By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The US Presidential Inauguration thread

tombi123 on 21 January 2009
mrstickball said:
Actually, Buddhism and Judaism are both ahead of Islam. Not to mention Atheism as well.

 

 He mentioned Christians, Muslims, Hindus and non believers. So he left out Jews and buddhists (spelling?), which is a bit strange.



Around the Network
tombi123 on 21 January 2009
SamuelRSmith said:
I disliked the way he said "non-believers" as if we're wrong for it.

 

 I prefer the term "non-believers" to "Atheists". It makes it sound less like a religion.



SamuelRSmith on 21 January 2009
tombi123 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
I disliked the way he said "non-believers" as if we're wrong for it.

 

 I prefer the term "non-believers" to "Atheists". It makes it sound less like a religion.

 

 One day, "non-believers" or "Atheists" won't have a name at all...



halogamer1989 on 21 January 2009

I disliked the whole bit. What ever happened to One Nation Under God? Agree to disagree with the premise is something I thought libs were good at. If some aren't religious, don't force it on someone and don't whine.



bardicverse on 21 January 2009
NightDragon83 said:
Hawkeye said:
Esmoreit said:
What for me raised an eyebrow in the speech was how Obama is going to fuel our cars with wind and solar energy within his term (it being 4 or 8 years)

 

He never said that. He siad we are going to stop using foregin oil as soon as we can, and start utilizing the earth, the sun, the air, and the wind (or something like that) basically he means we will do anything we can- could be electric cars that get energy from nuclear power plants, who knows?

Solar panels on cars currently won't work.

 

Nevermind cars... try heating your home without oil or natural gas and see how well that works out for you. Can't run everything on solar, electric or wind power!

Ummm.... Central heat/air is generated via electricity last I saw, I could be wrong tho.

Oil heat is the WORST. What a PitA to manage levels of your tank , etc. I will never do oil heat again after I move out of my current place.

 



Around the Network
Coca-Cola on 21 January 2009

It doesn't matter how big or small the government is, it matters whether it is effective or not.

I think that's what he said and if he did, I have a problem with this.
I don't know what it would be like if we had a huge effective govt. what does that mean?



bardicverse on 21 January 2009

^^^ higher taxes due to more people on payroll. small centralized govt for the win!



Coca-Cola on 21 January 2009

English is kinda second language for me. so Bush never bothered me.
but my friend told me Obama made a lot of grammatical error as well.



mrstickball on 21 January 2009
Coca-Cola said:
It doesn't matter how big or small the government is, it matters whether it is effective or not.

I think that's what he said and if he did, I have a problem with this.
I don't know what it would be like if we had a huge effective govt. what does that mean?

I believe that's what he said.

I'd say, from a fiscally conservative standpoint, it's a mixed bag message. Having an effective government is important, but almost impossible to have in praxis. Smaller government usually makes for more effective government.

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Words Of Wisdom on 21 January 2009
mrstickball said:

Smaller government usually makes for more effective government.

You can do more with more people.  Two people working their hardest can't achieve what ten people working their hardest can all else equal.  If the government is truly effective, it will grow or shrink in size to meet the demands placed on it.

A lot of folks currently associate more people with sloopiness, laziness, and overspending.  "Big government" carries that negative connotation with it.  In reality, being large doesn't create laziness... lazy people do.  A smaller government isn't necessarily better, but a more efficient government would be.