder gets burned by Texas senator.

Page 6 of 11 [ 176 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Jun 2012, 3:44 pm

Raptor wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Okay, I see what's going on here. pretty clever.

Mr. Longshanks, is, in fact, a LIBERAL, who is doing a witty parody of Conservatives.

Well done, Sir. You had most of us convinced for a while.


You have just proved yourself delusionsal. Get some help.

Longshanks


You're good! Staying in character, now that I've ripped your mask off :lmao:


You may want to look at my latest post to viasgrunt. You're not as claravoyant as you think.

Longshanks


"Viasgrunt?" "Claravoyant?" Of course, you are deliberately misspelling words to cover your tracks. :P I'm onto you, Sweetie! :wink:


Go back under your bridge where u belong.....


Thou art way out of line. :shameonyou:



Longshanks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la

19 Jun 2012, 4:56 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen, introducing Marshall, Master of Condescention and Intolerance. His response to me is proof.

Longshanks


Are you glorifying Marshall, or yourself?


I just state fact. And now it's time to put you in your place. Refering to your past posts on how racist we Southern Baptists allegedly are. You may want to check the news. We just elected an African-American as president of our conference. Don't you feel foolish?

Longshanks


_________________
Supporter of the Brian Terry Foundation @ www.honorbrianterry.com. Special Agent Brian Terry (1970-2010) was murdered as a direct result of Operation Fast & Furious - which Barry O won't discuss - wonder why?


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Jun 2012, 5:48 pm

Longshanks wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen, introducing Marshall, Master of Condescention and Intolerance. His response to me is proof.

Longshanks


Are you glorifying Marshall, or yourself?


I just state fact. And now it's time to put you in your place. Refering to your past posts on how racist we Southern Baptists allegedly are. You may want to check the news. We just elected an African-American as president of our conference. Don't you feel foolish?

Longshanks


Your very first one. Congratulations! How timely, too. I glorify your holy name. :hail:



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Jun 2012, 6:55 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
And the left has done nothing to control what we do in our homes? As far as the bedroom goes I have yet to hear of any law requiring surveillance cameras in bedrooms.


How many jurisdictions continue to criminalize homosexual behaviour? How many social conservatives call for restoration of laws criminalizing it in those jurisdictions that have decriminalized it?

Limiting access to marriage is far more invasive than anything that you can complain of. Social conservatives seek to use the coercive power of government to control adult, consensual sexual behaviour. Until you can demonstrate liberals doing something comparable I will continue to reject your argument.

Quote:
Money managed by the government is being misused one way or another. If it’s not being used to fund things you don’t believe in it’s being misused in the process of funding things you do believe in. Even if the government ran a lemonade stand the lemonade would taste like piss and they’d spend five times their profits making more lemonade that tastes like piss that won’t sell.
Government exists only to serve and perpetuate itself.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington


But government is not in the business of doing business. That is not its purpose, and it should not be measured as if that was the case.

Business is easy. There is one, and only one, metric for success: making money. Every investment can be measured against its net present value and a decision taken on a very simple basis. Now that's not to say that the analysis isn't complex, and it's not to say that business doesn't get it wrong from time to time. But businesses can come and go without the whole house of cards falling.

Government, on the other hand, has dozens of measures for success. Suppose a decision has to be made about where to put health care money--does that go into providing more emergency care, cancer treatment or health prevention? When spending new education money should that go into more classrooms for arts and music, physical education or expanding sciences?

Public policy making is a daily litany of these decisions where there is no right answer, and rarely even a best answer. There are always more priorities than there is money to spend on them.

So don't try and tell me that government couldn't run a lemonade stand, because any moron can run a lemonade stand, but it takes the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of a saint to put up with the host of pressures that exist in the public policy world, and no easy path to decision making.



Quote:
How many jurisdictions continue to criminalize homosexual behaviour? How many social conservatives call for restoration of laws criminalizing it in those jurisdictions that have decriminalized it?
Limiting access to marriage is far more invasive than anything that you can complain of. Social conservatives seek to use the coercive power of government to control adult, consensual sexual behaviour. Until you can demonstrate liberals doing something comparable I will continue to reject your argument.

