General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2159675

    President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

    Locked

    by maxwell edison ·

    …..his continued rhetoric on how bad the economy is and on how long it will take for recovery (years, not months).

    …..claiming that our economy is in the worst shape since the great depression.

    The former will only serve to prolong the lagging economy, and, in essence, help this self-fulfilling prophecy become reality. The latter is simply a blatant lie, not even close to being true.

    The prophecy of gloom and doom is alive and well. Instilling financial fear in people is not only doing them a grave disservice, but it will actually keep people and businesses from fully participating in the economy, thereby contributing to its further slide and making recovery more difficult.

    Their solutions of more government spending, more government debt, and more control over business and people will only serve to make people more dependent, less free, and less prosperous. Look at how far down the United States has fallen on the [i]Index of Economic Freedom[/i] over the years. Our national goal should be a return to the top of that list; and we should let that goal drive the policy decisions.

    Less government, not more; more personal responsibility, not less; more economic freedom, not less; these are the only long-term solutions out of the financial mess that’s been growing since the failed policies of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal drove the first nail into the coffin of economic freedom. People are most free when they’re most economically free. This growing financial dependence on government only tightens the shackles of economic slavery.

    President Obama ran on a policy position of [i]change and hope[/i]. However, the prophets of doom and gloom in the Democratic Party will never change; all of their policy positions are based on instilling fear and uncertainty. There’s no change taking place, only more of the same: more government spending; more government debt; more government control. And where’s the [i]hope[/i] in such things?

    I avoid negative people in the workplace like the plague. They’re a cancer on an entire organization.

    I avoid negative people in life. They’re a real drag, and they only try to find others to share in their self-inflicted misery.

    Let’s take it to the next level.

    I abhor negative people in government. They don’t govern, but rather become demagogues and prophets of doom and gloom. They don’t lead, but rather pander. They don’t take or preach responsibility, but rather prefer to place blame, make excuses, and advance class envy. They don’t encourage excellence, but rather convince so many into becoming victims – self-inflicted victims.

    Rhetoric has trumped reality. Fear has trumped [i]hope[/i]. And in the quest to gain even more political power, the notion that [i]nothing changes[/i] has trumped [i]change[/i].

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2752435

      Hey Max.

      by dhcdbd ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      What led to the depression that FDR’s “New Deal” came from. Was that also the result of Government interference in the market, or was that unrestrained capitalism, or something else entirely. Please don’t feed us WW1.

      • #2752430

        A better question is. . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Hey Max.

        …..what did the New Deal really achieve?

        Regardless of the indoctrination school children receive (including ones from my own generation), the programs of the New Deal didn’t (financially) solve a darn thing. What was it that ultimately led that era of America out of the depression – the one that lasted throughout the entire twelve years of FDR’s administration (with the possible exception of the last two)?

        As to your question, what caused the Great Depression? Heck, economists even today can’t agree on all the reasons. However, your simplistic reason ([i]unrestrained capitalism[/i]) is far from the correct one.

        Edit:

        By the way, as people so often do, don’t mistake [i]less government[/i] to mean [i]no government[/i].

        • #2752425

          What did it?

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to A better question is. . . . .

          >”what did the New Deal really achieve?”

          The Tennessee Valley Authority, new hydro electric dams, roads, etc.

          >”What was it that ultimately led that era of America out of the depression…”

          WWII and the building of America’s manufacturing base that resulted from the war effort.

          >”As to your question, what caused the Great Depression? Heck, economists even today can’t agree on all the reasons.”

          Try the stock market crumbling combined with the dust bowl. This was an era of unrestrained capitalism which the downfall of the stock market was the beginning. The primary means of income to that point had been agriculture. When the dust bowl occurred it destroyed the primary means of sustenance for a large segment of the population. When the dust bowel occurred the stock market was largely recovering, but was again destroyed. Heck, grade school stuff.

          Liken the crumbling housing market to the dust bowel, the sustenance is destroyed but from another direction; the stock market speaks for itself. What led to the housing burst that is also present in the stock market? Could it be two things that are related? Unrestrained greed (capitalism) and unrestrained greed by the banks and mortgagors selling assets for unrealistic prices? This unrestrained venture marketing could be the cause of both – meaning those who venture to make money at all costs.

          Around the time that the depression occurred the Reserve board was created to attempt to control the venture risks of banks. This in turn was controlled by the fox in the hen house, the banking industry. Therefore a lack of oversite. Industry has proven time and again that it is unable to police itself. One possible solution is to require all venturists to put up 40 – 50% of the costs and show sufficient resources to cover a 100% loss. No can do, then no can invest.

          I firmly believe in the words of, I believe Thomas Jefferson:” the government that governs the least, governs the best.” Without that little thought, what do we have? One example that comes to mind is the F.D.I.C. seizing Washington Mutual and selling it to J.P. Morgan for 1/10 the value of the assets. However, there are some things that government can do better than individuals.

        • #2752422

          I’m not sure what your point is

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What did it?

          But you are correct in classifying your reasons for the Great Depression and your list of New Deal programs as [i]Grade School stuff[/i], because that’s the indoctrination I mentioned – in its simplistic best. It all goes well beyond simplistic [i]Grade School stuff[/i].

          I also often repeat Jefferson’s maxim, [i]”the government that governs the least, governs the best.”[/i]

          But still, what point are you trying to make? Your message, on one hand, seems like an attempt to justify big government, but on the other hand, it espouses less government (in Jefferson’s words).

        • #2752417

          Points being:

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to I’m not sure what your point is

          1) You are needlessly attacking a policy that is not yet in effect.

          2) Incorrectly placing blame.

          3) Justifying the status quo.

          4) Failing to look at the root causes.

          5) Failing to look at solutions that may work.

          6) The new one: using propaganda.

          While the victors do write the history, there is always some element of the truth that survives and is difficult to hide.

          In the case of the economy, my position is that Obama is caving to the financial industry and there [U]MAY[/U] be no change. I am certainly not seeing anything that indicates a rebuilding of a manufacturing base. I also see no real effort to control capital ventures. The two issues that are most closely related in history. I also see the current war effort as unwinable and foolish.

          If you wish to continue, please start a new sub thread.

          I do not necessarily disagree with you, but I do think differently. If you are willing to continue, I am willing.

        • #2754320

          I’ll reply tomorrow. I’m kinda’ tired right now.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Points being:

          The reply to your message deserves much more than a fleeting comment. Stay tuned, and I’ll reply tomorrow in a new thread.

          I welcome honest and genuine dialogue.

      • #2752419

        The primary contributors to the Great Depression

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to Hey Max.

        As I remember my History of Economics, the bursting of the stock market bubble in 1929, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs and the economic repercussions thereof, and an extremely tight money policy from the Federal Reserve combined with other non-economic factors (e.g. the Dust Bowl) to create the perfect economic storm.

        My personal take on the whole bailout thing is that if the President and Congress want to stimulate the economy and have to do more than just give us back our money, do the following:
        * Refund the net tax paid for every individual who files a 2008 tax return with net taxable income under the 2008 median; use all returns filed by April 15 to set that median. No money to anybody above the median and no money to people who didn’t pay net tax.
        * Take what’s left of the TARP fund (a few hundred billion?) and allocate it to the individual states for infrastructure improvement: highways, bridges, etc.
        * Prosecute for fraud the corporate executives who used bailout funds to take trips, issue bonuses or obtain perks. Their companies can’t be that bad off if they’ve got enough money to waste on that stuff.

        Actually, giving money to people who care so little about the businesses they are running that the first thing they think of with cash in hand is bonuses or perks is flat stupid. Of course, I don’t think anybody on TR has ever accused the US Congress of even marginal intelligence.

        • #2752413

          That seems to make sense

          by michael jay ·

          In reply to The primary contributors to the Great Depression

          It could never happen, what with the IQ being what it is for the government as a whole, or is that a hole?

          Makes one think, I think.

        • #2752401

          Decent start.

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to The primary contributors to the Great Depression

          I am not familiar with or do not remember the Smoot-Hawley tariffs. Please give me your takes; in the meantime I will look it up.

          While you have some good points, I believe that you are overlooking an important item. That being that just because people have money available does not mean that they will spend it, nor does it mean that they will spend it in a fashion that will benefit the U.S.

        • #2752393

          Better known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Decent start.

          It was passed in 1930 and raised import tariffs to unprecedented levels “to protect the American worker.” The resulting retaliatory tariffs and reductions in trade were significant contributor to the worldwide economic travails of the 1930s.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot_hawley

          And you’re right about the money and spending it the way we expect. Consider the CEOs of AIG, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and many others who awarded themselves taxpayer-provided bonuses for running their companies into the ground.

        • #2752387

          Read that one…

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Better known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

          and a few others.

          This one in particular is informative:
          http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/obrien.hawley-smoot.tariff

          What is enlightening in both is the point that they bring out that the tariff was raised only about 2.5 percent and that losses due to tariffs are short lived because the market rapidly adjusts.

          Another point is that that in depth this act had nothing to do with bringing about the depression, but rather was a consequence of it.

          A very interesting point that supports my hypothesis of capitalistic greed is that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were initially a special interest duty that applied to agriculture and was subsequently hijacked by business to many things.

          How does this tie in with your position?

        • #2752379

          Position?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Read that one…

          I’m simply repeating what I remember from a college economics course 35 years ago. The only other thing I remember from that class is that economics is not a scholarly pursuit in which I cared to further indulge.

        • #2752348

          Accepted.

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Position?

          🙂

        • #2754122

          Of course, all of this started

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Decent start.

          [i]just because people have money available does not mean that they will spend it, nor does it mean that they will spend it in a fashion that will benefit the U.S.[/i]

          because some spent money that WASN’T THEIRS, And somehow I don’t think allowing some people to spend even more money that ISN’T THEIRS, is going to solve any problems. All you’re doing is postponing natural law… “the strong and smart will survive, and the weak and stupid will perish”.

          The amazing and ironic part of all of this is that the side of the aisle that traditionally supports this kind of interference is the same side that claims to support the preservation of nature. Go figure!

        • #2754096

          This alludes to…

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Of course, all of this started

          The fact that most will use it to pay down bills rather than buy goods. Of those that buy goods, many will buy foreign goods rather than American goods (if such exist any longer), or buy out of area goods, rather than purchase something that will do their local or national economy any good at all. Many may just bank the money.

          To infer that I support interference would be incorrect. I support letting all the business’ that made the mistakes lie in their own mud. Most bank depositors are protected because they have less than 100,000 in any account. The banks, investors, etc. that are at the base of this problem would be at the food line and homeless shelters. The manufactures such as Ford and the like would either be out of business or straighten out; if they went out of business someone or something would soon fill their boots. But the industry hand outs would stop.

          Do I support taking care of those that can not take care of themselves. Certainly. One day you may find yourself in that heap because of car or other accident or job loss.

          I digress some. People originally banded together forming tribes to protect themselves from the strong whom would take advantage of them. The strong seeking to survive managed to infiltrate those bands and become leaders. The people became tired of the leaders doing to them what they had banded together to prevent. They rose up and killed the leaders. The story of revolutions throughout time. When does survival become EOL?

        • #2754072

          Any of those would be fine

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to This alludes to…

          [i]The fact that most will use it to pay down bills rather than buy goods. Of those that buy goods, many will buy foreign goods rather than American goods (if such exist any longer), or buy out of area goods, rather than purchase something that will do their local or national economy any good at all. Many may just bank the money.[/i]

          IF it was theirs to do it with.

          [i]
          To infer that I support interference would be incorrect.[/i]

          Didn’t intend to infer… only relating an observation.

          [i]The people became tired of the leaders doing to them what they had banded together to prevent.[/i]

          Yep. Many of the things being done to us today we went to war over someone else doing to their citizens… hypocrisy at best…

        • #2754069

          err, actually no.

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Any of those would be fine

          >”Yep. Many of the things being done to us today we went to war over someone else doing to their citizens… hypocrisy at best…”

          Each person has a duty, in order, to family, self, nation. To do for another before doing for self violates this order. The individuals we went to war to protect had the onus of the duty to do for themselves – first. The reality is that we went to war for oil using a fabricated reason. Now we have a bill for a war that we can not afford.

          I am not against war; I believe that conflict is inevitable. I do believe that you pick the events that you choose to war over. If the Taliban would have been that much of a problem, their bones should still be glowing in the dark. They would have never been a problem again.

          Afghanistan, from appearances, war was begun not to liberate the people but rather to put an oil pipeline in that the Taliban would not allow. The drug trade, he!! it is bigger now than before the operations began. The U.S.S.R. fought over there for seven years and could not win. Do you really think we can. Other countries are willing to supply the weapons they need to sustain war and we trained them.

          To this day I still think that Iraq was begun to sooth Dad’s black eye.

          Stop all the hand outs to every government in the world and all the corporations in any country, stop the bogus wars, remove all troops from every country in the world excluding those on embassy duty. Watch what happens. If someone bothers us, nuke them as a first option, conventional war afterwards if anything is left that needs mop up.

          Oh, I forgot to add: get the U.S. off the Military/industrial and the Industrial/prison complex. Make people responsible for their own actions.

        • #2752934

          Oops

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Any of those would be fine

          sorry…. I was thinking further back….

    • #2752424

      Excellent post

      by michael jay ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      Positive words and actions provide forward and positive prospects.

      Negative words and actions foster negative results.

      At my advanced age I am so glad to finally learn this simple axiom.

    • #2752372

      PollyAnna

      by thechas ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      Max,

      I do understand the power of positive thinking and the benefits of showing the positive side of any situation.

      However, there comes a time when you need to admit that the short term outlook is not rosy and that we will go through some tough times to get to the point where the situation starts to improve.

      While there are many reasons that John McCain lost the Presidential election, part of why the voters wanted change was precisely because the positive spin the GWB and John McCain tried to put on what was going on with the economy was in drastic conflict to what the voters were seeing around them.

      The US economy is at a point where no level of positive talk or spin will get people out there spending because they have nothing to spend.

      I do not know anyone who is waiting for word that the economy is improving before they spend money. The people I know are not buying things because they don’t have any money to spend. There are a few that are waiting to see how low the housing market goes before they invest in a new home. Just are there are some who have pulled their investments from the stock market wait to see where the bottom is.

      If there is no money to spend and no credit available, you can say things are great all that you want and nothing will change.

      There is a fine line between optimism and delusion.

      Now, people will respond to a positive message if the world they see around them supports that positive outlook.

      I don’t think that even the news media could get away with stating that the economy is past the bottom and starting to improve without some real evidence that there are new jobs and new opportunities. I think at least 3 times now there have been pronouncements about the market hitting bottom, only to see the market fall further a few days later.

      That said, I do agree to the point that the stimulus package is not going to fix the economy.

      Nor, will any level of tax cuts fix the US economy either.

      The first step toward fixing the economic mess we are in is to balance the Federal Budget. Like it or not, that will never be accomplished with just spending cuts. In order to balance the budget and start paying off the national debt, there will need to be a general tax increase.

      Once the government stops borrowing money, there will be a flood of capital available for investment that will spark true economic growth.

      Personal spending is not the answer to the US economy. Having money available for investment in new ideas and technologies is the only way we are going to grow the US economy and create new jobs.

      Chas

      • #2752358

        And which of Obama’s plans

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to PollyAnna

        Will resolve your last statement?

        [i]”Having money available for investment in new ideas and technologies is the only way we are going to grow the US economy and create new jobs.”[/i]

        Will higher taxes make more investment capital available?

        Will higher government spending on “free” healthcare?

        Or is government the solution, and will be providing this investment capital?

        I know from looking at this proposed “stimulus” package, half of it has nothing to do with stimulus. Are we going in the right or wrong direction?

        I admit to being preoccupied the last few days, what, in your opinion, has Obama been going Right? [i](if I want to hear what he is doing wrong, there are plenty of venues for that….. )[/i]

        Thanks.

        • #2754252

          Freeing Up Capital

          by thechas ·

          In reply to And which of Obama’s plans

          Correct, I see nothing in the present stimulus package that is going to help the overall economy.

          As the US economy no longer has a significant base in manufactured goods, increasing consumer spending is not going to build up the overall economy.

          Further, even more than the 2008 stimulus checks, any direct money to individuals will go toward day to day expenses or paying down bills.

          The best way that the US Federal Government can free up the investment capital required to fund new business is to stop borrowing money. To do so will require a combination of spending cuts and higher taxes.

          Once the budget is balanced, Congress should not even consider lowering tax rates until at least half of the national debt is paid off. Well, we could entertain tax cuts that equal half of any spending reductions.

          As to health care, that is a whole different topic. Any program where the government picks up more of the cost of health care will require new taxes or spending cuts in other areas.

          Chas

        • #2754250

          health care

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Freeing Up Capital

          seems to be almost 1/4 of the “stimulus” package.

          new taxes/spending cuts to pay for that will not stimulate anything that I can see.

          looking at this package so far, justifies to me my “fears” of Obama getting elected.

          not real impressed yet.
          \
          I am hoping this will change, for OUR sake.

    • #2752360

      He is trying to lower expectations

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      because he knows he has zero hope of rising to what he claimed during the election.

      If he can lower the expectations, his cult will stand with him longer, not questioning why neither his hope nor his change is making peoples lives better.

      • #2752357

        I have a hard time

        by boxfiddler ·

        In reply to He is trying to lower expectations

        subscribing to the notion that it’s somehow the job of government to better my life. I figure it’s the job of government to stay out of my way and let me better my life.

        • #2752352

          Now there you go

          by michael jay ·

          In reply to I have a hard time

          thinking with your own mind, that is just not right. You need government to spoon feed you from cradle to grave.

          Not..

        • #2752351

          Independant thought

          by w2ktechman ·

          In reply to Now there you go

          is allowed. As long as one comes to the same conclusion as the ‘powers at be’ want.
          However, if your thought goes astray from what is wanted — watch out, or the govt may need to use a bigger spoon

        • #2752350

          If they can outdo

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to Independant thought

          the LSD that was a four way Windowpane, will give me a rubber room, keep me high and fed and warm, they can have me.

          😀 😀 😀

        • #2752345

          Come on…

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to If they can outdo

          enough Purple Microdot or Orange Barrel will outdo Windowpane. 25 for those that could get it was better; pure Sandoz.

          When you got a little out there those Red Devils brought you back in a hurry.

        • #2754357

          25 was rare

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to Come on…

          by the time I got to it. Cubes were disappearing. Blotter and 4-way panes were it. Mostly panes.

          etu

        • #2754352

          Just proves…

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Come on…

          “Teachers take it, scientists make it; why can’t we?”

        • #2754349

          Somehow

          by michael jay ·

          In reply to Come on…

          I missed all those interesting pictures, perhaps a better person for it?

          Perhaps those things I have never seen I was not meant to see.

        • #2754345

          Cool DHCDBD

          by michael jay ·

          In reply to Come on…

          Guessing a Ubuntu flavor, just interesting.

        • #2754336

          Tolerance is rule of thumb

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Independant thought

          as long as it is in favor of their conclusions.

          Tolerance does not go both ways, these days.

        • #2754245

          When did it ever go both ways?

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Tolerance is rule of thumb

          I must’ve slept thru it.

        • #2754038

          There is a big difference

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to When did it ever go both ways?

          between someone that is intolerant about something, and someone that preaches tolerance, but is not tolerant themselves about different view points.

          Hypocrites, that is what they are.

        • #2752920

          I see what you’re getting at now.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to When did it ever go both ways?

          Missed it the first time.

        • #2754339

          Lets just say

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I have a hard time

          right now I hope obama improves unemployment benefits……

        • #2754334

          Humm…

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Lets just say

          Actually I hope he does much to eliminate unemployment benefits by doing enough that those in need of such can find good jobs and wont need it. Don’t expect it though.

        • #2754271

          Both

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Humm…

          As I just got laid off Friday. 🙁

          I haven’t seen anything yet that will actually create jobs for people like me though.

          Everything looks more like a backdoor solution to push the social issues programs instead, and intentionally mislabel it as “stimulus”.

        • #2754255

          Sorry to hear that

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Both

          Did you have any warning? Other than the basic state of the economy, that is.

          Anyway, good luck and I hope you get something new quickly.

          Neil

        • #2754243

          warnings

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Sorry to hear that

          Thanks Neil.

          I have been afraid the whole company might go under for a year now. the layoffs started a year ago, and went deeper than I had ever seen down to a skeleton crew. A week ago, people with 20 years with the company got it.

          If it went deep enough to take me, it is a crap shoot of getting called back or not having a company to get called back to.

          the ex is NOT pleased because I told her for the first time in 3 years of having the boys, I am going to file for child support. She offered me $200 a month if I wouldn’t file. That barely covers their school lunches.

          The college I got my BA from allows alumni to resit any if their classes for free, so I think right off the bat I am going to get back in some of the cisco classes for a brush up while I am looking for something new.

          going back in about an hour to finish cleaning out my office. had to much crap there to fit it all in my little saturn so I just grabbed my tools and electronics on friday. got my moms van and a bunch of boxes for the rest. I always bought my own books, and have a few book shelves full to grab as well as some odds and ends.

          besides, there will only be one person in another end of the building, so this will be a lot easier on everyone to do it, rather than wait for monday. for me, as well as them. 🙁

          first time in 19 years I have been without a job.

        • #2754241

          I hope you can find something soon.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Both

          Good luck.

        • #2754082

          Thanks OTR

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I hope you can find something soon.

          Will have to make a run back there in about a week. Because I have a lot of research and school data on my pc, they let me bring it home to copy everything off. pretty sweet.

          Still feel up for lunch? B-)

        • #2754238

          Sorry to hear it

          by w2ktechman ·

          In reply to Both

          I shall hope that you do find something quickly.
          Hmmm, maybe sell the boys to slavery through the black market?? :0 :0 :0 ok, just kidding.

        • #2754083

          I was thinking

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Sorry to hear it

          more of a short term lease…. ;\

        • #2754234

          Yikes,

          by michael jay ·

          In reply to Both

          very BAD news, hope you can find new work soon.

          Best to you JD.

        • #2754084

          Thanks Michael

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Yikes,

          Will be working on it.

          I just figure this next week, will be out hitting the streets, so probably won’t get much time to come out and play.

          Got benefits to apply for to make sure my boys have food and health care.

          And yeah, my ex is PISSED because I am going to go for child support. “You are a selfish man” was her reply to the email when I gave her the heads up about it….. 😀

        • #2754074

          Well, you should have expected that

          by w2ktechman ·

          In reply to Yikes,

          and more. Surprised she didnt call you evil or something as well

        • #2754231

          Time of dread

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Both

          Is over. Time for finest hours, every one of them, from here on in.

          One of your first priorities will be to keep this channel open. That, so you may advise at least me in my own distress. In which connection I find attitude paramount. In which further connection, I have found yours over the years most helpful.

        • #2754086

          B-)

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Time of dread

          This will be a good change for me. Was getting lazy where I was.

          Besides, all the eye candy has long since been laid off…… ;\

        • #2754225

          Ouch, i wish you well JD you

          by ic-it ·

          In reply to Both

          will land on your feet (hopefully sooner rather than later).

        • #2754087

          Thanks

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Ouch, i wish you well JD you

          we all just do what we can, right?

          I always remind myself that the measure of a person is how they handle the bad times, not the good. I hope to measure up.

        • #2754214

          Bummer!

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Both

          Hope you can find something soon. Holler if you think I can help.

        • #2754089

          I will be looking

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Bummer!

          but don’t have any plans of leaving the state.

          I work so I can spend time with friends and family, not to have a fancy house. Things would have to get worse than this for me to leave the state.

          With any luck, the “brain drain” of many of the Michigan workbase moving away will have made a shortage of people in my field. hopehopehope.

          Thanks.

        • #2754210

          Opportunity knocks in many different ways

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Both

          And it’s come-a-knocking, jd.

          Sure, I know there are those who call such an outlook overly optimistic – or even [i]Pollyanna[/i] – but opportunity is there, jd.

          In a weird kinda’ way, almost like a balance in the universe (okay, don’t laugh), whenever something bad happens to a person, an opportunity of equal or greater good presents itself. It’s a principle I first read about from a guy name Napoleon Hill. And looking back at those times in my life, including a couple of lay-offs, I can’t disagree.

          The doom and dread folks love to criticize such an outlook, and they’re almost always right in predicting misery for themselves. But the ones who do believe there’s opportunity behind every obstacle are also usually right.

          You’ll come out of this better and stronger, jd, and a lot of good will come from it. You’re just that kinda’ guy.

        • #2754092

          It is the kick in the a$$ I needed

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Opportunity knocks in many different ways

          Thanks Max.

          I loved my job, but hated the hour drive each way. It was “safe” to stay there, though, instead of go out and start over after almost 11 years.

          First step, take advantage of the “safety net” and get everything started for the unenjoyment benefits.

          Then get my name in the job bank (as required for the unenjoyment)

          next step will be to the college I got my BA from. They have an alum benefit where I can resit any classes free, so will do that for a refresher. Get my CCNA/CCNP certs.

          Looking for work the whole time.

          I have 9 cisco routers (2500’s, 2600’s) and a few cisco switches, as well as several laptops, pc’s and servers. Will be putting my lab together at home. Should keep me busy.

          Hoping to find something closer to home. Because I pay over $5000 a year in travel expenses, I could easily take that much of a pay cut and never miss it if I get something close. Ideal would be within walking or biking distance. B-)

        • #2754079

          jd – without question. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Opportunity knocks in many different ways

          ….you will emerge stronger and better, I have no doubt. You’re smart, well spoken, grounded in principle – especially when it comes to your boys (which is, after all, the most important thing) – and, if I were to guess, you will make things happen. The cream rises to the top, and that’s exactly where you’ll end up.

          By the way, your divorce thread was one of TR’s most popular (didn’t it hit well over 1,000?), and it helped you think-out that particular obstacle in your life. My guess is that if you start an [i]I was laid-off[/i] thread, not only could it help you navigate yourself through this, but it will undoubtedly help many others as well.

          P.S. Don’t tell anyone, but I think that I, too, might be on the verge of a lay-off. The bad news is that it might not happen. (Yes, feel free to read into that.)

        • #2754059

          2142, actually

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Opportunity knocks in many different ways

          And last I heard, still was second largest of all time.

          Starting something new on this had crossed my mind, because I know I am not the only one getting hit by this.

          Will wait and see how tomorrow goes first.

          B-)

          Good luck with YOUR layoff, either way… ;\

        • #2754179

          JD — Being Laid-off is not fun :(

          by old-fart-iv ·

          In reply to Both

          Hang in there JD.
          The economy is affecting lots of my friends and I did’t figure it would be any better is other parts of the nation.

          I’ve been through a few lay-off in the last 10 years and it is a difficult time for you and those who depend upon your paycheck. I found that furthering my education and networking with those I’ve worked with helped me to find my next opportunity — it was the key to me finding my last 2 positions.

          I know my job is secure only to the point where the next budget decision will be made — kind of scary, but it is the new reality.

          JR

        • #2754091

          Trying to stay positive

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to JD — Being Laid-off is not fun :(

          so far so good, but I don’t think it will really set in until tomorrow after I drop my boys off at school, and for the first time in 19 years, don’t have a job to go to.

        • #2754078

          [i]. . . . .for the first time in 19 years. . . . .[/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to JD — Being Laid-off is not fun :(

          …..you may not have a job to go to, but you DO have an exciting new future to pursue.

          No limits, jd. No limits.

        • #2754149

          Thats lousy news JD :(

          by av . ·

          In reply to Both

          I hope they gave you a decent severance package after 19 years employment. At least the government has extended unemployment benefits to something like 39 weeks. There are also healthcare options as well.

          Supposedly, jobs will be created in IT associated with the expansion of broadband access and with the power grid. I sure hope so.

          Maybe you should look to the government sector. It looks like they’ll be replacing some of their outdated computer systems as part of the stimulus package.

          The last time I was laid off was in ’94 and in hindsight, it was the best thing that ever happened to me even though I didn’t think so at the time. Sure, I cried after losing my job, but actually ended up finding a much better job. Hope thats true for you too.

          AV

        • #2754090

          Only 11 with this company

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Thats lousy news JD :(

          the 19 was non stop going directly from one job to the next, as a step up.

          They are hoping to call me back in a few months. If I don’t get the call, that will mean there isn’t a company to go back to.

          I will not be sitting around waiting, nor feeling sorry for myself.

          Will be reaching out to friends as needed, and already getting people checking in with me to make sure I am holding on. B-)

          Friends make life worth living.

        • #2754032

          Sorry about your plight. [NT]

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Both

        • #2752909

          Sorry to hear, here is how I will help you

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Both

          I’ve been there, I got through, I’m sure you will as well.

          I will help you with your resume. Send me what you’ve got and I will review it. I can point out some resources to look at.

          Feel free to ask me about job search techniques, although there are lots of experts here.

          My first advice is to relax for a week. Settle down, get over the shock, and think about what your ideal job would look like. After the “trauma” of the layoff, you aren’t ready to interview just yet, you are probably still a little shell shocked. But you should take all the time you need to think through what you’d like to do, and that will form the basis of your plan, so take all the time you need.

          Going back to resit those courses is a good idea, even if you didn’t have an interest in pursuing that field. Getting into a pattern, will take your mind off the joblessness, keep your spirits up, keep you communicating. The worst thing you can do is to retreat into your shell.

          This is the time to re-establish your network. I spent time going to lunch with old friends and work colleagues. This is not to put the arm on them to help you. This is simply to let them know you are looking, and what you are looking for, so that if they hear of an opportunity, they let you know.

          I won’t bore you with everything at once.

          Feel free to peer mail me.

          James

        • #2753429

          I will be

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Sorry to hear, here is how I will help you

          taking you up on this offer James, thanks.

          Just going to take a few days to get things pulled together first.

          Thanks.

          jd

        • #2753039

          That’s rough—but don’t worry too much

          by notsochiguy ·

          In reply to Both

          In my experience, everything that I initially thought was bad (laid off during Dot Bomb period, divorce, etc) ended up for the best (better job, better wife, blue skies and green grass and all that).

          Chin up, chest out–I have no doubt you’ll end up the better for this, too!!

          Positive things happen to positive/good people; whether the media wants us to believe it or not!

        • #2753489

          never say die, huh? :D

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to That’s rough—but don’t worry too much

          This will work out.

        • #2753655

          Good luck

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Both

          With the kids to look out for, I especially wish you the best. I know Michigan is about the worst place to be looking for work in these times.

          Trucking companies use computer people, and have business that is often linked to economies out of your area. You might think about that as a temporary stop; pay is likely to be crappy, but better than unemployment. Any business that is based on the Michigan economy is likely to be in the dumpster, so look for somebody with more far-reaching/non-automotive economic activity instead.

          Again, best of luck.

        • #2753495

          Thanks

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Good luck

          been hearing of openings. some are just contract work, but still work. haven’t really started looking yet, as just getting all of my paperwork in order still.

          Will have a better handle on it next week.

          Thanks again.

          jd

        • #2753521

          JD

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Both

          Surely you have much better interests in life other than politics and what the Democratic “cult” is doing behind your back.

          Do the old sure-thing and get yoruself a job.

          Scour the phone book for companies that YOU feel need your skills, research them online (you can usually bypass gatekeepers and HR departments that way too, find the right contacts), screw recruiters and job boards, newspaper ads are responsible fo rless than 2% of jobs so that’s a waste fo time.

          Cold call, qualify and pitch your way into a new career, dictate your OWN salary, no what someone is offering ot fill an empty chair.

          You’ve heard it all before though, but I digress your efforts are best focused on things other than what a government you don’t like is doing, too late, the vote is over you have no choice but to leave the country for 4-8 years if you really want to change it.

        • #2753492

          I was hoping

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to JD

          to go to the space station for the next 4 years, but funding has been cut. 😀

          And yes, I have taken careful note of your job finding tips, each and everytime you bring them up. They will come in handy.

          Will probably knock out a cert (ccna) as an additional door opener though.

          My last few jobs in computers when they offered me the job, I walked away because they were not offering enough. They both came back with much better offers. I know that my time is valuable, and won’t take a crap job just to get a job, yet. 😀

        • #2753210

          Amen!

          by jackofalltech ·

          In reply to I have a hard time

          Imagine what our lives would be like if the Govt. only did what the constitution required.

        • #2753526

          Too true, Boxy

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I have a hard time

          That’s what I always said about the Canadian government, most Canadians completely ignore what they do or say. They rarely place the nation in danger, they rarely benefit anyone, they are just dorks with jobs in parliment.

          Nobody cares, and just get on with their lives. one thing you will never see is a Canadian calling a PM or those that vote for him a cult, but JD has a way with words when he wants to make an impact and troll for a good argument about nothing.

          The problem you face is that you actually CARE what the government does and you let it take over your lives. Like you say, do your own thing and get yourself ahead, screw what the government does, that’ll only slow you down.

      • #2754344

        Funny thing…

        by dhcdbd ·

        In reply to He is trying to lower expectations

        I noticed was that after the elections, after his (Obama’s) briefings began, he began to back down or away from previous positions.

        • #2754337

          Back down?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Funny thing…

          try run away?

        • #2754333

          Good point.

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Back down?

          🙂

        • #2754239

          All politicians do that.

          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Funny thing…

          I even heard one local politician say, the day after his election, that his policies would work if there was enough money to implement them. Hell, MY policies would work if there was enough money to implement them.

