Devils Advocate
Posts: 4,539
Feb 9, 2012 11:01am
Wow.. You need to lighten up, or find a new country to live in.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Feb 9, 2012 11:31am
The people running roughshod over the constitution and the taxpayers need to find a new country.Devils Advocate;1080968 wrote:Wow.. You need to lighten up, or find a new country to live in.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 9, 2012 11:50am
Or maybe we could go back to the principles on which the country was founded, one of which was limited federal power.Devils Advocate;1080968 wrote:Wow.. You need to lighten up, or find a new country to live in.
BGFalcons82
Posts: 2,173
Feb 9, 2012 11:50am
I thought my sarcasm was light enough. Sorry it went by ya.Devils Advocate;1080968 wrote:Wow.. You need to lighten up, or find a new country to live in.
As far as a new country, I'd just like this one to be like it was founded to be and not some clone/reincarnation of France-Germany-Netherlands-Greece.
Devils Advocate
Posts: 4,539
Feb 9, 2012 12:02pm
Oh, the one where you could own another human being. and your wife was considered chattle?queencitybuckeye;1081017 wrote:Or maybe we could go back to the principles on which the country was founded, one of which was limited federal power.
The one where it was ok to kill satanists and witches?
Or the more modern one in the 50'swhere it was your business if you kicked the shit out of your wife, where linchings were still going on, and you could go to jail for being a communist.
Oh and BG... I was being sacastic as well....
S
stlouiedipalma
Posts: 1,797
Feb 9, 2012 12:04pm
QuakerOats;1080995 wrote:The people running roughshod over the constitution and the taxpayers need to find a new country.
queencitybuckeye;1081017 wrote:Or maybe we could go back to the principles on which the country was founded, one of which was limited federal power.
BGFalcons82;1081018 wrote:I thought my sarcasm was light enough. Sorry it went by ya.
As far as a new country, I'd just like this one to be like it was founded to be and not some clone/reincarnation of France-Germany-Netherlands-Greece.
And if your candidate wins this fall everything will go back to being "normal", right?
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 9, 2012 1:21pm
No way to know. I do know the current officeholder believes in the direction the nation is heading, in spite of a mountain of evidence that this direction does not work.stlouiedipalma;1081035 wrote:And if your candidate wins this fall everything will go back to being "normal", right?
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Feb 9, 2012 1:37pm
I thought the last election was to change the direction the country wentqueencitybuckeye;1081148 wrote:No way to know. I do know the current officeholder believes in the direction the nation is heading, in spite of a mountain of evidence that this direction does not work.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 9, 2012 1:40pm
It was, and they have failed miserably in that goal. Doesn't make the goal wrong, the goal is largely correct.Bigdogg;1081160 wrote:I thought the last election was to change the direction the country went
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Feb 9, 2012 4:05pm
Found This Interesting. This is an Estimate of Presidential Positions on Liberal-Conservative Scale going back to 1945. Their Methodology based on legislation that Presidents Clearly supported or didn't support.
They find that President Obama is the Most Moderate Democratic President since World War II.
http://voteview.com/blog/?p=317
They find that President Obama is the Most Moderate Democratic President since World War II.
http://voteview.com/blog/?p=317
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Feb 9, 2012 4:06pm
They also detail how the Republican party has shifted much more to the Right than Democrats have shifted to the left.
W
wkfan
Posts: 1,641
Feb 9, 2012 4:22pm
Is that like being the best smelling turd??BoatShoes;1081345 wrote:http://voteview.com/blog/?p=317
They find that President Obama is the Most Moderate Democratic President since World War II.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Feb 9, 2012 4:28pm
I would love a good explanation/link that explains where it gets the "0.0" line. That has to be some moving scale over the years as the country has slowly become more "liberal" than what it used to be.
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Feb 9, 2012 4:39pm
In The link it has an explanation. If You're inclined I'm sure you could investigate what that means.jmog;1081368 wrote:I would love a good explanation/link that explains where it gets the "0.0" line. That has to be some moving scale over the years as the country has slowly become more "liberal" than what it used to be.
"Because we use first dimension (ideological) Common Space DW-NOMINATE scores, presidential locations are directly comparable across time"
B
BoatShoes
Posts: 5,703
Feb 9, 2012 4:40pm
Well I think it means there's a strong case to be made that even if Obama is a liberal it certainly doesn't seem like there's much reason to believe he's a die hard socialist/marxist hell bent on remaking Americawkfan;1081364 wrote:Is that like being the best smelling turd??
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Feb 9, 2012 9:15pm
IMO the issue isn't left/right historically, but rather statist/freedom, this administration has made a huge step in the statist direction. As much as I enjoy visiting Washington DC, it shouldn't be the most powerful city in America. And was much as I appreciate the work that teachers, policemen and firefighters (as Obama seems to mention in every speech) provide, we need to have a society that can support them which means we need private sector jobs. We can't solve everything by growing government with borrowed money. It is a destination towards failure.
Cleveland Buck
Posts: 5,126
Feb 9, 2012 9:56pm
Barack is every bit as Republican as the likes of Bush, Romney, McCain, Santorum, Gingrich, etc. are. In fact, Obama is quickly becoming known as Bush III. Does that make you happy?
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Feb 10, 2012 9:30am
Keep pretending ........................... as the country falls off the cliff ..........
Change we can believe in .....
Change we can believe in .....
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Feb 10, 2012 11:10am
BGFalcons82
Posts: 2,173
Feb 10, 2012 11:23am
IWP - Can you find the cute little chart that shows how much private companies spend on drug testing? Maybe the folks knew they were going to be tested and stayed cleaner than normal? Maybe testing has effects like this that you can't measure?
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Feb 10, 2012 11:23am
The applicants have plenty of time to "prepare" to take the test, since they know when it will be given. Random testing while on benefits would be a better plan, and less expensive than testing everyone at application time.I Wear Pants;1082071 wrote:
http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2011/aug/24/3/welfare-drug-testing-yields-2-percent-positive-res-ar-252458/
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Feb 10, 2012 11:24am
Is that accurate? The article states that the average test is $30. Therefore the graphic would indicate that there were a bit over 6 million tests performed? Seems way high.
pmoney25
Posts: 1,787
Feb 10, 2012 11:46am
Another fantastic example of the effective and efficient war on drugs.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Feb 10, 2012 11:48am
Seems effective to me. It appears that 98% of the folks taking the test passed. That's a good thing for the people of Florida.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Feb 10, 2012 11:58am
The people of Florida wasted $178 million on the tests. Not really effective.Con_Alma;1082127 wrote:Seems effective to me. It appears that 98% of the folks taking the test passed. That's a good thing for the people of Florida.
Effective would be if the test showed a significant portion of the welfare recipients using drugs and hence being ineligible for benefits which resulted in a savings to taxpayers. That's not the case.