Criminalizing? You mean they arrest people for being gay?
Sounds more like one of those Islamic countries the left is always defending.

Quote:
But government is not in the business of doing business. That is not its purpose, and it should not be measured as if that was the case.
It’s not about doing or not doing business but about efficiency. Efficiency as in getting the most out the tax payer’s dollar without a spool of red tape for each dollar spent.
Business is easy. There is one, and only one, metric for success: making money. Every investment can be measured against its net present value and a decision taken on a very simple basis. Now that's not to say that the analysis isn't complex, and it's not to say that business doesn't get it wrong from time to time. But businesses can come and go without the whole house of cards falling.

Business is not easy. I don’t know where you got that notion. It takes skills that some people just don't have and will never have and a failed business usually doesn't have the safety net of the taxpayers money like the government has.

Quote:
Government, on the other hand, has dozens of measures for success. Suppose a decision has to be made about where to put health care money--does that go into providing more emergency care, cancer treatment or health prevention? When spending new education money should that go into more classrooms for arts and music, physical education or expanding sciences?

Your idea of government is too far from mine. You first envision healthcare and education whereas I envision a squadron of B2 bombers or a few more carriers. Healthcare and whatnot are further down the list and in some cases not on my list.

Quote:
Public policy making is a daily litany of these decisions where there is no right answer, and rarely even a best answer. There are always more priorities than there is money to spend on them.

That’s why the less government the better.

Quote:
So don't try and tell me that government couldn't run a lemonade stand, because any moron can run a lemonade stand, but it takes the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of a saint to put up with the host of pressures that exist in the public policy world, and no easy path to decision making.

Again there’s not much in the way of wisdom. It’s all a matter of power and influence within the agencies that decides what goes where. The bigger you make an entity the more corrupt cumbersome it becomes.

I’m employed by a government contractor that provides services (not products) to agencies of the federal government. We, including me, work with civilian government personnel on a daily basis. I can tell you from day to day experience that one hand does not know what the other is doing between departments, let alone agencies. Right and wrong depend only on who’s watching, who wants what and how much budget there is. Bureaucratic requirements (that in affect aren’t followed) are created just to build personal empires on. Expensive and useful items are scrapped this week then they spend five times the original cost to replace it after they realize they needed it. On the other hand they’ll spend tens of millions on transportation and warehousing of outdated totally useless junk just because it’s less paperwork for someone than it would be to scrap it. People do their jobs only if they feel like it. The simplest of logic, planning, management, and budgeting are beyond grasp. I could go on and on just on my own observations and I’m taking about more than one agency.
So now we want to give them more and more to mishandle? :roll:

You've already labeled me a jingoist and a chauvinist, I think, so come back with something new as an insult this time.

BTW; I can’t help but notice that the gay rights thingy seems to be your obsession……..



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Jun 2012, 7:05 pm

Oodain wrote:
visagrunt wrote:

Or perhaps you are in deficit because your legislature is so cowardly that they will not levy the taxes that are necessary to fund the level of government activity that your citizens expect. If you can't pay for medicare and social security from existing sources of funds, then the problem might not be that the programs are spending too much, but you aren't providing enough in taxes to fund them. Maybe the solution is not to cut spending, but to increase revenues.

As to what I am thinking that I live in a country which spends less government money per capita and less of it's GDP on public spending on health care than yours. And even though we spend fewer dollars and a smaller amount of our GDP, our public spending can provide medical insurance to every citizen, permanent resident, refugee claimant, temporary foreign work and foreign student in this country (and all of their dependents, too).

And at the end of the day, we outperform your health care system on most leading health indicators. We spend less, we accomplish more, and we do it with public spending.

We have a publicly managed pension system that is fully funded on a going-forward basis. We can continue to pay Canada Pension Plan benefits (the equivalent of your Social Security) to every single contributor without raising premium rates for 75 years. And the only reason we are limited to 75 years is that the actuaries can't figure out the period after that without the confidence intervals dropping off.

That's what I'm thinking.

Are programs like these the solution for your country? It's not for me to say. But they do stand for the principle that Government can play a proper role in the economic life of the country, and in some cases it can do it more efficiently and more effectively than the private sector.