    • #2752347

      wow

      by cupcake ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      You have demonstrated a constant attack of the President since the day after the elections. Okay, I think everyone gets that you’re a Republican, and unhappy that the Republican party has been ousted from the helm in Washington.

      What’s the point? If you can accuse the President of “doing a grave disservice by his continued rhetoric”, what do you suppose you can be accused of?

      And you know what? I abhor negative people too. Especially those who cloak their negativity in a very badly veiled guise of being informative.

      Oh, and before I get it from your wingman, don’t bother. Don’t care to hear more of the same from him either.

      [Edited for misspelling]

      • #2754358

        eom

        by joer ·

        In reply to wow

      • #2754332

        Do not see where Max is

        by michael jay ·

        In reply to wow

        attacking the President, just stating the facts as he sees them.

        Curious point, who is his wing man?

        • #2754330

          My [i]wing man[/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Do not see where Max is

          Cupcake has this distorted belief that I’m a tried and true Republican (versus a person with a firm set of principled beliefs), and that jdclyde is my [i]wing man[/i], although we all know jd is his own man and speaks for himself. In short, she attacks the person instead of debating the position.

        • #2754324

          While I do not get into these political

          by michael jay ·

          In reply to My [i]wing man[/i]

          discussions to much, I love to follow them, and see where they go.

          Thanks for the clarification.

        • #2754233

          Sounds like she’s using Rules For a Radical # 13

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to My [i]wing man[/i]

          http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

          It’s easier than debating the issue.

        • #2754081

          Cool link

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Sounds like she’s using Rules For a Radical # 13

          And that is just her way of trying to hide how much she wants me. B-)

        • #2754325

          On occasion

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Do not see where Max is

          Person and position are not separable. One can animate the other. In the original, I can get the blade of a knife between them, just.

          Try again, Cupcake.

        • #2753523

          As HE sees them, of course.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Do not see where Max is

          I don’t see him as “attacking” the president, but I do agree that while he accuses Obama of rehtoric, that he displays the same much of the time, thinly veiled as factual information and not personal opinion.

          JD on the other hand is not Max’s wingman at all, he takes any opportunity he has to take comments out of context and create arguments that don’t exist, which most would deem trolling. He’ll buy any old BS that some nutter on the internet says about Obama and he’ll run with it as if it is fact.

          Using the term ‘his cult’ to refer to anyone that did not vote inline with himself? Therefore all democrats are a cult? How educated and informed such a ridiculous statement is!

          THAT is being a staunch republican that is all pi$$y because they didn’t win.

          Max just likes to vent on individual matters he doesn’t approve of, though he does tend to favour Republican ideals over Democratic, or at least stays pretty quiet when the repubs screw up.

        • #2748542

          I [i]favour Republican ideals over Democratic[/i]?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to As HE sees them, of course.

          Let’s see, Democrats or Baby Democrats (or as some call them, Democrat-Light).

          My ideals?

          After all this time you still can’t get it right? Come on, Oz.

          If you had to pigeon-hole my [i]ideals[/i] under the umbrella of one word, do you really think that word would be Republican? If so, you really haven’t been paying attention.

          So guess again. What would be that one word that might best describe my [i]ideals[/i] (politically speaking, of course)?

          ———- Edit for the following addition ———-

          What you meant to suggest, I’m sure, would be the answer to this question. Which of the major two, current-day political parties comes closest to representing my [i]ideals[/i]?

          Answer: the Republican Party.

          However, on a scale of 1 to 1,000, if the current Democratic Party could be described as being 900 miles away from my [i]ideals[/i] (leaving the last 100 miles of 1,000 for the extreme socialist), then the Republican Party might only be 800 miles away – and they’re closing-in fast going around the last turn.

          The Republican Party of 1980 was only 600 miles away.

          The Republican Party of 1960 was only 400 miles away.

          The Republican Party of 1920 was only 200 miles away.

          The party (or lack thereof) of Jefferson, Madison, and Washington was pretty spot on, regardless of what the party of the day was called.

          But the current-day horse race?

          Announcer at the horse race:

          [i]We have Democrat as the pace setter. But coming up on the inside is Republican closing in on Democrat. Republican is still gaining, behind by a length but closing in fast. Republican is trying to make a move to ….. Oh my, Republican is getting boxed-in at the rail ….. [/i]

        • #2748358

          Okay that’s fair

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I [i]favour Republican ideals over Democratic[/i]?

          I did choose from the two parties of today, and my only intent was that you are far more Republican leaning than Democrat. I know that you have expressed a dislike in much of the reoublicans actions, but you have always come across as a very conservative person and supported Bush like he was america’s hero. Just as you have also commented that I am more inline with a Conservative than a Democratic party too, however I don’t buy either party lock stock and barrel.

          Sorry, I will never pigeonhole you again, you are an all encompassing, political freebird. Damn now THAT song’s in my head!

          P.S. Great commentary though, I could almost see the jockey using the whip. Unfortunately if it was Bush in the lead, there’d be a post race judges inquiry for bad chads on the backstretch, with a jockeys inquiry to try to overrule that decision. [i]please hold all tickets[/i]LOL 😀

          badum-dum.

      • #2754328

        Prove your assertions

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to wow

        You said, [i]”You have demonstrated a constant attack of the President since the day after the elections.”[/i]

        Constant attack? Are you serious? I’ve NEVER attacked President Obama. Please prove your assertion.

        You said, [i]”Okay, I think everyone gets that you’re a Republican, and unhappy that the Republican party has been ousted from the helm in Washington.”[/i]

        Actually, I’m a philosophical Libertarian, closer to the Thomas Jefferson and James Madison train of thought. Democrats, in my estimation, are Socialists in sheep’s clothing, while Republicans are no more than Baby Democrats. (Do a TR search for [i]Baby Democrats[/i] and you’ll see many such references.)

        You said, [i]”What’s the point? If you can accuse the President of “doing a grave disservice by his continued rhetoric”, what do you suppose you can be accused of?”[/i]

        Feel free to accuse me of speaking my mind. I care greatly about this country, and I’m concerned about the disastrous direction it has taken.

        You said, [i]”And you know what? I abhor negative people too. Especially those who cloak their negativity in a very badly veiled guise of being informative.”[/i]

        What? Care to make some sense?

        You said, [i]”Oh, and before I get it from your wingman, don’t bother. Don’t care to hear more of the same from him either.”[/i]

        jdclyde deserves enormous credit for speaking his mind, regardless of the personal attacks levied against him by the likes of you. Your constant attacks on the person, and evasiveness of debating the issues speaks volumes about you.

        I’ve invited you on more than one occasion to debate the issues, but you insist on attacking the person. The invitation stands, but your message in this instance proves your motives as I described.

    • #2754194

      I don’t know about anyone else.

      by boxfiddler ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      But I like to choose whether or not to wear my rose-colored glasses. I don’t want them shoved in my face for me.

      • #2754186

        My sentiments exactly, except. . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to I don’t know about anyone else.

        I like to choose whether or not to wear my doom-colored glasses. I don’t want them shoved in my face for me, but I can’t listen to a politician or reporter without having just that done – day after day after day after………….

    • #2754065

      Election year demagoguery

      by road-dog ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      Talking down the economy is a time tested election ploy. Every 4 years the economy is painted as the worst in 50 years, etc.

      This is different. The expectations of the messiah were left so open ended that they must be re-calibrated now. The way to do so while justifying grandiose increases in spending is to paint the picture as bleakly as possible. Then ANY measure is justified to a populace that has an incredibly low threshold of pain.

      We as Americans are getting exactly what we clamor for. Not a leader but a “savior”. We have become a shadow of the tough “can do” America of our grandparent’s time.

      The change we need is to get back to the solid self-reliance of our forefathers. This way is a disaster in the making….

      • #2754058

        Selling out tomorrow for today

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Election year demagoguery

        It is a shame, everything and everyone is so short sighted.

      • #2754026

        I can not agree with you more.

        by dhcdbd ·

        In reply to Election year demagoguery

        Pardon the above tirade. It was asked for, and I will not apologize; some people are so bent about belittling others or mis-stating what they say to spin as propaganda for their good…

        One of the points, I hope came about in that tirade is that we need to do for ourselves. If we can not, then we, as a nation, are doomed. It may take a while, but nonetheless.

        How can we do for ourselves. While not really practical at this time, I feel that even though I buy foreign for whatever reason (primarily either lack of American production or poor American quality), we should buy from companies that produce over here. We need to first concern ourselves with our own dirt box and people. While import/export does in fact produce jobs, it produces fewer jobs than are outsourced. You can not consume without some medium of exchange and you can not exchange without some medium of production.

        One of the primary reasons the Vietnamese rose from poor immigrant status to middle and lower upper class in ten years was because they first spent money in their own circle (communities), with other Vietnamese, then bought from outsiders. This theory of microeconomics has a trickle up effect and supports the entire group, both directly and indirectly. In short, they relied on themselves first and one others only when they had to.

        • #2752878

          Self inflicted trade deficit

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to I can not agree with you more.

          I couldn’t agree more. We need to work on our own house first. Unfortunately we are the world’s largest consumer but never seem to use that to enforce fair trade. It is time for Americans to put their money where their mouth is as relates to the checkout line.

          Our pursuit of a bigger better lifestyle has caused us to enrich nations that now have a dangerous amount of our debt. If China were to “dump” debt and cause the world to see that we as Americans cannot pay, we will be in deep doggie doo. After all, the whole system is built on confidence. If that confidence is shaken, we will go from a position of power to being at the mercy of our creditors. Imagine China militarily taking Taiwan back and threatening to dump debt and hammer the dollar. We would almost certainly capitulate and abandon an ally.

          Superpowers stay superpowers only as long as they can project power.

        • #2752836

          the tough thing

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Self inflicted trade deficit

          [i]Unfortunately we are the world’s largest consumer but never seem to use that to enforce fair trade.[/i]

          is defining ‘fair’. I know WE think that fair is what WE do, and that anything done differently by someone else is inherently UNFAIR, but is it?

          Personally I think we’ve created most of our own problems. We have put roadblocks in the way of our businesses that businesses in other countries don’t have, giving them an advantage… and somehow I don’t think the answer is going to be forcing them to do things our way…

    • #2752914

      your views

      by jck ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      Some of your statements I see some sense in, if put into terms of definitive actions by the Obama administration that warranted such negative reebuttment.

      However:

      – Your proposal that Obama’s “gloom and doom” is what will keep the economy down I think is a bit judgemental and foreshadowing. I think the prudent thing to do would be to see if Obama’s realism and honest statements give American confidence in his honesty rather than the fluff and over-optimistic statements of the previous administration.

      – Considering the policies of the previous administration, as well as the previous president’s constant statements of the economy and American people being “well” and “strong”, I would think that America would enjoy someone who took a tactful, reasonable, logical, factual and direct approach to presenting the American people with what was really happening, rather than a “pep talk” and wishful thinking.

      – Your statement that:
      [i]The latter is simply a blatant lie, not even close to being true.[/i]
      in reference to:
      [i]…..claiming that our economy is in the worst shape since the great depression.[/i]
      is simply inaccurate.

      Facts:
      Stock market:
      Great Depression- Fell 80% from its highs in a year (1929-1930).
      Today – Market has fallen by almost 50% from 14,164 (Oct 2007) to 7,552 (Nov 2008)…the worst since the great depression.

      Unemployment:
      Great Depression- Before the market crash in 1929 (when there were no stop gaps in place to keep it from crashing), unemployment stood at about 3%. It rose to 8% the following year.
      Today- in 2007 when the housing market and economy began it’s big downturn, national unemployment was already at about 4.5%. Current estimates as of December 2008 show it at about 7% and climbing.

      Economics:
      Great Depression- The government didn’t pour $1T+ into the economy within 24 months to slow the bleeding. Only an major act to help farmers was passed within the first 2 years.
      Today- The government has committed $700B to banks, $100Bs more to automakers, and another est. $800B to other endeavors to stop things from happening like they did in the Great Depression.

      Then, your statement of:

      [i]Less government, not more; more personal responsibility, not less; more economic freedom, not less; these are the only long-term solutions out of the financial mess that’s been growing since the failed policies of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal drove the first nail into the coffin of economic freedom. People are most free when they’re most economically free. This growing financial dependence on government only tightens the shackles of economic slavery.[/i]

      You propose that Roosevelt’s “New Deal” drove a “nail into the coffin” of economic freedom. I might agree with this, in the fact that economic freedom was dead and needed to be buried. This is because all the freedoms exercised by families like the Morgans and DuPonts had, in concert with worsening farm conditions during the dust bowl, driven this country into a recession; much as has happened today (less a dust bowl, and in place a massive trade surplus).

      Roosevelt’s actions in the 2-3 years following his election (along with those of a Congress taken over by Democrats) fueled a recovery in this nation.

      Facts:
      1929-30 rise in unemployment:5.5% to 8.7
      1929-30 GNP drops 9.4%

      1930-31 rise in unemployment:7.2% to 15.9
      1930-31 GNP drops 8.5%

      1931-32 rise in unemployment:7.7% to 23.6
      1931-32 GNP drops 13.4%

      Roosevelt inaugurated Jan 1933:

      1932-33 rise in unemployment:1.3% to 24.9
      1932-33 GNP drops 2.1%

      1933-34 [b]fall[/b] in unemployment:3.2% to 21.7
      1933-34 GNP [b]gains[/b] 7.7%

      1934-35 [b]fall[/b] in unemployment:1.6% to 20.1
      1934-35 GNP [b]gains[/b] 8.1%

      1935-36 [b]fall[/b] in unemployment:3.2% to 16.9
      1935-36 GNP [b]gains[/b] 14.1%

      You can’t argue with facts: Roosevelt’s policies that you claim cripple and kill economic freedom…brought back the economy to be free and brought it back to life.

      You seem to fixate on the concept that Obama wants to control business. I think that this is true, in respect to the financial lending that is going on to banks, automakers, etc. He has seen the lack of constraints already put upon them, and how they have crassly paid billions in bonuses from these monies even though they claimed to be broke and in dire straits. Obama has showed his dismay with this, and vowed to the American people that he won’t stand for it any longer.

      I think that Obama has taken a new direction. He speaks directly to issues, and doesn’t dance around them or make vague positives that he can alter his meaning on later. He gives the truth, and wants America to take a realistic approach to where we are, were we are headed, and what we need to do and change to make sure that direction is a positive one.

      You call it doom and gloom.

      I call it realism.

      The day Obama announces “America is strong” in the middle of recession, or that it is “Mission Accomplished” when our military task is not yet done…then I will begin to think the man is just more of what happened in the previous administration.

      Until then, I will let him have his opportunity to guide the country on a new path from the previous 8 years and see where it takes us.

      It really can’t be any worse, in my opinion.

      I’d encourage you to be more positive and give the man more than 10 days in office to make a difference.

      • #2752891

        The rest of the story

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to your views

        1930 – 8 percent
        1931 – 16 percent
        1932 – 24 percent
        1933 – 25 percent
        1934 – 22 percent
        1935 – 20 percent
        1936 – 17 percent
        1937 – 14 percent
        1938 – 19 percent
        1939 – 17 percent
        1940 – 14 percent
        1941 – 10 percent
        1942 – 5 percent

        (Of course, it was the War Economy that lifted people into the employment ranks.)

        Sure, you could argue that Roosevelt’s New Deal programs prevented the unemployment rate from going even higher, but that’s pure speculation. There’s absolutely no way to know. It’s not speculation, however, to suggest those New Deal programs failed to keep it at 8 percent. That’s a lot of years of failure for a guy to get so much credit.

        Add the abysmal New Deal failure to the fact that it set the stage for exponential growth in government with even more and more socialist-type programs, and it’s easy to see why libertarians point to 1932 as the beginning of the end of America as it was intended to be.

        And you didn’t represent my words exactly as intended.

        I did not say that [i]Obama’s “gloom and doom” is what will keep the economy down[/i].

        I said that it, [i]”will only serve to prolong the lagging economy, and, in essence, help this self-fulfilling prophecy become reality.”[/i]

        You implied that I said it was the only factor, while I clearly implied it was only one of the factors.

        (Kinda’ like the constant [i]less government[/i] means [i]no government[/i] thing.

        Edit:

        (Not necessarily to your message, jck.)

        I might also add, the Great Depression was not a uniquely American occurrence. It was world-wide, and to point the finger of blame to things only American is not accurate. Heck, the United States wasn’t even the world’s economic leader during the first half of the 20th century like it became after the war.

        I’d never argue for unbridled and unrestricted capitalism. And like any system, it grows and evolves over time, and we should fix its missteps. But more and more government control over the system is not the only answer, and I would argue that it’s the wrong answer.

        I find it ironic how people on the left quoted Benjamin Franklin when arguing against national security measures to track down terrorists, but they don’t use the same quote when it comes to capitalism and financial security – the very thing to which the quote was probably referring.

        (I paraphrase)

        [i]Those who give up essential liberty in exchange for more security will get or deserve neither.[/i]

        • #2752874

          what is real failure tho?

          by jck ·

          In reply to The rest of the story

          [i](Of course, it was the War Economy that lifted people into the employment ranks.)[/i]

          Yes, in that last push. However, war-oriented industrialization was not in full swing until 1942. 9 years previous, Roosevelt had begun to bring things back into place. His programs in an 8 year timeframe reduced unemployment by 60 percent.

          Can you offer proof contrary to the number that you and I both have posted?

          Probably not.

          [i]Sure, you could argue that Roosevelt’s New Deal programs prevented the unemployment rate from going even higher, but that’s pure speculation.[/i]

          Speculation? It seems that with the changing of presidents and a new direction, the economy turned around for years following that and the transition of Congress to Democratic control.

          You would argue it had little or nothing to do with it?

          I would say the statistics showed that the change in administration and their programs made the economy turn around.

          Can you show proof otherwise?

          [i] It’s not speculation, however, to suggest those New Deal programs failed to keep it at 8 percent. That’s a lot of years of failure for a guy to get so much credit.[/i]

          True. However, how could someone implement programs to make the economic downslide stop immediately? It’s not possible, and that’s a very utopian ideal to think could ever exist in reality of economic trends and financial
          markets.

          Do you have some miraculous way of making that happen? If so, I bet you could be the first trillionaire in history and I’d like to invest in things centered around your programs. I’d like to get rich quick too.

          [i]And you didn’t represent my words exactly as intended. [/i]

          Perhaps I didn’t. However, your words tend to shine the light on his direction as what will do no good. You tend to say how real numbers and facts from the past don’t show anything but speculation. But in reality, they show what happened once programs were set in place and their effect during the course of the Great Depression.

          On the other hand, you can only [b]purely speculate[/b] on what “will only serve” and “become” in the future, because you can’t say for sure and have no statistics, facts, or proof of what it will do. Yours is purely a guess, while what I have presented is fact.

          As well, let’s show the complete trends of the economy, not just unemployment:

          Tax Federal GNP Unemp.
          Year Receipts Spending Growth Rate
          ————————————————-
          1929 — — — 3.2%
          1930 4.2% 3.4% – 9.4% 8.7
          1931 3.7 4.3 – 8.5 15.9
          1932 2.9 7.0 -13.4 23.6
          1933 3.5 8.1 – 2.1 24.9
          1934 4.9 10.8 + 7.7 21.7
          1935 5.3 9.3 + 8.1 20.1
          1936 5.1 10.6 +14.1 16.9
          1937 6.2 8.7 + 5.0 14.3
          1938 7.7 7.8 – 4.5 19.0
          1939 7.2 10.4 + 7.9 17.2
          1940 6.9 9.9
          1941 7.7 12.1
          1942 10.3 24.8
          1943 13.7 44.8
          1944 21.7 45.3
          1945 21.3 43.7

          source:http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

          Simply put, Roosevelt and the Congress enacted things from 1933-1940 which spurred economic growth, dropped unemployment, and brought the GNP back to a decent (although not totally recovered) level.

          Perhaps WWII was the “nail in the coffin” of The Great Depression, but it was not what miraculously corrected everything when it “…lifted people into the employment ranks.” 7 years of statistics show that government did good before the USA being involved in WWII.

          In fact, pre-war unemployment dropped the year previous to the USA entering WWII almost as much as our first year in it…and that is going by your own numbers.

          Hence, I stand to believe I will (unlike yourself) give Obama a chance to prove himself rather than be a nay-sayer of events not yet to happen and outcomes not yet to be seen.

          I think you should point at the real failures of administrations, such as Bush’s, which have done little (if any) good for the American people.

          And, perhaps you can take a positive stand about a new president who speaks to the American people in clear, honest, direct, logical, and sensible ways.

          The previous 8 years of believing in big business to do right has corroded our economy.

          Perhaps the time is now to have an administration and Congress who will put their faith back into the American people rather than the American business sector.

          (edited because the editor isn’t WYSIWYG…and blank space removal means I have to HTML the damned thing)

        • #2752833

          A more accurate picture

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to what is real failure tho?

          of the effects of the New Deal can be shown by comparing changes in conditions in the US to changes in conditions world-wide. I will attempt this comparison when I have some more time.

        • #2752823

          conditions elsewhere

          by jck ·

          In reply to A more accurate picture

          From my reading, the only country that I gathered had a higher unemployment rate at that time was Germany.

          I would like to see the information you pull…and as to whether or not American steps to improve economic conditions, and the improvements that happened thereafter, actually were followed by economic improvement abroad as well.

        • #2748591

          Still haven’t had time do delve deeply, but

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to conditions elsewhere

          on the surface it appears that the effects in most other countries were similar, and close enough time wise to show that the US didn’t recover any faster (and in fact maybe a little slower) than countries that didn’t have the “New Deal”.

      • #2752879

        By the way, a friendly challenge to you

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to your views

        On the [i]Mission Accomplished[/i] banner.

        Please tell us the FULL and TRUE story of the events behind that banner, and the words President Bush said while standing in front of it. What did those spoken words mean? Who’s idea was it to put up that banner, and for what reason?

        I strongly doubt if you’ll accept my challenge, because it won’t suit your purpose of continually misrepresenting all things Bush. But perhaps someone else will.

        • #2752858

          full and true?

          by jck ·

          In reply to By the way, a friendly challenge to you

          Or, spin? I’m sure you’ll find a reason to excuse it for happening, since you tend to always put Bush in a positive light…even though he’s more liberal than any Democrat.

          Fact is:

          The Bush administration [b]knew and participated in the making of[/b] that banner (research Scott McClellan, then White House Spokesman’s own statements) and in particular his statement that said they (the White house) arranged for it to be made for the Department of the Navy and to be flown on the vessel during Bush’s speech.

          If the Bush administration had misgivings about the message that would be communicated from that banner, they would not have allowed it. They f***ed up. Plain and simple.

          Bush himself even said during the speech that:

          [i]”In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”[/i]

          Funny. I don’t see US troops leaving there after prevailing and having accomplished their goal of liberating the Iraqi people and, as Bush himself said, “…bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.”

          I still see reports about insurgent attacks all over Iraq daily, and including in parts of Baghdad which was supposedly secured for the most part long ago.

          Neither liberation of the Iraqi people nor muting of insurgent violence has been suppressed for any duration.

          The agreement for the White House to participate in the making of and the allowance of that banner to be flown during Bush’s speech was, along with other decisions, simply a bad move.

          It is yet another example of the incompetence of his administration and staff to take the proper steps to communicate a clear and proper message to the American people.

          Can you provide evidence to the contrary that:

          – The White House arranged the making of that banner for the Dept. of the Navy?

          – The White House knew it was to be flown on the USS Abraham Lincoln during Bush’s speech?

          – That Bush stated in his speech that the US military had “prevailed”?

          Do you not believe is was a blunder? A bad move? A stupid PR exercise?

          If I were to go and give a full account of all the information I have read about that whole timeline, I’d have to make this post a whole series of documentaries.

          And, I don’t have time for that. I have work to do.

        • #2752749

          Side question

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to full and true?

          [i]”troops leaving there after prevailing”[/i]

          One objective was finished.

          He was ill-advised to start a second objective, that was a result of the first, correct?

          Once at that point, should Bush have pulled out and left the power vacuum? In a savage region where people rule by fear and perversion of religion?

          ===============================

          You have said Bush is more liberal than any Democrat. Are you saying now that liberal is bad?

          ===============================

          Do you really think insurgents coming from other countries to attack the new Iraqi government is Bush’s fault? Remember, the Iraqi government and civilians have been the main targets of the insurgents, not the US military.

        • #2753036

          Bush’s biggest, dumbest mistake was…

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Side question

          …not really having any idea what he was going to do in Iraq. I mean, no realistic idea. So, he did not actually have a national strategy for our intervention in Iraq, and just kind of let the invasion happen, with each department doing its thing, with the craftiest bureaucrats having the greatest power over national policy.

          I can only speculate about this, because I wasn’t in the middle of it. But looking at the way it happened, with Cheney and others working up a private intelligence analysis service to compete with the CIA, and Rumsfeld determining the level of forces and the pacification policy, and utter amateurs handed the job of reconstruction, and the army stumbling without direction for three years… you have to conclude that nobody ever said, “A, B, and C are the primary goals of the United States, and X, Y, and Z are what we’ll do to meet them.” The whole war was, and continues to be, a morass of complications without a defining objective that directs and limits our effort.

          When you lead a nation into war, you have to lead, and he didn’t. Completely apart from the reasons for going to war, without regard to whether it was justified or not, once you get there, you have to take it seriously and manage it properly. My estimation of Bush is that he set approximate goals for his Defense Department and his army, and was hands off after that.

        • #2752848

          other information

          by jck ·

          In reply to By the way, a friendly challenge to you

          just for the FULL and TRUE story of what Bush thought of the situation upon his departure from the White House:

          [i][u]In November 2008, Bush indicated that he regretted the use of the banner, stating in a CNN interview, “To some, it said, well, ‘Bush thinks the war in Iraq is over,’ when I didn’t think that. It conveyed the wrong message.”

          In January 2009, Bush said that “Clearly, putting ‘Mission Accomplished’ on an aircraft carrier was a mistake”.[/u][/i]

          – Wikipedia

          Bush admitted…it was a bad move…communicated the wrong message…and was a mistake…by HIS staff and administration.

          At least he’s admitting he’s wrong about having done it.

          You could admit he was wrong now too.

        • #2752765

          You will always see all things Bush in a negative light

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to other information

          President Bush said, [i]”Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country….. We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. Our mission continues….. The War on Terror continues, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide.”[/i]

          Well, major combat operations – as defined by the military – did end. [i]Major combat operations[/i] is defined as fighter engaging fighter; tank engaging tank; army engaging army. The next step was, as President Bush said, [i]engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. Major combat operations[/i] were over, while [i]engaging in securing and reconstructing that country[/i] had just begun.

          The decision to put up that [i]Mission Accomplished[/i] banner was because of a request made by the personnel on the USS Abraham Lincoln, not by President Bush, personally, and not by anyone in his administration. These sailors were on their way home after being deployed off the coast of Iraq. Their families and loved ones would be waiting at the port to greet them. The sailors would be lined up around the ship in their Navy Whites. The crew was not only proud to have [i][b]Accomplished[/i][/b] their [i][b]Mission[/i][/b], but to actually have the President of the United States land on their ship.

          Did the president showboat by landing on the carrier? Sure, you could make that argument. But people like their presidents to showboat, and presidents do it all the time. But people also love to criticize such things if the president in question happens to be one of the opposing party.

          The banner was much ado about nothing, or it should have been. However, the political opposition in the Democratic Party (including those in the media) decided to make hay out of it in their on-going attempts to discredit a president they absolutely loathed, and they painted it in the most negative light they possibly could. Heck, they could have painted it in a positive light just as easily – something they would have done for Clinton, or Obama, or Kennedy, or FDR.

          It was political smear, pure and simple. To suggest otherwise is only engaging in the political smear yourself.

          Was it a mistake, as President Bush said during his last days in office? Sure it was. He should have foreseen how his political enemies could have used the whole thing against him. My biggest criticism of President Bush is that he left so many political smears against him go unanswered. He should have fought back as vigorously as he was being attacked.

        • #2752745

          The problem with the speech, Max

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to You will always see all things Bush in a negative light

          People that pre-hated Bush didn’t listen to it.

          The only thing that was done was to look for things to pick apart.

          If there would have been support for the efforts instead of every chance to talk about how our military is bombing women and children, or terrorizing them in their homes, would the enemy been embolden to continue?

        • #2752738

          The enemy cares little for the rhetoric

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to The problem with the speech, Max

          They know about propaganda, they come to expect it. They use it themselves.

          Speeches, whether its Ossama or Bush, are generally for your own friends consumption. They do little to stir the masses in another country. Though the “Axis of Evil” remark did have an impact in Iran, it wasn’t one that worked well for the US, it would be one of the exceptions.

          The US military did do collatoral damage and innocent women and children (and men) were killed. Thats almost unavoidable in a bombing campaign. I’m sure that the US took great care to avoid it, but again, it was inevitable that it would happen, and that was the greatest weapon in the enemy’s propaganda arsenal.

          The purpose of parading Jane Fonda on Vietnamese TV was not to get south Vietnamese to join the Viet Cong cause, but to cause disruption at home. You can’t say it wasn’t effective at that purpose, but I doubt many people actually changed their minds because of it.

          James

        • #2753249

          Feeding the enemys propaganda

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The enemy cares little for the rhetoric

          is not something either Kerry or Obama should have been doing.

          And just like we see in Gaza, a weaker, inferior force can claim victory via the world media where they would never have a chance in hell on the battle field.

        • #2753067

          What did Obama or Kerry do?

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to The enemy cares little for the rhetoric

          To negatively impact the lives of the soldiers fighting for the US?

          As to Gaza, Hamas didn’t have to do anything in terms of propaganda. Independent reports, from UN officials, NGOs who were in Gaza at the time all reported war crimes like using white phosphorus shells in built up areas. The UN told Israel about a couple of buildings that it was using (one a school) to house non-combatant refugees, and both were subsequently hit. So Hamas didn’t have to say a word.

          So who is responsible for the great increase in support for Hamas, and the decrease in support for Abbas’ Palestinian authority (who rule in the west bank)? Israel solidified that move of people to support Hamas when it attacked areas with significant civilian populations, killed many civilians, destroyed many civilian homes.

          James

        • #2753046

          What they did

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The enemy cares little for the rhetoric

          To have a presidential candidate say our troops are terrorizing women and children in their homes, no, that doesn’t build a negative world image, does it?

          When Obama says we are bombing innocent women and children, what does that say?

          Both of them make it sound like we are targeting civilians, something that is untrue (lie).

          As for Hamas, it is amazing that they can hide like cockroaches, and then because they were not all killed while hiding among civilians, they can claim a victory? And the civilians that were killed because Hamas put them in the cross-hairs, are the fault of Israel… Stupidity at its finest, as NEITHER should be seen by the citizens as allies. They can embrace Hamas, all the way to their graves, as the rockets are already flying again.

        • #2753025

          quotes about killing women and children

          by jck ·

          In reply to The enemy cares little for the rhetoric

          [i][u]jdclyde said[/u]:
          What they did
          To have a presidential candidate say our troops are terrorizing women and children in their homes, no, that doesn’t build a negative world image, does it?

          When Obama says we are bombing innocent women and children, what does that say?

          Both of them make it sound like we are targeting civilians, something that is untrue (lie).

          As for Hamas, it is amazing that they can hide like cockroaches, and then because they were not all killed while hiding among civilians, they can claim a victory? And the civilians that were killed because Hamas put them in the cross-hairs, are the fault of Israel… Stupidity at its finest, as NEITHER should be seen by the citizens as allies. They can embrace Hamas, all the way to their graves, as the rockets are already flying again.[/i]

          Is this the quote you are claiming Obama made to inflame tensions?

          [i]”We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”[/i]

          You think that’s inflamatory????

          This is inflamatory:

          [i]”America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers. We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi. “[/i] -Rev. Jeremiah Wright

          THAT is inflamatory.

          Obama is simply stating FACT.

          More troops on the ground means less indiscriminate attacks against general targets (buildings), and more direct focus put on individuals we know are terrorist and less chance of hurting innocents in the process.

          He isn’t meaning to inflame anything. He’s stating the obvious.

          Of course, you’re going to attack him if he says one little thing the wrong way.

          Too bad you couldn’t have treated Bush the same way.

          At least Obama speaks clear, complete, well-pronounced sentences and doesn’t lollygag around the point with vague jargon and indirect answers.

        • #2753638

          When Israel puts Palestinians in ghettos

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to The enemy cares little for the rhetoric

          Deprives them of the basics of life (access to clean water, food), denies them the right to work in Israel, denies them freedom of movement, restricts imports of food, medicine etc., what do you expect.

          I abhor Hamas. But they voted for Abbas and the Palestinian authority on the promise that some day they would have a country of their own, and it has failed, time and time again, mainly due to Isreali stonewalling and gamesmanship, I’m not suprised that they now support Hamas, and reject the moderates.

          I would remind you that your country fought a revolution over taxation without representation. The Palestinians would be happy if they had income to tax.

          James

        • #2748558

          Hamas steals food and supplies from the UN

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The enemy cares little for the rhetoric

          I am guessing so they can pretend to be the ones to give it out.

          The locals will eat it up, won’t they?

          http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_gaza_hamas_un

          I also noticed this report disappeared very quickly from they yahoo news. Went back a few minutes later to find this link and all traces were gone from their site. Had to go through my history to find it. Coincidence?

