On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:22:47 GMT, KK puked:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:43:05 -0400, lab~rat :-) wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK puked:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:20:22 -0400, lab~rat :-) wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:53:05 GMT, KK puked:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:07:09 -0400, lab~rat :-) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:33:08 -0400, queenie
puked:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:13:31 -0400, "lab~rat :-)"
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:59:14 -0400, queenie
puked:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:18:18 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

queenie wrote in
news:d8ard51tv37dg3lb0g6rotjkj667a9vvd0@ 4ax.com:


That mess was caused by both sides of the aisle, not just one.

Bush tax cuts among other things. Still, Obama is doing what he
can to fix things.

He's not. He has an agenda that runs counter to fixing things.
You don't spend billions upon billions on pointless bull**** when
you inherit a deficit and fix anything.


First, I wouldn't have spent all that money on the stimulus package.
It hasn't netted a single job. I would have attached stipulations
to the bank bailout that they couldn't sit on the money, but had to
get it responsibly into the private sector to stimulate business and
home buying. I would target small businesses instead of using
trickle down economics and handing big bucks to huge corporations.
I would keep taxes low until the recession started heading up.
Health care would be off the table until we got a handle on
Afghanistan and the economy.

That's for starters.

I'd vote for you.

I have to warn you, I have a lot of skeletons in my closet, and
probably a lot of people that would come forward regaling the press
with witness of my misbehavior and sins.

OTOH, maybe that wouldn't hurt me...


Wouldn't hurt you in my esteem. People experimenting with substances -
especially when they're younger - doesn't seem to me to be a good
measure of their adult judgment. Except, that is, if *they* experiment
and then once in the seat of power, decide that it's okay to punish
others who do the same thing.

In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past
(unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so-
clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't
inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about
decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and
injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug
offenders.

And I don't care if a candidate enjoys sex. I don't care if they're
married or single. Or divorced. And (I'm sure we'll part ways here) I
don't care if they're gay, either.

How does religion sit with ya?

Hmm. There's a line somewhere but I'm not sure how to define it.

It depends on a few things. How loony a religion it is, for one thing.
And maybe this is wrong, but to me cultural tradition makes up somewhat
for looniness, because raising a child in a certain religion skips that
whole critical analysis thing. I was raised Catholic but didn't think to
question it until I was nine or ten. I'm good friends with an Orthodox
Jewish guy whose entire environment was immersed in religion so much so
that questioning it would be like a fish thinking about living out of the
water.

So - I wouldn't vote for a Scientologist, ever. Someone whose philosophy
of life depends on a science-fiction-sounding religion created by a bad
science fiction writer who announced that he wanted to create a religion,
and which requires huge payments of its members to study its works, is
someone completely lacking in reason and unbased in reality.

Two members of semi-loony religions have been viable candidates recently
- Romney and Lieberman. And sorry, Big Lovers, but Mormonism is *this*
(holding my fingers very close together) close to Scientology. The
slightest research into Joseph Smith's life of bull****tery and the
insultingly stupid story that led to his religion would leave no
reasonable person with any doubt of its culty silliness.

Orthodox Judaism is a little different - Abraham's God is the same as
Jesus', the same as Mohammed's. In that sense, it's basic required
suspension-of-all-reason is the same as "mainstream" religions. The
difference, and source of its weirdness, is that its adherents pay far
too much attention (IMO, of course) to a group of alive-but-ancient men
whose interpretations of even more ancient books (which, though passed by
word of mouth for centuries from place to place and language to language,
are scrutinized for numerologist baloney depending on the placement and
arrangement of characters in the text, making Nostradamus dummies look
like Stephen Hawking) are held as the word of God, with the result that
they aren't allowed to turn on a light or push an elevator button on
Saturday. They also can't directly request that someone else do it, but
can stand near someone and wonder aloud "If only someone would turn on my
light, I could read my book".

I think that's all goofy - and if an Orthodox president won't ride in Air
Force One or push The Button on Saturday, he's out. But other than that,
to eliminate them would be to eliminate all Xtians, Jews, and Muslims.
I'm mostly okay with that, but it wouldn't leave any candidates anyone
else would vote for.

Well to make a long story short, I don't have a problem about a
person's religion unless it's the sole voice that guides them.

Take from that what you will...
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?