Now, where's that ripping to shreds you were promising? I really don't mean to be condesending, but you are making it so tempting, and one of my faults is a lack of impulse control.


and that part is far from unique in so called "socialistic societies"

false dichotomy if there ever were one.


Doesn't Canada have a higher population of Moose than people....



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Jun 2012, 7:18 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Oodain wrote:
visagrunt wrote:

Or perhaps you are in deficit because your legislature is so cowardly that they will not levy the taxes that are necessary to fund the level of government activity that your citizens expect. If you can't pay for medicare and social security from existing sources of funds, then the problem might not be that the programs are spending too much, but you aren't providing enough in taxes to fund them. Maybe the solution is not to cut spending, but to increase revenues.

As to what I am thinking that I live in a country which spends less government money per capita and less of it's GDP on public spending on health care than yours. And even though we spend fewer dollars and a smaller amount of our GDP, our public spending can provide medical insurance to every citizen, permanent resident, refugee claimant, temporary foreign work and foreign student in this country (and all of their dependents, too).

And at the end of the day, we outperform your health care system on most leading health indicators. We spend less, we accomplish more, and we do it with public spending.

We have a publicly managed pension system that is fully funded on a going-forward basis. We can continue to pay Canada Pension Plan benefits (the equivalent of your Social Security) to every single contributor without raising premium rates for 75 years. And the only reason we are limited to 75 years is that the actuaries can't figure out the period after that without the confidence intervals dropping off.

That's what I'm thinking.

Are programs like these the solution for your country? It's not for me to say. But they do stand for the principle that Government can play a proper role in the economic life of the country, and in some cases it can do it more efficiently and more effectively than the private sector.

Now, where's that ripping to shreds you were promising? I really don't mean to be condesending, but you are making it so tempting, and one of my faults is a lack of impulse control.


and that part is far from unique in so called "socialistic societies"

false dichotomy if there ever were one.


Doesn't Canada have a higher population of Moose than people....


The classic Inuyasha Pie-Shick maneuver. Lost the debate, and the subject suddenly changes to "which country has the highest moose population?"



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Jun 2012, 7:25 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Oodain wrote:
visagrunt wrote:

Or perhaps you are in deficit because your legislature is so cowardly that they will not levy the taxes that are necessary to fund the level of government activity that your citizens expect. If you can't pay for medicare and social security from existing sources of funds, then the problem might not be that the programs are spending too much, but you aren't providing enough in taxes to fund them. Maybe the solution is not to cut spending, but to increase revenues.

As to what I am thinking that I live in a country which spends less government money per capita and less of it's GDP on public spending on health care than yours. And even though we spend fewer dollars and a smaller amount of our GDP, our public spending can provide medical insurance to every citizen, permanent resident, refugee claimant, temporary foreign work and foreign student in this country (and all of their dependents, too).

And at the end of the day, we outperform your health care system on most leading health indicators. We spend less, we accomplish more, and we do it with public spending.

We have a publicly managed pension system that is fully funded on a going-forward basis. We can continue to pay Canada Pension Plan benefits (the equivalent of your Social Security) to every single contributor without raising premium rates for 75 years. And the only reason we are limited to 75 years is that the actuaries can't figure out the period after that without the confidence intervals dropping off.

That's what I'm thinking.

Are programs like these the solution for your country? It's not for me to say. But they do stand for the principle that Government can play a proper role in the economic life of the country, and in some cases it can do it more efficiently and more effectively than the private sector.

Now, where's that ripping to shreds you were promising? I really don't mean to be condesending, but you are making it so tempting, and one of my faults is a lack of impulse control.


and that part is far from unique in so called "socialistic societies"

false dichotomy if there ever were one.


Doesn't Canada have a higher population of Moose than people....


The classic Inuyasha Pie-Shick maneuver. Lost the debate, and the subject suddenly changes to "which country has the highest moose population?"


How can you lose a debate when you're right?