        • #2748547

          This time I think so, JD

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The enemy cares little for the rhetoric

          [i]Coincidence? [/i]

          If you go to yahoo news – World – Middle east, it’s still listed. It’s also still on most AP sites, Myway, for example.

        • #2754917

          beware of Yahoo!

          by jck ·

          In reply to The enemy cares little for the rhetoric

          They are Palestinian terrorist backers! :^0

          all praise sheik …Carol Bartz?!?!?! lol

          too funny.

        • #2752719

          total bull$hit

          by jck ·

          In reply to The problem with the speech, Max

          I not only watched it LIVE, I have read it over a couple dozen times.

          Bush was:

          a) Wrong (he admitted that)
          b) Ill-prepared
          c) Ill-advised

          I didn’t look for anything to pick apart…it’s glaringly there.

          1) Troops and equipment have, until the past few months, escalated since May 2003 there. So an end to “major combat operations” there was a crock or they would have scaled down their presence.

          2) It is well known and has been shown in various investigations by private and covert sources around the world that members of several ruling families in the middle east have been supportive of terrorist activities (whether financially or harboring fleeing individuals). If Bush would have meant what he said, we’d have cut off Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen and Iran long ago.

          3) The country has not been secured since we got there. We didn’t secure the borders when we moved in to stop terrorist insurgency once Saddam fell from power. Terrorists flooded in after Saddam was killed. They weren’t there when Saddam was alive, so we basically made it more unstable.

          Oh…and more BS rhetoric about Afghanistan that Bush blurbbed:

          [i]
          In the Battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists, and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals, and educate all of their children. Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a special operations task force, led by the 82nd Airborne, is on the trail of the terrorists, and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan. America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.
          [/i]

          WE DESTROYED THE TALIBAN hahahahaahhaahhaha

          That is why they are taking villages back over now…we destroyed them.

          What a CROCK.

        • #2752727

          i will point out negatives, thank you

          by jck ·

          In reply to You will always see all things Bush in a negative light

          [i]Was it a mistake, as President Bush said during his last days in office? Sure it was.[/i]

          Thanks for finally admitting I’m right.

          [i]He should have foreseen how his political enemies could have used the whole thing against him. My biggest criticism of President Bush is that he left so many political smears against him go unanswered. He should have fought back as vigorously as he was being attacked.[/i]

          So, it’s his “enemies” fault that his staff (the White House staff) didn’t evaluate the situation? That Bush himself didn’t look things over?

          Wow. First time I’ve ever heard the blame for a President’s blunder and that of his staff blamed on anyone not even involved and employed by the White House.

          Nice try to blame it on others, but Bush took the blame for it eventually. Let the man have credit for what he admits.

          At least he is not so stupid that he can admit he was stupid.

          BTW…that’s a very nice set of “…..” you put in there. Nice way to leave out context to try and twist it to fit your POV.

          Fact is, major combat operations didn’t end there. If you reference the DOD’s own statistics, the number of ground troops, armored units, and aircraft has increased since that speech…not declined. Any newspaper or magazine article will tell you that.

          So, how you or even anyone at the Pentagon can say that “major combat operations” has ceased when numbers from all aspects have ramped up? you are either sadly delusional, misdirected, or just flat-out wrong.

          I’ll go with all 3.

          Maybe you and the DoD should have changed that term to “initial combat operations”…that would been more accurate.

          Let’s also point out something else that shows just how much BS that whole speech was:

          [i]
          The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al-Qaida, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

          In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused, and deliberate, and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th ? the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.

          Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all:

          Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice.

          Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.

          Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups, and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction, is a grave danger to the civilized world, and will be confronted.

          And anyone in the world, including the Arab world, who works and sacrifices for freedom has a loyal friend in the United States of America.
          [/i]

          Well, here’s the things I’d point out about that part of the speech:

          1) Iraq hasn’t been liberated in any aspect: we’re still there, and the terrorists are still there attacking our soldiers, other country’s soldiers, and the innocent population.

          2) If Bush was against governments who, in part or majority, support terrorist activity (operationally or financially), he’d be “liberating” 3/4 of the middle eastern states. Iraq was just the softest target and the one that the least flack would come from “liberating”.

          3) No significant al-Qaeda based operation was ever in Iraq, because there was none. Saddam squashed ANYONE who threatened his power…terrorist or otherwise.

          4) There was never any risk of them getting weapons of mass destruction from Saddam… because he had NONE. That has been stated by DoD and UN weapons experts.

          So…maybe Bush didn’t fight back…because…he knew he was wrong?

          It wasn’t political smear. It was the truth. Bush’s own White House staff failed to adequately prepare him, write his speeches, and make sure that the proper environment was set for those speeches.

          And, Bush didn’t have the guts to stand up for himself in at least one way; getting rid of the incompetents in his own staff who didn’t protect and maintain an image of a somewhat cognizant and articulate leader of our country.

          But of course, I guess you’re another one of those who says “Who cares what the rest of the world thinks about us?”

          Right?

        • #2753266

          Let me use that logic…

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to i will point out negatives, thank you

          [i]Fact is, major combat operations didn’t end there. If you reference the DOD’s own statistics, the number of ground troops, armored units, and aircraft has increased since that speech…not declined. Any newspaper or magazine article will tell you that.

          So, how you or even anyone at the Pentagon can say that “major combat operations” has ceased when numbers from all aspects have ramped up? you are either sadly delusional, misdirected, or just flat-out wrong.

          I choose all three[/i]

          Numbers don’t matter. As Max pointed out (and you ignored), “major combat operations” in military-speak usually refers to army-on-army operations at the major unit level (brigade or larger). Iraq is a major operation, no question, but combat is no longer the primary mission.

          Would you accept that major combat operations in Europe didn’t end until the mid-90s? No? Why not? A great many troops left after 1945, but there were still American deaths from hostile action and the number of troops subsequently increased.

          Your logic of numbers merely shows your ignorance of the subject.

          edit: clarify

        • #2753247

          If someone wants to believe something badly enough

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          they will talk themselves into it.

          Some just have an irrational an insane hate for all that is Bush. It really is a phobia.

          Will the same people ever look objectively at anything that is the Obama? Not likely.

        • #2753187

          JD… its your little pastry :-)

          by cupcake ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          If someone wants to believe something badly enough
          they will talk themselves into it.

          Some just have an irrational an insane hate for all that is Obama. It really is a phobia.

          Will the same people ever look objectively at anything that is the Obama? Not likely.

          Couldn’t have said it better myself. Thanks JD!

        • #2753137

          my ignorance?

          by jck ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          As the son of an Army man, and nephew to several retired military personnel who I was raised around including a decorated Pearl Harbor survivor who I was named after:

          Let me correct you, Nick…and your ignorance.

          “Major combat operations” has nothing to do with “army-on-army operations at the major unit level (brigade or larger).”.

          You are flat out wrong there, and so is Max.

          Proof?

          There is no army-to-army engagement in Afghanistan.

          Major combat operations has nothing to do with official squad, troop, batallion, regiment, division, or brigade level of engagement.

          Major combat operations refers to a massive deployment and engagement of our military into a particular theatre.

          My proof of this?

          http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2003-05/a-2003-05-01-11-Coalition.cfm

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2634-2003May1?language=printer

          Now…please, Nick and Max…PLEASE…tell me you know more about the military and what “major combat operations” means than Former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.

          I beg you…do it.

          You and Max, despite what you think your expertise is, are making zero sense and haven’t a clue.

          Anyways…if you don’t agree…go argue with Rumsfeld and other qualified, bonafide military experts who do/did it for a living.

          Thanks for trying tho, Nick. Your effort was valiant.

        • #2753133

          i find it quite funny

          by jck ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          That jdclyde sided with Nick and Max who were 100% wrong about military venacular, yet I’m the one who’ll twist anything to my belief.

          You three should go have a “…but I have…” party and see who thinks they know the most. :^0

        • #2753116

          [i]Major Combat Operations[/i] Defined

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          [i]Major combat operations as referred to in this Joint Operating Concept are large-scale operations conducted against a [b]nation state(s)[/b] that possesses significant regional military capability, with global reach in selected capabilities, and the will to employ that capability in opposition to or in a manner threatening to US National Security.

          This future adversary will likely possess weapons of mass destruction and significant anti-access capabilities. This concept describes an operational-level approach to warfighting and conflict resolution that exploits the capability of all instruments of national and multinational power to achieve full spectrum dominance over an organized and capable adversary. It proposes a blending of diverse national and coalition nonmilitary capabilities with an overmatching military force.[/i]

          I believe [b][i]Nation State[/i][/b] is the key word, here – especially in the way it was used as discussed in this [i]discussion[/i].

          If you, jck, want to disagree, feel free. But in doing so, you also disagree with President Bush’s intent, which means you somehow are a friggin’ mind-reader.

          Even President Bush admits to his mistakes. Be a man and admit to yours.

          Source:

          http://www.dtic.mil/jointvision/draftmco_joc.doc

        • #2753112

          From jck’s very own link:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          jck said, [i]”Now…please, Nick and Max…PLEASE…tell me you know more about the military and what ‘major combat operations’ means than Former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld….. I beg you…do it.”[/i]

          No, I won’t disagree with Former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. In fact, I’ll use his own words to support MY argument:

          [i]U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, says coalition military efforts in Afghanistan [b]will shift from major combat operations [/b]to efforts to improve security. The U.S. defense secretary met in Kabul with Afghanistan’s interim president, Hamid Karzai, on Thursday.

          Secretary Rumsfeld says coalition military activities in Afghanistan will enter a new phase, [b]shifting away from major combat operations,[/b] to stability operations designed to improve security and help reconstruction efforts in the war-devastated nation.

          “We are at a point [b]where we clearly have moved from major combat activity[/b] to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction activities,” he said. “The bulk of this country is permissive, it is secure, it is clear that is the case by virtue of the fact that we see people returning to their country from all across the globe, in large numbers.” [/i]

          Go ahead, jck, disagree with it. You linked to it yourself!

          By the way, jck, there’s an old saying: When you find yourself in a hole, in the very least, quit digging.

          Edit:

          Substitute President Bush for Secretary Rumsfeld, and substitute Iraq for Afghanistan, and you have, in essence, the same thing President Bush said on the deck of that carrier.

          President Bush said, [i]”Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country….. We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. Our mission continues….. The War on Terror continues, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide.”[/i]

        • #2753101

          My last word on this [i]Bush-Iraq-Major Combat Operations[/i] tangent

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          What started as an Obama and the economy discussion took a turn to, yet another, bash Bush tangent.

          I’m done with it, except my last word on what jck has just done to himself:

          http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/tbr/lowres/tbrn168l.jpg

        • #2753079

          So Max…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          Why are you still holding a shovel?

          Fact is, you and Nick have said it was major military on military combat did you not? If you didn’t, please correct Nick as he spoke out of turn on your behalf.

          In Afghanistan, there is not a “state military” with which we are engaged. We are engaging “rogue elements” (namely Taliban and Al-Qaeda) there.

          Period. You and Nick are wrong. End of discussion on that topic.

          As for how it is defined or intended by Bush, I wouldn’t exactly him a military expert.

          You can quote all the “intent” you want, but history and the actions and words of the United States military prove my position.

          Now to you quoting the MIL DOC:

          A) since when have Al-Qaeda or the Taliban been considered…a “nation state”?

          [i]I believe Nation State is the key word, here – especially in the way it was used as discussed in this discussion.[/i]

          You said it, dude. I didn’t. So let’s explore what a “nation state” is, how it’s defined, and what particulars about the MIL DOC you missed in just quoting what you wanted.

          Major combat operations happened in the “War in Iraq” as well as the “War against Terror in Afghanistan”.

          However, the fact is though:
          Al-Qaeda isn’t a nation state
          Taliban isn’t a nation state
          Terrorism isn’t a nation state

          Just so you can understand what a “nation state” is too (courtesy of Merriam-Webster):

          ******************************

          Main Entry:
          na?tion?state
          Pronunciation:
          \ˈnā-shən-ˈstāt, -ˌstāt\
          Function:
          noun
          Date:
          1918

          : a form of political organization under which a relatively homogeneous people inhabits a sovereign state ; especially : a state containing one as opposed to several nationalities

          ****************************

          Okay, Max. do we know what “inhabits a sovereign state” means?? Or do you need that looked up for you too?

          Also, they were defining MCO as being against a nation state in terms of the WORKING DOCUMENT CASE ONE. If you’d have read down, you’d have seen that as it is being applied in that manner under the tense of “for purposes of this joint document” of a “postulated competitor”.

          It is [b]not[/b] being defined ubiquitously for the military in that joint spec.

          It’s being defined for a ghost nation (Case One) as *one* example.

          The “War on Terrorism” in Afghanistan would be classified as a Case Two, as per their own definition.

          Perhaps you should have read further down for what the “scope” of MCO really is:

          [i] The scope of a major combat operations concept must address the following three cases:
          Case 1 ? Major combat operations against a conventional, high-end regional threat
          Case 2 ? Major irregular combat operations
          Case 3 ? Major combat operations against a peer competitor
          Since no current intelligence estimate forecasts a peer or near-peer competitor in the 2015 timeframe, Version 1.0 of this paper focuses on Case One. This postulated high-end regional competitor possesses some near-peer like capabilities in selected niches. Such an approach captures the most challenging of the likely adversaries and conditions the US may face in the next decade. The scope and scale of operations against a regional competitor call attention to coherent, high-tempo, simultaneous operations conducted from multiple, distributed locations throughout the theater of war?all based upon pervasive knowledge. These types of operations may entail little or no reception, staging, onward movement and integration (RSO&I) for selected units.
          We must recognize that campaign development factors, as well as force capabilities and sizing will differ between the regional competitor, irregular competitor and the peer. We will require additional types of capabilities suited to the special nature of major irregular combat. Many of the capabilities developed to respond to a regional competitor will clearly apply as we scale up to the peer competitor, but not all. In fact, the sheer scale of a peer changes the character of the fight. As a result, developing the capabilities identified in this version of the concept will not provide all of the capabilities needed to address either Case Two or Case Three. Later versions of this concept will further define the full set of required capabilities.
          [/i]

          Nonetheless:

          a) Terrorism nor terrorists are a “nation state” in any sense of the word (hence why the document focuses on “Case One” and a hypothetical “nation state”)

          b) Major Combat Operations is not an implicit and exclusively military-to-military (or “peer or near-peer” as they called it), as per their own 3 case definitions of what qualifies something as major combat operations.

          c) In this discussion, you and Nick qualified it as having been characterized as “military-on-military”, which has been shown in the Scope (1.B) as having been inaccurate.

          Hence, you made an inaccurate assertion that I was incorrect, where I clearly am not and your narrowly-defineda concept was the inaccurate portrayal.

          Thanks for playing tho. Read more than just the term you want to search for and the paragraphs around it next time.

        • #2753069

          typical Max

          by jck ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          Uses cartoons to make points.

          Next thing you know, he’ll want Yosemite Sam as Secretary of Homeland Security. :^0

          Argue the points, Max. You claimed (as well as Nick) that major combat operations were “military on military”, and refuted my stand that they were not because they were being conducted in Afghanistan (by words of the then Secretary of Defense and the JOC doc I showed you the multiple-aspect definition in the Scope 1.B section as well), and not against an established military of a nation state or any other organized form of government or establishment in a soverign land.

          Do you refute that? Did you not say/imply that much? Did Nick not say you did too?

          Were you not wrong, according to the a) statement of Donald Rumsfeld, and b)JOC MIL doc you presented under their “Scope 1.B” definition of what “major combat operations” entails, wrong about what you said it being exclusively military on military?

          Yes or no.

          Thanks.

        • #2753041

          Way down here, Cupcake

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          Sure, I loath Obama for his stance on born alive abortions, as any sane human should that has actually looked into how he voted and his changing reasons for voting as he did.

          Sure, I disagree that sending millions overseas to give the world abortions will make the world like us.

          Sure, I disagree that having a “stimulus package” that is 3:1 social entitlements vs actual stimulus. Making a skate park in Pelosi’s district is going to stimulate the economy how?

          Sure, I disagree with a lot he has to say.

          Sure, I disagree with taking someone from one of the countries WORST educational zones and putting them in charge of education.
          (cronyism?)

          Sure, I disagree that a successful REPUBLICAN woman is not considered a woman. Same for blacks, Hispanics, whatever.

          Sure, I disagree with the confidence that has been shown in this man who has done NOTHING to warrant such confidence.

          And no, I don’t care if he is half black, I don’t think that adds anything to his presidency. Living a large part of his life in other countries, that helps him identify with the average American citizen, how?

          Him growing up with his typical racist white grandmother made him superior, how?

          Look at what he is doing, not what he is saying. I see the economy getting worse, not better BECAUSE of what he is about to do.

          No amount of Bush hate will change that.

        • #2753035

          Question jck

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          since when are you a fan of Donald Rumsfeld?

        • #2753656

          Answer jd

          by jck ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          [i]since when are you a fan of Donald Rumsfeld?[/i]

          I’m not.

          However the fact remains:

          Bush’s military experience/education/training (previous to his presidency)-
          6 year obligation to the National Guard that he did not complete

          Donald Rumsfeld’s military experience/education/training (Previous to Bush Administration)-
          U.S. Navy from 1954 to 1957 as a naval aviator and flight instructor.
          Naval Reserve from 1957 to 1975 doing flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist
          Served in Congress on the Subcommittees on Military and Foreign Operations
          13th U.S. Secretary of Defense under Gerald R. Ford
          et. al.

          There’s too many to list.

          Needless to say, Donald Rumsfeld is much more qualified to speak to military topics, including their venacular, than George W. Bush.

          Do you disagree?

          BTW…personally, I agree with Nixon about Rumsfeld. lol :^0

        • #2753654

          the funny thing about your “Way Down Here” rant, jd

          by jck ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          [i]Look at what he is doing, not what he is saying. I see the economy getting worse, not better BECAUSE of what he is about to do.[/i]

          Okay, jd.

          You tolerated 8 years of Bush running things into the ground, right?

          You’ve given Obama what…14 days to fix the country?

          How can you justify that? Honestly?

          Talk about unreasonable expectation and bias.

          Honestly if I didn’t know you better, I’d really think you were a racist.

        • #2753648

          jck – I’m so disappointed with you

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          Disagreement in policy and principle is one thing, but at this point, I have to wonder why I even bother conversing with you. I’m literally shaking my head in disbelief at your lack of comprehension and consistency.

          You have a serious problem with reading comprehension (or something else). Start at the top, read everything over again, read the exact words I wrote, not the ones you would like to read into them, and read very slowly to enhance your comprehension.

          Why do I even bother?

        • #2753642

          Max…you would be

          by jck ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          At the point you started mentioning major combat operations, you characterized it as:

          “soldier on soldier, tank on tank, army on army”

          Nick further characterized your statement as being army versus army not lower than brigade level.

          Fact is, I am right. Read that JOC document again and see that it is a working paper that is designed to show (in Version 1.0) the example of how Case One in Section 1.B – Focus is dealt with.

          Major Combat Operations is descriptive of mass military movement, deployment and engagement into a theatre.

          It is not singly reliant on combat against a military group of any determinate size of any “nation state” or other government establishment.

          Needless to say, I read quite well. I read well enough to understand the meaning of that JOC document (actually, about the first 15 pages was all that I had time to read…I had to do real work updating a budget interface), unlike you who quoted only the parts that you liked and fit what you said.

          I don’t know why you talk to me. In fact, don’t. You said you weren’t.

          Can’t even keep to that promise, can you.

        • #2753628

          Even further down, JD

          by cupcake ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          Okay, we’ve been over the abortion issue… you know that he doesn’t support born alive abortions, he voted against the bill to preserve a woman’s choice in general. Sigh.

          Its tough to argue innuendo.

          He is not sending millions overseas to give the world abortions… he is lifting the ban on family planning services for other nations.

          I hope that you disagreed with the ‘bailout’ that was supposed to save this country’s economy supported by the Republicans for $750B… and whoo whee, get a load of the Republican pork in that one! I suspect that the real pork that goes into Obama’s stimulus plan will be what gets back-doored in by Republicans, so they sign off.

          And frankly, if Obama wasn’t talking about the bad economy, everyone would be hearing about why he doesn’t care or won’t do anything about it!

          And cronyism? Are you trying to tell me that Bush didn’t put his cronies in his cabinet? Puh-lease… you need a new thread to cover favoritism in politics. The guy he chose graduated from Harvard, for mike’s sake.

          I have no idea what you’re talking about re: “Sure, I disagree that a successful REPUBLICAN woman is not considered a woman. Same for blacks, Hispanics, whatever.” Are you telling me that you think Obama thinks this? What?

          Personally, I don’t care if he’s half black either. Or half white. Or half purple for that matter. What should that matter? Or who raised him? Should it only matter that he had two white parents, four white grandparents, etc?

          I am looking at what he’s doing. He has had 14 days so far and frankly, so far so good. I really haven’t seen anything that indicates that he isn’t sincerely impressed with the America’s issues and her people.

          And no, JD, I don’t see the economy turning around in 14 days. You’d be an idiot to think that anyone could fix the mess that the last 8 years has gotten us into in a couple of weeks.

          You’re smarter than that, JD. Maybe its the let down of the last presidential administration that has you so cynical.

          Hmmmmm?

        • #2753626

          Impressed JCK…

          by cupcake ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          …and exhausted by your efforts! I know what it takes to try to make a point when you’re arguing with rhetoric and innuendo and using rules that change in the middle of a discussion!

          Hang in there handsome!

        • #2753596

          thank you, cupcake

          by jck ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          It does get difficult trying to explain sometimes.

          Honestly, I don’t think anyone is stupid here. I just think there are a lot of preconceived notions about what people do or fail to do that is the issue.

          Much as jdclyde’s last post, he expects the economy to just turn around for Obama within 1 month. But, you never saw him give Bush the same treatment.

          I am not sure why his stance is such. I really don’t. When Bush did something right, I commended him for it. However, they were few and far between. For example, his appointment of Condoleezza Rice was brilliant. Here you have someone who is intelligent, well rounded, sensible, etc. It really mattered not if she was Republican or Democrat. It matters that she is someone with the poise, character, intellect, and experience to do the job *right*.

          I am actually disappointed with Obama in the aspect that he is trying to push so many people through the appointment process who didn’t uphold the law. For example, Tom Daschle being found to not have paid $143,000 in back taxes. What I think Obama should do? Call the IRS and make sure they penalize him as heavily as they would the next American. Make him pay $800,000. If he can’t pay in one lump sum, make him setup an installment plan like I had to do when an accountant I knew did my taxes wrongly.

          But, I won’t sit and watch while someone expects miracles from Obama who just took his office January 20th, 2009, when they did not give the previous leader of our country the same beratement in the years I have used this site.

          As Americans, we need to learn to be fair and equal about our praise and criticism of our leadership as well as our constituents.

          Otherwise, we are just as guilty as those in the Muslim world who would look past their religious bretheren who commit acts of terrorism in the name of Allah.

          Wrong is wrong.

          btw, cupcake. how did you know I am handsome? did GG or NeilB tell you? :^0

        • #2753483

          “but we have seen the turning of the tide.”

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          Afghanistan has seen more combat and more resistence SINCE that day on the carrier than any day prior. In fact there was VERY LITTLE resistance before that day anyway.

          They are in even stronger numbers in Kandahar now, with the new government compaining that they cannot do their work when surrounded by Taliban forces that kepe taking over and thwarting projects and objectives of the government.

          Last years jailbreak saw 1000 prisoners and 400 taliban escape.

          Today (may from Jan.2009)
          http://www.longwarjournal.org/maps/afghanistan/Kandahar_Uruzgan_Helmund_Taliban_Crtl_012120082.php

          “but we have seen the turning of the tide.”

          Just make sure they keep their heads in the sand so they don’t see the current reality.

          Canadian solders have been progressing with reducing numbers in Kandahar but it is a continual upheaval that introduces more and mroe fighters each day, just as with Iraq, people will travel the world to fight against the US occupation.

        • #2748323

          Max and Disappointment

          by thechas ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          I’m sure that Max will disagree with and comment on this comment.

          Max, it seams to me you are disappointed with anyone who does not draw the same conclusion as you do from any set of comments, opinions or facts.

          We are all shaped by our environment and experiences. That causes differences in how we process weigh and interpret spoken word, writings, and the world around us.

          I would also argue that one of the things you value most (unchanging principle) can be a very bad weakness especially in a leader.

          Not that one should go with the flow and try to follow the whimsy of public opinion. But everyone needs to be willing to respond to changes in their environment.

          All of the great leaders have known when to alter the goal, when to change course, and even when to step away and go after a completely different goal.

          Chas

        • #2770259

          Chas, “all the great leaders”

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          You commented that all the great leaders have been able to make necessary changes in order to achieve their goals, obviously including altering those goals as time progresses.

          However there was one great leader, who did not show any variance or ability/desire to change his strategy to suit the events of the day.

          One great leader changed his focus a few times to his benefit and then became mad with an STD that he had carried for a few decades before. He then stood fast with his focus and took on an undying quest that was argued against by most of his top military leaders, to the point of them trying to assassinate him before removing themselves completely from his command.

          And Hitler WAS a great leader at one time, unfortunately he lost it (went mad due to syphillis) and decided he wanted Stalingraad at all costs, much to his dismay and arguments of his leaders, they were decimated and the Nazis lost that battle too.

          Had he not already lost his quest to conquer Britain, losing most of his once mighty Luftwaffe, and had he not lost the battle for Stalingrad, he would have had full strength of his 6th army, which would have REALLY changed how effective events after D-Day were. In fact they may have even thwarted the invasion altogether, as was nearly the case anyway.

          Allies were successful despite countless planning and execution mistakes during D-Day and much of this was because they refused to change their plans and adjust to the changes of the battlefield. Had Hitler not have had a single focus of taking Stalingrad, he would have been an even mightier opponent to deal with and things just may have been quite different.

          The only thing he had left was the smaller countries he had conquered in his quest to dominate Europe, which had failed long before D-Day.

        • #2763236

          We were in Iraq, jck

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Let me use that logic…

          My response was to your direct implication that increased force levels [u]in Iraq[/u] indicate major combat ops, nothing more than that. In your own words, in context: “Fact is, major combat operations didn’t end there. If you reference the DOD’s own statistics, the number of ground troops, armored units, and aircraft has increased since that speech…not declined.”

          Tell me, jck, how the h3ll did we get from Iraq to the counter-insurgency ops in Afghanistan? And why did you hold up Donald Rumsfeld as an accurate source of military terminology? He was scary (and often wrong) when he was Gerald Ford’s SecDef. He was even more scary (and wrong more often than not) his second time in the job.

          Apologies for the very late response. I lost this thread when the updates went away.

        • #2753194

          Was it a mistake

          by the ‘g-man.’ ·

          In reply to You will always see all things Bush in a negative light

          Yes, the whole thing was.
          Where are those WOMD that prompted the war?

          There was none and so no reason to fight.

          Still enjoying the Oil however, for now.

        • #2752829

          Oh Max, come on…

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to By the way, a friendly challenge to you

          I’m a moderate (independent if you will), but it’s been said by the Bush administration that:
          A) The sign was a mistake
          B) The sign was something the participated in getting up there
          C) The speech sent the wrong message

          Iraq is a mess, and will continue to be so. We’re losing Afghanistan because of the effort we’re dumping into Iraq. Hell, we’ve even had to hire mercenaries to help fight our wars…that’s just pitiful.

    • #2753211

      WOW – Awesome – I couldn’t agree more

      by jackofalltech ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      You may remember that, before the election, I said that because Obama was for big government and big spending, it was actually McCain who would bring change and Obama would really be just more of the same.

      You’re also correct about the economy, it’s not even as bad as it was when Reagan took office. But fearful people are easier to control and that is what the Democrats have always been about – controlling the people.

      As I’ve said before, if I didn’t believe that God was in control, and trust that His purposes are ultimately good, I would be terrified about what is happening to our country.

    • #2753195

      Could be worse

      by the ‘g-man.’ ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      Could have been the other guy!
      What then, all is well?

      Doubt it.

    • #2753684

      The economy’s that bad, all right

      by delbertpgh ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      The present mess is at least as critical as that which inaugurated the Great Depression. Possibly more dangerous, because we owe so much money to foreign states, and have to keep borrowing more to sustain our negative balance of trade, while bearing the expense of being the leader of the capitalist, democratic, modern world order. In 1930 we were not in hock, we had a positive balance of trade, and we weren’t the military/financial power that everybody depended upon.

      The nation will have to take big moves to avoid a catastrophic recession. We have to look and sound serious, because it will take an ocean of borrowed money to get going again. It will take the trust of our own people and also of the foreigners who follow our lead and lend us back the I.O.U.s we already wrote. We’re also going to have to re-orient our economy, so that we don’t continue to depend on consumer amusements and financial chicanery for our primary industries. If we don’t, we’ll find ourselves bankrupt amidst an angry, dangerous world.

      You can’t do all this by saying, “Everything’s fine.” Banks have stopped lending. It won’t be fine for long, no matter how much you hope, without some big, big moves. It demands realistic rhetoric and national sense of purpose. Hope will come back when citizens and business are confident that problems are being recognized and addressed.

      • #2753428

        A big part of the problem

        by j-mart ·

        In reply to The economy’s that bad, all right

        When compared to the 1930’s is the disappearing industrial and manufacturing base. US made manufactured products are becoming a rarity. A lack of US made goods makes adding value to economy through trade much tougher. Add to this Microsoft cutting jobs in the US but not India and other parts of world. All things that make reducing trade deficit a hard thing indeed.

    • #2753608

      Thanks Max

      by xnavydk ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      Nuff Said.

    • #2753514

      Is it REALLY new?

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      Obama’s economic focus may be new but the doom and gloom, instilling fear into American minds is as old as your country, actually much older, America is still in its infancy as a country.

      When your nation was founded, Adams used fear to push others to join him and seek independence, nobody wanted to at first but he used the ‘control’ issues to instill fear into his peers and then the general public.

      In WWI & WWII fear of war reaching the homeland was used to get people to enlist AND to buy war bonds.

      Fear has been pushed on Americans since day one, they use Hitler to illustrate the horrors of socialist programs, such as government provided medical and welfare, as if socialism and what most free countries see as social benefits are related in even the most remote way.

      GWB used fear and a heap of BS to gain support for the Iraqi invasion.

      But now, as it is Obama and not McCain, fear is all of a sudden a tactic of the government to sway people’s opinion?

      Your nation was BUILT on fear, feeds on fear, grows on fear. Your military became strong due to immense military spending, beginnning when you needed to up your navy to equal Britains navy during WWII. That funding was gained from instilling fear into Americans to help keep the war in Europe.

      If it wasn’t for instillign fear into American minds, you’d be nothign today, it seems to be teh only way to get to people’s heads in teh US, scare the bejezus out of them and they’ll conform.

      No, it’s not socialism, just fear instilling conformity.

      • #2753470

        yes, but then again Oz…

        by dhcdbd ·

        In reply to Is it REALLY new?

        You never miss an opportunity to extol the virtues of Canada over the U.S.

        What’s the diff?

        • #2753447

          Nice try

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to yes, but then again Oz…

          Typical, “I know you are but what am I?”

          Always looking to point a finger out, never looking inward.
          Remember, three fingers always point back at you.

          I didn’t extol the virtues of ANYTHING over the US. I was only replying to a comment about how Obama’s administration uses fear to achieve objectives, as if THAT’s new.

          The thread is about Obama, not Canada, the comment was pointing out a ‘flaw’ in Obama’s administration, not Canada.

          My comment was simply that it is not NEW it has been done all along.

          We KNOW our government is full of sh1t. It’s not a matter of Dems vs Conservatives or Liberals here. I think most Canadians agree that they are all slime bag politicians and nobody holds them in any great light or affords them much attention at all.

          US political news dominates out TV stations (which are mainly US stations) at least 10:1. Most Canadians don’t watch speeches, follow political agendas etc. It doesn’t matter to anyone, they just do and we live on.

          To use fear as a tool to get Canadians to war would be a futile attempt anyway, nobody here wants to go to war anymore. People resent the US for our soldiers being left to sort out the Taliban in Afghanistan. People pay attention to the new when soldiers are killed and that’s about it.

          If a politician warned the entire country of impending doom, most wouldn’t see it on TV or read it in the newspaper, as community events and the hockey scores take precedence. It is more likely they’d hear about it a week later, between periods of the game at the bar.

          You see, Americans are focused on politics, because many still believe that people run the government (of course that only applies to the half that voted for the existing party for the others they are all ignored and complain about not having control). Half of the nation gets what they wanted, and believe that the government listens to the people, the other half bitch for 4-8 years about everything they do as if they’ve been stripped of rights.

          In Canada, doesn’t matter WHO runs the country, Dems, Libs, Conservs, Green Party, Marijuana Party etc. they are ALL seen as cheats, liars, untrusted entities that allocate our money. When it gets too much, we just elect a different government, as seen recently if you follow our politics.

          Doesn’t matter to me anyway, I can’t vote here and Canadian politics don’t place me in danger.

          But again, my reply was not about Canada in any way shape or form, was not a comparison of any sort, YOU dragged that part up, not me.

