It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:54 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:29 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Boston is one of the most liberal cities in the country. Thomas definitely needed to keep that in mind when showing his whole Fox News side. It puts your team (or organization or whatever) in a tough spot when you take highly-publicized stands, especially when they might not be popular stands in your area.

I too, lost all respect for him then though DF. Funny how these teabaggers worship Reagan who increased the national debt to unheard of levels, and how they accuse Obama of increasing spending and national debt. All you have to do is look at the numbers to see that Reagan and W. created the biggest increases of spending and debt in our history outside of the New Deal and WWII. But I guess looking at facts would be too hard for those teabaggers.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:38 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Boom, and an hour after I say that, I read this is a New Yorker column:

2. The rise in federal spending under Obama was pretty modest. If you listened to the Republicans, you would think he had massively expanded the size of the U.S. government. That simply isn’t true—a point that can be illustrated in several ways.

One is to look at the path of federal spending as recorded by the Office of Management and Budget. In fiscal 2008, total federal outlays came to $2.7 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars. In 2012, according to the O.M.B., they will be $3.2 trillion. That is a rise of about 18.5 per cent over four years, an annual increase of about 4.3 per cent. How does that rate of growth stack up with the record of previous Presidents? Well, it means Obama has expanded federal spending a bit faster than President Clinton. But Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both increased spending at considerably higher rates. (Thanks to Rex Nutting, a columnist at MarketWatch, for drawing my attention to the historic data.)

So the figures show Obama wasn’t much of a spendthrift. And he wasn’t even responsible for most of the increase in federal spending that happened on his watch: it came in the form of higher outlays for mandatory programs, such as Social Security, other entitlements, and interest on the national debt. Over the past four years, discretionary spending—the bit of the federal budget that policymakers can control—has increased by just $106 billion, or a little more than ten per cent. That’s an annual rate of increase of about 2.4 per cent.


Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/j ... z1wwQwPJk5


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:46 am 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Yes, Obama is a libertarian's wet dream. That's a good angle.
Tell me about how health care reform is going to save us trillions.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:35 am 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Crosscheck wrote:
Yes, Obama is a libertarian's wet dream. That's a good angle.
Tell me about how health care reform is going to save us trillions.

I ain't looking for a health plan that saves billions (in federal money anyway). My point is purely that teabaggers are fully fucking delusional and don't even understand that the only reason they love Reagan is that he was an actor. If they are going to criticize Obama, maybe it should be about something he isn't doing better than their heroes? My angle is just what I said, fact is he isn't even close to the biggest offender as far as increasing federal spending and the national debt.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:38 am 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Super Reagan needed all that money to build space weapons to shoot Gorbachev in the ass...duh.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:43 am 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Sorry to have turned this into a political thread, but Thomas is really the one in this case that brought politics into hockey. If he's gonna go there, I'm gonna tell him why he's an idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:46 am 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Quote:
"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People.
"This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.
"Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.
"This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT"


Seems to me his main beef was with the ever-expanding power of the Federal government in a constitutional context (and I agree) not so much about debt and deficits.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:49 am 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Oh, you mean like the Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage Act, or the inability to say, take a photo of a soldier's coffin? Yeah, that Obama's a tyrant.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:53 am 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Crosscheck wrote:
Quote:
"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People.
"This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.
"Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.
"This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT"


Seems to me his main beef was with the ever-expanding power of the Federal government in a constitutional context (and I agree) not so much about debt and deficits.

This might be OK if he could actually explain to me how Obama is expanding the power of the government without talking about spending. And if he wasn't appearing on Glenn Beck.


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:03 pm 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
I couldn't care about what Thomas thinks about politics. It's probably a bad way to look at it, but to me, none of the Glenn Beck drones actually THINK about these things and create informed opinions.

Ed and I disagree on many things politically, but at least I know that he's done his homework and actually thought about an issue. I doubt that TT has.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:23 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
This might be OK if he could actually explain to me how Obama is expanding the power of the government without talking about spending. And if he wasn't appearing on Glenn Beck.

Most people of his stripe will tell you the Patriot Act is just as bad or worse than anything Obama has done, but if you want specifics, Obama thinks he's justified in killing American citizens without trial and the Federal government forcing everyone to purchase a product from a private company is constitutional.

Those don't seem like minor overreaches of Federal power to me.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:42 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Obama has done the Patriot Act. He voted for it, and has done nothing to strip it in 4 years.

My point is why Obama? Where was this outrage at W, since I think the two of us can agree that the Cheney administration did much more to expand executive power?


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:45 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
BTW, people are forced to buy coffins whether they want to or not. Even if they get cremated. Where's the outrage at that stripping of our Constitutional rights?


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:47 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
I guess Obama wasn't in Congress yet in 2001, my bad. So he didn't vote for the Patriot Act, but I bet he voted to renew it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:48 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Well I'm not going to get in an argument about hypocrisy, but we don't know what he was thinking when W was president. Obama has certainly exasperated the situation though...perhaps one of the things I mentioned was simply a tipping point in Thomas' mind.

In his statement he called out both parties and the true believers (Libertarians, Ron Paul fans etc.) are being honest when they do that.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:50 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
I guess Obama wasn't in Congress yet in 2001, my bad. So he didn't vote for the Patriot Act, but I bet he voted to renew it.


He didn't just vote to renew it....he signed the reauthorization in 2010.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:05 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
OK, well now that I've said why I disagree with what I think might be the political motivations for skipping the White House, I'd like to talk about the etiquette of it. Clearly, he was putting himself in front of the team, as you can even see in that quote you have above. He said he was making that choice as an INDIVIDUAL. Well, I doubt he was invited as an individual. He was invited as part of a team. Apparently the team decided that they wanted to go. How is that being a good teammate to go against what the team has decided, and to do it in the public eye?

Plus no matter what you think about any president's policies, a sitting president is more than just a politician. He's also the symbol of the country and the head citizen representing the rest. In a real way, that dinner was supposed to be a congratulations from the entire country for his team's athletic acheivement. Yet Tim Thomas felt he was justified to throw away his responsibilities to his team, his community, and his country because of his INDIVIDUAL viewpoints.

Like I said before, dickhead move.


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:20 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
Like I said before, dickhead move.


Selfish at the very least, I'd agree. But whether that episode had any direct influence on this decision, we just don't know.

Certainly no matter how screwed up the politics of your goalie are, if he's the type who wins the Stanley Cup, the Vezina, and Conn Smythe all in the same season I doubt you're kicking him to the curb.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron