![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 37. Go back in thread:
Posted by wildcard11 on March 18, 2006, at 18:23:06
In reply to Re: private political quiz....where do you stand? » wildcard11, posted by LegWarmers on March 18, 2006, at 15:34:52
i think.. may need to take it again but i know towards left liberal...
Posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 19:35:17
In reply to i was on the line of liberal/centrist??!! ?LegWarmers, posted by wildcard11 on March 18, 2006, at 18:23:06
but what do these catchphrases mean anyway?
sound a little like horoscope definitions of personality to me...
Posted by wildcard11 on March 18, 2006, at 19:42:24
In reply to Re: i was on the line of liberal/centrist??!!, posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 19:35:17
i interpreted it as being more liberal w/ a small amount of government intervention which is how i feel personally. i want the government to help provide few things but want to live freely. i think i worded that right...
Posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 19:58:49
In reply to small government ?agent858, posted by wildcard11 on March 18, 2006, at 19:42:24
> i interpreted it as being more liberal w/ a small amount of government intervention which is how i feel personally. i want the government to help provide few things but want to live freely. i think i worded that right...
Okay. I'm not picking on you (or anybody else) but... What do you mean 'a small amount of government intervention'?
Roads are a govt intervention...
Public / cheap schools...
Public / cheap healthcare...
Defence
JailsI mean... Without roads... There wouldn't be commerce. People wouldn't even be able to get to work.
So...
Is the issue to do with particular things you think the govt should but out of... Because... Presumably... The libertarians still want roads at the very least... And probably jails... And maybe schools for the disadvantaged children too?
Who knows...
Posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 20:00:01
In reply to Re: small government, posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 19:58:49
sorry wildcard... i have a post further up that (I hope) explains what i mean a little better...
'living freely'
I can't think of a single person who doesn't want to have that...
Posted by wildcard11 on March 18, 2006, at 20:09:12
In reply to Re: small government, posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 20:00:01
well i think government should help take care of people in need, help build shelters, help provide welfare/medical to those in need. i am glad they provide police for safety and emergency relief, however, i think if government were smaller w/ smaller pay then taxes for roads and schools etc. would be more readily available. ex: i think it is **fair that gas prices are sky high again but the US gov. profits and i do not see it put to use. *i* think it goes in *certain* politicians pockets so they become richer while the poor stay poor. i hope that is civilly worded...it is very hard for me to explain in a way w/o possibly being deemed uncivil and i'm not trying too.
Posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 20:27:30
In reply to Re: small government ?agent858, posted by wildcard11 on March 18, 2006, at 20:09:12
> well i think government should help take care of people in need, help build shelters, help provide welfare/medical to those in need. i am glad they provide police for safety and emergency relief,
yep. me too.
though... some would disagree...
> however, i think if government were smaller w/ smaller pay then taxes for roads and schools etc. would be more readily available.
rofl!!!!! yes i agree 100%
i personally think that govt officials should get something along the lines of... an average civil servants wage.i've heard 2 arguments against that.
firstly...nobody would do it.
which is crap.
secondly...
they would be more inclined to corruption. MORE inclined??? hmm. i think that if someone succumbs to that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 'but i'm only on an average civil servants wage' just doesn't cut it IMHO...
> ex: i think it is **fair that gas prices are sky high again but the US gov. profits and i do not see it put to use.
sure. you would think... it would go on researching environmentally friendly alternatives or maybe even... subsidising people making the switch to them (seeing as the technology is here already). yeah, i hear ya.
> it is very hard for me to explain in a way w/o possibly being deemed uncivil and i'm not trying too.
sure.
at the moment...
i guess we are only disagreeing on whether to call ourself a 'liberal' or a 'libertarian' or whatever...
Posted by Bobby on March 18, 2006, at 21:21:37
In reply to private political quiz....where do you stand?, posted by wildcard11 on March 17, 2006, at 9:38:31
Posted by wildcard11 on March 18, 2006, at 21:36:26
In reply to Southern Rebel (nm), posted by Bobby on March 18, 2006, at 21:21:37
Posted by Bobby on March 18, 2006, at 21:55:56
In reply to ;o) (nm) » Bobby, posted by wildcard11 on March 18, 2006, at 21:36:26
a southern bobtist. :)
Posted by special_k on March 18, 2006, at 22:14:26
In reply to And my religion is » wildcard11, posted by Bobby on March 18, 2006, at 21:55:56
> a southern bobtist. :)
heh heh.
are you guys allowed idols?
Posted by Declan on March 18, 2006, at 23:33:43
In reply to Re: small government, posted by agent858 on March 18, 2006, at 19:58:49
The drug laws. That's a good example of where government could be smaller.
Posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 1:46:17
In reply to Re: small government, posted by Declan on March 18, 2006, at 23:33:43
mmm
and the local body
state
federal
three tiers of govt thing...isn't everybody in tasmania a politician?
i heard a joke... i think it was a joke...
(i hope it was a joke)someone calls up 'cause there is an emergency. the guy is standing there in his shorts with a beer in his hand going 'omg that is terrible just terrible i'll inform the president immediately' then he turns away from the phone and yells out 'pa!!!' and the screen shot changes to a guy on a lilo in a paddling pool or similar...