        • #2753445

          Your posts have the history.

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Nice try

          🙁

          The point that seems to have been missed is that you should not throw stones when you are in a glass house.

          Whether war is right or not, it simply is, ditto with everything else.

        • #2753443

          History

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Your posts have the history.

          Of apposition, not necessarily opposition, although I grant you it often seems that way.

        • #2753435

          Why is it that. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to History

          …..this kind of message just rubs me the wrong way? Does it really say anything of substance? Is it meant to say anything at all? Do people really talk this way? Am I the only one who finds these kinds of messages weird?

          If anyone can translate what he said into normal English, please enlighten.

        • #2753432

          Translation.

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          Though it may not be correct.

          Though Oz appears to be opposed to near every position but his own, ‘in fact’ he brings things together.

          My take.

        • #2753431

          Boxy – thank you

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          I know I’m not an idiot, but when I can’t even read English, I have to wonder.

          By the way, who’s the real idiot? The one who speaks nonsense, or the one who can’t understand it?

          (Not calling anyone an idiot, but using it for emphasis.)

          Who really speaks this way? Nobody.

          Who really writes this way (serious writing)? Nobody – not even George Will!

          It’s tantamount to gibberish! This is just too weird to me.

          No one else says it, though. Just me. Why is that?

        • #2753427

          I take it as a challenge

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          to expand my thinking and my boundaries.

          Keep in mind, I could have been wrong on that. 😉

        • #2753424

          Boxy . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          I’m not being mean-spirted. I don’t intend to insult. No malice is intended. But I just don’t get it. Personally, I think this guy is playing games, and I’m the only one calling him on it. He can’t be for real. Like I said, not even George Will talks (or writes) like that.

        • #2753422

          Santee tries to be cryptic.

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          He believes in koans and prides himself in using them. Not that it is bad. He often offers advise in the most constructive manner.

          In this case, I believe that he was suggesting that OZ presents his position as a contra-position rather than juxta-position. He was also chastising me for my overly harsh position.

          Unfortunately, my position is that anyone can have a position – just be consistent. If I don’t like it – tough.

        • #2753421

          :D What is unfortunate about that?

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          [i]Unfortunately, my position is that anyone can have a position – just be consistent. If I don’t like it – tough.[/i]

        • #2753418

          Consider this

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          We’re discussing what the guy really means, and no one has been certain of their very own interpretation.

          I’ve always tried to speak TO people, hoping there’s no question as to what I’m really saying. Anything less is no more than speaking a foreign language – in which case, what’s the point?

          P.S. I’m not impressed. Not even close.

        • #2753415

          Unfortunate?

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          It puts in in the line of fire.

          P.S. Max, there is often a lot of wisdom in koans.

        • #2753414

          Imagine this

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          Sonja talking to that guy in one of her profile interviews, and he talks to her the same way he writes in these threads. Hell, I’d pay $100 to hear Sonja reply to that nonsense!

        • #2753412

          Sometimes, most often,…

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          You get better results by leading a person to an answer than you do by giving the answer. Boxy, being the teacher among us, can give more detail on the Socratic method.

          Being cryptic will often push you outside of your comfort zone and forces you to think in different ways and leads to a different understanding.

        • #2753409

          DHCDBD – I guess I’m just a dumb. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          …..country bumpkin who believes in speaking to people, not around them, not over them, not above them, and certainly not in riddles.

        • #2753407

          No, Max,

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          You are not a dumb country bumpkin. I prefer direct speech rather than convoluted speech, especially in the topics that you bring up.

          Santee has his own outlook and is entitled to that.

          I can be cryptic as well if you look at some of my posts.

          There are many different ways of approaching things.

        • #2753406

          After dealing with

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          “The Balthor”, Santi is a piece of cake. 😀

          Although I prefer the subtle posts over the cryptic.

        • #2748647

          Koans demystified. Here ya go, Max

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          “Two hands clap and there is a sound; what is the sound of one hand?”

          OK, get a tape recorder and record the sound of one hand clapping. Then play it back. What could be simpler?

          “If you have ice cream I will give you some.
          If you have no ice cream I will take it away from you.”

          That one is an ice cream kōan.

          :p

        • #2748642

          The Winner – NeilB ^^^^^^^^^

          by gadgetgirl ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          Yet again, the winner of the “How to make GG Choke on her Lunch” Award ………

          Bullseye, babz!

          😡

          GG

        • #2748631

          Hello, GG

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          How are you? Nice having you back. Hope all’s well.

          Mambo

        • #2748623

          Wow, NeilB :^0

          by rob mekel ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          This ice cream stuff … anything to do with cold and snow over there in good ol’England ?:|

          Nice equation btw :^0 😀 😉

        • #2748521

          Riddle me this?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          I thought it read like something out of a comic book.

          I used to know an ex university math professor, UCLA, who blew his mind while experimenting with large doses of clinical LSD at the school. He was dismissed of course and wound up in Vancouver.

          He would talk like that all the time as he felt it made him sound intellgent and kept people thinking about what he’d just said. I suppose it is okay if you actually get off on your ablity to speak, unless you are asking what he wanted from the store.

          You return with rubber gloves, a budgie and a French horn while he wanted smokes a Snickers bar and a Coke.

        • #2748519

          Oz – I see. You think he’s been hanging around with. .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          …..Michael Phelps?

          BONG!

        • #2748518

          Snow in the UK

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          Well first of all, a few inches is not a snow storm, however without the infrastructure to get rid of it, it will be quite daunting I suppose. Also, you can’t exactly drive the massive plows and salt trucks around English streets as we can out here, they don’t handle roudabouts as well.

          One major drag, I have a guitarist out here that can’t get back to make a London show on Thurday, Tuesday flight cancelled next one out on Sunday. Oh well, contract clauses will save paying out for a cancelled show but it still doesn’t look good for his band.

          Snowstorm, in London? Whatever next. 🙂

        • #2748517

          Neil – thanks for the laugh (eom)

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          .

        • #2748515

          One of my favorite snow storms

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          A few years ago when it dumped 60 inches (152 cm) at my house.

          (Gotta’ love a 4×4 [i]Planet Destroying[/i] truck!)

        • #2748509

          not at all

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          bong? Not going to make any difference, in fact you would have a hard telling telling when most people have been smoking, if they are regular smokers. Its just the movies and perpetuated ‘dopes’ that set that stereotype. As a teenager, it was hilarious to get stoned and laugh, giggle get teh munchies etc. What a gas! Then when I go t abit older I found I never got high anymore and just wasted money on it.

          Now that I no longer smoke, been quite a while now, I know plenty of people who do (it’s BC afterall, pot capital of the world) smoke, but yuo never know when they are stond and when they are not, they are just as logical, straight faced and clever as when they are not smoking.

          I think people who DON’T smoke have no idea what its like.

          The closest I can suggest is to compare to alcohol, which is bad because alcohol has a far greater effect than marijuana does on people.

          But if you take someone who drinks three beers after work, every day for 20 years, you are oging to be hard pressed to tell when he’s had three beers and when he has not.

          Marijuana’s similar in that tolerance aspect, most poeople who smoke, who are my age now, you couldn’t tell when or if they’ve smoking or not.

          It’s be a mental calming for them, if anything and not the giggly, munchie, screw up and fall on the floor laughing stoned that kids get.

          I don’t smoke anymroe but i don’t condemn anyone who does. If they are loser, they are loser, whether they smoke or not. But I have seen some pretty high profile people with massive incomes and immense amounts of responsibility that smoke on a regular basis. It covers tha gamut, from politicians, doctors, lawyers etc.

          Sorry to twang about it, I kno wyou were just makign a quick comment at th ecryptic commentary, but its a stereotype that really gets dragged through the mud for no reason all too often.

        • #2748506

          I do I do!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          I do love a planet destroying 4X4.

          In all fairnes sthough, my Explorer is pretty good with emisions and mileage. But my BRONCO< that's another story, just a pig! Gas stations to gas station between fills, 33" tires and straight pipe exhaust off of the headers, no catalytic converters to clean the air. I don't drive it much anymroe, too expensive, too big, but when it snows really heavy out comes the Bronc and I go play. 😀

        • #2748503
        • #2748469

          Oz, what I have found about the regular smoker

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          they seem “off” only when they are straight.

        • #2748351

          Sometimes

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Why is it that. . . . .

          I agree…some people, sometimes, usually the hardened hippy types who have rebelled against conformity and big business.

          For most others I find they get irritated when ‘dry’ but not moreso, in fact uaually a lot less, than a cigarrette smoker when out of smokes. They understand and have gotten used to smoking at home, working at work, its not that hard to juggle if you learn it from the start. When I was in my late teens (17), I sold big ticket items, new cars and trucks.

          I used to do LSD at parties on Sunday night and be able to conduct a sales meeting in front of the boss, with examples of rebuttals and closes on Monday morning, while still happily buzzing away from the night before. I’d conduct business from the bar when I was 19 (well 18 but they didn’t mind me in there spending money all day and night). I’d have clients go to teh store I worked at and they tell them to cross othe street to see me in the bar, I’d close a deal, go across and fill the order then wander back to the bar to have a few drinks with my customer. It’s all in how you manage your vices I suppose.

          I find that most smokers just carry on with no change, though they will seek out a bud when they can but not as priority over getting on with the day, work etc.

          Exceptions of course for R&R, just as with havin a cold beer when watching the game or soemthing. Some people crave a joint when they are done with work for the day or are just hanging out and relaxing but they are usually no different straight than when high. Perhaps a little more accepting of life’s hiccups with ease, but that’s not such a bad thing, rolling with the punches and all.

          blah blah blah, sorry JD.

        • #2748532

          Okay that makes no sense at all

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Your posts have the history.

          People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. I was replying to someone else’s comment that had NOTHING to do with Canada but you would like eme to bring Canada in to it then.

          In other words, unless your nation has a perfect government and perfect foreign policy, you can’t talk. Therefore no man woman or child on Earth has a right to talk abotu politics, as NO government is perfect.

          Whatever, you made an assumption based (as you have agreed) on past history, and were proven to have misstepped with your assumption.

          In other words you ASSUMED I was implying what I wasn’t. And yet you feel that qualifies your comments? Again, nice try.

        • #2748482

          I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Okay that makes no sense at all

          You >”In Canada, doesn’t matter WHO runs the country, Dems, Libs, Conservs, Green Party, Marijuana Party etc. they are ALL seen as cheats, liars, untrusted entities that allocate our money. When it gets too much, we just elect a different government, as seen recently if you follow our politics.”

          Now here you have expressed your opinion.

          Max, on the other hand expresses his opinion and you slam him.

          What is the difference. I have assumed nothing, and have only examined your words.

          The stone that you are throwing is the attempted discrediting of another’s opinion.

          The glass house is that you have expressed your own opinion.

          You have support neither of your positions and have only offered unqualified opinion.

          Dialog is a two way affair, not the practice of “Only my opinion counts.”

          Now please, for the good of the world, quit being dense.

        • #2748345

          density, and comprehension

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          Firstly, the entire premise of bringing Canada into the picture is your own making, you can’t even keep up with your own assertions!
          I said nothing of the sort, until you dragged canada into the picture, thus I offered NO PERSONAL OPINION as yuo suggest, until you insisted I had an ulterior motive. Your not too quick on the uptake, are you?

          We’ve had several peers here with the same inability to keep up with their own comments without walking in circles, I wonder which one you are.

          Certainly you are right, as you have taken a single comment out of context with the rest of the preceding post.
          You missed : “I think most Canadians agree…”
          “Most Canadians don’t watch speeches”
          “…most wouldn’t see it on TV or read it in the newspaper”

          Sorry but that’s more than my personal opinion it is reality. Canadians, in general, as a rule, more than one, not just myself, a common opinion…don’t give a toss about Canadian politicians other than to bitch that they are crooks (much as they do with US politicians too).

          Compared to Americans, we don’t even have a government, if they all died tomorrow, nobody would loose any sleep…well other than those close to the ones who pass, of course (better add that before you tirade with another irrelevant post).

          talking to you is like talking to my kid when he was about 4.

          Son, Santa will bring you presents tomorrow, you’ve been a great boy all year long!

          But dad, if I’ve been great, why didn’t you call me Edward? He’s gret isn’t he?

          Yeah, son but that doesn’t matter now does it?

          But if Edward was great, and you didn’t call me Edward, but I am great too, then you are saying Edward is not great at all.

          No I’m not saying that at all, son.

          But you are because you said Edward wasn’t great?

          no I didn’t you came up with that.

          but when we lost the baseball game and my friend Edward was ptching you said he couldn’t pitch!

          Circular BS with no substance, basis of fact or any relevance whatsoever to anythign I’ve said.

          I would never call my son a troll for asking me thing, I actually go to him for advice a lot now anyway. But for a grown man to act like a complete moron in an effort to make some sense out of his baseless comments? Troll.

          lastly, if you ever feel that Max needs your support, you’ve got another thing coming (damn another song stuck in my head now).

          Max’s posts dance circles around yuor hapless attempts at logic and twisting. He and I have been arch enemies for many years before you came along, we now see each other on a much more level field and understand what each other means without the need for ridiculous posturing to imply what was never said to begin with.

          Max is a very big boy when it comes ot supporting his comments and he is more than able to take me to task when he deems a need for it. I will speak for him confidently when I say that I KNOW he wouldn’t request, or appreciate you sticking your oar in on his behalf anyway, if that’s REALLY what you are saying now. but you scurry in so many different directions and pull thes ecomments out of thin air, that it is nearly impossible to tell where your heads at.

          Let me guess, another telemarketer called and you said “not interested’ before charging him $35 dollars on your special line that only one citizen in America is able to have, then you used your amazing Kreskin routine to read his mind and say you were not interested before he told you why he was calling.

          Apparently you say it’ll be 45 minutes before your brain can function again. Must be all that mind reading and electrokinetic telecom mind control you have.

          Damn you must get a LOT of calls in a day!

        • #2748333

          Sorry OZ…

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          If the quote fits. Nothing was taken out of context, the entire paragraph is posted for the world to see.

          Congratulations, you have made my ignore list.

        • #2748328

          Why didn’t you tell me?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          That TR now has an ignore list, I would have just asked you to put me on it and stop postig your lies and drivel about nothing.

          Its funny how many poeople take comments out of context and expect them to hold water.

          Especially when all preceding senetences used terms like MOST to describe Canadians views. I do think it is a VAST majority though, I don’t think I’ve EVER met a Canadian willing to discuss Canadian politicas or politicians, pretty good way to clear a room here. Of Course, JamesRL is an exception to the rule, he has worked for Canadian politicians and has a vested personal interest.

          However, walk across the border and anyone yuo mention politics to will debate it until they turn blue.

          You’re right, its no different here than there, if you are clueless of course.

          I still stand behidn comments that MOST Canadians don’t give a rats arse about Canadian politics nor will tey watch it, read it or discuss it.

          Same goes in the UK too, face it, the rest of the world does not immerse themselves in their politics the way Americans do, never have.

          Here’s a test for you, start a few threads about Canadian and UK politics, see how many people from those countries care enough to respond, excluding defensive posts against US politics of course.

          What a freakboy, you create your own argument about nothing, continue your argument by changing the topic, again about nothing, and when nobody wants to play you take your bucket and spade and leave the sandbox in a huff. How grown up!

          If you manage to find that ignore list, pleae add me to it. If not, just don’t bother sticking your oar in, especially when it is just a cardboard tube with a handle.

          If you can’t find that list, just make sure you don’t answer the phone before posting; you won’t remember to ignore my posts and will offer more lies, a BS to support your false claims.

        • #2754833

          Oz – Something you don’t understand

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          When you say things like (paraphrasing), [i]Canadians seldom talk politics/government while Americans always/often do[/i].

          I suppose I’ll just take you at your word on how Canadians approach their government, since I’ve not spent too much time there. (And most of that was in Quebec where I didn’t speak the language anyway!) And not all Americans, as I’m sure you know, involve themselves in such things.

          But what you don’t understand is this. From its conception, the United States was to be a country of [i]self-governing[/i] people. One of the debates of the founding days was whether or not people were even capable of [i]self-governing[/i]. But we gave it a shot, and at the time the United States was the only [i]self-governing[/i] country on the face of the earth. It’s part of our history; it’s part of our national makeup; it’s who we are. We’ve stumbled at times, to be sure, but we’ve usually learned and grown – just like all people do.

          My fear is that [i]self-governing[/i] is giving way (or already has given way) to a political-class. Having career politicians in charge of government was never the intention of our founders. It’s why we’re often referred to as a nation of laws, not of men. If we stand firm on those laws, and rest on both the word and the spirit of our Constitution, we don’t need a political, governing class, and people from the citizenry could be quite capable of overseeing the system.

          That’s who we are, Oz, like it or not.

          I find it curious, however, that you don’t practice a little tolerance of thought. We don’t generally criticize your system, but you make sport of criticizing ours. You may not discuss your system, but we do discuss ours. After all, how could a [i]self-governing[/i] people govern effectively if we din’t discuss and get involved?

          If you don’t like it, don’t participate. It’s like going into a bar and preaching temperance (like Carrie Nation). If you don’t like it, just stay out of the bar! But you do, in my opinion, like making sport of it. And that’s why you do it.

          Abraham Lincoln illustrated it best. [i]…..and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”[/i]

        • #2754823

          Say it.

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          Oz is our crazy old, doting uncle in the attic.

        • #2754800

          and you still believe that do you?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          My home country was established through many years of very brutal war of atrition, raping, pillaging of villages.

          A King ruled the nation and goverened the people.

          But this is 2009, times change and the people should change with the times.

          You state that the USA was founded as a nation of [i]self-governing people,[/i]which I couldn’t possibly object to.

          But that was over 200 years ago and this is 2009. Your government has done as IT seems fit, as IT deems correct and simply ‘insists’ on the atonement of the people who oppose and instills fear into those who are to be easily led.

          That is NOT a nation of self-governance. No mater how much you like to hang onto outdated but conveniently selective dogma (I don’t see you justifying and hanging onto the slavery which helped build your nation).

          No matter how much you insist that was your nations foundation, it is NO MORE.

          You are a country goverened by elected leaders, the only way your ideal of self-governing can even be believed is if each and every action of the government falls in line with your own and every other Americans ideals of perfect government.

          Of course such an event would only be pure fluke, absolute one in a million and you have a better chance of winning a million from Regis. So, forget this self governing nation shite,its pure, 100% garbage that only an American could be lead to actually believe.

          I honestly don’t think you even buy it yourself, you are far too politically astute to deem yourself self governing, but you must parrot it in order to sound like a true patriotic American I suppose.

          I recognize that I can’t go and claim land on horseback with sword drawn, or while swinging a mace, but that’s how my nation was founded. Is it just the nice, convenient history you like to hang onto.

          If your nation was not goverened by a single, independent body, which didn’t always go with the people’s view, you’d have perished centuries ago to armies/navies that were properly goverened and not just a motley crue of self righteous warriors.

          In Canada, I can’t ride into Chilliwack Indian reservation and shoot Indians until I have enough land to build a home, but that’s the foundation of the nation, why can’t THAT be continued, even if only by tradition?

          Times change, just like everything else our nations were built upon, you can’t simply hang onto the past that seems grand, hopeful and righteous while dismissing the bad.

          America today is not even a vague reflection of what America once was, whether that is good or bad is not the point I’m trying to make though, that was then and this is now.

          Look around you! You are NOT, by any means, self governing; that right has been taken away from you, deal with what you have now instead and realize that you, are no different, better or worse, than any other free nation on the planet.

          You have the same deal everyone has, a bunch of liars and cheats that spend your tax money by the trillion in order to achieve their own agenda and hopefully it suits yours too, in some haphazard way.

          Hey they created the marketplace, economy and jobs, now they take your money to suit their agenda, governing your people in the process.

          Why dont you express concern about our government? Because they lay down and spread wide for YOUR government. If they opposed your government, you would be talking about invading Canada again.

          God, even not tagging along into Iraq gets the ‘you are either with us or against us’ shite thrown at us.

          Why do I express concern about YOUR government? Your government, has a great deal of global influence, due to your constant need for world resources. This creates a need for American money as it has become the chosen currency of global trade, for more than just oil.

          Segue: In my business, I importa great deal of product that originates in China. But I have ot pay duty and brokerage on everything, meaning I cannot compete with US businesses that ship to Canada.

          So why do I need to buy Chinese products from the USA? Because China likes American dollars and they sell to US distributors, instead of Canadians directly. Just an example of how your dollar is now a global currency and why YOUR politics concern me and effect Canadians.

          The stupid decisions of your government place others in danger.

          When was the last time Canada’s political moves on a foreign field endangered Americans?

        • #2754782

          LOL

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          One of the much younger crazy old uncles here anyway.

          Most of these guys on TR trump me in age, which mean that there is hope for both our nations if we can educate our young instead of filling them with outdated political dogma, like having them believe that their country is governed by the people, most high school kids wouldn’t be stupid enough to buy that garbage.

          Many Americans mock England having a queen. But that is more tradition and history than governing these days. Sure Canada has an AG that acts on behalf of the queen, but she doesn’t run government.

          However, you hang onto history as with some shred of hope that it will save you in the 21st century, and we are suppose to accept that.

        • #2754724

          Oz, nice job mocking

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          Of course, what else is new?

          And, of course, you conveniently overlooked when I said this:

          [i]My fear is that self-governing is giving way (or already has given way) to a political-class.

        • #2767908

          I didn’t miss it at all

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          in fact I think your comment is exactly what spurred mine. A ‘young’ political class, one with the ability to think in modern political terms and not simply parrot ancient speeches, one liners from past presidents and hang on to outdated dogma.

          A fresh new look at the world would be very refreshing from America. I see it on some forums, and it rears its pretty head here sometimes, but then the old codgers get in line and start telling the punk kids to go do their homework.

          Time will do its job and then THEY will be the old codgers telling the NEW young punks to do their homework too.

          I hate being seen as an old fart, 40 in a few weeks, and that’s still very young in my mind (of course it is young to ME). But I look at the youth of today and try not to frown or sigh, they do things differently, well my generation did things differently too and so will the next and so on and so on.

          I welcome young minds and inexperience to the table, it just sucks that I have to pass on the baton too them instead of joining them.

          Can you imagine what a cool place Iraq would be if there were no elders to drag up antiquated religious and cultural crap that slows down progress? Look at Dubai, some extremely rich, hip Arab decided HE wanted a big flashy city too and viola, instant metropolis!
          If you haven’t been to Dubai yet, it REALLY is worth the visit. An incredibly beautiful place especially for a dust bowl that makes you realize just how pi$$ poor you really are. When I was there, it was really just getting started, but now it is insane! My buddy just got back a month or two ago and I didn’t even recognize places I’d been in his pics, as everything else has grown around it now.

          Now lets get that same progression mentality all over the middle East and we are getting somewhere….ooops, that would be spreading OUR values and culture upon them though, one reason we are at war today.

          I guess its up to them then.

          Youth, who needs them? WE DO!

          Look at the EU, youths make it what it is today; an incredible, free continent. The remnants of WWI and II are still all over the place, bunkers still exist, pillboxes on cliffs are everywhere, as a quiet and almost haunting reminder of what war really does to a country. Just enough to keep the youth of today thanking their forefathers for the freedoms they have today, but still reminding foreign visitors that while they were t war, we are all the same, humans trying to live in peace and enjoy our lives. Its amazing how people in Germany welcome people from England with open arms, and usually a cold beer.

          P.S. there’s a difference in exposing reality and mocking. Its only mocking when your OWN false reality is exposed.

        • #2767842

          Oz – you miss more than you know.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          The key is to shut your mouth and open your ears (and mind). But you never will – your mouth won’t allow it.

          You’re actually worse than the people you criticize – much worse.

          Damn, Oz, your head is so far up your butt that you could blow your nose from the inside.

        • #2768262

          I have to interject some things here, DHCDBD

          by jck ·

          In reply to I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          [i]The glass house is that you have expressed your own opinion.[/i]

          This doesn’t qualify alone as a glass house, and Oz neither glorified nor imposed superiority of his government or people over anyone’s. If anything, he denounced his government as full of miscreants, and his people as being lackadaisical in just voting more of the like into place.

          Therefore, his house in my estimation isn’t made of glass.

          [i]Dialog is a two way affair, not the practice of “Only my opinion counts.”[/i]

          If this is true, then many of the people on here are having one-way affairs.

          Many people see their point of view on government as being “what would cure the problem” and not a point of discussion and discovery.

          [i]Now please, for the good of the world, quit being dense.[/i]

          Actually, Oz makes more sense than some here. At least, Oz makes references to direct points and gives valid comparison to others points of argument.

          Just because he is passionate about his stance, others attack him.

          Of course, there are those here who that espouse to be a follower of the teachings of the framers of our country’s founding.

          But if they really read much about Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and the like, they would know how passionate those men were in their pursuit to build a country that would escape the policy and beliefs of eliteism instilled into government.

          And, believed that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people was what works best….not just would be good for some of the people.

        • #2768260

          How very nice Max

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          Reply to a comment with flames and nothing to counter my comments or offer an alternate view.

          Eloquent and well spoken to say the least, thank you for your insight!

          Are you new to this now?

        • #2768164

          here ya go, Oz

          by jck ·

          In reply to I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          Here’s a fire blanket for you in your time of fiery endurance :^0

        • #2768149

          Nah, I need a 40lbshoe

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          To keep my foot from going up someone’s…

        • #2768130

          Thanks jck.

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to I just love it when you are obtuse, Oz.

          However my position is based on things outside of this thread.

          I do not do to others if it is avoidable, and will not tolerate being unnecessarily flamed. In real life, he and I would have had a knock down drag out. This is online, so the best thing to do is ignore any comment he directs at me or something I post.

          In the posts since then, he has calmed his stance and makes much more sense. Yes, I am trying to figure him out at this point.

        • #2748457

          Hmm… If NO government is perfect,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Okay that makes no sense at all

          maybe we should try that 🙂

        • #2748344

          Nobody would believe you, Tony.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Hmm… If NO government is perfect,

          You have just spent over half a trillion dollars trying to get Iraq to follow your paradigm of government structure.

          Bit late to be humble now, that should have happened pre 1776. 😀

        • #2766274

          too late

          by jck ·

          In reply to Hmm… If NO government is perfect,

          we have already tried having no perfect government…kinda like Zaphod Beeblebrox had no tea. :^0

    • #2748541

      The other way is not much better..

      by shellbot ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      Our Gov over here is walking around with thier heads up thier collective *sses pretending everything is great…and berating thier voting public about being negative scaremongers.

      We are at the stage where out tax take will cover the public salaries and the welfar/unemployment bill. All other monies to run the country is being borrowed. Compared to 2 years ago when we had surpluses in the billions..

      But we’re not susposed to be worried about it, we’re not susposed to be negative..we should all go out and spend lots of money..even though our job losses are coming in at an average of 1000 per day..might not sound much to those with a high population, but ireland only has a few million people..those are scary numbers for the public..

      Our Gov is not leading..it is pandering..and reacting to events rather than making some tough choices and being prepared.

      i don’t like negativity either, but in this case I’d rather have someone tell it to me straight instead of hiding behind happy rhetoric and giving me the old “ah, it will all be ok” speech..

      I hope I still have a job in 3 months..I hope that my bank doesn’t collapse and I don’t lose my savings.. but the Gov instills no sense of security in me..

      Oh look..a pink butterfly just flew by..oh, and is raining lollipops !!!! yay..sweetness for all 🙂

      I take your point on board Max..but the other side of the fence isn’t as rosy as you would hope it might be either.

      • #2748480

        Point taken, as others have made it as well

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to The other way is not much better..

        However, the alternative to predicting a doom and gloom outlook is not necessarily claiming everything is lollipops, roses and butterflies – especially from a guy who’s ONLY political platform was [i]change and hope[/i]

        You don’t give people [i]hope[/i] by preaching imminent disaster – something the Democrats ALWAYS do, so there’s no [i]change[/i] there. Moreover, in my opinion, it’s actually a part of the problem – consumer confidence, lending confidence, etc. He’s not doing anyone any favors.

        • #2748371

          Well..

          by shellbot ·

          In reply to Point taken, as others have made it as well

          whats the chances of a “middle of the road” government coming along just when you need it?
          🙂
          Maybe Obama and Brian Cowan can hook up and swap some attitude with each other!

        • #2748357

          I don’t see it happening anytime soon

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Well..

          Even if Obama would stay with what he pretended to be during the election, the current makeup of the house and senate, he would be fighting with his own party more than the opposing.

          I think he is still going to be butting heads with them a lot. I don’t think he is going to want to go in the insane directions Pelosi is going to try to drag our country.

          He is surrounded by wolves on everyside.

          Edit, because Pelosi is more of a jackal than a wolf. 😀

        • #2748354

          ah man..

          by shellbot ·

          In reply to I don’t see it happening anytime soon

          just finished reading the entire thread at once..my head is wrecked..

          i think i hear a peice of cake calling my name… yup..it is..i better go take care of it..

        • #2755026

          Confidence

          by jk2001 ·

          In reply to Point taken, as others have made it as well

          Consumers and lenders gain confidence when fluctuating markets are stabilized. When Volker got inflation under control, and when Clinton balanced the budget, confidence increased. People felt safer, fiscally, and this spurred investment.

          While there was rhetoric to push the economic growth – a lot of it was the fact that things had changed. That is why people gained hope.

          This time around Obama has to do some extreme deficit spending. More than this 800 billion plan. That’s just how it’ll be.

        • #2754767

          GWB is not a Republican?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Point taken, as others have made it as well

          I didn’t realize he was a Dem, not that either party has my support anyway.
          To suggest that the simian loser did not do the same is just being ignorant, blind or naiive.

          Of course, when it is aimed at a republican, it is easily explained and defended, when aimed at a democrat it is an accurate political analysis.

          An exmaple of Democrats [i]”giving hope preaching imminent disaster”[/i]

          On Iraq: [u][b]THE DOOM[/b][/u]

          “All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack.”

          “If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late,”

          “Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

          “If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning,”

          [b][u]THE HOPE[/b][/u]

          “Our mission in Iraq is clear. We’re hunting down the terrorists. We’re helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We’re advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability, and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.”

          (A little slapstick from GWB)
          “We would help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005.” LOL 😀

          On Iran: [b][u] THE DOOM[/u][/b]

          “President Bush warned today that Iran remained a threat despite an intelligence assessment that it had halted a covert program to develop nuclear weapons four years ago”

          [b][u]THE HOPE[/b][/u]

          Diplomatic efforts to defuse the Iran nuclear crisis must be given every chance, President Bush said Friday.

          On economy: [b][u]THE DOOM[/u][/b]

          “Without immediate action by Congress, American could slip into a financial panic and a distressing scenario would unfold,”

          [i]Action by congress? Isn’t that against American ideals of freedom and self governing?[/i] I suppose not when it coems to GWB though.

          “Ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession…We must not let this happen.”

          [u][b]THE HOPE[/b][/u]
          “Facing the prospect of a financial collapse, we took decisive measures to safeguard our economy,”

          Damn dems!

          And here’s a great quote by an elected leader of a free nation who prides themselves (yes, you were all spoken for) on being built upon a successful history self governance.

          [i][b]”You may not agree with some of the tough decisions I’ve made, but I hope you agree that I made some tough decisions.”[/i][/b] GWB 2009

        • #2766253

          points to be made

          by jck ·

          In reply to Point taken, as others have made it as well

          [i]However, the alternative to predicting a doom and gloom outlook is not necessarily claiming everything is lollipops, roses and butterflies – especially from a guy who’s ONLY political platform was change and hope[/i]

          Since when is saying that your political and fiscal policy as part of a presidential campaign “…claiming everything is lollipops, roses and butterflies…”.

          And, wasn’t it Bush who was saying positives about situations when they were really not the truth?

          Maybe Obama is just stating the truth now, and after 8 years of Bush propaganda (to quote Nicholson in A Few Good Men)…. “you can’t handle the truth”.

          [i]You don’t give people hope by preaching imminent disaster – something the Democrats ALWAYS do, so there’s no change there. Moreover, in my opinion, it’s actually a part of the problem – consumer confidence, lending confidence, etc. He’s not doing anyone any favors.[/i]

          And you don’t lead a nation by giving false feelings and half truths about the current state of things. We’ve had 8 years of that.

          Examples? Ok:

          [i]”I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program.”[/i] – President Bush with Tony Blair present to discuss the War on Terrorism, White House, 7/17/2003

          He believed in it, even though the intelligence community had told him there was no proof as well as months of UN Inspections for months before the war was starts having shown absolutely zero proof of it. So, he basically believed what he wanted to in his own head there.

          Next example:

          [i]”We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents.”[/i] – Statement by President Bush to troops in Qatar, White House, 6/5/2003

          He decided (along with his speech writers) that these trailers were biological weapons facilities, even though the Defense Intelligency Agency had already concluded in a report that their purpose was most likely…to make hydrogen for artillery weather balloons.

          Another example? OK:

          [i]”I was pleased to receive the Energy Information Administration?s final report today, which includes U.S. greenhouse gas emissions for 2006. The final report shows that emissions declined 1.5 percent from the 2005 level, while our economy grew 2.9 percent. That means greenhouse gas intensity ? how much we emit per unit of economic activity ? decreased by 4.2 percent, the largest annual improvement since 1985. This puts us well ahead of the goal I set in 2002 to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent by 2012.”[/i]

          What Bush failed to mention?