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

19 Jun 2012, 7:30 pm

Raptor wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Oodain wrote:
visagrunt wrote:

Or perhaps you are in deficit because your legislature is so cowardly that they will not levy the taxes that are necessary to fund the level of government activity that your citizens expect. If you can't pay for medicare and social security from existing sources of funds, then the problem might not be that the programs are spending too much, but you aren't providing enough in taxes to fund them. Maybe the solution is not to cut spending, but to increase revenues.

As to what I am thinking that I live in a country which spends less government money per capita and less of it's GDP on public spending on health care than yours. And even though we spend fewer dollars and a smaller amount of our GDP, our public spending can provide medical insurance to every citizen, permanent resident, refugee claimant, temporary foreign work and foreign student in this country (and all of their dependents, too).

And at the end of the day, we outperform your health care system on most leading health indicators. We spend less, we accomplish more, and we do it with public spending.

We have a publicly managed pension system that is fully funded on a going-forward basis. We can continue to pay Canada Pension Plan benefits (the equivalent of your Social Security) to every single contributor without raising premium rates for 75 years. And the only reason we are limited to 75 years is that the actuaries can't figure out the period after that without the confidence intervals dropping off.

That's what I'm thinking.

Are programs like these the solution for your country? It's not for me to say. But they do stand for the principle that Government can play a proper role in the economic life of the country, and in some cases it can do it more efficiently and more effectively than the private sector.

Now, where's that ripping to shreds you were promising? I really don't mean to be condesending, but you are making it so tempting, and one of my faults is a lack of impulse control.


and that part is far from unique in so called "socialistic societies"

false dichotomy if there ever were one.


Doesn't Canada have a higher population of Moose than people....


The classic Inuyasha Pie-Shick maneuver. Lost the debate, and the subject suddenly changes to "which country has the highest moose population?"


How can you lose a debate when you're right?


I'm not disputing Canada's moose population.

I do suspect, however, that, come winter, the USA will have a higher population of Canada geese than Canada, as those undocumented aliens come flying over the border, bringing with them their Canadian accents and love of poutin.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

20 Jun 2012, 11:52 am

Raptor wrote:
Criminalizing? You mean they arrest people for being gay?
Sounds more like one of those Islamic countries the left is always defending.


Well, Texas was certainly trying to criminalize homosexual behaviour up until 2003 when the Supreme Court stopped them. And they were not alone in that.

Quote:
Business is not easy. I don’t know where you got that notion. It takes skills that some people just don't have and will never have and a failed business usually doesn't have the safety net of the taxpayers money like the government has.


Did you read my last sentence? Did you understand it?

Quote:
Your idea of government is too far from mine. You first envision healthcare and education whereas I envision a squadron of B2 bombers or a few more carriers. Healthcare and whatnot are further down the list and in some cases not on my list.


Your list is irrelevant--what is relevant is the decisions that public policy makers must make every day. Given limited funds, is the better answer to buy the bombers or the carriers? To invest in more ground troops or more automated systems?

Quote:
That’s why the less government the better.


Which is simply stupid--because all you do is ensure that government can make fewer and fewer of the better choices that are avaialble to it.

Quote:
Again there’s not much in the way of wisdom. It’s all a matter of power and influence within the agencies that decides what goes where. The bigger you make an entity the more corrupt cumbersome it becomes.

I’m employed by a government contractor that provides services (not products) to agencies of the federal government. We, including me, work with civilian government personnel on a daily basis. I can tell you from day to day experience that one hand does not know what the other is doing between departments, let alone agencies. Right and wrong depend only on who’s watching, who wants what and how much budget there is. Bureaucratic requirements (that in affect aren’t followed) are created just to build personal empires on. Expensive and useful items are scrapped this week then they spend five times the original cost to replace it after they realize they needed it. On the other hand they’ll spend tens of millions on transportation and warehousing of outdated totally useless junk just because it’s less paperwork for someone than it would be to scrap it. People do their jobs only if they feel like it. The simplest of logic, planning, management, and budgeting are beyond grasp. I could go on and on just on my own observations and I’m taking about more than one agency.
So now we want to give them more and more to mishandle? :roll:


I will have to make some allowance for the place where you come from. Your country has created a structure in which legislators interfere with and micromanage the work of government on an ongoing basis. The proper sphere of the legislature is to hold the purse strings, to set the legal framework and to maintain the accountability of government. Priority setting and the execution of policy are properly the function of government (or what you would call the executive branch).

