A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes - Page 245

Shape Shifter · 02-23-2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think your main objective is not based on ideology, but rather, party affiliation.

This is sure to get a fun response, but on the whole Bush may be more liberal than Clinton. Think about it:

1. Under Clinton we had surpluses; under Bush we have deficits.

2. Under Clinton, we had a reduction in an entitlement program (i.e., welfare). Under Bush we have an extremely expensive new entitlement program.

3. Under Clinton we had NAFTA and other free trade initiatives. Under Bush we have new tariffs.

4. Both Clinton and Bush subscribe to the "mend it don't end it" line on affirmative action.

5. Both Clinton and Bush were against gay marriage.

6. Bush has increased gross spending for, and has essentially federalized, education.

7. Under Bush we have extensive new regulation of the securities markets.

I could go on, but that should be enough to trigger the wave.

Under Clinton, black people were allowed to vote.

SlaveNoMore · 02-23-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Shape Shifter
Under Clinton, black people were allowed to vote.

And in many inner cities, at least several times.

SlaveNoMore · 02-23-2005, 02:01 PM

Tyrone Slothrop · 02-23-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

Has that cartoon* ever been funny, in the sense of "funny," as opposed to in the sense of "confirming some reader's views"?

* Day by Day, I mean. A team of Finnish scientists recently discovered a funny Ted Rall cartoon frozen at the bottom of a lead mine.

Hank Chinaski · 02-23-2005, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Under Clinton, black people were allowed to vote.

Finally conceded there was no disenfranchisement in 2000 Fla.

Good. Acceptance is an important step.

Shape Shifter · 02-23-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Finally conceded there was no disenfranchisement in 2000 Fla.

Good. Acceptance is an important step.

Florida was under Jeb, effectively out of Clinton's control. Sort of like Zarqawi in SH's Iraq.

Spanky · 02-23-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

You guys make me feel really out of it. Who is Ted Rall? Doesn't that Morrissey guy work for the Standard? Maybe I have the wrong guy. Why was Ted Rall angry at him?

Hank Chinaski · 02-23-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You guys make me feel really out of it. Who is Ted Rall? Doesn't that Morrissey guy work for the Standard? Maybe I have the wrong guy. Why was Ted Rall angry at him?

Morrissey was in the Smiths. Penske used him as a role mode, except for the Clinton hating which was organic.

sgtclub · 02-23-2005, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The Supreme Court didn't sound too receptive to your side in the Connecticut eminent domain case yesterday.

That's dissappointing.

ETA: Tell me, those of you that agree with the state on this (and I can't remember who you are), isn't the constitution suppose to protect the minority from majority?

Tyrone Slothrop · 02-23-2005, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
ETA: Tell me, those of you that agree with the state on this (and I can't remember who you are), isn't the constitution suppose to protect the minority from majority?

I'm really not up to speed on this. With that caveat, we all agree that eminent domain should be permitted when in the public interest, but the difficulty is in distinguishing public from private interests, right? From an economic perspective, why worry about this distinction? The minority's interests are protected by the requirement of compensation. (We all know that the compensation paid is usually a little low, but that's a problem about implementation, not principle.) So eminent domain is like efficient breach, no?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 02-23-2005, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm really not up to speed on this. With that caveat, we all agree that eminent domain should be permitted when in the public interest, but the difficulty is in distinguishing public from private interests, right? From an economic perspective, why worry about this distinction? The minority's interests are protected by the requirement of compensation. (We all know that the compensation paid is usually a little low, but that's a problem about implementation, not principle.) So eminent domain is like efficient breach, no?

There is no just compensation for the home I've raised my family in. I want the home. I want to have it for my kids to come back to. I want their kids to see where they were raised.

Economics be damned.

ltl/fb · 02-23-2005, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
There is no just compensation for the home I've raised my family in. I want the home. I want to have it for my kids to come back to. I want their kids to see where they were raised.

Economics be damned.

Um, jesus, get over yourself.

Hank Chinaski · 02-23-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
There is no just compensation for the home I've raised my family in. I want the home. I want to have it for my kids to come back to. I want their kids to see where they were raised.

Economics be damned.

Gilligan's Island - The Castaways from Gilligan's Island

Episode Number 99
First Aired May 3, 1979

Synopsis

Stuck on the same island as before, the castaways find an abandoned World War II bomber that the Professor is able to repair and fly. However, in the attempt to fly to Hawaii, Gilligan falls out and has to parachute down to the island. Against their better judgement, the gang decides to return the island to get him. Unfortunately, the engines collapse after they land, which means that Gilligan had screwed up yet another escape attempt. Their despair is quickly dispelled when a U.S. Navy captain appears saying that their plane was detected on radar long enough for them to follow it to the island. A year later, the island is now a tropical resort spot fully linked to Civilization, and the castaways work as the staff of a kind of island Love Boat as they work to entertain the various guests they receive.

Tyrone Slothrop · 02-23-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
There is no just compensation for the home I've raised my family in. I want the home. I want to have it for my kids to come back to. I want their kids to see where they were raised.

Economics be damned.

If the Constitution respected your view, the government wouldn't be able to build things like roads and schools and railroads and airports and so on. Needless to say, I feel the same way about my house.

ltl/fb · 02-23-2005, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the Constitution respected your view, the government wouldn't be able to build things like roads and schools and railroads and airports and so on. Needless to say, I feel the same way about my house.

NIMBY, baby. Especially about the schools, the waykids are these days.