          Improved weather patterns/conditions and higher energy prices were the real difference…not his “policies”.

          That is documented in the EIA’s report that Bush quoted the parts he wanted to.

          Another example of him misquoting/misleading the American people with half-truths and deception? Here’s another:

          [i]”Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home.”[/i]

          According to the CIA, there is only possible one, organized group linked to a world-wide terror network which is “Al-Qaeda Mesopotamia”, and they say that their confidence in that link to the main group is “low”. Another vague and misleading statement.

          Most groups are just trying to run us out of their holy land, not “rule the region” in Iraq.

          So if Obama is “…claiming everything is lollipops, roses and butterflies…”

          Then Bush was selling his “beliefs” as the cure-all snake oil remedy for the world’s woes.

          I’d rather have Obama give us the straight truth, and a real direction to go with contingency plans for what to do if things stray.

          Rather than having false hopes to be shattered when things don’t happen as promised and we’re unprepared for what’s next when it does.

        • #2767597

          Shellbot said. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to points to be made

          …..in HER reply, [i]Oh look..a pink butterfly just flew by..oh, and is raining lollipops !!!! yay..sweetness for all.[/i] (Read her entire message for proper context.)

          I replied TO SHELLBOT regarding HER message, [i]”However, the alternative to predicting a doom and gloom outlook is not necessarily claiming everything is lollipops, roses and butterflies – especially from a guy who’s ONLY political platform was change and hope.”[/i]

          Geesh!

          As to the rest of your Bush-bashing message, what else is new?

          You may now go back to your Obama worshiping.

        • #2766196

          it’s not worshipping

          by jck ·

          In reply to Shellbot said. . . . . .

          It’s respecting someone who will talk straight to you, and not dance around the subject.

          He even said it himself:

          [i]”I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth,”[/i]
          – Barack Obama, 11/08/07

          Some people appreciate leadership who isn’t lying about circumstances or misleading them with half-truths into a false sense of security.

          Guess I’m stupid for that, huh?

          Edit: added example quote

        • #2769758

          [i]leadership who isn’t lying . . .or misleading them with half-truths [/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to it’s not worshipping

          That’s exactly what President Obama is doing.

          [i]This fearmongering may be good politics, but it is bad history and bad economics. It is bad history because our current economic woes don’t come close to those of the 1930s. At worst, a comparison to the 1981-82 recession might be appropriate…..

          Mr. Obama’s analogies to the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they’re also dangerous. Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren’t likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence that is restraining a spending pickup. [/i]

          – Mr. Bradley Schiller, an economics professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, is the author of “The Economy Today”

          [i]President Obama is doing a grave disservice by his continued rhetoric on how bad the economy is and on how long it will take for recovery (years, not months) and by claiming that our economy is in the worst shape since the great depression.

          The former will only serve to prolong the lagging economy, and, in essence, help this self-fulfilling prophecy become reality. The latter is simply a blatant lie, not even close to being true.

          The prophecy of gloom and doom is alive and well. Instilling financial fear in people is not only doing them a grave disservice, but it will actually keep people and businesses from fully participating in the economy, thereby contributing to its further slide and making recovery more difficult.[/i]

          -Maxwell Edison

          You may not agree with me, jck, but economics professor Bradley Schiller does.

          You may now return to your blind worship of Barack Obama.

        • #2769745

          Max, feel the “hope”

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to [i]leadership who isn’t lying . . .or misleading them with half-truths [/i]

          after all, Obama has ended the politics of fear and instead is leading us hopefully to “change”.

          Of course any thinking human realizes the only
          “change” is what is left in our pockets.

          Notice how many of his appointees backed out because of not paying their taxes? I thought it was Democrats that thought people should be paying MORE taxes, not cheating on their taxes?

        • #2774782

          having someone to agree with

          by jck ·

          In reply to [i]leadership who isn’t lying . . .or misleading them with half-truths [/i]

          Having one professor agree with you doesn’t make you right.

          At least, Schiller is an expert in economics. The last “expert” you quoted that I actually took the time to look up had a degree and experience in a totally different field.

          Of course if having one professor is what validates your theories, then I must be irrefutable in my belief in Obama…since most of the participating voters in America voted for Obama like I did.

          I’m sure if I wanted to take time, I could find an economics professor at a much more prestigious institution than UN-Reno in financial and socio-economic studies to counter your one reference.

          As for lying and half-truths…you have no evidence that Obama’s plans have not worked and that he lied about circumstances.

          And why would that be?

          Because…he is just signing them today…he’s done nothing but state the truth about the economy being down…and you are too closed-minded and narrowly-focused on the hate of someone who is in power that doesn’t share your ideologies enough that you don’t even want to let the man have his legal and electorally-designated right to have his chance to try and fix our country.

          Anyways…I will now gladly go back to the “blind worship of Barack Obama”…

          And, you can go back to the self-indulgent art of contortionism you’ve mastered by patting yourself on the back and kissing your own arse so much here on TR.

        • #2774780

          poor JD

          by jck ·

          In reply to [i]leadership who isn’t lying . . .or misleading them with half-truths [/i]

          should I rattle off the list of Congressmen, Governors, etc., that have not paid taxes in the last 5 years?

          you’d be shocked. it’s not just Democrats.

          BTW…

          If it’s so bad that Democrats want people to pay more taxes to fund things in this country…

          Isn’t it worse that the Republicans want to implement tax cuts that majority benefit the top 20% of income levels in this country?

          How do you think Americans can spend…if only the wealthy are getting tax breaks?

          BTW…my proof that Bush’s “middle-class tax cut” was a crock of $hit:

          My income level stayed within $1000 of last years….

          My refund went down over $600.

          What’s wrong with this picture?

          I’m glad those trusty Republicans gave me a bigger tax break!

          What a crock. Keep thinking Republicans are any better, and you’ll get back in office what we just got rid of.

        • #2774740

          [i]. . . . . tax refund went down $600 . . . . .[/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to [i]leadership who isn’t lying . . .or misleading them with half-truths [/i]

          The amount of one’s refund is not an indicator of the amount of one’s taxes paid.

          When tax laws change, whether the rates go up or down, witholding rules and amounts also change, and payment rules and amounts change for the self-employed.

          The only thing a tax refund shows is the amount of the interest free loan one made to the government.

        • #2770332

          The LAST stimulus was an advance of YOUR money

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to [i]leadership who isn’t lying . . .or misleading them with half-truths [/i]

          well, for the people that pay taxes. For the others is was just one more welfare check.

          This coming “stimulus” has very little to do with stimulating the economy, and most won’t take effect for another YEAR.

          But it sure has a lot of backdooring of socializing medical that could never pass in real legislation.

        • #2770289

          stimulus coming next year

          by jck ·

          In reply to [i]leadership who isn’t lying . . .or misleading them with half-truths [/i]

          Yep, and I guess that’s a bad thing that they are breaking it down over a 2 year period, especially the forecast is about another year of down market before we see a turn-around.

          I guess just throwing all the money at the problem at once is gonna solve everything, right JD?

          If that worked in real life as much as it does in your head, parents would more often take 18 years of allowance and give it to their kids at age 5 or 6 all at once and say “Okay…go have fun”.

          But like kids, most Americans aren’t reasonable enough to take a large, lump sum amount and do what’s right with it. They tend to get huge chunks of cash and go “Well I could pay a bill off…but I’m gonna splurge on a new …insert unneeded item here…!”

          And again, you’re not even giving the plan an opportunity. You are shooting it down before it even gets a chance to work.

          Surprisingly and to the polar opposite, you still think (like others here) that trickle-down Reaganomics will work to get our country out of a rut when it did nothing more in the 1980s than level off the economy and put us in our worst national debt…until the point that Dubya took over.

          I suppose we should just go with the Republican ideology and keep handing banks and auto companies money and let them be trusted to not lose that money too, right?

        • #2770155

          But you,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to [i]leadership who isn’t lying . . .or misleading them with half-truths [/i]

          [i]But like kids, most Americans aren’t reasonable enough to take a large, lump sum amount and do what’s right with it. [/i]

          “Right” in whose opinion? Who should decide what’s “right” for me to do with my money?

          (Maybe I’ll buy more ammo with mine… Is that OK with you?)

        • #2770055

          sure you can, Tony

          by jck ·

          In reply to [i]leadership who isn’t lying . . .or misleading them with half-truths [/i]

          I already bought mine. Stop by with your gun on the way to the store :^0

        • #2770159

          No (jck),

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to it’s not worshipping

          [i]Isn’t it worse that the Republicans want to implement tax cuts that majority benefit the top 20% of income levels in this country?[/i]

          Because the top 20% don’t pay their taxes. They include it in the cost of the goods and services their businesses sell. It’s the people who buy those things who are really paying those taxes, and it is they who will benefit if we cut the tax the taxes on that group.

        • #2770054

          it’s worse than that, Tony

          by jck ·

          In reply to No (jck),

          not only do they pass on the (temporary) increased level of taxes, but then Congress writes in the loopholes created to appease their lobbies…and then they get tax credits and rebates and deductions that give them that back as a profit.

          I wish I could go promise to sink money into things that I know aren’t going come to fruition, have Congress give me tons more money to do what I promise, only spend part of that money on what I said I would, and take the rest as a profit.

          Must be nice to be so downtrodden as a corporation.

        • #2770032

          Which is why

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to No (jck),

          there shouldn’t have been any bailouts. We know these people do these things, and that doing these things contributed to this mess, but we give them more money to do more of it. How stupid! Every member of Congress who voted for this crap should be sho^H^H^H removed from office 🙂

        • #2770015

          Absolutely

          by jck ·

          In reply to No (jck),

          I know we agree on that, Tony.

          The bailing out of financial institutions and automotive manufacturers in the country, because of their inability to do their job and be profitable, is akin to me going to work and not doing my job and getting docked for it and expecting the government to supplement my income because I didn’t earn my money.

          BTW, we should really just let GM and Chrysler fail. Toyota and Nissan and Hyundai and Kia are all still profitable, and they make cars in this country.

          Maybe it’s time we got our nose out of the air, and realized that our greatness in industry…isn’t so great.

        • #2769622

          The problem is huge. Paulson said so. Bush said so. Obama says so.

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to Point taken, as others have made it as well

          What we’re in now is not just a downturn in a typical business cycle. The whole banking and finance system has screwed itself. It did this by making preposterous bets on a real estate bubble, and by inventing new ways to make money easier to borrow so that it could be invested in real estate.

          Just as the value of your home is (or was)probably several times the value of your annual income, the value of all the nation’s real estate dwarfs the value of what we earn. The price of real estate stays high because of its worth relative to every other priced commodity we deal with. There’s no way to know the “right” value; it’s a balance. What’s become clear is that as financiers made fat fees on money transactions on real estate, they discovered that by making it easier to put money into real estate the prices would rise, which made possible additional borrowing, refinancing, and fees. Very shady deals were perpetrated by the largest banks, because the finance industry fell into wishful thinking believing that steadily increasing prices would make any deal profitable in the end. And, the fees all came up front. Bankers bought themselves nicer homes and nicer cars; bankers’ second wives kept getting prettier every year. It’s obvious it had to stop, but when it was working, who would want to make it stop? Homeowners, who were borrowed to the hilt? Homeowners who were not in debt, but kept seeing the value of their investment rise? Bankers and brokers, who were becoming millionaires? Politicians?

          The first sign that something major was going wrong was in February 2008 when the auction rate securities market, which had set the price for $200bn of municipal bonds and medium-term corporate debt for 20 years, simply ceased to function. The auctions all failed because banks ceased to bid on the debt. Through the summer, a few hundred thousand foreclosures made lots of those crappy mortgage-based securities non-paying, and major investment banks and insurance companies found that their sure bets were losing money.

          Paulson and Bush (and Alan Greenspan, too) crapped their pants when they found out how bad it was, and proposed $700 billion dollars to keep the national banking system from grinding to a halt. That emergency sum exceeds the entire 2009 defense budget. AIG, the insuror that sold default protection on bonds, has by itself absorbed over $125bn to make its bets good. Nobody thought that $700bn would clear all the issues, and it appears that a further $1500bn is now called for. It could go higher. Meanwhile, the economy is contracting as people cannot borrow money and their asset values decline. World trade is also tanking.

          The problem is on the scale of the crisis that led to the Great Depression of 1930-1941. For twelve years national unemployment never fell below 12% and was as high as 25% (and worse in some states.) Stock prices fell 90% between 1929 and 1933. We haven’t gotten that bad yet. A lot of people (like your Reno economist, Schiller) make the argument that it isn’t that bad yet, therefore it won’t get any worse, and our real problem is just a fevered imagination.

          It ain’t so. Bush, Paulson, and Greenspan know how bad it is, and they are no sentimental liberals. This is a problem that could destroy your retirement, and could put 50 million people into poverty, and create a situation of financial stagnation that could last the better part of a generation. It could create the terms of the next world war. It’s best to deal with it before it gets to doomsday proportions, which means facing it honestly now, and spending money now.

    • #2755018

      On the other hand,

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      perhaps the visible show of ineptness coursing through Washington these days will nudge people toward relying on the people who will be doing the brunt of the work anyway…themselves!

      • #2754812

        I go back and forth on this….

        by notsochiguy ·

        In reply to On the other hand,

        I was having a discussion about this with some buddies of mine prior to the UFC show this past Saturday.

        The optimist in me hopes that this does help usher in a new age of self-reliance. That people finally ‘get it’ that no one is going to care more about them then themselves; and that they start acting accordingly. However, I can’t help but have this sense of dread; that the nation is being setup to become even more dependent on the government.

        Hopefully, this is unfounded paranoia brought on by being a fan of too many dystopian books & films.

    • #2754816
      • #2754802

        Shot across the bow

        by santeewelding ·

        In reply to Do you think there’s any significance to:

        Love it. Thanks.

      • #2754784

        I love it – However. . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Do you think there’s any significance to:

        …..I wonder how much of it is symbolism instead of substance.

        I’ve always thought that the best way to reign in the federal government would be for the individual states to do whatever they can to take back their power – to opt out, so to speak.

        The federal tax code is the first thing that would have to be addressed – or ignored. When there starts to be serious discussion, and enough support to repeal the 16th amendment, then I’ll believe there’s real substance to a [i]States Rights[/i] movement.

      • #2754698

        The way I read those were…

        by dhcdbd ·

        In reply to Do you think there’s any significance to:

        That they were more about secession than about states rights.

        The Civil war was about secession and not slavery as many believe. That war was to prove succession was not possible.

        • #2754693

          Secession, succession

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to The way I read those were…

          Whatever.

          What of paroxysm now?

        • #2767936

          Got me again…

          by dhcdbd ·

          In reply to Secession, succession

          Durn spell checkers, can’t read my mind. I’ll fix it – this time.

        • #2767917

          They all mention

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The way I read those were…

          the tenth amendment. That indicates to me that these states think that the federal government is imposing on or interfering with them in ways it has no right to, and are voicing their displeasure via legislation.

          It is encouraging in that it appears that a (growing) number of people beginning to assert themselves in this government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

          The point is not to secede and start another civil war. It is to clarify just who is supposed to be working for whom… that the Federal government was created by the states; it is an agent of the states; and it is ultimately answerable to the states.

        • #2767913

          A question

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to They all mention

          Have you done similar digging over the last 20 or so years to see how many times similar petitions have been put forth or acted upon? or is this a first, therefore it seems unique?

          I’m definitely not calling you a liar, Tony or takign you to task on your digging. I’m just wondering how much relevance is there. People petition and protest all the time to little or no avail. Is this really new or just more of the same political posturing that all nations face?

        • #2767878

          Since the civil war

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to A question

          there have been lots of protests, but not often does an entire state do such. Off hand I know Georgia and California have done it, but those were clearly protests… sort of a ‘no confidence vote’ against something the Fed did. It’s not a new right…. States have always had it… the legislation is just a notice that those states may intend to exercise that right.

          Relevance? I don’t know yet. Right now it’s merely curious that several states would do it in seemingly close proximity time-wise.

          If it would grow to a majority, we might be getting a feeling that something’s definitely afoot. If it grows to a super-majority (38), It would be a fair bet that something historic is about to occur.

          It’s way too soon to start getting excited though.

        • #2767876

          Like you say

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Since the civil war

          Too soon. Maybe.

        • #2767872

          Well,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Like you say

          it’s NOT too soon to grow a petition in our own state 🙂

        • #2768252

          thanks for that

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Since the civil war

          I must question “several states would do it…” I understand what you’re getting at, but I wonder if such petitions are placed when new presidents take office, just to show a clear viewpoint of the state.

          Sorta like when i move to a new employer, the first things that I do is have my lawyer run through their contract, edit and request amendment to their non-compete (which is always some US contract downloaded online that doesn’t apply by BC Law unless amended).

          It’s a formality to let the employer know I am going to work within my rights and that I understand my employee rights, often better than the employer.

          I am wondering if this posturing is common for a state that may lean the other way (Dem or Repub) in order to identify the fact that they are not just blind followers of the existing government but understand and will exercise such individual rights if needed.

          Again I am not contesting what you have posted, it is clear, the language is as concise as a legal document can be and very finitely defined.

          They illustrate that while they know they understand they have little freedom to act independently, that there are exceptions and they may choose to exercise independence outside of common restrictions.

          It seems like posturing to say, “hey, we don’t like the current government’s aims and if we are pushed we’ll find a way out.”

          I could be wrong, but it really looks like a very common way of setting the ground rules that a lot of companies do with employee contracts too. “I know my rights, I know YOUR rights, now lets move forward and keep that in mind to avoid issues.”

      • #2767916

        Is there any hope in that?

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Do you think there’s any significance to:

        Similar to the flag of hope that Obama has been waving?

        If you really dig through the docs, they are all so mighty and exclusive, until the exclusions are noted.

        It is seen to apply for all issues not outlined in the Constutution, and even then VERY finitely defined as to the boundaries that afford a sovreign state ability to act on its own accord.

        Judging by replies I’ve seen here in the last 8 or so years, your constitution applies to everything from waking up in the morning to farting at noon. You apply your constitution in such blanket form and redefine the rules as needed to fit a given scenario.

        With such loose and vaguely applied constitutional rights, the government would be able to negate just about any opposition to its decisions based on a variance of constitutional verbage.

        Good luck with that, it seems like the states are at least tryign to appear to be independent or retain some form of independence in the divided states of America, however it all reads as just fartign in the wond to create some form of public support that the state is on teh people’s side. When denied change it is the nasty government’s fault for repressing them, not the state’s for not acting out to retain independence. State politicians look grand and gain support, ‘maybe next time’, while teh government looks mean and unweiding, set on removing your rights as Americans.

        It’s only missing teh cheerleaders. “Go get ’em senator, keep our state independent!”

        “We stand together and don’t give a f**k!
        If Obama’s president we’re sh*t out of luck!”

        Like I said, sounds nice and all, but how effective is it without actually gaining full sovreignity as a state? It is too easy to drill down on loosely applied terminology when it is restricted by very tightly defined legislation and a vaguely applied constitution tha covers anything they want it to for the day’s benfit

        • #2767875

          I don’t think it’s anything to do with Obama specifically

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Is there any hope in that?

          As most of these bills were introduced as far back as 8 months ago.

          [i]Like I said, sounds nice and all, but how effective is it without actually gaining full sovreignity as a state?[/i]

          They don’t need full sovereignty to make a stand. They only need to act in concert, recall their senators, thereby preventing the federal legislature from passing a single law! Not saying that’s what they’re planning… but that they can, if they want, bring Washington DC to a screeching halt.

        • #2768249

          I didn’t see that much freedom in it really

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I don’t think it’s anything to do with Obama specifically

          Honestly, I scoured through three or four, mainly the exceptions and understanding of restrictions (that’s where contracts make the most sense and the truth behind the aim is seen). For example, a contract can be very open and seemingly fair. But then in the details you see things like, ‘agreeing that the restrictions stated are fair and just and waiving a right to seek further action. etc.’

          So while it seems one you really have nothing to stand on if there are issues, in Canada such a document cannot ask you to waive such personal rights, if you sign it and it hits a court, the judge will dismiss it immediately. However it happens and is applied in US courts quite often, where “Signing your life away” or your Constitutional rights is actually possible.

          It just really seems like political posturing to gain favour of the people, while the document itself is very tightly defined and does not offer the state quite the ‘freedom of choice’ that it appears to offer. There are a lot of acknowledgments and exceptions listed that seem to knowingly negate many of the previous terms.

        • #2768090

          Isn’t it always….

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I didn’t see that much freedom in it really

          [i]It just really seems like political posturing[/i]

          (sigh…)

      • #2767620

        No, there’s no significance to secessionist crackpots

        by delbertpgh ·

        In reply to Do you think there’s any significance to:

        Seceding ain’t an option, not even in the Constitution, as those guys are wont to argue. The Civil War (where the secessionists lost) pretty well settled that.

    • #2769797

      I’m not the only one who sees this Obama rhetoric as destructive

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457303244386495.html

      The WSJ article echos everything I’ve said.

      • #2769747

        fear mongering

        by jck ·

        In reply to I’m not the only one who sees this Obama rhetoric as destructive

        is a political tactic, and has been used in almost every presidential campaign and subsequent administration.

        Hunting down (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

        Star Wars initiatives?

        What spurred those? Wasn’t a Coca-Cola ad, I can tell you that.

        Is the economic crisis any less real? No.

        Of course, Mr. Schiller doesn’t point how things have changed.

        Such as since the period of the 1987 problems with the market, they have implemented stop gaps to keep the market from free falling. 40% three-day declines are now, in essence, not allowed.

        Therefore, the market could not get as bad as it was in 1929. As soon as the market falls a certain percentage, the system shuts down and everyone goes home.

        Hence, you’re never gonna see days like that again. To expect any economy to lose 25% of it’s value in two days now is absurd and essentially an impossible action.

        Are Obama’s words destructive?

        I guess that depends on your view of things.

        I stand by the belief that if they indeed are so damaging to the already ailing economy, they still will never be any more destructive than the people who have been running the US Automakers and US Banks already have been to our country.

        Only difference:

        Obama compensation: $400k a year

        Bankers: a lot more

        What makes those running private industry so much more destructive than Obama? Actions like these:

        Richard Fairbank, the chairman of Capital One Financial Corp., took a $1 million hit in compensation after his company had a disappointing year, but still got $17 million in stock options. The McLean, Va.-based company received $3.56 billion in bailout money Nov. 14.

        John Thain, chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $83 million in earnings last year. Thain, a former chief operating officer for Goldman Sachs, took the reins of the company in December 2007, avoiding the blame for a year in which Merrill lost $7.8 billion. Since he began work late in the year, he earned $57,692 in salary, a $15 million signing bonus and an additional $68 million in stock options. Merrill Lynch got $10B.

        At Bank of New York Mellon Corp., chief executive Robert Kelly’s stipend for financial planning services came to $66,748, on top of his $975,000 salary and $7.5 million bonus. His car and driver cost $178,879. Kelly also received $846,000 in relocation expenses, including help selling his home in Pittsburgh and purchasing one in Manhattan, the company said.

        Goldman Sachs’ tab for leased cars and drivers ran as high as $233,000 per executive. The firm told its shareholders this year that financial counselling and chauffeurs are important in giving executives more time to focus on their jobs. Lloyd Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took home nearly $54 million in compensation last year. The company’s top five executives received a total of $242 million. Goldman Sachs got $10B.

        It is irresponsibility by arrogant, out-of-touch, and frankly inept executives that have caused this to happen. If they had any sort of commitment to their institutions and shareholders, they would have halted excessive spending and stabilized their own situations.

        Hence, I don’t think Obama’s frankness about what can happen with the economy if things are not done right is not destructive.

        It’s a wake-up call to America to take notice and make sure things are done right.

        Otherwise, we’re all f-ed.

        • #2774779

          Where was his “frankness” when he was a Senator?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to fear mongering

          As a US Senator, was he talking out against this in 05? 06?

          Anywhere but on the campaign trail?

          Did he talk about against the bad loans that were being handed out, that was the first domino to start falling?

          Did he talk out against Fanny/freddy, or did he higher their old execs and take the MOST funding from them?

        • #2774752

          No

          by jck ·

          In reply to Where was his “frankness” when he was a Senator?

          Because there was no “crisis” to talk out about…because it didn’t exist when he became a US Senator, and had just started showing itself when he started his presidential campaign.

          It became a major issue while he was on the campaign trail. That’s why he talked about it.

          As for hiring their old execs…do you know who hired those “execs”? That’s right: The Bush Administration.

          Who oversaw Fannie and Freddie for 8 years while this all happened? That’s right: The Bush Administration.

          Who was in control of the Federal government while this all went down and could have changed things, while Barack Obama was a state senator from Illinois who could do nothing at a Federal level from 2001-2005? That’s right: The Bush Administration.

          For someone who hates Obama for not taking initiative from a state senate seat, you sure let the people who were IN POWER in Washington have a free pass.

          Why aren’t you complaining about:

          Bush doing nothing from 2001-2007 if it was so clear it would happen?

          Bush doing nothing to change leadership and reform the system from 2001-2007 if it was so corrupt and bad?

          The Republican controlled Congress from 2001-2006 for not changing the things you blame Clinton for doing when they had the power to do so?

          See, you are trying to blame Obama for things he [b]COULD NOT CHANGE[/b] 2 and 3 and 4 years ago.

          But, you are not asking “Why didn’t Bush and the Republicans fix the problem?”

          Again, your bias shows.

          Blame those who had power when it could have been prevented, not those who inherited the problem.

        • #2774745

          And yet…

          by dwdino ·

          In reply to No

          The evidence begins to show. Now, with bill on desk for 3 days, our almighty change agent waits to sign the resurrection of the economy…

          Hmmm, why don’t you come down off that pedestal.

        • #2774743

          Bill on desk

          by jck ·

          In reply to And yet…

          over the weekend…gee. I guess putting the brakes on a bill for a week to go to Crawford is okay?

          You guys are really sad. You call him the messiah/almighty in sarcasm, then expect truly miraculous feats from the man.

          Give him a break, since you haven’t even given him 30 days to do his job he’s been given 4 years to do by the American voters.

        • #2770314

          Again…

          by dwdino ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          …stay on track. Your tangents grow tiresome. The bill was pressed for with the utmost urgency. The pressure from the top down was unrelenting.

          If I had pushed for a Ferrari and received a call that the keys were ready, I would be there immediately.

          So I ask, if this bill will save our economy and is Obama’s desire, why has he delayed so long in signing?

        • #2770284

          rather than reading about it

          by jck ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          let me spoon-feed you the answers…

          It seems that Obama had plans to go back to Chicago that day, and was already back in Chicago, spending time with his family (and Valentine’s Day with his wife) and what not when Congress finally decided to pass the legislation that night.

          You see…Washington DC is on the east coast, and Chicago sits in the middle of the country…and there’s this thing called distance…and it means he couldn’t just have the courier bring it from capitol hill to the oval office for him to sign…cause he wasn’t there!

          OH WAIT! Both Houses of Congress could have the legislation taken to him. But did they? Why, no they didn’t. I guess Obama should have flown right back Valentine’s day to sign it, rather than Congress sending it via courier to be signed ASAP.

          See, it’s really simple. And if you’d read about where Obama was and how they were not sure the bill would pass on Friday or not…Obama can’t be expected to stay in DC while they hmmm-hawww and maybe get it done when he has other arrangements made. And, Congress could have had the legislation delivered by courier, or members from both sides could have taken it to him (as has been done before on occassion) to be signed.

          As for tangents: it’s not a tangent. it’s a comparison as to how you are attacking Obama and his rather short track record for only the negatives you want to see, yet are not willing to point out that other presidents before have not pushed Congress to move this quickly before in times of economic downturns.

          Give the guy some credit. He’s actually doing a good job getting things moving and working with both parties to try and get our country moving again.

          It’s a lot more than Bush did to bring unity…at least until the point that he had to when Congress was taken control of by the Democrats and had to work with them.

        • #2770271

          Nothing new there…

          by dwdino ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          I am aware of these facts.

          The point remains, he pushes expectations he doesn’t maintain. Apparently this measure is not that important to act upon.

          I will give him credit when his choices and directives reap benefits, not just for being eloquant.

          And unity, please… So we all decide to get in a car and drive over a cliff, yet the one who refused to go along is belittled!? Thank you, but no.

        • #2770264

          huh?

          by jck ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          [i]The point remains, he pushes expectations he doesn’t maintain. Apparently this measure is not that important to act upon.[/i]

          Was Congress going to stay there all weekend and wait until he signed it, just in case he vetoed it so they could work on it further?

          No.

          So, there was no double standard. Congress headed home after they were done, and wouldn’t have adjourned til after the holiday either if he had vetoed it.

          Period.

          [i]I will give him credit when his choices and directives reap benefits, not just for being eloquant. [/i]

          But until then, you will only spin negativity about his plan?

          Wait, you put him down for being negative about the current, factual economic conditions.

          But, you will put him down for a plan you don’t know will work or not?

          [i]And unity, please… So we all decide to get in a car and drive over a cliff, yet the one who refused to go along is belittled!? Thank you, but no.[/i]

          Where’s the cliff? You are foreshadowing doom and gloom AGAIN, when you haven’t given his plan the opportunity to work.

          See. You damn him for doing it on TV, but you’ll get in here in a public forum that 1,000s of people read and down his plan like it will only drive us further into financial hades.

          Good job…nice hypocrisy lesson there. We’ll have to implement that into schools next year as “theory of hypocrisy 101” :^0

        • #2770250

          His point, that you ignore

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          is Obama has been saying this is an emergency situation and HAS to be dealt with ASAP.

          Weekends, Presidents day, Valentines day, sure, those are all more pressing, now.

          And as his family is now living in the white house, how could anything be more important back in Chicago?

          Wasted time, as you, the great republican, will hear no ill of Obama.

        • #2770051

          as I said

          by jck ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          it’s a double standard.

          Did you see Congress wait all weekend in Washington for him to sign it? In case he vetoed it? What if Congress didn’t pass it? Is he supposed to sit in the Oval Office until they do?

          And, why (if Congress considered it so important) didn’t they have it couriered to Chicago?

          See, you want Obama to make the sacrifice. But, you won’t expect that of every other man and woman who is involved in the process.

          Put everyone on the same level and make it fair.

          BTW, Obama’s family was already in Chicago. Read the news, and you’d know that.

          I guess you want his wife and daughters to have to put their lives on hold and sit in the White House and wait on Congress too, huh?

        • #2770049

          In turn

          by dwdino ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          “huh?
          The point remains, he pushes expectations he doesn’t maintain. Apparently this measure is not that important to act upon.

          Was Congress going to stay there all weekend and wait until he signed it, just in case he vetoed it so they could work on it further?

          No.”

          -Assumption.

          “So, there was no double standard. Congress headed home after they were done, and wouldn’t have adjourned til after the holiday either if he had vetoed it.

          Period.”

          -Generalization.

          “I will give him credit when his choices and directives reap benefits, not just for being eloquant.

          But until then, you will only spin negativity about his plan?

          Wait, you put him down for being negative about the current, factual economic conditions.

          But, you will put him down for a plan you don’t know will work or not?”

          -Personal attack instead of issue discussion. Sign of weakness…

          “And unity, please… So we all decide to get in a car and drive over a cliff, yet the one who refused to go along is belittled!? Thank you, but no.

          Where’s the cliff? You are foreshadowing doom and gloom AGAIN, when you haven’t given his plan the opportunity to work.

          See. You damn him for doing it on TV, but you’ll get in here in a public forum that 1,000s of people read and down his plan like it will only drive us further into financial hades.”

          -Personal attack 2. I have pointed out the facts of his actions. Nothing more or less. I haven’t even really discussed the plan. More weakness…

          “Good job…nice hypocrisy lesson there. We’ll have to implement that into schools next year as “theory of hypocrisy 101″”

          -Assumptions based upon failures above. JCK, please develop the ability to intelligently debate the subject matter instead of sheepishly falling back to personal attacks and whymsical assumptions.

        • #2770034

          Yes, his wife SHOULD wait

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          Now I know for sure that you are just trolling because no one is insane enough to think that after Obama spent the last few weeks saying what an emergency this is and it has to be passed NOW, but not until he gives a box of candy to his wife?

          That is just stupid, dumb, and ignorant.

        • #2770023

          and turned back

          by jck ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          [i]”huh?
          The point remains, he pushes expectations he doesn’t maintain. Apparently this measure is not that important to act upon.

          Was Congress going to stay there all weekend and wait until he signed it, just in case he vetoed it so they could work on it further?

          No.”

          -Assumption.[/i]

          Nope. In fact, several members of Congress went home to their home districts including 2 members of the House from Florida. I know. I live in Florida, and one of them was my rep. Not an assumption.

          Also, you *assumed* that Obama mandated to Congress that they *must* get it done by Friday. He did no such thing. He may have pressured, asked, demanded, etc. However, Obama does NOT have power over Congress. Hence, you are granting him an authority he does not own in his position, then [b]assuming[/b] he made them stay there and then himself did not stay.

          Hence, you have assumed.

          [i]”So, there was no double standard. Congress headed home after they were done, and wouldn’t have adjourned til after the holiday either if he had vetoed it.

          Period.”

