Oprano Adult Industry Forums - View Single Post

wig · 11-09-2002

As far as losing it, I'm actually in a much better space about the election results today than I was two days ago.
***********************************
This is comforting.

* I don't think my freedom will be served well by the judges that will get through the Senate over the next two years.
***********************************
I can agree on this in part. But the same is true on the flip side. This is why I can accept balance and gridlock and am not 100% thrilled with the elections. However, I admit I feel much better than if it was the other way around.

I also have to admit that I don't think the judges Bush will appoint will legislate from the bench like some of these liberal judges -- at least not in the areas that I care about.

* I don't think the environment will be served well by Republican control of the government.
************************************
Can't say I agree with this. I find the tree hugging left to be every bit as dangerous. But, I really don't care because it is only a vicious circle in which I have limited control. I find it more beneficial in this case (as well as others) to simply accept it and concentrate on how I can position myself to gain. For instance, do I want to be short Minks or long Alaskan real estate. j/k

* I think the dispensing of federal manna to religous organizations will be a boondoggle that could ultimately challenge some of the "Great Society" programs as folly, and is an attempt by a Republican President to further his agenda, repay a political debt, and buy continuing party loyalty (and activism) from a segment of society he has found very useful.
************************************
I agree in that I do not believe faith-based initiatives should be the role of the FEDERAL Government. In that same vein, I don't think social programs should be either!

* I think the privitazation of Social Security will end up making Enron look like the closing of a 7-11 because a couple of clerks stole from the till.
*************************************
I totally disagree. Markets go up and markets go down. I have been studying and trading markets for 17 years. What we just witnessed happens about every 60 years or so. No politician or party can take credit or be blamed for it as it is a natural phenomenon. We will likely not see another euphoria and collapse in our life time.

The crux of the matter is simply whether we as tax payers should have a choice in how we invest for retirement. And, whether we should also be able to pass along any of these proceeds after our death. Personally, I think we should be able to opt out of Social Security all together. Problem with that is that all the achievers would opt out and there would be no one to take the money from to redistribute.

The nation will survive, however. It lived through Reagan, and Gingrich, and a slew of others, after all.
*********************************
I lived through Carter for whatever that's worth.

For a variety of reasons these could be a good couple of years to let the Republicans do their thing, and let the people see exactly what that is. It could motivate the Democratic base (too many of which sat this one out) and swing a lot of the centerists to the Democratic side. I could be very wrong, too ... that has happened at least 3 times before .
*********************************

I also think being able to see how a philosophy will work is a great advantage. I would like to see it on both the liberal, conservative and especially the Libertarian side. However, I would ONLY like to see this if it was done at the STATE level where competition and market forces could prevail. I am extremely opposed to FEDERAL intervention in anything that is not mandated by the Constitution. The federal gov't was given limited powers for a reason and we have strayed from this.

Socialized medicine in Oregon would have been a great example. Too bad it failed or we could have seen how it would have worked for Hillary on the Federal level. I think gun control is a great example, too. There is a higher rate of violent crime and gun crime where these laws are most severe.

If you took the "playing with yourself/guns/bunkers" remarks personally, I apologize. Meant them to be an attempt at humor that turned to personal ridicule, which was NOT deliberate. About the your allegations, however:

* I am profoundly heterosexual.

* Neither my dick or my wallet is broke (although I do not now get enough/have enough).

* Regarding old ... I plead guilty, with the special circumstance that I'm not as old as Torone.
**********************************
Apology accepted and returned.

11-09-2002	#9
wig Members Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,248	As far as losing it, I'm actually in a much better space about the election results today than I was two days ago. *********************************** This is comforting. * I don't think my freedom will be served well by the judges that will get through the Senate over the next two years. *********************************** I can agree on this in part. But the same is true on the flip side. This is why I can accept balance and gridlock and am not 100% thrilled with the elections. However, I admit I feel much better than if it was the other way around. I also have to admit that I don't think the judges Bush will appoint will legislate from the bench like some of these liberal judges -- at least not in the areas that I care about. * I don't think the environment will be served well by Republican control of the government. ************************************ Can't say I agree with this. I find the tree hugging left to be every bit as dangerous. But, I really don't care because it is only a vicious circle in which I have limited control. I find it more beneficial in this case (as well as others) to simply accept it and concentrate on how I can position myself to gain. For instance, do I want to be short Minks or long Alaskan real estate. j/k * I think the dispensing of federal manna to religous organizations will be a boondoggle that could ultimately challenge some of the "Great Society" programs as folly, and is an attempt by a Republican President to further his agenda, repay a political debt, and buy continuing party loyalty (and activism) from a segment of society he has found very useful. ************************************ I agree in that I do not believe faith-based initiatives should be the role of the FEDERAL Government. In that same vein, I don't think social programs should be either! * I think the privitazation of Social Security will end up making Enron look like the closing of a 7-11 because a couple of clerks stole from the till. *********************************** I totally disagree. Markets go up and markets go down. I have been studying and trading markets for 17 years. What we just witnessed happens about every 60 years or so. No politician or party can take credit or be blamed for it as it is a natural phenomenon. We will likely not see another euphoria and collapse in our life time. The crux of the matter is simply whether we as tax payers should have a choice in how we invest for retirement. And, whether we should also be able to pass along any of these proceeds after our death. Personally, I think we should be able to opt out of Social Security all together. Problem with that is that all the achievers would opt out and there would be no one to take the money from to redistribute. The nation will survive, however. It lived through Reagan, and Gingrich, and a slew of others, after all. ***************************** I lived through Carter for whatever that's worth. For a variety of reasons these could be a good couple of years to let the Republicans do their thing, and let the people see exactly what that is. It could motivate the Democratic base (too many of which sat this one out) and swing a lot of the centerists to the Democratic side. I could be very wrong, too ... that has happened at least 3 times before . ******************************* I also think being able to see how a philosophy will work is a great advantage. I would like to see it on both the liberal, conservative and especially the Libertarian side. However, I would ONLY like to see this if it was done at the STATE level where competition and market forces could prevail. I am extremely opposed to FEDERAL intervention in anything that is not mandated by the Constitution. The federal gov't was given limited powers for a reason and we have strayed from this. Socialized medicine in Oregon would have been a great example. Too bad it failed or we could have seen how it would have worked for Hillary on the Federal level. I think gun control is a great example, too. There is a higher rate of violent crime and gun crime where these laws are most severe. If you took the "playing with yourself/guns/bunkers" remarks personally, I apologize. Meant them to be an attempt at humor that turned to personal ridicule, which was NOT deliberate. About the your allegations, however: * I am profoundly heterosexual. * Neither my dick or my wallet is broke (although I do not now get enough/have enough). * Regarding old ... I plead guilty, with the special circumstance that I'm not as old as Torone. ********************************** Apology accepted and returned.