Now you're created a system in which your country is domestically ungovernable, because of precisely the issues that you raise--intereference by moneyed interests influencing decisions makers to extend themselves beyond their proper constitutional reach.

But that fact that your country has an unwieldy constitution does not support the argument that government is inherently bad or faulty. If you have a problem with corruption in government, then tackle the corruption, not the government. If you have a problem with shifting priorities, then start to insulate established priorities from interference. If have have a problem with competence, then make public service a worthwhile career that attracts the best and the brightest.

Quote:
You've already labeled me a jingoist and a chauvinist, I think, so come back with something new as an insult this time.

BTW; I can’t help but notice that the gay rights thingy seems to be your obsession……..


I have no intention of insulting you. I imagine that you wear the badges of chauvinism and jingoism with pride. I am not here to convince you to take a longer view or approach things with an open mind. I'm here to show others what you are, and to undercut your influence. The more that I can isolate you and your ilk, the less influence that you will have and the less political weght that your views will have.

As for gay rights--it's one of the areas where your country has a shameful record, and one which its opponents are fighting a needless and useless fight. I can quite understand that poverty, universal insurance for medically necessary care and income disparity are all issues in which there are conflicting public policy interests at stake, and where simple solutions have dramatic consequences. But on gay rights, there is no down side. It does not threaten your society or your collective well-being one jot. And yet opponents fiercely resist it.


_________________
--James


Longshanks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la

20 Jun 2012, 5:05 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen, introducing Marshall, Master of Condescention and Intolerance. His response to me is proof.

Longshanks


Are you glorifying Marshall, or yourself?


I just state fact. And now it's time to put you in your place. Refering to your past posts on how racist we Southern Baptists allegedly are. You may want to check the news. We just elected an African-American as president of our conference. Don't you feel foolish?

Longshanks


Your very first one. Congratulations! How timely, too. I glorify your holy name. :hail:


To quote you: :shameonyou: "Thou art way out of line." Oh, I forgot, It's okay for a liberal to be obnoxious and biggoted when they've been proven wrong.

Longshanks


_________________
Supporter of the Brian Terry Foundation @ www.honorbrianterry.com. Special Agent Brian Terry (1970-2010) was murdered as a direct result of Operation Fast & Furious - which Barry O won't discuss - wonder why?


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

20 Jun 2012, 5:19 pm

Longshanks wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Your very first one. Congratulations! How timely, too. I glorify your holy name. :hail:


To quote you: :shameonyou: "Thou art way out of line." Oh, I forgot, It's okay for a liberal to be obnoxious and biggoted when they've been proven wrong.

Longshanks


And let's just go full circle on this.

Mercutio wrote:
A plague 'a both your houses!


_________________
--James


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

20 Jun 2012, 5:51 pm

Longshanks wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen, introducing Marshall, Master of Condescention and Intolerance. His response to me is proof.

Longshanks


Are you glorifying Marshall, or yourself?


I just state fact. And now it's time to put you in your place. Refering to your past posts on how racist we Southern Baptists allegedly are. You may want to check the news. We just elected an African-American as president of our conference. Don't you feel foolish?

Longshanks


Your very first one. Congratulations! How timely, too. I glorify your holy name. :hail:


To quote you: :shameonyou: "Thou art way out of line."

As the French say, je ne comprends pas. :shrug:

'Tis thou who art forsooth way out of line.

Longshanks wrote:
Oh, I forgot, It's okay for a liberal to be obnoxious and biggoted when they've been proven wrong.

Longshanks


"Obnoxious and biggotted?" Wherefore wouldst thou find the glory of a congratulatory ejaculation to be "obnoxious and biggoted"? :shrug:

Which "Liberal" has been "proven wrong?"

Very clever of thee to pull out a plural pronoun when the antecedent was singular. Thou appearest nearly to be a genuine conservative. All the same, I remain unfooled.

If 'tis indeed "okay for a liberal to be obnoxious and biggoted", then thou art way out of line for having forgot this important fact.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

20 Jun 2012, 5:53 pm

I hope this senator goes to jail where all other people burners are.


