Slippery Slope to tyranny

Most of the shrimpers I have met ain't the type of people Obama will hand out goodies to.

 

I think BP should have to clean up it's own mess - I'm in no way arguing that point.

What I'm tired of is some people's focus on taking every opportunity, no matter how distasteful, to blame Obama & the government.

There are obviously far bigger, more worrying issues to think about here.

 

Above, I have merely pointed out four factoids that I feel are more worthy of discussion.

This has caused an over the top, angry knee-jerk reaction from IWS, filled with baseless assumptions. He imagines I've written and felt and done so many things that I have never actually written, or felt, or done.

Is he crazy? Or does he deliberately misinterpret everything I write, because I dare to challenge his views? I'm not going to assume the latter, but it's certainly starting to look that way.

I have highlighted the baseless assumptions in his spiel below:

IWS - you do nothing to convince me, as per usual.

p.s. You're a moderator on a DEBATE FORUM. You might want to learn how to make a factual argument without flying off the handle.

 

Hehehehe. Go Builder!

I'm laughing at the way IWS chose to respond to ONE question, and one of his links ended up contradicting him.

Reminds me of this article:

http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1803025

 

And now you know how stoopid you all sound, commenting on the US and it's domestic and foreign policies.

I have always thought of Australia as a wonderful nation that I would love to visit if only I had the means.

Sadly though, if everyone there is as judgmental and misinformed of the political and cultural situations of the US and I presume, other nations, as Anna and Builder appear to be, I'm not sure I want to.

 

That's right, that's right.

Notice how I haven't negative-repped IWS. Because I'm not PATHETIC

 

Has there ever been a disaster that was handled well by a government?

 

Barrier reef oil spill.

 

Never pretended anything. Just like with TJ when I read something so moronic it isn't worth replying to, I negative rep it, because it isn't worth wasting energy on and would flat out admit it.

Notice how when I do respond to posts Anna doesn't actually read them, she claims they say something they didn't nor do I behave like a child and change what someone says in their posts when I quote them in my reply because it is both juvenile and extremely PATHETIC.

 

And you as well as several other people here do the same exact thing to me all the time, inserting things I never said to discussions so you have an excuse to talk down to me. Don't get angry when you get back what you give Anna.



The point is the abuse of power, your right that there are other great discussions that can be had but answer me a question........why do you think you should try and "STOP" this discussion?

Why not take those other topics you mentioned and start some new threads to discuss those things also?



Because your not really interested in those other things, your just trying to create an excuse to take shots at people.




This is a great discussion to an America because freedoms are the thing we are founded in, there are still a few people who live here who see these freedoms as important and when someone like Obama comes along and tears down those freedoms that small number of us who feel they are important become vocal about it.

 

Well, Times, we can't get IWS to answer any straight questions, so here's one question for you.

List the "freedoms" (such an obscure term for a republican) that Obama is "tearing down".

 

IWS does dodge direct questions on a regular basis but he does so even with me because he does not have the ability to get into small details, he wants people to just accept the general point he offers without going into details.

I on the other hand dodge nothing, but I will say this, IWS offered a great example in the first post, where is the freedom in Obama extorting a private slush fund of $20 billion dollars from BP? Obama will have full discretion through his latest Czar to spend that money any way he wants to spend it, including to use that money for more rewarding of political supporters and not send money or less money to those who did not offer him support.




"IF" BP owed money to Americans then all of that should have been settled in a Courtroom, not in Obama's private office where Obama bullied his way into getting this slush fund.




Another great example of loss freedoms is the healthcare bill that forces every American to purchase health insurance that Obama designed. No matter how it is justified with Liberal (socialist) logic, either we are free to choose or we are not. Obama and his fellow socialists/progressives all want to take away our choices and tell us what to do and how to live and their wisdom comes with the penalty of massive tax increases.........so we have to pay more for less freedoms under their style of Government.




So IWS and I as well as other people do give you guys examples but you two seem determined to not see those examples, to ignore them and act like the points were never made. IWS even offered an example of how you guys bash the American immigration issues but your own Country does not allow open borders to all people, in fact your Country is very protective and there are many people there who complain that the boat people issues you have is hurting the Nation. Australia has almost no illegal imigration and yet you guys still cry about it, so why take shots at us when our problem is a million times bigger than yours?


There is another freedom for you, the freedom from being invaded, attacked, and killed while Obama refuses to secure the border until Republicans vote for a reform package, and guess what, as happened before, the empty promise to secure the border will never happen because Obama will have his reform and no reason to fund the border security anymore.