          -Generalization.[/i]

          No. It’s not a generalization.

          Whenever the House or Senate dismisses for the weekend or a holiday, it takes a call for a special session to bring them back.

          That’s legislative procedure.

          Fact.

          [i]”I will give him credit when his choices and directives reap benefits, not just for being eloquant.

          But until then, you will only spin negativity about his plan?

          Wait, you put him down for being negative about the current, factual economic conditions.

          But, you will put him down for a plan you don’t know will work or not?”

          -Personal attack instead of issue discussion. Sign of weakness…[/i]

          No, it’s a fact. You and others only expect good things from him, good things said by him, etc.

          Yet, you don’t hold yourself to the same standard. And, you criticize him when you say he has done that to someone else.

          That, in the dictionary definition, makes you a hypocrite.

          If you don’t believe me, look the word up.

          As well, you and others criticized the plan and [b]assume[/b] that it won’t work. You don’t give it a chance, and act like you are the all-seeing Oracle of Economic Recovery.

          You assumed. Same thing you have accused me of doing. That is another text book example of hypocrisy.

          Fact.

          [i]”And unity, please… So we all decide to get in a car and drive over a cliff, yet the one who refused to go along is belittled!? Thank you, but no.

          Where’s the cliff? You are foreshadowing doom and gloom AGAIN, when you haven’t given his plan the opportunity to work.

          See. You damn him for doing it on TV, but you’ll get in here in a public forum that 1,000s of people read and down his plan like it will only drive us further into financial hades.”

          -Personal attack 2. I have pointed out the facts of his actions. Nothing more or less. I haven’t even really discussed the plan. More weakness…[/i]

          And yet the same action (going into a public venue and only making negative commentary about the economic stimulus vs his going onto television and commenting that the economy is in horrible shape…which it is if you haven’t noticed) you criticize him for, you do yourself.

          Or haven’t you? Should I quote you?

          And I have pointed out the fact of your actions. You criticize him [b]personally[/b] for his actions, but you turn around and do the same thing.

          [i]”Good job…nice hypocrisy lesson there. We’ll have to implement that into schools next year as “theory of hypocrisy 101″”

          -Assumptions based upon failures above. JCK, please develop the ability to intelligently debate the subject matter instead of sheepishly falling back to personal attacks and whymsical assumptions.[/i]

          Let’s see. Another reason to call you a hypocrite:

          I call you hypocritical for criticizing Obama for doing things you do yourself…and that you hold Obama to a standard that you don’t hold all other parties involved in the passage of the economic reform to…and I am weak.

          You call me weak and assert that I lack intelligence and that I make assumptions (even tho I have presented statements and fact)…and that makes you…some kind of phenom??

          I assure you that just because you can’t see your own short-comings and lack the cognizance to realize that you hold some resentment toward Obama (since you won’t equalize the playing field for all involved in the process of legislation) doesn’t mean I am the unintelligent.

          It means that I won’t expect something of someone that I won’t expect of others.

          Humility is evidently something you never learned in life. Otherwise, you wouldn’t assume I lack intelligence just because I won’t conform to your belief or let you get away with expecting things of someone that you don’t expect of yourself as well.

          Oh, and since I’m so lacking in intelligence:

          it’s [b]whimsical[/b]

          References:
          http://www.m-w.com/
          http://www.askoxford.com/

          Dictionaries are a great thing. I even have one. Must be because I lack intelligence.

        • #2769657

          again jd

          by jck ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          You’re holding him to a standard that you didn’t hold others to as president.

          Another president let a funding bill for the military for Afghanistan sit on his desk 5 days in 2007.

          Are our troops not important? Do you think that president didn’t know it was there? Was something so important just overlooked?

          Honestly, I think:

          1) you are listening to way too much Fox or Rush or something
          2) you are only looking for the negatives in anything he does.
          3) you are making too many assumptions based on the press you’re exposed to.

          I can guarantee you: no piece of legislation says “thou shalt only give jobs to blacks and hispanics”.

          If you go back and look as well, I bet few (if any) presidents have organized their staff as fast as Obama.

          As well, I think you are empowering Obama as having been the only driving force behind Congress getting this bill done. I can assure you, Congress was pushing itself because they knew there was an expectation of their constituency to get something done now that Bush was gone and Obama was in office and he was a man of action.

          Oh…one really critical question:

          If you can expect Obama to not take 3 days to sign the bill.

          How can you let Congress, with all their legal knowledge and experience, not have to get that legislation sooner than 1 month?

          Congress could have drafted that bill in days. They’ve done it before with other spending.

          So…why does Obama have to do things as quickly as possible, but Congress gets a free pass?

          Just wondering that.

        • #2769649

          Congress is a joke and doing a horrible job

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          but this discussion isn’t about congress, is it? It is about Obama and the job he is or isn’t doing.

          Take your meds, and maybe you will be able to focus on a subject without making excuses or trying to change the subject.

          oh, “A” for you, because you went a whole post without blaming Bush for something. Well done, we are starting to see some progress with you. Now, just focus a little more and one day, you may be able to discuss without the excuses/blame/distractions. Maybe.

        • #2769642

          ya know

          by jck ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          For someone you don’t think much of, you sure hold Obama to a high standard.

          What is that all about?

          And, yeah. Congress does suck. Has for decades. Why? Cause two parties are in there squabbling over little petty crap instead of doing their job.

          That’s why if we had housewives and barbers and farmers and postal workers making legislation and voting on things, we’d be better off than having a bunch of silver-spooned attorneys who most have never had a grain of dirt under their fingernail from a hard day’s honest work.

          We need diversity in Congress, rather than just elitist legal minds who think they know everything.

          Otherwise, we’re going to keep having issues like we have since the 19th century.

          And again: whenever I compare president to president, it is fair and just.

          See, I won’t hold one president to perform miracles while I give a pass to another who took off more vacation time to his personal ranch than any other.

          Why won’t I pick at Obama?

          Because…I’m really waiting to see what is going to happen and how Obama does, rather than assume he’s only going to do bad and nothing he does will be positive.

        • #2769632

          You would support “regular” people

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          but you were the loudest against Palin on this site, right?

          Oh wait, she is a working mom and horrible person, I forget that part all the time. Yeah, that explained how you were/are quite irrational about her.

        • #2769624

          hahahaha

          by jck ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          Sarah Palin? Normal????? How many years has it been since she was in her house in Wasilla every day now?? 2? 3? Do normal housewives take trips to the Middle East to visit the troops?

          You are deranged.

          She’s been a politico for years…running a city…being a governor…running councils.

          And, she didn’t run for Congress…did she? Now who is changing topics?

          Stop distracting from the topic of what makes a good congressman with your bias for Palin not getting VP.

          :p

        • #2769465

          What’s wrong with

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          [i]I guess you want his wife and daughters to have to put their lives on hold and sit in the White House and wait on Congress too, huh? [/i]

          them staying “home”? Millions of the rest of us did.

          Oh, that’s right… we didn’t have taxpayer paid airlifts to the airport that cost hundreds of dollars a minute to operate… taxpayer paid motorcades to cruise us around town …

        • #2769429

          you did?

          by jck ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          [i]them staying “home”? Millions of the rest of us did.[/i]

          You stayed home and waited until Congress finished the bill and passed it?

          You [b]are[/b] one dedicated American.

          [i]Oh, that’s right… we didn’t have taxpayer paid airlifts to the airport that cost hundreds of dollars a minute to operate… taxpayer paid motorcades to cruise us around town …[/i]

          Now, that’s a huge assumption.

          You have no idea how Michelle Obama and their 2 daughters got anywhere, and I think it is highly unlikely the Secret Service would tell any of us either.

          Besides, I don’t think she and the girls get a “motorcade” or an airlift to Andrews or anywhere else.

          As far as I am aware, that is generally reserved for the white house execs and their staff.

          They probably get a transport vehicle with their immediate bodyguards in it, and perhaps one following vehicle to whatever facility they fly from. If that’s a motorcade, then lots of schools have fleets of them every week. They’re called roadtrips.

          And then, they probably have a private approach to their own aircraft. Probably a military transport or a charter.

          But, I don’t think they get the grandiose treatment you propose. The “Air Force xxx” planes and “Marine xxx” choppers are reserved for the president, vice-president, secretary of state, etc. Not their spouses and children to travel in.

        • #2769362

          Uh…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          [i]You stayed home and waited until Congress finished the bill and passed it?[/i]

          I was inside my house the entire time time 🙂

          [i]Now, that’s a huge assumption.

          You have no idea how Michelle Obama and their 2 daughters got anywhere, and I think it is highly unlikely the Secret Service would tell any of us either.

          Besides, I don’t think she and the girls get a “motorcade” or an airlift to Andrews or anywhere else. [/i]

          Oops!

          “President Barack Obama departed O’Hare International Airport at 10 a.m. CST today, ending his first visit to Chicago as the nation’s chief executive.

          Air Force One took off to the west on a chilly, but sunny President’s Day, bound for Andrews Air Force Base just outside Washington.

          After a three-day weekend at home, Obama and his family were flying back to return to the White House and another week of work and school.

          With their commute near the end of the morning rush, the Obama family took Marine One to the airport, landing at 9:46 a.m. Some operations at O’Hare were briefly stopped for the president’s departure.

          After shaking a few hands on the tarmac, the president walked up the stairs to the nation’s most famous aircraft and turned around and waved briefly.

          When the Obamas arrived Friday evening, they took a 15-minute chopper ride past Chicago’s skyline to the South Side’s Daniel Burnham Park, before a quick motorcade to their Kenwood neighborhood home. Today, they reversed the commute.”

          http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/obama_wheelsup_from_chicago.html

        • #2769333

          Oops!

          by jck ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          The president was on the flight!

          Hence, he was using the aircraft…not just his family.

          [i]With their commute near the end of the morning rush, the Obama family took Marine One to the airport, landing at 9:46 a.m. Some operations at O’Hare were briefly stopped for the president’s departure.[/i]

          OK, Obama and his family took the chopper to O’Hare.

          [i]After shaking a few hands on the tarmac, the president walked up the stairs to the nation’s most famous aircraft and turned around and waved briefly.[/i]

          They boarded the aircraft and went back to Washington.

          So, your point?

          Obama was on the aircraft. It was flying him, which is its job.

          His family was not on any of the aircrafts alone as a matter of personal travel. He was with them.

          Maybe you read it different than me.

          But, there’s nothing wrong with Marine One or Air Force One moving the president. That’s what they are for.

        • #2770705

          The point is

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          [i]Hence, he was using the aircraft…not just his family.[/i]

          Do you remember a couple posts up when you said:

          [i]But, I don’t think they get the grandiose treatment you propose. The “Air Force xxx” planes and “Marine xxx” choppers are reserved for the president, vice-president, secretary of state, etc. [b]Not their spouses and children to travel in. [/b][/i]

          The main point is: They could have stayed at the White House (their “home” for a time), but chose not to… at taxpayer expense.

          It’s a slap in the face to the citizens who are having to cut back on extravagances to know they are paying for the first family to tool around Chicago. Where’s the humility he claimed when he was campaigning?

        • #2770698

          and you totally missed my point

          by jck ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          when I said that. I meant that Marine One and Air Force One are not units that his wife and children use themselves apart from him for personal travel.

          You spoke of it like the rest of his family got free pass to take the aircraft anytime they want. That is simply not the case.

          Well, let’s see. Waste: yeah, he’s taken 1 trip so far in a month. If he keeps that pace up, I’d say sure…he’s being wasteful. But again, you are assuming this is going to become a trend.

          Besides, what are you going to do? Make the entirety of his Secret Service entourage drive hybrid cars all the way to Chicago?

          But if that pisses you off them going back for a holiday weekend, then you should check out sometime how Congressmen get back and forth to their home districts all the time, and the estimated costs for them to travel on it and pay for them to have a car for themselves to use when they get there.

          But, I think you’re trying to predict the future about Obama’s usage and how rampant it will be.

          1 time is not bad. If it gets to be once every month or two, then you can complain about him right along with “conservative” Bush. :^0

        • #2770682

          What I would do,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          is reimburse the taxpayers for personal trips taken on their dime, and make it well known that I am doing so.

        • #2770670

          What I would do

          by jck ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          Is not let anyone use them unless it was for official business. Period.

          Hell, in my government job now…if I so much as take a free baseball cap from someone who does business with my organization I am subject to discipline up to and including termination.

          For a $3-4 baseball cap. And those guys get free $1000s flights and stuff?

          Figures. The man keepin me down again. lol

        • #2770647

          I know….

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          The president has to be protected though, whether business or pleasure…. so there’s always going to be some expense.

          [i]Hell, in my government job now…if I so much as take a free baseball cap from someone who does business with my organization I am subject to discipline up to and including termination.[/i]

          Me too (although we’re allowed up to $24.99 per year per source… nobody wants to give me anything though 🙁 ). And like you, I’m one of the ones who bust their ass to minimize costs (I bought an old phone cabinet for $10 at auction and made a server rack out of it using $15 worth of lumber and duct tape)… only to see higher ups waste the savings somewhere else… It’s frustrating…

        • #2770638

          Yep

          by jck ·

          In reply to Bill on desk

          [i]The president has to be protected though, whether business or pleasure…. so there’s always going to be some expense.[/i]

          Yep. And now that we have a president who is “black” (using quotes, because he’s half white too), you know there are yahoos and kooks who’d love to kill him. Sadly enough, some people still haven’t gotten past the Civil War here.

          [i]Me too (although we’re allowed up to $24.99 per year per source… nobody wants to give me anything though sad ). And like you, I’m one of the ones who bust their ass to minimize costs (I bought an old phone cabinet for $10 at auction and made a server rack out of it using $15 worth of lumber and duct tape)… only to see higher ups waste the savings somewhere else… It’s frustrating…
          [/i]

          Yep. And if it’s not your boss wasting it, rule is to take it away from your department and give it to someone who will waste it.

          No sense. I went to get my office chair, they said I could spend up to $400. I found one for $350 that was comfy, but there was one for $149 just as comfy. I got the cheaper one because there are people paying taxes to fund what I spend. And, a lot of the elderly now down here are having to decide whether to take meds or eat.

          I can’t spend aimlessly knowing something like that.

        • #2770335

          After you buy yourself a clue

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to No

          you will realize that the housing crunch started YEARS ago, while Obama was becoming the single highest receiver of funds from Fanny.

          And I am not giving Bush a pass, but this is not a discussion about Bush. ( I know you just can’t get over it )

          This is about Obama, what he has or hasn’t done, and what he will or won’t do.

          Try to follow along with the adults if you wish to sit at the adult table.

          You are so obsessed about Bush that you can’t hold a single conversation without going back to him. I feel sad for you.

        • #2770272

          I will get a clue then

          by jck ·

          In reply to After you buy yourself a clue

          when you get your facts straight.

          1st: you do favor Bush. you give him passes, and you have defended him when he has been more guilty of things you would hang (proverbially) Obama for.

          2nd: the housing crunch started about May 2007. That’s not quite 2 years ago. And I know, because that’s about the time I was trying to get my house on the market. by the time i did (Sept 2007) it was too late. the housing market was in the $hitter.

          Trust me on this one, jd…i have been looking to sell my house since late 2006. i could have sold then and there for 50% more than what my house is valued at now. i wish i would have.

          3rd: If this is about what Obama [b]has done[/b] in regards to economic reform, he hasn’t had time as president. Or are you saying all presidents should be able to solve their country’s problems in the first 27 days of their term??

          As a senator, he couldn’t do anything. There were less than a majority of Democratic senators in the Senate in Jan 2005. Democrats (Obama being one of them) were [b]in the voting minority[/b]. Does that mean anything to you? Or, have you forgotten how voting works in the House and Senate? Republicans were the majority.

          Hence, you should be asking “Why didn’t the majority party in both houses of Congress do something to fix this, since they had the power?”

          That’s where your problem lies. You want to blame Obama for something he didn’t and [b]could not have done[/b] anything about as a member of the [b]minority vote[/b].

          God, and you think I’m stupid and infantile? Go back to 5th grade social studies, dude.

          Finally:

          Let’s get one thing straight that was a typical bunch of political spin and misleading crap that you ate up like it was your mom’s homecooking:

          You are taking it for [b]FACT[/b] that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae’s contributions were contributions from “Freddie and Fannie”.

          let’s clear that up:

          Corporations (as you’ve implied with your insistent clamoring about it that Fanny and Freddie did) can [b]NOT[/b] give to candidates.

          Those numbers, that you ate up from McCain’s little diatribe like it was McDonalds and you were starving, were really the totalling of all employee donations. Yes, totals of employees who donated…individuals and their families…not the corporation.

          And if you look closer at who the board of directors and their lobbyists (not technically employees of Freddie or Fannie)…and who they gave to…you know…those people who ran them into the ground that you blame Obama for?

          Who did they donate to the most?

          Barack Obama: $16,000
          John McCain: $169,000

          So it seems…those guys who ran Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into the ground…were supporting…McCain???????

          I guess Obama really had them in his hip pocket, huh? So much, they wanted McCain as president.

          That makes total sense, jd.

          And as for your assertion that he was getting all those guys who made Freddie and Fannie fail to run his campaign, that was another John McCain spin.

          [i]”While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairman of the committee that oversees them. And while Fannie Mae was betraying the public trust, somehow its former CEO had managed to gain my opponent’s trust to the point that Senator Obama actually put him in charge of his vice presidential search.”[/i]

          -John McCain

          However, the whole truth is:

          Obama selected Jim Johnson, the chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998, to advise him on his vice presidential choice. But Johnson resigned the unpaid position on June 11, 2008, months before vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden was chosen. Johnson resigned amid criticism of compensation and favorable mortgage terms he had received.

          Did you know that? Obama’s campaign had him “resign” cause he was questionable.

          Not very upstanding of him to do that, huh?

          See, you need to look at and explore the [b]WHOLE[/b] picture and truth, rather than just what someone spoon-feeds you, jd.

          Seriously, take off the Republican-rose-colored glasses and take the real mindset of a true independent (as you claim to be).

          Doubt all who have done wrong.

          Give opportunity to do good for those who earnestly make the attempt.

          Ignore their party.

      • #2770330

        Negativity and pressure

        by geek3001 ·

        In reply to I’m not the only one who sees this Obama rhetoric as destructive

        Personally I don’t care for continued negativity at any level. State the facts as you see them, without sugar coating. Make suggestions as to what people at all levels can do. Provide examples of positive things that have been happening. Help people fight fear with hope.

        Unfortunately, in President Obama’s case, he’s trying to get a semi-reluctant Congress to quickly act on things that might improve the economy. About the only tool he has to do this is using negativity to apply pressure on the Congress critters. (If they don’t pass the bill of the moment, dire things will happen… Now where have we heard that before?)

        The United States has become the Disunited States of the Party of Your Choice, with each party complaining about the actions of the other parties and rarely offering praise for things they may secretly like.

        This culture of negativity extends beyond the President, Congress and various levels of government. It needs to stop before it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

        Perhaps the negativity could be toned down if negative comments were sandwiched by positive ones. Several sources, from the Bible to Public Relations and Human Relations manuals talk about this technique for dealing with people. It could work at a higher level, with what President Obama is doing.

        • #2770312

          The amazing thing

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Negativity and pressure

          things haven’t changed since the election trail, yet he was “hope instead of fear”.

          Now that he is elected, he is hopeful that he can use fear to control.

        • #2770290

          Fear control

          by geek3001 ·

          In reply to The amazing thing

          The use of ‘fear control’ will probably change when there is positive news to report. I suspect that the President and his team are very much aware of how negativity is hurting their party and the country.

          With positive news, the President will be able to use hope as a form of control.

        • #2770256

          Do you see that happening?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Fear control

          So far, he is a far cry from the man that ran for office.

        • #2770200

          Give him time

          by geek3001 ·

          In reply to Do you see that happening?

          I’m an optimist and a realist.

          Negativity may be one of the few ways to get people to realize that we’re dealing with a complex and serious problem and a lot of hard choices will need to be made. There are too many people out there that expect ‘instant’ solutions and will grumble if they don’t get results now.

          But as positive signs of recovery appear, he can play the ‘hope’ card again and show that changes are being made and those changes are having results.

        • #2770160

          The problem is

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Give him time

          It’s GOING to recover regardless of what Obama or Congress does or doesn’t do. The only thing they can do is affect how fast the recovery happens. They know this, and they also know that after the recovery starts, they will be able to take credit, either for their “action” or for their “restraint”. Either way,they’re going to take credit for what WE do.

          That’s politics… boo to all of them.

        • #2770158

          The problem is

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Give him time

          They’re riding the back of a pissed-off tiger and all they can do is grin for the cameras.

        • #2770140

          I have neither seen nor heard of any change

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Give him time

          other than trying to set a record for the most tax cheats to try to get appointed.

          Chicago, one of the worse school districts in the country, and that is where he goes for someone to lead all education?

          giving social welfare style medical while pretending it is “stimulus” is neither stimulating the economy, nor being honest about his intentions. It is just a work-around because he would never be able to pass legislation to accomplish it.

          I WANT him to do something positive because it is in our best interest. i just don’t see any of this being good for us in the long run.

        • #2770265

          like that’s anything new

          by jck ·

          In reply to The amazing thing

          a president using “fear control”.

          case in point? this statement by a former president (which ended up being totally untrue):

          State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

          Yes, the famous 16-word phrase proven a total lie and some “fear control” that was used to force the hand of Congress to fund what the president wanted: money for the Iraq war.

          Our former president stated those words, despite the fact he knew for a year that they weren’t true. Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, after a CIA-sponsored Feb. 2002 trip to Niger to investigate the allegation, reported back finding no such uranium connection between Saddam and Africa.

          Is that not fear control too?

          Sure as hell is.

        • #2770253

          Thank you

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to like that’s anything new

          for admitting this was fear control “too”.

          My point entirely, and I am so revealed that even you see he has moved away from “hope instead of fear” to “fear”.

        • #2770242

          you assume wrong

          by jck ·

          In reply to Thank you

          you are “revealed” to see what you want.

          Obama has not gone strictly to a message of only fear mongering (which…yes…is what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and (by force) Powell did)…but he is telling you the brutal, honest truth…he just does it more eloquently than I would.

          I would say it like this:

          “Times suck right now. And, it doesn’t look like it’s getting better anytime soon unless the American people get their head out of their butt, make Congress pass a plan that helps America, and then get out there and work to make it happen. Otherwise, we’re in the $hitter.”

          You just only want to see the negative “the economy is as bad as the great depression” but don’t want to see the “, but we can turn it around if we get appropriate legislation enacted to help Americans get work and turn things around”.

          As long as you only keep reading and quoting singular lines from quotes from his entire speeches, you will only see the negativity in it.

          Or, maybe the sugar fed half-truths just have you spoiled still.

          I dunno. It’s clear as day to me: the guy is giving us the brutal truth…the economy sucks…it’s gotta be fixed…let’s do it and do it right.

        • #2770218

          [i]. . . . .let’s do it and do it right.[/i]? That’s my point

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          I don’t care who it is or, unlike you, which party. There are simply too many people, myself included, who think that the wrong way to fix the economy is by what he’s doing: adding a trillion dollars to the deficit in one year; adding three trillion dollars to the deficit over three years; putting the country in deeper debt; growing the size and scope of government; not addressing the 60+ trillion in future obligations; etc.

          And you really need to let go of your tiresome fall-back position criticizing Bush and demonizing [i]the rich[/i]. Bush is gone. Get over it. You hate [i]the rich[/i]. Okay, we get it.

          But you just don’t get it. It’s not about person or party. It’s about bankrupting our country. Bush did a lousy job with fiscal discipline, but Obama is apparently doing even worse. This one porkulus bill will spend as much money in one year as the whole seven years of the war combined. It will grow our debt to a frightening degree; and it’s reckless and irresponsible.

          I would say that they’re recklessly spending money like drunken sailors – but I have too much respect for drunken sailors to insult them in such a way.

          By the way, I criticize not only Presidents Bush and Obama for showing fiscal irresponsibility, but their idiot accomplices in Congress as well.

        • #2770197

          About that 60+trillion, Max

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          It’s going to get much larger as our currency devalues. In five years dollars will be worth less than pesos unless federal spending is drastically cut. And I mean by 80% or more!

        • #2770142

          the difference a month can make

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          in dec, he was huddled up with execs, saying it isn’t government that makes this country, it is the hard working people. It would also be the hard working people that would pull things back together, and he would do what he can to give business a favorable climate to thrive in.

          he takes office and it changes to “only government can save you”.

          what a crock of sh|t.

        • #2770126

          can you give an honest opinion on this, jck?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

        • #2770047

          Max’s cost estimates

          by jck ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          are about as good as Donald Rumsfeld’s were.

          That one “porkulous bill” is $787 Billion.

          Currently, the cost of the war in Iraq alone is over $1 Trillion, and is expected to top $2-3 Trillion when you figure in Iraq rebuilding we will participate in, and future expenses of maintaining the 1,000s of new, young disabled vets who will need care for the rest of their lives.

          I invite you to go read these, Max.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

          It’s not just me making up numbers, Max. It’s reputable publications, including commentary and analysis by Ivy League scholars.

          So, you’re wrong. $787B < $2-3T QED

        • #2770044

          i’ve said it before, jd

          by jck ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          I can’t watch media stuff at work, and if I remember to/have time to/want to take time to get on from the house I will.

          Otherwise, I can’t see what you’re commenting on to talk about.

          But if it’s anything like your McCain (who you didn’t like, but sure used his propaganda like a supporter) videos from YouTube, it’s ginsu’ed up worse than Jack the Ripper had been there.

          Besides, I can take Bush or McCain or even old Tom Foley or Bob Barr videos…and pull quotes or even whole sessions and make them look like fools.

          Despite what you say, you and the others [i][b]intentionally[/b][/i] look for the bad in everything Obama is doing.

          You have given him no opportunity to do his job…unless you consider 29 days ample time in a 4 year term. The man even started working 3 days after he was elected and not even being paid…working to have things ready for January 20. You gave him no credit for that. You just raged about how he wouldn’t do any good, because he wasn’t experienced enough. Yet, look at what the “establishment” of long-term politicians has done to our country in 8 years. Are you happy with that?

          If you and the others would stop looking intentionally for all negatives in every word he says, only looking for his short-comings in what he does, and would focus on trying to see what things are going to be done…

          Maybe you would have a more positive attitude about the direction of your country.

          Otherwise, sit on your butt and mope and complain about it.

          I for one am taking my $400 check and paying off a credit card. Go spend yours how you wish…on Xbox or scotch or whatever you feel.

        • #2770037

          Looking at Obama negatives

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          that is because I am still waiting for there to be anything positive about anything he is doing.

          He is going to clean up Washington, and then fills positions with long time politicians.

          Paying taxes is patriotic, and then he wants to put in charge of it all someone that intentionally didn’t pay his share of the taxes he owed? And last I heard, part had passed statute of limitation, so he didn’t have to pay it, and didn’t.

          No, I have seen nothing positive out of this much heralded first black man in office.

          Oh, the link? The stimulus jobs are going to non-whites. And here people tried saying he wouldn’t have a pro-black/anti-white agenda when he got into office.

          I “hope” enough people are disgusted by this that they back down on their quotas.

        • #2769667

          what he’s doing

          by jck ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          [i] that is because I am still waiting for there to be anything positive about anything he is doing.[/i]

          If you don’t wait for things to happen, how can you only see negatives?

          [i] He is going to clean up Washington, and then fills positions with long time politicians.[/i]

          That’s what all presidents do. And yeah, 4 of his choices have sucked ass. Hillary Clinton was his one great, solid choice.

          Daschle is a goober and a snake. Obama hurt his credibility there. But, he couldn’t have known Daschle’s total background cause there’s been no time to go through extensive interviews.

          [i] Paying taxes is patriotic, and then he wants to put in charge of it all someone that intentionally didn’t pay his share of the taxes he owed? And last I heard, part had passed statute of limitation, so he didn’t have to pay it, and didn’t.[/i]

          Well not making the guy pay is the fault of the IRS, not Obama. Right?

          Again, Obama has had 102 days since his election and 29 days in office to do everything. He has some 15 cabinet posts to fill as well as going through tons of briefings and all that.

          I mean, I won’t say his picks were great…other than Clinton. But, he’s done pretty damned good considering that he’s been in office barely a month.

          Do you think you could do any better?

          [i] No, I have seen nothing positive out of this much heralded first black man in office.[/i]

          Well, I could compare what he’s done to other presidents, but then I’d get told I shouldn’t compare his presidential activities of his first 30 days to others.

          So I won’t. I hate being told that comparing president to president for a fair comparison is wrong.

          [i] Oh, the link? The stimulus jobs are going to non-whites. And here people tried saying he wouldn’t have a pro-black/anti-white agenda when he got into office.[/i]

          So…the legislation says in it that the jobs are only going to non-whites?

          I will get a copy of it and read that. I didn’t know racial discrimination was legal.

          [i] I “hope” enough people are disgusted by this that they back down on their quotas.[/i]

          I really want to know what paper you read or TV you watch.

          Someone really has you caught up in the Republican spin machine. Honestly.

        • #2769641

          Watch the video when you get home

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          before commenting about it. One should never comment out of ignorance of a topic, correct?

          And as for comparisons, there is a time and a place to compare people. You only do it to make excuses. “Sure this is bad, but YOUR guy did XYZ”. That is sad and pathetic. Actions stand for themselves.

          In conflict resolution, they teach you something called the “naked apology”. When you are wrong, you simply say “I was wrong, I am sorry”, NOT “I was wrong, but only because…….”.

          You continually try to excuse bad behavior based upon someone elses bad behavior. Why is that?

          If you wish to talk about Bush, and his failings, start a discussion about him, and get it out. If you want to talk about Congress, start the discussion. Don’t use them to make BHO look less bad.

        • #2769633

          asking for facts

          by jck ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          Please give me the section of ARRA that only gives jobs to non-whites, please?

          Can you give me that fact, or are you ignorant of something you have declared you know to be true?

          Thanks.

          And again, you’re holding Obama to a much higher standard than others in government who are involved in the process.

          So he said the economy is really bad? Is it not? Are you going to tell me that it is good and everything is great?

          He said it’s going to probably get worse. Do you have anything to indicate he’s wrong? Can you prove he is wrong?

          I’m asking…no…[b]begging[/b] you to show me concrete proof that Obama is wrong and that our economy is now rebounding.

          His statements were dead right. Were they sugar-coated? No. Is it his job to play verbal patty-cake with the public to give them a warm fuzzy? No.

          His job as president is to be truthful and fully honest about the state of the country, and try to lead us in a direction that makes things better for everyone.

          So please, show me proof the economy is getting better and things are not going wrong?

        • #2769592

          jck is wrong again – I [i]made up[/i] no numbers

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          $787 billion (or $789, or whatever number one chooses to believe) can easily be rounded up to one trillion, especially when you consider it’s all, at this time, borrowed money on which interest will be paid, AND considering that government spending estimates are almost ALWAYS understated, not overstated.

          2-3 trillion over future years is for the continuation of those interest payments, AND especially the fact that much of the [i]stimulus[/i] is written so that it automatically renews in future years, and the 789 number being thrown around is ONLY for the first year.

          Geesh, do your homework, son. (I would do it for you and provide links, but I don’t want to. You wouldn’t believe them anyway.)

          You truly have contracted the [i]Hate and Blame Bush Syndrome[/i], and it lingers even today, because yet again, you fall back on the bashing of /comparison to the Bush Administration. Barack Obama is the president right now, and just like the ones before him, the buck should stop on his desk from the day he took office – the SAME WAY you treated the Bush Administration.

          President Obama could have just as easily said something like this: [i]We’ve seen deficit spending that’s been too high for too long……. it has to stop…… I ask Congress to approve spending bills and annual budgets that reduce the annual deficit, not add to it……[/i] (In which case, I would have said [i]RIGHT ON![/i].)

          But no, let’s blame Bush for Obama’s deficit spending as well as his own.

          By the way, the following quote comes to mind:

          [i]”There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”[/i] – Mark Twain

          Research on that quote will reveal something like this:

          [i]”Lies, damned lies, and statistics” is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularized in the United States by Mark Twain: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions.”[/i]

          Therefore, you’ll believe – and use – numbers that support your position, and I’ll do the same. (Except mine are more accurate.)

          However, what’s not a statistic is my preference for limited government, which means we need to start reducing the size, scope, and expense of government. You, on the other hand, apparently disagree. If you don’t disagree, feel free to correct me and put yourself on the record of preferring limited government as I described.

        • #2769557

          read it again, Max

          by jck ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          and go to Lenscrafters.

          I said [b]I[/b] wasn’t just making up numbers. I never said you were.

          Now you’re developing delusional paranoia.

          Go see a doctor.

          [i]$787 billion (or $789, or whatever number one chooses to believe) can easily be rounded up to one trillion, especially when you consider it’s all, at this time, borrowed money on which interest will be paid, AND considering that government spending estimates are almost ALWAYS understated, not overstated.[/i]

          Oh yes, easily rounded. $200B is so insignificant, right? I’d like the government to round my paycheck up to $10k a pay period then, since $200B is nothing.