(btw i think it is supposed to be an aussie joke)
only... there isn't a president of australia...
hmm.
tee hee.
Posted by Sobriquet Style on March 19, 2006, at 7:03:04
In reply to Re: small government » agent858, posted by wildcard11 on March 18, 2006, at 20:09:12
>**fair that gas prices are sky high again but the US gov. profits
Does anyone know who is profiting from the oil in Iraq...and forecasted for, Iran?
~
Posted by wildcard11 on March 19, 2006, at 8:51:07
In reply to Re: small government, posted by Sobriquet Style on March 19, 2006, at 7:03:04
i'm not mistaken, a lot of the profits go to the Bush family who has tons of stock in oil...
Posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 9:24:06
In reply to if » Sobriquet Style, posted by wildcard11 on March 19, 2006, at 8:51:07
That's interesting. Do you have the information on exactly which stocks the Bush family has, and how specifically they benefit from oil in Iraq? I'm sure that the information is public, and if you're confident in making this statement you probably have the information already, so I'll ask you. It's surprising to me that the information is not more widely disseminated, and once I have the precise facts, I'd like to follow up with my newspaper.
I am, of course, aware that Halliburton has a lot of contracts in Iraq (and in Louisiana). That fact has been widely publicized, and rightly so.
Posted by wildcard11 on March 19, 2006, at 10:31:48
In reply to Re: if » wildcard11, posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 9:24:06
i came across them just surfing the net so i will look for the main article again. also Bill Maher had some info. on that...i will babble you w/ a link asap b/c i don't want to seem uncivil...
Posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 11:11:59
In reply to yes » Dinah, posted by wildcard11 on March 19, 2006, at 10:31:48
Thanks. I'd appreciate that.
I am greatly in favor of full disclosure of related party transactions in politics.
I think they're *finally* making it a law in Louisiana. They won't make brother in law deals illegal, but they are going to require publication on a website, I think.
I'm pretty sure stating facts on Babble isn't uncivil. It's the drawing of conclusions that may be.
Posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 11:49:22
In reply to Re: yes » wildcard11, posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 11:11:59
Perhaps I should clarify that by stating what I believe facts to be.
I believe facts are documented events, actions, statements made by a person, etc.
I do not believe facts include assessments of a person's character, motivations, etc.
Posted by wildcard11 on March 19, 2006, at 11:52:27
In reply to Re: yes, posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 11:49:22
but not the one i was originally speaking of..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_family_conspiracy_theory
Posted by wildcard11 on March 19, 2006, at 12:01:45
In reply to here is a link » Dinah, posted by wildcard11 on March 19, 2006, at 11:52:27
i did not fully read the article until AFTER i posted it and apologize in advance if this offended anyone...i know i will get blocked so ttyl ;o(
Posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 12:11:07
In reply to here is a link » Dinah, posted by wildcard11 on March 19, 2006, at 11:52:27
However, that links describes conspiracy *theories*.
What I'd actually be more interested in is something like:
The Bush family interests include xxx number of shares in yyyy corporation, which represents a zzz% ownership in yyyy corporation, and an aaaa% of the Bush family wealth.
The yyyy corporation has contracts in Iraq totalling bbbbb dollars, which is cccc% of their total revenues in 200d.
A total of e qualified companies bid on these contracts and yyyy corporation won an estimated f% of contracts awarded.
Posted by special_k on March 19, 2006, at 17:23:47
In reply to Re: here is a link » wildcard11, posted by Dinah on March 19, 2006, at 12:11:07
yeah.
er...
maybe have a look at...
global policy forum.
i know they said something about the privitisation of iraq (from an article in the london times i believe) and there might be more on the website now (they collect newspaper articles from sources that seem fairly reasonable)
Posted by AuntieMel on March 20, 2006, at 10:17:07
In reply to if » Sobriquet Style, posted by wildcard11 on March 19, 2006, at 8:51:07
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of the current prez.
But I don't think they are all that wrapped up in oil money as most people think.
W once owned (partially) and ran a small oil related company, backed by investors that were friends of Dad's, but it folded.
After which W decided he's rather be the owner of a baseball team.
Sure they've got lots of friends in the business, but when you live down here it's hard *not* to have friends in the business.
And we're off topic (the quiz). Would you like to talk about high gas prices on a new thread??
Posted by Sobriquet Style on March 21, 2006, at 7:40:48
In reply to if » Sobriquet Style, posted by wildcard11 on March 19, 2006, at 8:51:07
>i'm not mistaken, a lot of the profits go to the Bush family who has tons of stock in oil...
No doubt, and a fair few of some of the others who work along side him too.
Although the weapons were never found and the intelligence was alittle, can't think of the word, about the weapons being there in the first place. I wonder, before they actually invaded, did they, the people behind the scenes, know that the outcome of gaining the oil, hence the money and power, might happen? Surely they couldn't have not known, I would have thought.
Bush has been quoted as saying "The US are Addicted to Oil"...and "The US must break its addiction to oil" whilst also talking about the the middle east in the same speech in which he "warned of danger and decline if the US failed to face up to outside threats."
I wonder what he means by threats. Threats torwards the addiction from outside nations who have oil?
~
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.