What voters want
Moderator: Priests of Syrinx
-
Mr. Potatoe Head
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 6:25 am
They finally got around to putting hours up in Spanish out your way? *jaw hits floor* I grew up with billboards and signage on stores in multiple languages in Los Angeles.CygnusX1 wrote:it just got to us here, as I saw the first Home Depot store doors withWendy wrote:Actually, I was curious about opinions on bilingualism in America.
hours posted in English and Spanish.
Funny...now I know they won't make English the official language.
they'd have to repaint all those doors!
Ah, but you've only seen the beginning....
Next they'll want French, German, Russian, Asian and Middle Eastern languages on 'em too...
but hey, I could be wrong.
When I was standing in line at our Home Depot recently I noticed that you could point to something and the checker would call someone who would translate over the phone for you. There were three pages of languages listed!
Onward and Upward!
-
ElfDude
- Posts: 11085
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
- Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
- Contact:
A few quotes I'd like to share with you all...
Number one: "We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Number two: "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, for the few, and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
Number three: "We can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
Number four: "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground."
Number five: "I certainly think the free market has failed."
Number six: "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in the entire economy, that they are being watched."
Number seven: "What I want to do is take those profits and apply them to alternative energy."
None of those seven things were said by Karl Marx or Frederick Engels. These were all stated by Hillary Clinton: June 29th of '04, May 29th of '07, June 4th of '07, June 4th of 2007, June 4th of '07, and September 2nd of '05.
Number one: "We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Number two: "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, for the few, and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
Number three: "We can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
Number four: "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground."
Number five: "I certainly think the free market has failed."
Number six: "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in the entire economy, that they are being watched."
Number seven: "What I want to do is take those profits and apply them to alternative energy."
None of those seven things were said by Karl Marx or Frederick Engels. These were all stated by Hillary Clinton: June 29th of '04, May 29th of '07, June 4th of '07, June 4th of 2007, June 4th of '07, and September 2nd of '05.
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
-
ElfDude
- Posts: 11085
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
- Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
- Contact:
If you lean towards socialism it's a good thing and she's your candidate. If you prefer a free market economy, she's scary.Wendy wrote:Is this a good thing?
I have mixed reactions to her statements.
The last one is the most agreeable.
I personally found the last one downright frightening.
Number three and four should resonate with Rush fans. The trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw.
Last edited by ElfDude on Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
-
Big Blue Owl
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light
Still no "Happy Medium" to choose from. It's either an oil-grubbing cowboy or a commie bleeding heart.
Neil, when will you be throwing your toque into the ring? Oh yeah...not quite American. Damn.
Neil, when will you be throwing your toque into the ring? Oh yeah...not quite American. Damn.
Last edited by Big Blue Owl on Wed Sep 26, 2007 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
(((((((((((((((all'a you)))))))))))))))
-
Kares4Rush
- Posts: 3191
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:31 am
- Location: New York
-
Big Blue Owl
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light
Why thank you dear lady 
Besides its musical ambition and instrumental proficiency, there is one other thing that sets Rush apart from most bands -- the strong libertarian/Objectivist themes in its lyrics, which are written by Peart. The band's 1976 album, 2112, was even dedicated to "the genus of Ayn Rand." The album, inspired by Rand's novel Anthem, is about a future society where the rediscovery of the guitar threatens a totalitarian society. It's no surprise that Rush is the only band ever cited in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.
In more recent years, Peart has distanced himself somewhat from Rand and her Objectivist philosophy. In an online chat on www.2112.net (November 4, 1993), Peart downplayed Rand's impact on him. "For a start, the extent of my influence by the writings of Ayn Rand should not be overestimated -- I am no one's disciple," he said. "Yes, I believe the individual is paramount in matters of justice and liberty, but in philosophy, as Aristotle said long ago, the paramount good is happiness."
A number of Peart's songs very clearly hint at his libertarian sensibilities. The song "Free Will" (from Permanent Waves) proclaims: "I will choose a path that's clear / I will choose free will." Tom Sawyer" (from Moving Pictures) states: "His mind is not for rent / To any god or government." And "Something for Nothing" (from 2112) cautions: "You don't get something for nothing / You don't get freedom for free."
According to a 2005 story by Bob Cook on the web site www.JewsRock.org -- a site devoted to Jewish rock 'n' roll musicians -- "Peart now refers to himself as a 'left-leaning libertarian.'"
Besides its musical ambition and instrumental proficiency, there is one other thing that sets Rush apart from most bands -- the strong libertarian/Objectivist themes in its lyrics, which are written by Peart. The band's 1976 album, 2112, was even dedicated to "the genus of Ayn Rand." The album, inspired by Rand's novel Anthem, is about a future society where the rediscovery of the guitar threatens a totalitarian society. It's no surprise that Rush is the only band ever cited in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.
In more recent years, Peart has distanced himself somewhat from Rand and her Objectivist philosophy. In an online chat on www.2112.net (November 4, 1993), Peart downplayed Rand's impact on him. "For a start, the extent of my influence by the writings of Ayn Rand should not be overestimated -- I am no one's disciple," he said. "Yes, I believe the individual is paramount in matters of justice and liberty, but in philosophy, as Aristotle said long ago, the paramount good is happiness."
