kelpdiver 2 #176 April 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteWho was the last President that did have a clue? The present Oval Office occupant notwithstanding, since he hasn't been in office long enough to demonstrate competence or incompetence, I would say it was Clinton, at least w/r/t the budget and economy. The results were favorable, but it's not from anything he brought to the table. And his efforts on health care and SS failed as badly as anyone's so far. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #177 April 3, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt So. Sight of the detached onlooker.. Unique the president of America (in the newest history) worthy respect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #178 April 3, 2009 Did you have a point to make? FDR was like Kennedy, born into wealth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nelyubin 0 #179 April 4, 2009 The origin is not important. It is important that he did for the people of America. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #180 April 4, 2009 QuoteThe origin is not important. It is important that he did for the people of America. The conversation was about what they brought to the table wrt business knowledge. The obvious point (save to you) was that experience seems to have limited bearing on their results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #181 April 5, 2009 QuoteObama Power! He federalizes banks, insurance companies, and now car companies. What's next? Beats letting them all die. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #182 April 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteObama Power! He federalizes banks, insurance companies, and now car companies. What's next? Beats letting them all die. Quotenow that Obama has control of these companies he needs to control costs. congress just passed a bill that gives them the ability to determin who is getting to much pay. I guess the profits go to the government and the people get the shaft. Just like the rest of the socialist countries. get ready to have your pay reduced. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #183 April 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteObama needs to get some backbone and do what he preaches or he will become one of the biggest failures as a president and send our children into poverty conditions like we have seen in Russia, China, and other countries. Interesting. History of the USA, it{he} does not remember? Does not remember poor and hungry America of times of " great depression "? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MigrantMotherColorized_sm.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FSA_school_in_Alabama.gif http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Public_Health_nursing.gif Quotehow about the poor and hungry in the countries that are socialist and\or a dictatorship? when the money from the richer population runs out the lower class of people loose. Our poor already have more than alot of people in alot of countries. it will only get worse for them if we keep going down this path that Obama wants to move us to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #184 April 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteObama Power! He federalizes banks, insurance companies, and now car companies. What's next? Beats letting them all die. Quotenow that Obama has control of these companies he needs to control costs. congress just passed a bill that gives them the ability to determin who is getting to much pay. I guess the profits go to the government and the people get the shaft. Just like the rest of the socialist countries. get ready to have your pay reduced. Do you have any idea how many private companies are cutting pay? HP Honda New York Times FedEx to name a few, pay cuts are as a result of market forces not government policy. That is what happens when unemployment gets high you know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #185 April 5, 2009 Quote I guess the profits go to the government and the people get the shaft. I'm not sure what country you live in, but in America, where I live, the government is the people. Since Obama is the President of the US, you don't need to worry about the government getting profits while the people get the shaft.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #186 April 6, 2009 QuoteI'm not sure what country you live in, but in America, where I live, the government is the people. Hey, buddy, I've got a nice bridge for sale...-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #187 April 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'm not sure what country you live in, but in America, where I live, the government is the people. Hey, buddy, I've got a nice bridge for sale... Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth. Somehow, I suspect your claim about having a bridge for sale is as genuine as your understanding of the US government.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #188 April 6, 2009 If you think that todays government is the same government Linclon was speaking to, well, I have many bridges you may be interested in."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #189 April 6, 2009 QuoteIf you think that todays government is the same government Linclon was speaking to, well, I have many bridges you may be interested in. 1789 < 1863 < 2009 Hmmm … looks like the same government to me. I will grant you that different people hold office now, but the government is the same. Of course, Amendment 17 provided direct election of Senators, so I suppose the government is even more "by the people" than it was when Lincoln gave his most famous speech.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #190 April 6, 2009 Which bridge would you like? They are on special right now"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #191 April 6, 2009 Quote Which bridge would you like? They are on special right now Are you suggesting that the US government was overthrown sometime between 1863 and today? Somehow, I think the history books might have mentioned that. It also would be unlikely that we would still have three branches of the federal government operating according to the Constitution as we (still) do today.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #192 April 6, 2009 Quote Are you suggesting that the US government was overthrown sometime between 1863 and today? I seem to recall quite a lot of claims of that over the last 8 years...