          [i]2-3 trillion over future years is for the continuation of those interest payments, AND especially the fact that much of the stimulus is written so that it automatically renews in future years, and the 789 number being thrown around is ONLY for the first year.[/i]

          Actually much of the $787-789-orwhatever is for up to 3 years, not indefinitely. And, funding will have to be re-appropriated in the future for each program so it is not something that is [b]guaranteed[/b] to be renewed.

          However, the care for those veterans is going to be an on-going reneweal. Veterans’ Affairs is a budgeted department, and will have to help all those vets with blown off limbs now.

          [i]Geesh, do your homework, son. (I would do it for you and provide links, but I don’t want to. You wouldn’t believe them anyway.)[/i]

          a) I’m not your son. I’m your peer. Deal with it.

          b) Give me a link with less theoretical propositions and some solid fact, and I will take it as truth.

          You can tell me I’m gonna win the lotto too, but until that ticket is in my hand I’m not gonna count on you being right and stop working.

          [i]You truly have contracted the Hate and Blame Bush Syndrome, and it lingers even today, because yet again, you fall back on the bashing of /comparison to the Bush Administration. Barack Obama is the president right now, and just like the ones before him, the buck should stop on his desk from the day he took office – the SAME WAY you treated the Bush Administration.[/i]

          Hate for Bush? No. Hate for what he did to our country by being a vacationing, unattentive, self-righteous leader? Yep. I’ll hate Obama if he ends up that way too. [b]But Obama has only been in office 29 days so I can’t say he is[/b].

          Did the bold get the message through now?

          Bush has had 8 years and didn’t do squat to make things better.

          To expect Obama to fix all the crap that’s wrong in 29 days is unreasonable and obtuse.

          Even you, if you are as smart as you profess, would realize that hopefully.

          Or do you think you could do a better job?

          [i]President Obama could have just as easily said something like this: We’ve seen deficit spending that’s been too high for too long……. it has to stop…… I ask Congress to approve spending bills and annual budgets that reduce the annual deficit, not add to it…… (In which case, I would have said RIGHT ON!.)[/i]

          Well of course, you would have. Because, he’d doing what you want. Wow! Imagine that. You happy.

          [i]But no, let’s blame Bush for Obama’s deficit spending as well as his own.[/i]

          Obama is having to spend money to keep things afloat in this country, because the Bush administration and Congress [b][u]didn’t[/u][/b]. PERIOD.

          Or can you show proof the economy didn’t go in the crapper over the past 8 years?

          I’ve shown you unemployment went up (almost doubled now) since Clinton left office.

          I’ve shown you that the housing market tanked because of rife allowance of speculative building, rather than government forcing federally-regulated lenders to restrict credit lines to [b]builders[/b] (not homebuyers) to stop the over-building and, essentially, the big reason that the market is in the shitter…too many houses = my house lost 40% of its value.

          I’ve shown you that, mysteriously and without any reason such as a ceasing to hostilities etc., that oil prices started to go down within 1 month of Obama being elected and polls showing he had a large lead over McCain.

          But, you refuse to believe that the oil industry had people in their hip pocket and it was just “market effects” that caused over-inflated oil prices that crippled our economic spending.

          [i]By the way, the following quote comes to mind:

          “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” – Mark Twain

          Research on that quote will reveal something like this:

          “Lies, damned lies, and statistics” is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularized in the United States by Mark Twain: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions.”

          Therefore, you’ll believe – and use – numbers that support your position, and I’ll do the same. (Except mine are more accurate.)[/i]

          Really? How are yours more accurate? Got a bottom-line figure of what’s already been spent through 2010?

          You should go on the road with David Blaine then, Max Kreskin.

          [i]However, what’s not a statistic is my preference for limited government, which means we need to start reducing the size, scope, and expense of government. You, on the other hand, apparently disagree. If you don’t disagree, feel free to correct me and put yourself on the record of preferring limited government as I described.[/i]

          I’ve told you this before, but I will say it again for your sake.

          Yes, there are parts of the government that should be limited…and even eliminated.

          However, it’s not going to happen.

          Why?

          Because all that private industry that you trust SOOOOOOO much to do things better than the government…

          And, who has run car manufacturing and housing and banks into the ground…

          Has politicians in their hip pockets.

          If we get rid of government and turn it over to private enterprise, things either get excessively expensive or not done while the wealthy who own private enterprise sit on their finances and let others who don’t have means suffer.

          If we keep government (in its current form), then we allow private enterprise to come in and buy off favor of our elected officials and to keep getting their way in a system that is rampant with bribes, favors, under-the-table dealings, etc.

          I recommend reform…not absolute sweeping change.

          Changes? Like making PACs, SIGs, etc., illegal. Like making part of your role as a public servant…any holdings you had before you went in office…go into a special account…and you gain no profit from them. All holdings do in a blind trust is guarantee that they can’t be traded. Bill Frist and others have been allowed to vote on legislation that improved their holdings while in blind trust. That is corrupt and wrong.

          Part of reform…yes…is change. Part is elimination. Part is modification. Part is even growth.

          What would I grow?

          Dept. of Education: Our education system SUCKS, and I’d grow not necessarily the number of people, but the budget for sure so that teachers get paid better.

          Dept. of Homeland Security: Although better than it was 10 years ago, our airport security is A JOKE. Go to Israel sometime, and you will see what REAL security is when you travel. Israel has perfected security on their borders out of necessity, and makes it a top national priority. We should too. That includes building a wall on the Mexican border with a means to defend our borders.

          But, it wouldn’t be across-the-board reduction. That’s absurd.

          I’d modify the IRS so that it would practically be less than 20% of what it is now.

          I’d modify the welfare program to be what Clinton called “workfare”: if you don’t work, you don’t get a check. period.

          Social security would be split into Elderly Affairs and Disabled Affairs.

          Anyone who was trying to claim a disability under retirement age damn well better not be able to hold any kind of work, or they’d be cut off…just like welfare people who wouldn’t work. You can work…you work…or you starve.

          Anyone who was of retirement age would get their pension, and assistance with medical care if needed. You work 30 or more years of your life and contribute to your nation that long, you deserve a retirement check and assistance with medical care and what not. You won’t live like a king or queen, but you won’t have to decide whether to eat or take your medicine either.

          I’d make a lot of changes, most of which you might hate because it doesn’t “cut cut cut” like you want.

          But, I’d make changes that make [b]sense[/b].

        • #2769417

          The buck stops here?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          Now, when convenient and in your favour [i]”the buck should stop on his desk from the day he took office “[/i]

          You even went as far as to say that people blamed Bush on the same basis.

          Which is very true.

          However, almost every time someone accused Bush of something while he was in office, it was the instantaneous response of Rpublicans, including yourself, to point out how issues were actually related to a democrat that held office in the past. God only knows how many times people accused Bush then a Republican quickly chimed in that the problem started with Clinton and it is not Bush’s fault, however Bush was acting appropriately to resolve it now. (Like Mighty Mouse, ‘Here I come to save the day!’)

          I suppose whatever works in your favour at any given time is the new standard to be followed, anything else is deemed disingenious, democrats placing blame on the wrong person again, uneducated or whatever flame you have handy to dispose on someone’s opinion which differs from your own, always correct opinion.

          That’s the problem I’m seeing lately, Max. After reading your posts for so long, the hypocrisy starts to come clearly into view.

          When you only spoke from the Republican side, it wasn’t as noticeable, but now you use the same arguments that Dems used against Bush to defend Bush; showing just how hypocritical, and lopsided/biased your opinions really are afterall.

          Its so clear now that you just change the rules to suit your current agenda, which also seems to change like the weather.

          The only core values or consistency in your posts that I see now are the fact that no matter what another’s opinion, unless it sides completely with your own, it is incorrect or uninformed.

        • #2771039

          Oz – on hypocracy

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          First of all, your tired-old insistence to pigeon-hole me with all [i]Republicans[/i] is, at this point, simply dishonest – and you know it. You know better than that, but it apparently makes good ammunition for your attacks against me, which is, after all, your favorite sport around here. It makes it easy to attack me using someone else’s words or behavior.

          Second of all, before you accuse me of something, be ready to prove it. Go back and find where I specifically blamed something on the Clinton Administration in my defense of Bush. As close as you’ll come is where I repeatedly reminded people that officials in the Clinton Administration ALSO stated, time and time again, that Saddam had WMDs.

          Third of all, if you accuse ME of hypocrisy for the reasons you stated, why not be fair and accuse jck of it as well? I did it; he did it; hell, we all do it – except you, of course. You’re the only unbiased voice of reason around here, right? A legend in your own mind, as usual.

        • #2771004

          On Hypocrites and Geese

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          You know, Oz, calling someone a hypocrite is pretty strong. It transcends, what I might call, friendly jabbing, such as: go take your meds, learn to read, get your head out of the sand (or something else), or any number of other things that might go back and forth in these political debates – things that probably no one takes offense to. But hypocrite? That’s pretty strong. And although I’ve certainly used it before myself, I haven’t in a long time, and not very often. It’s just too personal.

          In this corner of the water cooler where these political debates occur, things get pretty heated at times and passions run high. But that’s the way it goes in the political arena. A person wants to advance an agenda, a policy, or a principle, and the way to do it is to present yours in a favorable light while showing the opposing view in a negative light; try to give your argument with credibility, while discrediting the opposing side. That’s just the way it is. There’s nothing [i]hypocritical[/i] about it, at least not in the broader sense – unless, of course, you want to consider EVERYONE hypocrites, which only waters down the real meaning of the word.

          [i]What’s good for the goose is good for the gander[/i] is something that’s a bit more fitting. Or perhaps, behind every double-standard there’s an underlying and unspoken single standard. But to be viciously called a hypocrite in such cases is, in my opinion, a hit below the proverbial belt. It turns something political into something personal.

          [i]What’s good for the goose is good for the gander[/i], is what applies here, not hypocrite. And some days a person might be the goose, other days the gander.

          However, when a person, over the course of time, sends very nice and friendly e-mail exchanges, apparently burying previous hard feelings, and appears almost as a friend, then turns around and in a public forum attacks that other person with insulting language, that’s what I would call hypocritical. If you know of someone like that, Oz, perhaps a friendly word about the personal harshness of being called a hypocrite might be in order.

          I think I know what kind of reply this will get, but then again, you might surprise me.

        • #2763078

          While I don’t aim to surprise you

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          I have to simply disagree with you, no surprise there then, right? To be honest, I actually like our political head knocking, it is at least somewhat creative with you. Other people just say stupid things and have no recourse when calle don it, you at least put up a fair fight and it gets amusing and often clever sometimes.

          “to be viciously called a hypocrite”

          Viciously called a hypocrite? What’s vicious about it, it was typed in a forum, not snapped at your heels.

          In YOUR mind being called a hypocrite is below the belt, in mine it is not. So shall we start a list of terms Americans and others feel are just going too far? Some more censorship for Tammy to instill upon us?

          As for being friendly in emails, yes I do think we have many interests in common and I don’t think you are a bad person in any way. I would happily buy you drinks or would love to visit with you and see a show at the RedRock one day, that does nto mean I have to accept your political opinion, especially when you choose to be so cutting and condescending towards my own posts, which I take quite personally too, some more no no’s ot add ot that list or do we just get on with it and accept that some differences will always remain.

          as far as your political opinion, i think you are a complete idiot. A typical American, a hypocrite, completely ignorant and blind to teh rest of the world, inconsiderate, easily lead and fooled etc.

          But that is towards your political opinion, I am sure you feel the same about mine too.

          You shoul know by now that I am able to separate dislike from favour. I support your comments in many ways, when not politically focused, even then I have defended people’s accusations towards you when I know they are wrong.

          Yuo just need to get over it and realize that big boys can play such games and still get on with thier lives.

          I can call my friends complete f’in a$$hoes and they don’ tthink twice about it, if they are being a$$holes they usually see I and admit it, doesn’t make it not so.

          a good friend’s little brother is a nutbag lefty, one comment was “Canadians shouldn’t be at war in Afghanistan, we should be peace keepers”.

          I calle dhim a f’kin idiot and explained that we support our alies when they are attacvked, which is what we are doing in Afghanistan. Peace keepers? Canadian solders have bene the first ones into such wars forever! We were the first to land on D-Day, made it farthest to our objectives and that’s not to mention taht we’d been fighting in Britain for several years until then. Canada has a military, they are trained to kill people that do horrible things, we are not the UN.

          But at the same time, I will by him a beer and ask his opinion on health issues(he’s a doctor).

          You just need to segregate hatred from disagreement and not take such words personally. Believe me, there are things you say to me that I could easily take personally (almost all teh time) but I usually just chuckle and think “that was good” instead.

          You don’t actually ‘know me’ anymore than I really ‘know you’. My views of you rhere are just that, views of things you say here. not views of you as a human being, I don’t know Max as a human being, just an online personality that I often conflict with.

          I don’t know how else to say just relax and just setle down, nobody’s is gonna lose an eye today.

        • #2763070

          Lost/Deleted post?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

          Don’t know what heppend to it but I did reply to your false assertions regarding what I had said about Dems, repubs and clinton.

          To be short, as I don’t want to start cuting and pasting again, almost time to go home and get life underway again;

          I did not say that you referred to clinton when people targeted Bush, I said RELUBLICANS targeted Clinton as the reason, not you.

          I also said “Republicans, includign yourself”

          I didn’t say you were a republican as you know I have actually defended you when other paopel label you as a republican. You like to sit on the fence, thinking it’s cool to not air your true beliefs. However you have supported Bush for 7 years and most, though not all, of the decisions Bush and his republican administration made.

          That puts your political views pretty much inline with republicans. Now that being republican is no longer favourable, you seem to distance yourself more and more, always staying on the side of what you deem correctness and acceptance.

          But we all saw where you stood and what you supported, no mater what party you secretly support.

          so to throw it back at you; Where did I say you blamed Clinton when Bush was blamed by democrats? Easy answer, I didn’t. I said REPUBLICANS do, unless you are now claiming to be republican, in which case I give up and cannot keep up with changing political beliefs.

          I know you like to say how you don’t support all republican motives, but as you always say, “walks like a duck…”

        • #2763027

          Oz – I replied to your lost message

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to you assume wrong

        • #2769438

          The problem with that is:

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Negativity and pressure

          [i]Personally I don’t care for continued negativity at any level. State the facts as you see them, without sugar coating[/i]

          Those statements are contradictory.

          Here it is, non-sugar coated… If you’re an honest, hard working person in this country, you’re in for the screwing of your life, and so are your children, and possibly their children too.

        • #2769375

          That is positively negative

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The problem with that is:

          But when we are moving into an era of punishing success and hard work, the question is asked, how much of either will we be seeing?

        • #2769359

          Watch the phrasing

          by geek3001 ·

          In reply to The problem with that is:

          I guess that you didn’t notice the word ‘continued’ in the sentence. That or your interpretation of ‘continued negativity’ differs from mine, which can happen.

          A ‘leader’ who is ALWAYS gloom and doom is not a leader. If anything, they are part of the problem, which is the theme of the starting post.

          As far as being ‘screwed’, didn’t that start hitting big time numbers with the Wall Street bailouts, which didn’t have as much oversight as they should have?

          When you think about it, a lot of people, ourselves included, have contributed to the problems we are facing. Strictly blaming one party or the other, or the rich or the poor, or any other ‘grouping’ would be inaccurate at best and a lie at the worst.

    • #2770132

      Who will NOT be helped out with this infrastructure spending?

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opxuUj6vFa4

      This is hope for who?

      Sounds like more failed affirmative action to legislate against white males specifically? THAT is the change we were promised?

      • #2769647

        jd

        by jck ·

        In reply to Who will NOT be helped out with this infrastructure spending?

        can you please provide me with what section this comes from?

        I have all 5 PDFs from the GPO and want to find the exact text you are talking about in the bill.

        Thanks

        • #2769635

          Robert Reich on CSPAN

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to jd

          again, watch the video and you tell me this isn’t racist BS.

          It would be silly to argue about this until you get a chance to see what it is you are trying to discredit.

          And yes, “affirmative action” IS legal in many states, and I don’t believe there is a federal restriction on that form of racism yet.

          Thankfully, it has been removed in Michigan as a means of government money/jobs/funding. There are still many racists in the area trying to get it back on the books.

        • #2769625

          i’ll try to watch the video

          by jck ·

          In reply to Robert Reich on CSPAN

          but, I usually go home, workout, shower, then get in bed early now that I have to be to work earlier.

          Affirmative Action is a pain in the ass, I agree. But, so are other things…like Veterans’ preference.

          For instance:

          I once applied for a job, but was “beat out” by a guy who had served 6 years in the Army. Why?

          He had “training” in the US Army (did not have a college degree), and was not a specialist in any one field. He was basically a tech who did some programming, had some classes in the military, and had some experience in the basic requirements. Someone I knew was involved in the interview process, so I got all the dish on the guy.

          I had a college degree and 11 years exp at the time.

          However, he claimed “Veterans’ Preference” and because he’d had specific classes and met the minimum requirements to qualify to fill the position…even tho I was better qualified and had more experience…he got the job.

          How, how fair is that? If you’re not able to serve in the military, you can be discriminated against?

          Discrimination is rampant in the USA…whether it’s racial, familial, or otherwise.

          And, the politically correct in the legal system call it “fairness” rather than “favors”.

          Well, it bit them in the ass. He stayed about 8 months and them moved back up north somewhere.

          I didn’t apply later. I figure if they had lots of people like him, I didn’t want to work there.

        • #2769621

          Favoritism is not a protected civil liberty

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Robert Reich on CSPAN

          There is a set list of what you can NOT discriminate based upon.

          Race and gender are on the list, but not the case you mentioned. But you know this already, so why am I saying it? ;\

          Not all discrimination is illegal, nor bad.

          I discriminate everytime I choose one place to eat over another. Buy one brand of computer over another. Choose the cute girl over the not-so-cute girl. All legal and a part of our every day life.

        • #2769616

          OK, so why are you complaining?

          by jck ·

          In reply to Favoritism is not a protected civil liberty

          Affirmative Action is not a factor where you live, and being a citizen of Michigan you have no right to try and set the law in other states.

          As well, the Supreme Court has deemed it legal on the federal level.

          So, why even bring it up?

          You’re saying “if it’s legal, then it’s part of life”.

          So, stop whining and I will too :p

        • #2769608

          Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to OK, so why are you complaining?

          no, not “if it’s legal”. Racism is illegal, thus affirmative action is illegal.

          If you read the original rulings, it was intended and recognized as a very TEMPORARY measure, and should have gone away a long time ago.

          And I didn’t tell you not to whine, just that in your case, it was not based upon race or any protected civil liberty. you can see the difference, can’t you? of course you can.

        • #2769597

          so…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          a) you’re saying something can be illegal, even if the courts say it’s not?

          b) it is a civil liberty that if you serve in the armed forces, you get job preferences?

          Life…liberty…and the pursuit…of 3 years of Army service so I get preferred for a job.

          Yeah, that’s a civil liberty. lol

          c) orignal rulings? maybe. but, there has been subsequent legislation and rulings to maintain it. federal monies can not be legislated into thin air….just into black box budgets at the pentagon lol

          my right to get an equal shot at a job versus a veteran is just as protected against yours to have an equal shot against a non-white.

          they are both federally legislate, approved, and court-upheld mandates.

          Welcome to [b]YOUR[/b] America, jd. :p

        • #2769586

          I knew this

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          would all come back to racism in the obama time in office.

          This country is going down hill fast.

        • #2769550

          oh sure

          by jck ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          blame it on Obama.

          You can’t even tell me what part of the bill has the text you are professing is fact.

          And yes, i’m parsing it now. Part of the text deals with “Disabled Veterans and Displaced Youth”.

          I don’t see anything in it mentioning race so far, but when I get done with all 1419 pages, I’ll let you know if it’s there.

        • #2769434

          No it’s not.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          [i]my right to get an equal shot at a job versus a veteran is just as protected against yours to have an equal shot against a non-white.[/i]

          Veterans gave up a portion of their life for their country.

        • #2769418

          and…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          [i]Veterans gave up a portion of their life for their country.[/i]

          So you’re saying that if I applied to the military and was told I could not serve because of medical reasons, you’re saying it’s my fault I couldn’t?

          It’s someone’s fault how they are born.

          You can’t [b]really[/b] dedicate your life to being a good citizen unless you’re born right and wear a uniform.

          Good one. I’ll remember that.

          BTW, just so you know…others have made the same kind of sacrifice too and never get any benefit for it. Namely, covert CIA operatives.

          Just remember because you wore a uniform doesn’t mean you are the only special kind of individual to make sacrifices for your country.

          Or am I wrong about that?

        • #2769394

          Nope

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          [i]So you’re saying that if I applied to the military and was told I could not serve because of medical reasons, you’re saying it’s my fault I couldn’t?[/i]

          How could I say that??? I didn’t even KNOW it!

          It doesn’t matter whether you could or couldn’t, the fact is, you [b]didn’t.[/b] Fault or lack of fault should not be an issue. Why do you to want to make it one?

          [i]You can’t really dedicate your life to being a good citizen unless you’re born right and wear a uniform.

          Good one. I’ll remember that.[/i]

          I never said that… MOST good citizens never wore a uniform. But if you DID wear a uniform, you gave up a good chunk of your productive life specifically for your country… your dreams and aspirations were put on hold. You were most likely paid less than the average “good citizen” on the street. The veterans’ preference is just a way to pay it back. Being a good citizen is what is expected of all of us, not something you get perks for.

          Affirmative action is completely different… those who take advantage of it did nothing to earn a preference.

          There’s a big difference between BEING something and DOING something. Do you see?

        • #2769386

          Because…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          your implication is that if someone does not do it, they are not as much of a patriot and do not deserve to be recognized.

          I was told by US Air Force recruiters:

          a) my vision was too bad to do any kind of flight in any aircraft
          b) i was too tall to fly anything other than large military transports (I was 6’3 1/2 when I was 17)
          c) i was born with malformed knees, and would likely be “4F”ed out.

          Hence, I was not allowed to serve my country in the way I knew I could do best.

          So since that’s the case, I guess since I had no choice in the matter that I am not a great citizen.

          Anyways, it doesn’t matter. Most of my family has, and none of them have ever claimed “veterans’ preference”.

          They didn’t need to rely upon their service for what essentially represents a handout…and they were too proud to take a freebie just because they did their duty to their country.

          It’s why I am so staunch on giving people opportunity, but also giving everyone an equal one. No one in America is any better than the other, when it comes to employment, except based on their skills and qualifications.

          A military hero is a military hero, and I had 2 of them in my family (both WWII, one from Normandy and one from Pearl Harbor), and one of them I was named after.

          I respect the military greatly and the service men and women give, but it is sad when you can be a truck mechanic in the Army and get veterans’ preference for a postal service job over someone who worked a similar type job.

          And yes, I’ve had that happen too. I had previous experience working in a school post office, but I took the postal exam and scored 8 points higher than a vet (who was my ex youth league soccer coach), but he got the 10 point preference and took the job from me.

          So, I do have a beef with it. Everyone deserves a fair shake at a job.

          And personally, I feel for vets cause those men and women did give so much and so many of them now are homeless and unemployed and had their psyche traumatized by war and the government gave them no help or rehab…

          They just got discharge papers. F-ing sad.

        • #2769363

          You could not be more wrong

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          [i]your implication is that if someone does not do it, they are not as much of a patriot and do not deserve to be recognized.
          [/i]

          My implication is that if you didn’t DO something, you don’t deserve to be compensated as though you did! Good intentions don’t protect countries. That doesn’t mean they’re bad, it just means that they’re not what’s needed.

          [i]I was told by US Air Force recruiters:

          a) my vision was too bad to do any kind of flight in any aircraft
          b) i was too tall to fly anything other than large military transports (I was 6’3 1/2 when I was 17)
          c) i was born with malformed knees, and would likely be “4F”ed out.

          Hence, I was not allowed to serve my country in the way I knew I could do best.

          So since that’s the case, I guess since I had no choice in the matter that I am not a great citizen.[/i]

          Wow! You got all that from:

          “Veterans gave up a portion of their life for their country.”

          ???

          Get a grip, man!

          [i]Everyone deserves a fair shake at a job.[/i]

          Yes, and while our dear veteran was serving his country, you had a chance to build up the seniority and experience that he didn’t … THAT’s why that preference exists!

        • #2769349

          Tony – when it comes to having a rational discussion. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          …..with jck, one that stays on-track, on topic, and on the things that were really said, there’s a saying that comes to mind – something about spitting (or pi*****) in the wind.

        • #2769337

          while my friends got to go in the military

          by jck ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          I went to college, held a job or a scholarship, and paid for most of my school.

          I didn’t get loans or grants. I didn’t get anything free.

          I didn’t get preference for a job when I got out, and I did *two* things at once in college.

          BTW, let me just emphasize: You are saying veterans deserve it because they gave up part of their life.

          So if I go in the guard for 3 years, I can go get a job over someone else…even though my experience may not qualify me as well as someone else?

          I’m going to find a management job then, and make them train me making big money.

          Maybe I’ll take up my friend’s husband who is a recruiter. I can do weekends for a few years, and get extra money, stay in shape, and if they call me up my job gets held for 5 years while i’m overseas.

          Oh…and…a really good point for you to think about:

          This is not the days of the draft. Going into the military now is a [b]choice[/b].

          You choose it like you do getting a job, going to vo-tech, going to community college, or attending university.

          No one makes anyone go in. So, it’s not a “sacrifice” anymore like it was when there was a draft. It’s now an option.

          And, the military now even offers degrees while in service that can be had…especially if you are a lifetime member of a branch of the service.

          I would have gone in, and because of circumstances I could not control I could not.

          Hence, you with your statement later that because I could not…and saying veterans got to go in and that they got to give that service…that they are better than me because of it…even though I wanted to.

          I agree…their ability to go in is nice and their service is admirable. No doubt.

          However if they do not have as much experience as me in a job, it’s not a reason for them to be more qualified than me for a skilled position.

          Would you like it if someone came and took a job out from under you who had far less experience and was obviously less qualified?

          Tell me that’s not wrong.

          Tell me it wouldn’t piss you off if you were trying to pay your bills and feed your family.

          Being qualified is being qualified. Period.

        • #2770999

          Maybe…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          [i]I didn’t get preference for a job when I got out, and I did *two* things at once in college.[/i]

          Good for you.

          [i]BTW, let me just emphasize: You are saying veterans deserve it because they gave up part of their life.

          So if I go in the guard for 3 years, I can go get a job over someone else…even though my experience may not qualify me as well as someone else?
          [/i]

          … if you, as a guard member, were deployed (activated) for other than your weekend drills (one weekend a month isn’t a significant enough disruption in your life to qualify), then yes, I would think you would be a veteran for the purpose.

          [i]So, it’s not a “sacrifice” anymore like it was when there was a draft. It’s now an option.[/i]

          Not entirely… Once you get off the bus at basic training, they pretty much own you 24/7 until you are released. They decide when you eat, when you sleep, and where you’ll go. College and civilian work aren’t like that at all. And the pay (I honestly don’t know what it is now, but you started at $417 a month when I was in) is not all that great.

          [i]Hence, you with your statement later that because I could not…and saying veterans got to go in and that they got to give that service…that they are better than me because of it…even though I wanted to.
          [/i]

          You still don’t get it…. intentions are worthless as anything but emotional currency.

          [i]Would you like it if someone came and took a job out from under you who had far less experience and was obviously less qualified?[/i]

          It’s not “mine” unless the employer signs me, so nobody is “taking” anything.

          Maybe you could trade that resentment for the breaks and preferences you didn’t “get for free” for pride for what you’ve accomplished “without anybody’s help”. Your resentment isn’t hurting anyone but you.

        • #2770952

          Tony – on basic training and active duty

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          I remember my basic training experience like it was yesterday – getting off that bus in June of 1972, being as dumb as dirt, and surrendering my life to the drill instructors. (Sir, Yes Sir!)

          Mine wasn’t reserve, but rather active duty.

          Six years later, I decided to no longer sign the papers.

          In hindsight, maybe I should have. I often wonder, what if……..

        • #2770948

          In 76,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          if you called the Drill Sergeant ‘sir’, he responded with “Don’t call me ‘sir’, I work for a living… now drop and give me ten.”

        • #2770938

          jck, this needs to be said

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          A sacrifice you volunteer for is still a sacrifice. Effective Jan 2009, the base pay for a basic trainee (E-1 under 4 months) is $1,399.50 per month. [u]Per month[/u]! http://www.dfas.mil/militarypay/militarypaytables.html That’s gross pay before social security and income tax withholding are assessed. At the same time, that recruit gives up the right to actively campaign for the candidate(s) of his choice, the right to free assembly, and other parts of his rights to free speech and free association. That is a sacrifice.

          I’m sorry you were not allowed to enlist, but if you weren’t rejected by competent medical authority for your bad knees, it was the recruiter that pushed you to make the decision, not the military that made the decision for you. Maybe you regret not trying harder; I don’t know. But however many years later, there’s no point blaming anybody for it.

          If your achievements have come without assistance, that’s something to be proud of. If you have succeeded in spite of a physical disability, that’s something to be proud of. Get off your pity party and be proud of what you’ve done.

          Don’t let what might have been poison what will be.

        • #2770932

          Nick – $1399.50 per month? What a windfall

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          In 1973 as active duty, I made $3,292 PER YEAR! Which breaks down to $275 PER MONTH! (I really did – I looked it up in my records.)

          I remember when my First Sergeant advised me that I was eligable for food stamps. Screw that, I said. I made due in other ways. I never applied for food stamps, and I had an 18 year old bride and a baby. We found a way.

          However, I suppose $1,399 today compares pretty close to $275 thirty-five years ago. And yes, it’s tough, but not insurmountable.

        • #2770797

          I agree with you Max

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          There were also a couple of substantial pay raises between 72 and 75. My annual base pay in 1975 was $4129.20/year. Considering that meals and housing were provided, that could actually go a fairly long way. It all depended on what extras you thought were essential.

          Edit: link to old military pay charts: http://tinyurl.com/25g8cv

        • #2770666

          to Nick

          by jck ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          It’s not resentment. It’s like…for lack of a better term…disgust.

          As for “letting it go”, that’d be a lot easier if it hadn’t happened (the one time with the postal service) when I really needed a job and money.

          Needless to say, it’s something I can never change.

          Oh, and I decided to read up on the Federal “Veterans’ Preference”.

          Did you know the “10-point preference” can be given to:

          “the mother of a veteran who died in service or who is permanently and totally disabled.”

          I just have to wonder: If I tried to serve, and was told by a recruiter I would not be accepted (when a recruiter won’t sign you up, btw…you know you gotta be pretty bad) and wanted to serve. I can’t get the points.

          So, the mom gets the benefit her son/daughter died for and can get the points even tho he/she didn’t serve a day?

          That makes no sense to me, to be honest.

          I can see a *dependent* parent getting the pension of their deceased military son, but why do they get hiring preference?

          No service, no points…right?

          But, that’s government for you.

          And another thing: yeah, bottom end military are underpaid, even tho they get free housing, work clothes, medical, dental, vision, food, etc.

          Anyways. Most will never agree with me on this. I think everyone should be hired based on qualifications for the work to be performed.

          But, that’s life isn’t it? C’est la vie.

          BTW…added: Not trying harder? What was I supposed to do? Call the Pentagon for the sign-up sheet?? lol.

          I don’t think they had all the 800 numbers and websites back in 1987 to sign up when I was a kid. We pretty much had the one big recruiting office in our downtown, and the next closest one I knew of was about 100 miles away, I think.

          It was not lack of trying. I went, I took the ASVAB, I did really well on it, but was still told I would not make it.

          What was I supposed to do? Ask to talk to his superior?

          BTW…remember…I grew up in very rural, small city Oklahoma. 107 miles from Oklahoma City, 180 from Dallas, 200 from Ft. Smith, AR.

        • #2770483

          Understood, jck

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          [i]It was not lack of trying. I went, I took the ASVAB, I did really well on it, but was still told I would not make it.[/i]

          The recruiter you talked to must not have been having trouble making his quotas if he turned you away. Most recruiters I’ve known would try everything short of outright lying, falsifying a physical, or cheating on the ASVAB to get their guys in. If your recruiter wouldn’t even send you in for a physical, you definitely got screwed.

          About the veterans preference, I know I’ve never used or even tried to use mine. Because of that, I’ve not looked too deeply into it, but I don’t think it should be a “make or break” for a job. The only time it should come into play is in cases where two or more candidates for a job are otherwise equally qualified. Disabled vets should get a bigger preference and parents are right out.

          There are benefits to being in the military, but free clothing isn’t one of them. The military does provide the initial clothing issue, but the member is responsible for maintenance and replacement thereafter. There’s a clothing allowance, but unless things have changed drastically in the 10 years since I retired, it doesn’t even begin to cover the costs.

          (10 years? Have I really been out that long? It sure doesn’t feel like it…)

          edit: clarify

        • #2764742

          yep

          by jck ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          I’m sure I could have gone to Oklahoma City and they’d have been dying to sign me up.

          And yeah, the local recruiter had no issues with getting people signed up. All the country boys around there who:

          a) are told by their “pa” to do it
          b) need money and can’t get another job besides working on the family farm
          c) just want to get out and see the world

          are more than plentiful where I grew up. So, recruiters had no issues with finding enough guys to go in.

          But, I don’t mind a veteran getting preference in equal circumstance…especially a disabled one, cause getting a job is hard enough if you’re too tall…let alone in a wheelchair or something.