A number of Peart's songs very clearly hint at his libertarian sensibilities. The song "Free Will" (from Permanent Waves) proclaims: "I will choose a path that's clear / I will choose free will." Tom Sawyer" (from Moving Pictures) states: "His mind is not for rent / To any god or government." And "Something for Nothing" (from 2112) cautions: "You don't get something for nothing / You don't get freedom for free."
According to a 2005 story by Bob Cook on the web site www.JewsRock.org -- a site devoted to Jewish rock 'n' roll musicians -- "Peart now refers to himself as a 'left-leaning libertarian.'"
(((((((((((((((all'a you)))))))))))))))
Hillary's rhetoric does smack of socialism. I lean away from that school of thought.ElfDude wrote:If you lean towards socialism it's a good thing and she's your candidate. If you prefer a free market economy, she's scary.Wendy wrote:Is this a good thing?
I have mixed reactions to her statements.
The last one is the most agreeable.
I personally found the last one downright frightening.
Number three and four should resonate with Rush fans. The trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw.
Why is #7, profits toward development of alternative energy,
frightening to you Elf?
Sound verbalized tones touch textured feel scent wafted aroma see visualize observe sing dance live
-
ElfDude
- Posts: 11085
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
- Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
- Contact:
Because it's not her money. Yet her goal is to confiscate it from those who earned it. What happens to any business when its earnings are confiscated by a government? Does it shrug and say, "Oh well"? What happens to the employees? What happens to all of us who rely on its products for this nifty lifestyle we live?Wendy wrote:Hillary's rhetoric does smack of socialism. I lean away from that school of thought.ElfDude wrote:If you lean towards socialism it's a good thing and she's your candidate. If you prefer a free market economy, she's scary.Wendy wrote:Is this a good thing?
I have mixed reactions to her statements.
The last one is the most agreeable.
I personally found the last one downright frightening.
Number three and four should resonate with Rush fans. The trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw.
Why is #7, profits toward development of alternative energy,
frightening to you Elf?
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
Yes, I see, it's not her money as described in the
6 other points that sound suspiciously greedy.
However, it is money that is ill gained lately by another
greedy bunch at the cost of many young lives.
Perhaps some of that money spent on alternative energy
development would be a catalyst for change toward less
dependence on petroleum products. Something's gotta
give somewhere as far as foreign oil consumption.
Can't we buy it from the
Canadians already for cryin' out loud.
6 other points that sound suspiciously greedy.
However, it is money that is ill gained lately by another
greedy bunch at the cost of many young lives.
Perhaps some of that money spent on alternative energy
development would be a catalyst for change toward less
dependence on petroleum products. Something's gotta
give somewhere as far as foreign oil consumption.
Can't we buy it from the
Canadians already for cryin' out loud.
Sound verbalized tones touch textured feel scent wafted aroma see visualize observe sing dance live
-
ElfDude
- Posts: 11085
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
- Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
- Contact:
I understand where you're coming from. And I agree that something's gotta give. But I wish it would just be our own stupid rules. If we don't want to depend on foreign oil we should be building nuclear plants all over the country (we stopped building them in 1979 because of a Jane Fonda movie, fer cryin' out loud! ). We should be drilling in our own oil fields that are closed and finding new ones. We've had the technology since the 70's to extract oil from coal shale, and Colorado and Utah have HUGE deposits of the stuff. We should have wind farms in so many of the places where there is wind. There is so much we could do if we would just take the shackles off of the market and let it work.
You and I depend on oil whether we like it or not. Not just for our vehicles but for the manufacture of so many things we own, right down to our clothing. Putting a choke hold on the companies that bring this service to us is only going to make things worse.
Just this free-market jerk's opinion.
Your milage may vary. Batteries not included. Void where prohibited.
I didn't really want to debate oil. I look at it on a much more basic level. Want our society to thrive? Allow people to keep more of what they earn. Things go great when you do that. Yes, the rich to get richer, but so do the poor. Take away the incentive to earn with confiscatory taxes and things screech to a halt.
). We should be drilling in our own oil fields that are closed and finding new ones. We've had the technology since the 70's to extract oil from coal shale, and Colorado and Utah have HUGE deposits of the stuff. We should have wind farms in so many of the places where there is wind. There is so much we could do if we would just take the shackles off of the market and let it work.You and I depend on oil whether we like it or not. Not just for our vehicles but for the manufacture of so many things we own, right down to our clothing. Putting a choke hold on the companies that bring this service to us is only going to make things worse.
Just this free-market jerk's opinion.
Your milage may vary. Batteries not included. Void where prohibited. I didn't really want to debate oil. I look at it on a much more basic level. Want our society to thrive? Allow people to keep more of what they earn. Things go great when you do that. Yes, the rich to get richer, but so do the poor. Take away the incentive to earn with confiscatory taxes and things screech to a halt.
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
-
Big Blue Owl
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light