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #193 April 6, 2009 Quote Quote Are you suggesting that the US government was overthrown sometime between 1863 and today? I seem to recall quite a lot of claims of that over the last 8 years... You're both right, it just got much uglier over the last 8 years. We have a government of, by and for the people. It's just that in 1886 the definition of what is meant by "people" changed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #194 April 6, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'm not sure what country you live in, but in America, where I live, the government is the people. Hey, buddy, I've got a nice bridge for sale... you're missing the basis - in a socialist mindset, it makes perfect sense to say the government 'is' the people - that's the twist you should worry about. We have a government that's supposed to represent the free and independent individuals of the country. Saying the gov "is" the people means that individualism is ignored in favor of the collective - a new definition of what the gov is really supposed to mean. arguing the issue when the two people have completely differents baselines of understanding just means you are arguing totally unrelated concepts - on the plus side, you both win ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #195 April 6, 2009 Quotea government of, by and for the people. It's just that in 1886 the "of" - composed of reps from the populace - does not mean it embodies all the population, we aren't a pure democracy, nor are we a purely socialist team that is under the control of the gov "by" - means the government is controlled by the people, not the other way around "for" - for the benefit of the populace, not the other way around - expanding government power at the expense of the populace is counterproductive there "is" the people - I don't see that in there "guvment be dem der peoples" new version for today's more liberally trained students in the new grammar although, I'd think if Lucky were here, he'd ignore all the socialist discussion and point out that government control of industry is really a facist state - isn't it? and if this doesn't scare the really socialst types, then they should realize that government control of industry will eventually lead to industry control of government - as this will be the natural self preservation mechanism of the powerful in industry of all kinds ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #196 April 6, 2009 Quote....then they should realize that government control of industry will eventually lead to industry control of government - as this will be the natural self preservation mechanism of the powerful in industry of all kinds Too late. Industry "persons" already have too much control via "acce$$" to legislators as facilitated through their (albeit recently reduced) reserves of "free $peech". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #197 April 6, 2009 QuoteIt's just that in 1886 the definition of what is meant by "people" changed. That's a fair and relevant observation.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #198 April 6, 2009 QuoteQuote....then they should realize that government control of industry will eventually lead to industry control of government - as this will be the natural self preservation mechanism of the powerful in industry of all kinds Too late. Industry "persons" already have too much control via "acce$$" to legislators as facilitated through their (albeit recently reduced) reserves of "free $peech". those bastards, always two steps ahead..... So, then you are not $urprised, then, that our beloved exec and legi$lative branche$ are handing out gob$ of money now without any intent of helping the re$t of u$ Then logically, I'll expect you to then oppose the current administration from gaining any further power through nationalization efforts of ANYTHING. NO matter prettily it'll be phrased on a teleprompter by even someone with big floppy ears. Edit: Unless I read that backwards and you are actually advocating repealing free speech in some part...... say it ain't so ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #199 April 7, 2009 Quote those bastards, always two steps ahead..... So, then you are not $urprised, then, that our beloved exec and legi$lative branche$ are handing out gob$ of money now without any intent of helping the re$t of u$ Why would I be surprised? It's a habit. But I think that the intent IS to help the rest of us. A collapsed banking system would be seriously problematic (not that I think they handled that one well). But why is it ok for us to throw money at industry with no strings attached but when the taxpayer demands something for our money, then it's a problem? Either way it's "socialism". Quote Then logically, I'll expect you to then oppose the current administration from gaining any further power through nationalization efforts of ANYTHING. NO matter prettily it'll be phrased on a teleprompter by even someone with big floppy ears. Prior to last November, I could always count on your cynicism to be complimented by equal amounts of humor. I miss those days. Regardless, I don't think we can have the discussion if we don't agree on the definition of "nationalism". I don't consider temporary public/private partnerships to be "nationalism". I agree that any such action is distasteful because it's been proven that our government is typically very inefficient. However, when our government, by comparison to the performance of the industry in question IS ACTUALLY the more responsible party, then we have a serious problem and drastic measures may be in order. Quote Edit: Unless I read that backwards and you are actually advocating repealing free speech in some part...... say it ain't so I'm a freak. I know it. I don't think that corporations are people. I don't think that money is speech. And I do think that giving money to public officials in exchange for "access" is bribery. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #200 April 7, 2009 Quote Prior to last November, I could always count on your cynicism to be complimented by equal amounts of humor. I miss those days. you've clearly missed the plethora of sock puppet comments same cynicism and same humor before Nov, and after Nov - perhaps your tolerance for mockery has changed since the targets have changed? But even the targets haven't really changed - the guys in power are giving it all away, the same people are in office, the change in the exec is cosmetic only, there is no change in the legisl - BO may just be doing the ruining at a bit more accelerated pace and with a more polished package, but it's the same policies and the same people and the same, same, same, same, same as GWB. Yet still, even with the profound 'sameness' of the situation, the key players all switched sides anyway in the debates. If that's not hilarious, I don't know what is. That's why I count on you to also have the same picture of reality and use the tiny spin just for fun - which I thought you were doing and I responded with a trite mockery of the SC regulars and how they try to pin the other guy down. You took it serious - hook line and sinker. Edit: Though I did miss the reference of free speech campaign contributions reference.....mea culpa - I don't think $$$ = free speech any more than I think wearing profane t-shirts and being purposefully obnoxious and loud at public events is a useful form of the same, either. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