_________________
.


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

20 Jun 2012, 6:32 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Criminalizing? You mean they arrest people for being gay?
Sounds more like one of those Islamic countries the left is always defending.


Well, Texas was certainly trying to criminalize homosexual behaviour up until 2003 when the Supreme Court stopped them. And they were not alone in that.

Quote:
Business is not easy. I don’t know where you got that notion. It takes skills that some people just don't have and will never have and a failed business usually doesn't have the safety net of the taxpayers money like the government has.


Did you read my last sentence? Did you understand it?

Quote:
Your idea of government is too far from mine. You first envision healthcare and education whereas I envision a squadron of B2 bombers or a few more carriers. Healthcare and whatnot are further down the list and in some cases not on my list.


Your list is irrelevant--what is relevant is the decisions that public policy makers must make every day. Given limited funds, is the better answer to buy the bombers or the carriers? To invest in more ground troops or more automated systems?

Quote:
That’s why the less government the better.


Which is simply stupid--because all you do is ensure that government can make fewer and fewer of the better choices that are avaialble to it.

Quote:
Again there’s not much in the way of wisdom. It’s all a matter of power and influence within the agencies that decides what goes where. The bigger you make an entity the more corrupt cumbersome it becomes.

I’m employed by a government contractor that provides services (not products) to agencies of the federal government. We, including me, work with civilian government personnel on a daily basis. I can tell you from day to day experience that one hand does not know what the other is doing between departments, let alone agencies. Right and wrong depend only on who’s watching, who wants what and how much budget there is. Bureaucratic requirements (that in affect aren’t followed) are created just to build personal empires on. Expensive and useful items are scrapped this week then they spend five times the original cost to replace it after they realize they needed it. On the other hand they’ll spend tens of millions on transportation and warehousing of outdated totally useless junk just because it’s less paperwork for someone than it would be to scrap it. People do their jobs only if they feel like it. The simplest of logic, planning, management, and budgeting are beyond grasp. I could go on and on just on my own observations and I’m taking about more than one agency.
So now we want to give them more and more to mishandle? :roll:


I will have to make some allowance for the place where you come from. Your country has created a structure in which legislators interfere with and micromanage the work of government on an ongoing basis. The proper sphere of the legislature is to hold the purse strings, to set the legal framework and to maintain the accountability of government. Priority setting and the execution of policy are properly the function of government (or what you would call the executive branch).

Now you're created a system in which your country is domestically ungovernable, because of precisely the issues that you raise--intereference by moneyed interests influencing decisions makers to extend themselves beyond their proper constitutional reach.

But that fact that your country has an unwieldy constitution does not support the argument that government is inherently bad or faulty. If you have a problem with corruption in government, then tackle the corruption, not the government. If you have a problem with shifting priorities, then start to insulate established priorities from interference. If have have a problem with competence, then make public service a worthwhile career that attracts the best and the brightest.

Quote:
You've already labeled me a jingoist and a chauvinist, I think, so come back with something new as an insult this time.

BTW; I can’t help but notice that the gay rights thingy seems to be your obsession……..


I have no intention of insulting you. I imagine that you wear the badges of chauvinism and jingoism with pride. I am not here to convince you to take a longer view or approach things with an open mind. I'm here to show others what you are, and to undercut your influence. The more that I can isolate you and your ilk, the less influence that you will have and the less political weght that your views will have.

As for gay rights--it's one of the areas where your country has a shameful record, and one which its opponents are fighting a needless and useless fight. I can quite understand that poverty, universal insurance for medically necessary care and income disparity are all issues in which there are conflicting public policy interests at stake, and where simple solutions have dramatic consequences. But on gay rights, there is no down side. It does not threaten your society or your collective well-being one jot. And yet opponents fiercely resist it.


Hmmm...........where to start?

Quote:
Well, Texas was certainly trying to criminalize homosexual behaviour up until 2003 when the Supreme Court stopped them. And they were not alone in that.

The long and short of it is that some people continue to be deeply repulsed by homosexuality and they vote, period.
Something else for you to chew on is that there are a considerable number of Canadians a that share those same values....
Either here or there it will only change with time, maybe.....