 

This is a debate site, and he is one of the moderators. If he's not willing to back up his side of the debate with the "small details" and simply rely on generalisations to get people to "just accept the general point" then he should not be posting his generalisations in the "on topic forum". It's that simple really, Times.

On the one hand, you and IWS are demanding action from the prez, on the other hand, you are accusing him of "extortion" when he demands action. Australians in general abhor hypocrisy. If you can't see the hypocrisy inherent in your demands and recriminations on this point, nobody has a hope in hell of showing them to you.

20 billion is a drop in the ocean compared to what the final bill will be for this fiasco. Name the "latest Czar" anointed by your prez to oversee this paltry amount, and I'll name the "Czars" appointed by your last prez to "rebuild" Iraq. How many billions went there, Times? It's there for all to see now. That's the "accountable" sums.

Slush funds? Twenty bill? That amount wouldn't cover the losses of the shrimp fleet.

Let's talk about your previous prez bullying his way into invading Iraq, and the subsequent "slush funds" for his buddies in Kellog Root and Brown, Halliburton et al. It's in the trillions now?

Our gov tried that ages ago. Don't buy it. Make a choice. We did.

If the taxes aren't on consumables, you still have the choice of hedging your investments to minimise tax. Don't be thinking a decent investment advisor isn't already figuring a way around it. Like I've said elsewhere here. "Embrace your capitalism. Don't expect it to save your arse".

The points were made, but never backed up with evidence. I believe you understand that word?

Funny. At the moment, we are taking them in by the boatload. Flying them into remote areas to work in our sheep abattoirs. You want some links, just ask.

Less than two percent of our "illegals" arrive by boat. The rest fly in on a visa, and don't leave. Your problem seems larger because of your proximity/land border with your arrivals.

What did your previous adminisration do about the border security issue?

Would you like an Australian to tell you?

 

about what this one is doing- nothing.

The difference? the current administration banked it's entire agenda on being "different" than the previous guy and bringing "change" to the country.

Last I checked, doing the same thing isn't change...


and last I checked, Obama has been pres for a year and a half now- time to start blaming that guy in the mirror, not the guy that was pres before...

 

Point taken, eddo, but every time that the current admistration tries to implement "change", they come up against right-wing try-hards like our good buddies here, IWS and Times.

What would you suggest he, meaning Obama, should do with the "invasion" crisis eddo?

Landmines? A fukking big wall across the country? National guards with orders to "shoot to kill"?

What would you be suggesting if you had Obama's ear, eddo?

 

You won't get any arguement from me on that point, but IWS has this thing with holding grudges and taking stuff personal, I don't really understand that myself because I find it impossible to get angry over someone who does not agree with me.

What is the point of that last part? Why do you feel you have to be insulting? So if I don't agree with you I am stupid or something? Why do you assume your superior to anyone who does not agree with you?


I will let that go because it seems to me your doing that to avoid the fact you made a horrible comment before your insult and you want to not have that pointed out. I don't want Obama to "act" for the sake of actions, I want him to do what he is supposed to do, nothing more. Extorting $20 billion is not action, it is self-serving politicial games, nothing more.

Action is conducting a fast but accurate study of what went wrong and putting the people who let this happen in jail for not doing their jobs.


Your possition Builder seems to be "any" action is okay, I give you an example, if I have a bad infection in my right foot that cannot be cured, how does the action to cut off my left foot make the situation better? Well that is exactly what this administration is doing, cutting off the left foot and ignoring the right that is infected.

The guys name is Kenneth R. Feinberg.

And you could certainly find a few czars in previous administrations and while I did not like them either, and for the same reasons, I still would like you too see that if you compare one-to-one with the current administration you will see that Obama has many, many more than Bush did and not just the number but to me the bigger story is "what these people have power over" that makes the bigger difference. Even a few middle of the road Democrats have expressed concern over how many Czars Obama has.


And one other thing, didn't Obama campaign on "CHANGE"? Why is it the only excuse people come up with is "well the last guy did it, or something similar"? If the reason people turned to Obama was to get "CHANGE" from what Bush was doing, why is Obama still doing those things and then some?

The amount and your opinion of it being big or small is irrelivent, the point is was it right or wrong? You asked for an example of a loss of freedom, this is an example, and as already pointed out, your trying to dodge the significance of this very good example. That is why IWS does not want to waste time talking to you because you ask a question, given a great exampl then you pretend like the example is nothing.

Start a new thread if you want to talk about old and irrelivent news, I may even agree with you a little bit because I did not like everything Bush did while in office either. But that has nothing to do with the loss of freedom your said you wanted to talk about, you seem to be trying very hard to change the subject.

