Thread: History and the stimulus package.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

there is only one recourse if we are to continue to be the free country we have always been.

this kind of recourse?

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

• Letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy

Originally Posted by Wildtim

When his policies stop reminding me of those the Natzies used to rise to power in the thirties I will stop reminding everyone of the consequences of following them with my "rhetoric". Or would equating him with Mao be more accurate.

Officially Godwined.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

A "referendum", what a laugh. 52% of the popular vote and we all know that there was a large segment of the population that never looked beyond the color of the guys skin.

Why do you think this is the case? (I am going to assume that you are right and ask again, why would people vote for him based on his skin color alone?) Think about this question, I ask it sincerely.


-Rob

"When his policies stop reminding me of those the Natzies used to rise to power in the thirties I will stop reminding everyone of the consequences of following them with my "rhetoric". Or would equating him with Mao be more accurate."

Uh, if anyone is sounding like a Nazi or a communist, it would be...wanna take a wild guess??

I guess this is where I should step in and say keep your heads cool.
This thread has serious "spiraling down" potential, so watch what you say, or rather, how you say what you say.

thanks,
The management
This is only a general statement and not directed at anyone in particular.

I'm willing to accept the idea that an injection of gov. money may be warranted right now, but what I find sickening is that this seems to be being treated as nothing more than an excuse for every Congressman and Senator to fund their own pet projects - whether they will help the economy or not.

This is a time for our leaders to put aside their own special interests and take care of the nation. Instead, they are looking after themselves and their own. They haven't taken the time to figure out how to wisely spend this money. It's like hogs at the trough and business as usual in Washington. This is terribly disappointing, but not surprising.

Jordan

Originally Posted by sicboater

Why do you think this is the case? (I am going to assume that you are right and ask again, why would people vote for him based on his skin color alone?) Think about this question, I ask it sincerely.


-Rob

Because certain people believe they are "owed something" and chose to believe that their skin color is the reason why and that if another person shares this superficial characteristic they must obviously understand and be the one to give what they believe they are owed. Then there are other people who fear to perceived as the type of person who would vote against someone based upon skin color therefore in their foolishness they ended up voting for someone because of that very same trait. And yes there are some who would vote against someone based on nothing more than this. I don't think that at this time and place the later in any way come near to canceling out the two former, ergo the 2% margin of victory.

As far as Godwinning this thread. I could have saved a lot of time had I gotten in on page one apparently.
I can't help but make the comparison ever since I saw this little blue book and the advertisement that refers to it as "essential reading"

History Company : Pocket Obama (10 copies)

This exact sequence has happened before in other places. It has never ended well.

I can't help but make the comparison ever since I saw this little blue book and the advertisement that refers to it as "essential reading"

History Company : Pocket Obama (10 copies)

This exact sequence has happened before in other places. It has never ended well.

This is my fear also.

Funny thing is, these sorts of regimes always seem to start out with the best of intentions.

"Because certain people believe they are "owed something" and chose to believe that their skin color is the reason why and that if another person shares this superficial characteristic they must obviously understand and be the one to give what they believe they are owed. Then there are other people who fear to perceived as the type of person who would vote against someone based upon skin color therefore in their foolishness they ended up voting for someone because of that very same trait. And yes there are some who would vote against someone based on nothing more than this. I don't think that at this time and place the later in any way come near to canceling out the two former, ergo the 2% margin of victory."

Got any actual facts to back up your claims about who voted for who and why? I'd be very interested to see them if you do.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Because certain people believe they are "owed something" and chose to believe that their skin color is the reason why and that if another person shares this superficial characteristic they must obviously understand and be the one to give what they believe they are owed.
What do you think they think they are "owed?"

Then there are other people who fear to perceived as the type of person who would vote against someone based upon skin color therefore in their foolishness they ended up voting for someone because of that very same trait. I think this is a very slight percentage if any, I think your other point is much more substantial

And yes there are some who would vote against someone based on nothing more than this. I don't think that at this time and place the later in any way come near to canceling out the two former, ergo the 2% margin of victory. I think they probably cancelled out their obverse ideology.

As far as Godwinning this thread. I could have saved a lot of time had I gotten in on page one apparently.
I can't help but make the comparison ever since I saw this little blue book and the advertisement that refers to it as "essential reading"
No shame in Godwinning a thread, its just funny how often it happens out here on the WWW.
History Company : Pocket Obama (10 copies)

This exact sequence has happened before in other places. It has never ended well.

filler text to post this mess.