Quote:
Did you read my last sentence? Did you understand it?

Do you understand anything I write? Doesn't look like it sometimes.......... :roll:

Quote:
Your list is irrelevant--what is relevant is the decisions that public policy makers must make every day.

As long as I vote my list isn't totally irrelevant. You can rest assured I vote the type of values I write about here.

Quote:
Which is simply stupid--because all you do is ensure that government can make fewer and fewer of the better choices that are avaialble to it.

All in all, government decisions are not "better" so all you do by expanding government is more unwise decisions....

Quote:
Your country has created a structure in which legislators interfere with and micromanage the work of government on an ongoing basis.

Am I to assume that you think your government is perfect or what? Government perfection is an oxymoron if there ever was one.

Quote:
The proper sphere of the legislature is to hold the purse strings, to set the legal framework and to maintain the accountability of government. Priority setting and the execution of policy are properly the function of government (or what you would call the executive branch).

That is a textbook scenario. Trust me when I say that it does not work that way in the real world. Human nature won't allow that kind of efficiency in an entity like a government agency.
I'm really starting to think you just don't get it.

Quote:
But that fact that your country has an unwieldy constitution......

For the most part we like our constitution quite well, thank you. There cannot be a perfect constitution that addresses every circumstance.

Quote:
If you have a problem with corruption in government, then tackle the corruption, not the government. If you have a problem with shifting priorities, then start to insulate established priorities from interference. If have have a problem with competence, then make public service a worthwhile career that attracts the best and the brightest.

I don't even know where to start with this. I could easily write a page in response to each sentence but I don't have the inclination to explain to those who are obviously either too naive or just looking for an argument for the sake of arguing and provoking others into the same.
(pssssp............it's called trolling by some definitions)

Quote:
I have no intention of insulting you.

It's taken as a complement whenever you or yours do.

Quote:
I imagine that you wear the badges of chauvinism and jingoism with pride.

Got that right. :D

Quote:
I am not here to convince you to take a longer view or approach things with an open mind.

You'd fail miserably. My mind is as open as my conscience will allow it.

Quote:
I'm here to show others what you are, and to undercut your influence.

What you're doing in effect is exposing more of your faulty ideology and arrogance to the right side of this forum and showing the left what they already know about me. In other words it's strictly self satisfying and accomplishes nothing.

Quote:
The more that I can isolate you and your ilk, the less influence that you will have and the less political weght that your views will have.

Good luck! :lol: :lol: :lmao: :lmao:

Quote:
As for gay rights--it's one of the areas where your country has a shameful record, and one which its opponents are fighting a needless and useless fight. I can quite understand that poverty, universal insurance for medically necessary care and income disparity are all issues in which there are conflicting public policy interests at stake, and where simple solutions have dramatic consequences. But on gay rights, there is no down side. It does not threaten your society or your collective well-being one jot. And yet opponents fiercely resist it.


Why not just roll the whole gay thing into one instead of at the beginning and end of your...........reply.
Well, read what I said at the very beginning of my reply because it applies here equally well.

To sum it up, the gist of your whole post that I'm replying to now is about your highhanded criticism of the United States and disdain (or hatred, disgust, pity, envy, or whatever) of me.

Next time spare yourself all the typing and just say "F*ck you, your politics, and your country!".

Better luck next time....

:D



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

20 Jun 2012, 6:43 pm

New development!

President Obama is invoking "executive privileges" to protect his boy Eric Holder (and probably his own ass).
As an Illinois senator in '07 Obama criticized then President Bush for that using very same practice.
Guess it all just depends on what side of the bread your butter is on.......... :roll:



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

20 Jun 2012, 6:46 pm

Raptor wrote:
New development!

President Obama is invoking "executive privileges" to protect his boy Eric Holder (and probably his own ass).
As an Illinois senator in '07 Obama criticized then President Bush for that using very same practice.
Guess it all just depends on what side of the bread your butter is on.......... :roll:


What, you are only realizing now that all politicians are frequently dishonest, cronyism dependent projections of the worst that humanity has to offer?


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do