Besides, what is your point in trying to bring up previous administrations? It is your possition that if Bush took away 1 freedom that it is now okay for Obama to take away 20? This is the here and now, blaming everything currently happening on an old President solves nothing.

Again, as IWS pointed out, you ask a question, are given an answer and you dodge admitting the point has been made.

We made a choice, almost all Americans expressed concerns over this plan and Obama ignored the people and did what he wanted to do, sure we can vote against him and the other liberals who passed this garbage but how does that change what is already done? Anyone who thinks this can be completely "fixed" is an idiot, this is how true socialist beliefs get put into effect against the wishes of the people, baby steps, sure many aspects will be changed, but they got their foot in the door, now all they have to do is keep pushing to get that door opened wider.

Again, your dodging the point you asked for and that is an example of loss freedoms, if the American has to jump through hoops to keep his own money then that is another loss freedom, why should these liberals (Socialists) want to take what I earned in the first place? If they believe their money is not earned than give it up themselves, don't try to impose those heavy taxes on me because I don't agree in the concept of "social justice". We are promised equal opportunity, not equal results.

How much evidence do you need? We give you an example and you don't refute the example but you instead try to downplay or sidestep the examples given and claim no evidence was offered.

IWS gave you a great example in the first post but still you will not admit the example was given and you ignored it.

Taking them by the boatload? Well a boat only has a couple seats so don't bragg too much there Builder, and yes your Country is at odds with that tiny number being allowed to stay. I remember this story from 2001:
http://www.danielpipes.org/50/australias-crisis-of-illegal-immigration

I loved this part "When the Australians realized the Tampa was coming their way on August 27, Prime Minister John Howard forbade it from entering the country's territory, saying that Australia cannot be seen "as a country of easy destination." The captain obeyed, stopping just nine kilometers outside Australian waters."


Builder, that was only 443 people and you guys refused to accept them, so don't preach to Americans about our illegal immigration issues.

No, our problem "IS" larger because it involved millions of illegals costing us trillions of dollars to support them.

My point about australia is even you guys complain and you have almost no illegal imigration problem in comparison.

As with most issues like this, the laws are passed but the next administration blocks the funding, in this case spending bills and cutbacks in the homeland security department took away the money from the project approved by the Bush administration.


****************************************

Builder, the only "CHANGE" we are resisting is the change to reduce freedoms and serve Obama's personal political agendas instead of serving the American people as he is supposed to be doing.

 

That's a big bogus too, cause with Dem's controlling the house, the senate, and the White House, Obama should be able to get pretty much whatever his heart desires.

He can't because he doesn't want to.

--Make it easier to become legal. I am not against those wanting to come here and become part of America- earning their keep, paying their way, making our country better and stronger. I am against those coming here to suckle the American teet at my expense.
--A flat tax- so that taxes aren't just coming from legals, but from everyone that purchases anything.
--Finish the wall. It seems archaic, but there is just to much garbage (drug dealers, mafia, gun runners, etc) that have easy access. We have got to make it harder for them to get in.
--More Border Patrol to patrol.
--More National Guard in the hot spots- to protect Americans.
--Encourage Mexico to become more focused on their people and their needs. Their government is corrupt and couldn't care less about it's people.


This issue is real to me, Builder. It is more than just a talking point, or a debate topic.
I am an hour away from the Mexico border, and I see this mess all the time. I see the messes in the desert where illegals cross and leave garbage all over. I see the cars with out of country plates dropping their kids off at our schools- where they get an education that I am paying for, but they are not. I have the friends that have had their identities stolen by illegals getting a job with their social security number.

Next week I will go to Mexico for a week to work my butt off to provide housing for orphans- orphans that the church has to support because the gov't couldn't care less about taking care of it's people. People in the outskirts live in cardbox box communities with big holes dug in the backyard for a bathroom. Meanwhile the catholic churches are big and elaborate, the officials all live is luxurious houses, and the gov't randomly shuts power off to the city because they can. They just don't care.

 

Great post eddo, real problems, real solutions offered, all factual and honest.

 

Are you aware that climate change, f.k.a. global warming, is a natural phenomena? It has been occurring since the beginning of time and will continue to happen until man can no longer measure it. The earth heats, the earth cools, the earth warms up, the earth freezes... it's the natural cycle...

Nothing that man does or can do (short of nuclear winter) will change the natural cycle.

Period. The End.

 

IWS, everything you said is exactly spot on...

I think the Kevin Costner bit was a allusion to the movie Waterworld.