          Oh, and btw…that guy that was my soccer coach as a kid…another little tidbit of info about the guy:

          he got the 10 point “disabled” preference… but the dude walked fine and walked delivering mail for years and years. I don’t understand why he was considered disabled. Plus he was a lawsuit happy guy, and had sued for enough money over the years to be debt-free and have money in the bank. He didn’t need the job. It was just another way for him to get another pension under his belt and live high on the hog.

          But anyways, I made it despite a system that punished me. And, I worked in a job eventually that put me in a position to make items that the government/military uses…so I still found a way to contribute even though I was considered not worthy. 😉

        • #2764585

          There’s another thing, jck

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          In most government jobs, prior military time counts as seniority credit (after all, the military IS government employment) and it generally works one way…federal to state (a federal employee can transfer seniority to a state job but a state employee can’t transfer seniority to a federal job).

        • #2764581

          Confusing able with worthy

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          makes you unworthy.

          Is it really so hard to understand that there HAS to be physical requirements to enter active service? You admit to a physical problem with your legs and then pretend to be surprised they didn’t accept you?

          After all, if they let you in John, then you would probably have ended up like my ex with a permanent disability, getting a tax free $100 a month for the rest of your life, as well as full VA benefits for the 6 months she served until “flat foot” set in.

          She, unlike many, is just not SMART enough to try for a government job where she would get preference.

          Just like the laws of this nation are to control rather than protect, the system never has stood for the common man and never will.

          YOUR boy Obama is not going to change that, because you are not poor, and work for a living. Again, YOU are going to be left behind to fend for yourself, just like the rest of us.

        • #2764961

          well jd…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          think what you want.

          your bitterness toward Obama shows your lack of patience to see if his plan works or not.

          btw, did you notice all that pork?

          go check out on the Senate and House websites who sponsored part of that pork

          the search engine to find them is here:

          http://thomas.loc.gov/

          You’ll find out that it wasn’t just “bleeding hearts” who added in pork…

          those corporate tax cuts are really gonna impact your wallet…just as soon as profit margins are met to pay bonuses out…and bonuses are paid…and then bonus structures are re-negotiated…and then…

          oops! there goes your benefitting! sorry!

          welfare isn’t always a check to a person

          bleeding hearts aren’t always just those looking to give to the poor.

          remember…they’re all crooks…no matter what their party.

        • #2764952

          Yes, they both are

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          that is why I didn’t vote for either party.

          Which is more likely to stimulate growth. A $300 handout to people that didn’t earn the money or allowing people to keep more of what they have worked to earn?

          A tax cut is not taking something away from people, it is allowing people to work hard and prosper from THEIR efforts.

          Just because you don’t agree with where much of it ends up, doesn’t change that simple fact.

          It is only “corporate welfare” when a company gets more than they pay in.

        • #2763097

          I can guarantee you that it will work, jck

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Because, FEDERAL guidlines for this are different

          [i]to see if his plan works or not.[/i]

          I can also guarantee that “doing nothing” will also work, or that “getting rid of all business and income taxes and replacing them with a consumption tax” will work.

          The problem is, there’s no way to know, since you can’t do them all, which will work faster or better. Obama’s plan could well make this mess last years longer than it would have if we’d done nothing. But WHEN we come out of it, it won’t matter… what was done will have been considered the right thing to have been done by the one who done it, and another politician will look the gullible right in the eyes in the eyes and tell them “I told you I could do it!”

      • #2769341

        the video

        by jck ·

        In reply to Who will NOT be helped out with this infrastructure spending?

        You know…I guess if you were looking to get something wrong out of it, you can.

        However, Reich is not saying to make sure ALL money goes to “women, minorities”…but…that it is not cornered into one sector/segment of America.

        BTW, point one of video:

        The video (very noticable during Rangel’s statement) is chopped.

        point of statement where the editor interjects:

        it says Rangel only wants money to go to “low-income neighborhoods”

        Are you saying that only minorities are poor, jd? Is that a point of contention?

        point of discussion to another point:

        it makes Reich’s statement seem like he only wants money to go to “non-whites” as you put it…and the video implies.

        However
        1) Reich, being white…why would he want to hurt his own people? That makes zero sense.

        2) If you have never been to NYC (I have) and walked around, you would notice most construction/labor jobs are filled by…white guys…and…a lot of jobs are still tied down by “family” ties. i.e.- lots of Italian people working construction in NYC, as has been since even the building of the Empire State Building.

        I think that is the point Reich is trying to make…that the establishment/union does not tie up all the funds and that it gets disbursed where it’s needed.

        Anyways…watching more video.

        OK…this is a funny one…2:37 into the video:

        “…the one thing that you can depend on…you dont have to be d…worried what the middle class is gonna do…things are so bad…they have to put food on the tables…get clothes for their kids…get them in school…”

        Now sure…if you took that alone, I guess you could say “God that is horrible! He wants to trash hard working Americans!”

        BTW…I love how the video…again…is chopped off after the words the editor wants to exploit…propaganda at its finest.

        Right?

        Now, go back to 1:50 and listen to the whole thing leading up to that which said:

        “So we’re gonna have to find way to establish formulas…to expedite this where…governors are gonna be forced to find some formula …to find out how we can get the money where the hemmorages are. Whether Harlem is gonna compete…whether Newark is gonna compete…is not nearly is important…if at the end of the day…we know where the joblessness are…where their fears are…and that we can get the Federal formulas…to target the relief to these communities once they meet that criteria. We move the d- d- d-…the discretion…identify the need trhough numbers…and get help swiftly there as possible.”

        So let’s see:

        Rangel proposes it doesn’t matter if it’s Harlem or Newark (two predominantly minority areas) are competing or not, he wants the money to go where it is [b]needed[/b].

        Just a clue: that means blacks…hispanics…asians…or [b]whites[/b].

        Now if you put it all together like it was [b]said[/b] and in [b]context[/b]…you’d understand…

        1) They want the money to go where it is needed.
        2) They have faith in the middle class, who is not absolutely impoverished, to be able to put food on the table and put their children in school.

        But, this did answer one of my questions:

        I now know where you get your kooky information from….

        jdclyde’s favorite news source and information repository: home-edited YouTube videos.

        Way to go. Next thing you know, jd…you’ll be quoting an astronomy PhD about social issues.

        • #2770466

          wow

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to the video

          so, deciding bridge X has to be replaced, and take bids like normal, it is ok to say “blacks only” on some of the drinking fountains?

          That is pathetic.

          Racism is alive and well in the church of Obama.

          Don’t like the clip, look up the transcript or unedited clip yourself and show they didn’t say what they said. Sure, it would be edited down instead of posting the entire session. You know what to look for if you disbelieve and wish to convert others to the same state of disbelief.

          You didn’t believe before you watched it, so it wouldn’t matter what they say or do.

        • #2764710

          OK…i tried typing in all that direct quote from what they said

          by jck ·

          In reply to wow

          and it still didn’t get through.

          Are you saying that making sure the money goes to the places that “need it the most” is equivocable to meaning “going only to non-whites”?

          I think you have a real disconnect with how to interpret statements from people.

          If a white politician like Robert Reich was going to say something like that, he is FAR more articulate and intelligent than just to say “let’s only give money to non-whites”.

          See, you assume that politicians are stupid. Most of them aren’t. Just a few, and one used to get led around by a gang of cronies in the White House to brief them and give them little things to say that make them look smart.

          But for the most part, those guys like Reich and Rangel are savvy at the least, and smart as hell at the most.

          After all, look at a guy like James Carvelle. That dude sounds like a hillbilly dummy. But, he’s one of the slickest, craftiest guys out there.

          So, don’t go thinking because Reich used the phrase “to go to non-whites” means “no money should go to whites”.

          He meant that in areas with established labor pools where they are needs (like NYC or Chicago or even Providence RI) that not only whites should get jobs, but that people from across the demographic there should have opportunities.

          Let me try and appeal to your past and what you told me of it.

          You remember that union you hated so bad, because you worked hard to get what you got but that some slack-ass didn’t and got away with it?

          Well in some places in this country, there are cities where the click is mainly family…Chicago…NYC…Boston…etc.

          Well, that means the main people chosen for jobs are family or close friends. And a lot of the time, that means application for a position is not open to the public as it should.

          They want to make sure that the money is used fairly…not just horded by local interests and kept within a small group.

          I could understand if you had a clip of Rangel or Reich saying directly “Whites have too much money. We need to give it to non-whites.”

          However, I think you (and the editor of that video you treat like it’s gold) are sadly grasping for something that’s just really not there.

        • #2764579

          Most states have setaside programs

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to wow

          15% of Ohio public projects are reserved for minority bidders only. Not only that, but the other 85% must prove that they employ at least a certain (fairly narrow range) percentage of minority and female employees. All subcontractors must also meet these requirements.

          Perhaps not surprisingly, these projects’ average winning bids are usually at least 25% higher than projects in the non-setaside group of similar scope and complexity, and they average 50% more change orders.

          We are required to take ‘ethics’ classes every two years, and one of the things they’ve always said is: “If it doesn’t look right, it’s probably not.”…

        • #2764571

          Sure it does…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to the video

          [i]1) Reich, being white…why would he want to hurt his own people? That makes zero sense.
          [/i]

          “His people” aren’t a particular ethnic background. “His people” are people of status.

          By throwing the occasional bones to his constituents, it lessens their incentive to gather any real power, and it makes him more re-electable. Not only that, it’s the middle class, being the largest, who are going to pay for these bones. The rich APPEAR to pay too, but they can recoup the cost by including it in the cost of what they sell to the other classes.

          Race or gender as issues only exist to distract us from whats really going on… class warfare… the classes are getting fewer and farther apart.

        • #2765530

          I didn’t bother

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Sure it does…

          even going into that, because jck knows full well, and is just trolling now to see if he can get a rise out of people. I decided not to bite.

    • #2769580

      How the market has responded negatively to both the rhetoric and the plan

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      The stock market has tumbled almost 50 percent over the past year – having fallen from 13,000 a year ago to 7,500 today.

      It dropped 2,000 points (to 11,000) by September, which could be explained any number of ways, including market correction, profit taking, etc.

      It dropped another 2,000 points on the news of the bank bailout fiasco in October.

      It dropped another 2,000 points since Barack Obama won the election – 1,500 of which since he took office.

      The market would have certainly reacted differently to a different plan and a different tone. Instead, it reacted as it did to the rhetoric and the plan – both of which are terribly flawed.

      • #2769559

        The market reacts to different things day-to-day and month-to-month

        by delbertpgh ·

        In reply to How the market has responded negatively to both the rhetoric and the plan

        What it reacts to over the longer term is the expectation of profits. Prices can go up one day because people get excited about a piece of news, which they think will improve the situation; the next day, down on the next bit of news, or just because some actors think the previous day’s swing justifies a bit of profit-taking. But what the brokers do over a period of months depends on business’s outlook. For information on that, they listen primarily to other businessmen and to the Federal Reserve.

        The outlook is bad. People can’t borrow money for what were good and profitable business opportunities a year ago; world trade is contracting; banks around the world are near insolvency, with further difficulties to come. Many more foreclosures are anticipated through the year, and nobody knows how bad the impact of that will be on financial institutions. Meanwhile, American GDP is starting to shrink.

        Also affecting the price of stock is that people are drawing money out of the market. Some do it because they need it; others, because they doubt the future track of prices. Investors pull out of the stock market reluctantly, because they don’t like to realize losses, and because they have learned to like stocks over the last 30 years. Stocks have been for 100 years the best investment, over any given 15-year period.

      • #2769538

        I would beg to differ

        by jck ·

        In reply to How the market has responded negatively to both the rhetoric and the plan

        Actually, the market stayed quite stable following the election of Barack Obama.

        As of November 7, 2008, the DJIA was about 8900.

        As of Jan 6, 2009, the DJIA was holding around 9000.

        This is uncommon following the election of a Democratic president, that there is not a slide in the market through the end of the year with sell-offs.

        When companies began to make financial and earnings reports at the beginning of the year is when the slide began.

        For example:

        Ruby Tuesday shares sink on 2Q loss, sales drop

        Intuitive Surgical shares fall on weak sales

        Nasdaq CEO sees market role in financial crisis

        Medical equipment makers down

        Airlines down

        Cathay shares fall sharply on fuel hedging loss

        Alcoa shares downgraded

        World stocks retreat on US corporate concerns

        Citi shares fall despite talks with Morgan Stanley

        National banks plummet

        National banks continue to face mounting problems

        Apple shares down after Jobs’ reversal on health

        I could put you a million more headlines in there that I have seen on financial sites I watch.

        Fact is, the market has been going down because of economic conditions, corporations closing down operations, laying off, and lack of spending by the public.

        It’s not because of Obama making a couple comments. You give him way too much credit.

        BTW, if the “plan” had have been the cause, then the market would have started falling in December when the basic premise and estimate came out…not over the past month alone (since Jan 6, 2009, which is the exact day that the drop had begun).

        I will be waiting for Obama to walk on water and Pelosi to part the heavens and move the earth next. :^0

        • #2769437

          You don’t have to beg

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I would beg to differ

          You always differ.

          If you call a drop from 9,000 to 7,500 in 6 weeks as [i]stable[/i], especially on the heels of a similar drop, I guess that says it all about how you think.

        • #2769396

          Nice Max

          by jck ·

          In reply to You don’t have to beg

          It’s amazing how you’ll pick the 6 week period of your choice to show a trend you want to fit.

          First of all the day before the election, it was 8934.

          So in 6 weeks, it dropped straight down to 7500? hmm…funny…7500 is about where the market is now.

          No fluctuation in there at all? it didn’t come back any before his inauguration?

          ok…let’s get you and everyone else a graph of this to look at so you can see that there was market fluctuation in there.

          / chart doesn’t work…go to http://finance.yahoo.com yourself…i tried. /

          I believe if you go look at that chart of the Dow Jones industrial average, you’ll see that in a period from November 7 to January 2 (8 weeks) that the market went up and down between 8943 and 7552.

          Now by your logic, I can propose that this country was really excited by Obama working with Congress through January, because the market went from 7552 back up to 9034! So, America loved that Obama was going to be president!

          See…I can twist numbers too, Max…with the same sort of presumptive attitude you do.

          Facts are:

          The market went back up from a low in November to higher in January than it was upon Obama’s election.

          The market sank at the beginning of January when companies began to report 4th quarter losses, and economic indicators came out about the dismal holiday sales numbers.

          The market upswung almost 300 points in 1 day…the day after Obama’s inauguration (7949 to 8228).

          The market went up a total of 426 points (7949 to 8335) within the week of Jan. 20 and Jan. 27 following his inauguration.

          It stayed up above the 8000 mark following that until….you guessed it…firm facts about the ARRA came out of committees and from the floor of both houses of Congress. Then, the market dropped about half of that 1500 point drop you are placing on Obama.

          If you want to blame the 11 day, 720 point drop on anyone in government…you would be wiser to look to place the blame upon the members of Congress and the pork that you hate that was loaded into that bill.

          But, Obama is not the man for your blame despite how much you would love to make the executive branch responsible for huge pork goes into a bill that he had no decision in making.

          Now if you want to blame him for not vetoing it, go ahead.

          But, you know I’m right. And, I have just presented facts to you that show you that events which occured at the times the market reacted were not of Obama’s doing…but of those in the private sector and Congress.

          Do you care to contradict it?

        • #2769381

          What? I didn’t pick the 6 week period of MY choice . . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Nice Max

          …..I picked the 6 week period of [b]YOUR[/b] choice – the one you cited in [b]YOUR[/b] message! From [b]YOUR[/b] January 6th date to today! You know, the period about which you said, [i]”Actually, the market stayed quite stable following the election of Barack Obama.”[/i]

          (Shaking my head in disbelief.)

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=300579&messageID=3017775

          Let me guess, you’re just playing games with me, right? What else could it possibly be?

          (By the way, so far, I’ve read no further than the first sentence in the message to which this is a reply. Perhaps I’ll read the rest, but that first sentence deserved its own reply.)

        • #2769354

          yes…you picked it

          by jck ·

          In reply to What? I didn’t pick the 6 week period of MY choice . . . . . .

          And, you picked the point (6 weeks at which it bottomed…which just happened to be, as I pointed out…when Congress had begun to disclose the almost agreed upon terms of the ARRA.

          Why didn’t you choose 1 week? 4 weeks?

          Because, it did not fit your modus operandi.

          If you had chosen a period where things occuring in government that were not greatly influential to American/world markets, I could see your point.

          Instead, you chose an ending period where (obviously to me, maybe not to you) Congress had begun to release preliminary version of ARRA and the markets could see what a pork-packed pile it is.

          Hence, my assertion you chose a timeframe…rather than choosing one where Obama himself (and his administration ) would be solely responsible for the effects.

          Nice try.

        • #2769424

          [i]Obama to walk on water and Pelosi to part the heavens [/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I would beg to differ

          Well, we already know that Obama can walk on water.

          As for Pelosi parting the heavens, she did, after all, just leave on a trip to Rome.

          Where the Pope scolded her, by the way.

          http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96E13500&show_article=1

        • #2769391

          I heard about that

          by jck ·

          In reply to [i]Obama to walk on water and Pelosi to part the heavens [/i]

          And being a non-Catholic, I can say:

          The Pope runs Vatican City…not the United States of America.

          His opinion is welcome, but let the Nosferatu of Papal History not dictate our laws.

          That is my rather sacreligious comment for the day. Thank you.

          The King of Swill has spoken, and is going home to have his vodka.

          Goodnight.

        • #2769378

          The Pope does not just run Vatican City

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I heard about that

          The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church world-wide.

          < sarcasm >
          But since you’re a non-Catholic, I suppose that makes you the real expert.
          < /sarcasm >

        • #2769355

          And as well

          by jck ·

          In reply to The Pope does not just run Vatican City

          The American country is not a church. It’s a government.

          Nancy Pelosi is a US Government representative…not a church representative.

          Hence, why I said his opinion was welcome but that he has no place in deciding how to run [b]America[/b].

          BTW, The Pope is also the head of Vatican City, which is itself its own soverign entity…as any other country.

          I might not be Catholic, but I am educated.

        • #2769342

          You presume that she visited the Pope as the head of a state

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to And as well

          I presume she visited the Pope as the head of her church.

        • #2769339

          well let me disspell the rumor then, Max ole boy

          by jck ·

          In reply to And as well

          http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15098

          Read it and weep, Max. And, learn facts…especially if you’re Catholic…and don’t contradict what the Catholic church said that the Pope said…ok?

          As stated:

          [i]”The press office made clear that the Pope will meet with Pelosi in his capacity as a head of state since the Speaker of the House is the third in line to lead the U.S., should the president and vice president be unable to do so.”[/i]

          It was a [b]state[/b] visit.

          See, I read more than Fox or CNN before I spoke on the subject.

          Why? Cause when I see some official from my country overseas visiting some official/notable, I want to know why they are there and if I am paying for them to be making personal trips on my dime.

          I pay attention to things my leaders do more than making just statements.

          Maybe you should try it sometime.

          I’m going to make me a drink now. Have a good night.

        • #2769334

          Of course her press office said that

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to And as well

          Otherwise, she would have had to pay for the trip herself.

          Her 15 minute meeting was private – closed to everyone. She went to see the head of her church – and probably asked for his forgiveness for her sins. I don’t care what anyone says.

          And we paid for the trip! What a waste of taxpayer money.

          Edit: I shudder to think of how many [i]personal trips[/i] we, as taxpayers, pay for under the guise of being an [i]official trip[/i] – both parties. If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge for sale at a great price.

        • #2769330

          Max…

          by jck ·

          In reply to And as well

          before you comment, go read the f****** article.

          “The press office…” referred to the Pope’s…not Nancy Pelosi’s…unless you consider her the “Holy See”. :^0

          Goodnight oh one of great faith :^0

        • #2769377

          What an outrageous idea

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I heard about that

          [i]should work to create “a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.” [/i]

          What a horrible thing to say, huh? I can see how a non/anti-religious person would object to that.

        • #2770773

          horrible?

          by jck ·

          In reply to What an outrageous idea

          Nah.

          Expect me to conform to *YOUR* (or anyone else’s…including any pope) religious beliefs is a violation of my freedom of religion.

          Base law on fact of mankind…not one individual’s/organization’s personal conviction or creed.

          And, I’m not anti-religion. I’m anti-religious-establishments-telling-me-what-to-believe-through-the-government.

          The Pope is pushing his agenda of religious conviction via his post as head of Vatican City.

          He can keep it in his church and his little duchy in the middle of Rome.

          I will hold my beliefs in my house.

          Thanks.

    • #2764842

      Clinton to Obama: Talk optimistically on economy

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090220/ap_on_go_pr_wh/clinton_obama_economy

      [i]”WASHINGTON ? It used to be gospel in the nation’s power center: Presidents didn’t talk publicly about what the markets were doing. The notion was that anything a president said on this subject could be too easily misinterpreted,[b] sending Wall Street into a dive.[/b]

      Now, former President Clinton says he thinks President Barack Obama should talk more optimistically about the prospects that the nation will recover from its current deep economic woes.”[/i]

      • #2764802

        The view from here….

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to Clinton to Obama: Talk optimistically on economy

        It isn’t only in the US where that advice is followed. Leaders can and should talk about the economy, employment in broad terms, but should refrain from speculating on the markets or interest rates or anything that might cause panic.

        On the other hand, it is also a given that a brand new administration looks at the books from the old administration with shock and horror. That too isn’t exclusive to the US, or Canada. That tends to cause some resetting of expectations by the new administration.

        Personally I think Obama’s pessimism was caluclated and political. It was designed to put pressure on Republicans to stop slowing down the passage of the stimulus package. Now that the point is moot, hopefully the message will be more upbeat.

        Obama was treated like a rock star in his Ottawa visit, women shreaked and nearly fainted.

        James

        • #2764733

          He has been put on a pedestal

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The view from here….

          And has to be smart enough that there is no way he or any other president in the world could live up to the image he created to get anointed.

          This was for his followers, to TRY to lower the bar of expectations.

          It is not even remotely honest to think that his non-stop negative message of fear hasn’t made things worse than they were.

          Kind of funny, though. Bill Clinton must have been reading Max’s posts! 😀

        • #2764730

          I have a theory on that…..

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to He has been put on a pedestal

          If all Clinton did is parrot the white house position, no one would listen to him.

          If he says something controversial, he gets noticed. He gets press. He gets more speaking engagements….

          James

        • #2764725

          He also gets

          by jck ·

          In reply to I have a theory on that…..

          more women when on road trips golfing with the elder Bush :^0

        • #2764722

          Do you think

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I have a theory on that…..

          that is why during the election they called Bill a racist? After all, Clinton IS the first black president….

        • #2764714

          oh absolutely!

          by jck ·

          In reply to I have a theory on that…..

          Bill Clinton was black…indeed.

          And, I’m Nancy Sinatra…watch me go-go dance!!! Right on! :^0

        • #2764584

          I know once again

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to oh absolutely!

          you will not honestly approach this, so don’t bother.

          It was the black community that anointed Clinton as the first black president. Was it really so long ago that you can’t remember it?

          Sad. Real sad.

        • #2764948

          and what is even sadder, jd

          by jck ·

          In reply to I know once again

          you are so bitter, you can not even discern at this point what “tongue in cheek” means or is.

          You really think the American Black Caucus thinks Bill Clinton is [b]black?!?!?!?!?![/b]

          get real.

          i won an award in 5th grade for losing weight. you think that makes me a fitness guru? :^0

        • #2764942

          jck

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I know once again

          I agree with your sentiments here and also agree that Clinton is actually white, despite what some may feel.

          But the weight loss in grade 5?
          WTF? Not to downplay any of your personal sucesses, but I think there were perhaps two fat kids, no..actually there weren’t even two, in my class in grade 5.

          It wasn’t until late in high school that fat kids were more common, even then it was rare. They were just the geeks who played D&D and stayed home playing with the Vic 20 or whatever computer was cool at the time.

          Grade 5 was floor hockey, basketball, football in school and baseball, soccer, football, hockey and any other outdoor activity one could dream up.

          It wasn’t just jocks that were into such sports it was everyone; male, female, short or tall.

          I do agree though that these days, fewer and fewer kids play organized sports, for many reasons including insane costs, the fears by parents of thier bone china children being bumped and damaged, the fears of predators in parks and playgrounds that keep children stuck in the house, the lack of parental support or time to spend with kids exploring such activities and the lack of desire by children to simply find somethign to do with themselves. Sad, it really does break my heart ro think of how sheltered and coddled our children have become over time, resulting in them learning nothign abotu the world, nothing about street smarts etc.

          Sorry, touchy subject with me, and again I really don’t mean to insult you personally.

        • #2765017

          Rock star??!

          by larryboy2 ·

          In reply to The view from here….

          Pathetic!!!!!

        • #2764959

          Yes, it is

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Rock star??!

          that Obama would be treated in such a manner, and the office of the President to be diminished in such a manner.

        • #2763092

          Don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger…

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Yes, it is

          His official reception was very dignified. He signed the guest book etc etc. Great pains were taken to tell people that they couldn’t just wander up to Parliament Hill and see anything. The barriers kept people a fair distance away. But Obama and Harper did give the crowd a wave from behind bullet proof plexiglas. Despite the cautions about 20,000 people gathered for a glimpse. Some travelled a long way. To stand around in the middle of winter. Me, I would have said watch it on TV you will see more.

          The rock star thing happened on Obama’s little tourist trip after the meetings, where he (and his security escort) went into the “Byward market” area to shop for souvenirs and visits a few small business. Women were swooning, getting their picture taken with him, vendors refused to take the money he offered to pay for stuff. Women suggesting they nearly fainted etc.

          Call that diminished if you wish, but I understand JFK had the same kind of reception in the US, back when I was born.

          James

        • #2763072

          Mine was in NO WAY

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger…

          directed at you, James.

          This is the kind of undignified crap the media has been pushing ever since they decided they wanted him instead of the Clintons as President again.

    • #2764788

      Bravo!

      by larryboy2 ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      Well said, Maxwell. I’m sure there are a lot of great comments, on both sides, as well, but I don’t have time to read them. There are 361 as I post.

      • #2763105

        quick reading through the thread

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Bravo!

        Right below the links for ‘Previous and Next’ posts there is a link called “Print/Preview posts.”

        Click that and it lays out the entire thread in text format so you can just scroll down teh list and read them all without clicking reading and closing each post individually.

        helps with these long threads, just to see where they are going.

        • #2763071

          What would be nice

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to quick reading through the thread

          is if doing the print/preview could make all of the existing posts show up as “read”, so you can tell where anything new is from that point.

          Can’t have it all, can we?

        • #2762385

          Knock on their door

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to What would be nice

          For the position of minute-to-minute Summarizer. Would require no fear or favor.

    • #2763083

      Republicons

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      [i]”However, almost every time someone accused Bush of something while he was in office, it was the instantaneous response of Republicans, including yourself, to point out how issues were actually related to a democrat that held office in the past.”[/i]

      For someone who proudly supported and defended Bush a great deal over the last 8 years it is amusing how you now choose to separate yourself at any chance when someone mentions republican and aligns such support with yourself.

      [i]”before you accuse me of something, be ready to prove it. Go back and find where I specifically blamed something on the Clinton Administration in my defense of Bush.[/i]

      I didn’t, now you do the same. Show me where I “accused you” of blaming Clinton because that is YOUR assertion, not mine.

      [i]”God only knows how many times people accused Bush then a Republican quickly chimed in that the problem started with Clinton and it is not Bush’s fault.”[/i]

      Please show me where I “accused you” of blaming Clinton.

      I said “REPUBLICANS”, you obviously lumped yourself in as a republican, make up your mind you either are or are not Republican.

      Though you admittedly don’t fully support the Republican agenda, and you also know I have recognized that and even supported you with your stand when you were labelled otherwise. You do sit in much closer alignment with a republican mindest than democratic though, I don’t think anyone needs to prove that, you did it almost every day for 8 years, until recently when th etides turned and you work to distance yourself more and more. Convenient just sitting on the fence, isn’t it?

      Or as you always like to say to me when I deny your false accusations “If it walks like a duck….”

      When you support a republican party’s leader through thick and thin, why would anyone think you were not then supporting republicans? I think a TR poll of readers would illustrate that most peopl esee you as Rpublican aligned, far more than Democratic anyway.

      Before I accuse you of something,be ready to support it?

      I said that when someone blamed Bush for something, republicans pointed out how it was something that democrats began, which you have done on more than one occasion yourself, or is your memory failing you these days.

      As for Clinton specifically, I think you’ve read enough political discussions here to know that he has been blamed for Bush’s actions.

      Again though I did not say it was by yourself, no assertion means no proof requried for those with failing memory.

      I’ve played your game for years now, you are very predictable and I know what your replies will be and know how you look for ways out of what you say, thus I word such comments carefully, you will get the wrong impression (as you have proven here)if you don’t read the words carefully and choose to simply put me in a box and dream up what I am saying and not what I actually AM saying.

      Remember I have been marketing and advertising for many years now, I know how how people are easily lead to believe something was said when it wasn’t.

      [i]”Third of all, if you accuse ME of hypocrisy for the reasons you stated, why not be fair and accuse jck of it as well?”[/i]

      I was talking to you regarding your comments, not JCK.

      Yes I accuse you of hypocrisy, as my comments were directed towards yourself.

      You have done the same to me on many occasions, so have others and I do too it to others to. That does not mean that your hypocrisy does not exist in this case though.

      [i]”You’re the only unbiased voice of reason around here, right?”[/i]

      No, those are your words again, not mine.
      I appreciate the compliment all the same but don’t think there is any such thing as an unbiased voice when it comes to politics.

      On this particular topic, I did not vote for Obama nor did I lose my vote to Obama. I also offered a VERY unbiased post as to who my choice would be if I were to vote as an American and who I would like to see elected from a foreign perspective. That in itself, and the fact that I have no gain nor loss either way illustrates how I would naturally have less political bias towards this election than yourself.

      You have something to gain or lose from the outcome, a reason for bias, therefore your opinion has to be formed on bias otherwise you would have to check “all of the above” on your ballot.

      sheesh, and I thought you were clever, which I still think you are unless you are trying to dissect comments without a leg to stand on.

      • #2763028

        Oz – some thoughts

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Republicons

        I don’t like the way I’ve come across in a lot of messages I’ve left, so perhaps I’m trying to avoid anything that might be construed as mean-spirited, intolerant, or those kinds of things. A person might write something that’s intended to be funny, sarcastic, or such, but when read by others, that intent is often lost – or even misread. I find it kind-of sad that if I misread your intentions, that you further criticize me for it. (I hate it when a person reads something into one of my messages that wasn’t intended – and it happens more than I’d like – but I don’t blame them; I blame me.)

        No, I don’t like to be called a hypocrite – period. I don’t say one thing and do another – never. I pride myself in being a principled person, and all of my actions, deeds, and opinions are based on certain underlying principles. I try to live them, and I try to teach them.

        I don’t like to play silly [i]word games[/i]. And I think a lot about the country my own son is going to inherit from me and those of my generation. It’s extremely serious in my mind. I don’t want to joke about it or play games with it. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. No wiggle room. I despise things like, it depends on what the meaning of [i]is[/i] is.

        I’m not interested in talking to one personality in these threads and a totally different one in e-mails. Be who you are – in all cases. Otherwise, I have no idea who you really are. And otherwise, I’m not interested.

        You come across as though the world revolves around you, and that you are always right, all wise, and all knowing. Diversity of thought and opinion is something that apparently escapes you. I, on the other hand, realize that not all people will have the same thoughts, desires, and opinions. I realize that a consequence of living in a free society is that some people will say, think, and do things with which I disagree. Without exception, I’m willing to overlook those disagreements, and consider them no more than diversity of thought. One of my principles – I will never try to force another person to do anything. But when those very same people won’t afford me the same courtesy, it is they who’ve crossed the line, not me. I can live my life without infringing on anyone else’s rights. I only want the same in return. That’s a concept that escapes all too many people.

        And the way you continually disparage Americans is, in my opinion, both extremely rude and inaccurate. You truly don’t know what you’re talking about, and you’re extremely mean-spirited about it.

        I want no part of any [i]pissing match[/i] with you, Oz. I either want honest and genuine dialogue or nothing at all – both here and in e-mails.

        Edit: I sure wish TR would fix whatever causes apostrophes and dashes created in Word to end up as question marks.

        • #2762396

          Some thoughts on your thoughts

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Oz – some thoughts

          When I first read it I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry for you, so I figured I’d wait it out and look again today, same issue.

          First of all, my comments have nothing to do with your situation with your brother, I understand (yes, I actually do) what you are going through and how it makes you reflect, take stock and consider your own mortality.
          Life is too short, I learned that after coming out of a coma in ’89. Still pi$$ed that I lost that 61/2 weeks of life to a long sleep, but it was a realization too so I think it had long term benefits that I needed to realize.

          Anyway, that aside, you say you don’t like your tone in your posts lately and you don’t like to see yourself doing that…but you still do it and have been condescending, rude and offensive in your last post too, and yet you point teh finger at me once again.

          I don’t argue that I throw it out too, but I can take it as well as I throw it out and I don’t get personally offended if you have a difference of opinion and argue about it.

          As for my ‘two personalities’, you seem to be getting confused. I am polite in email because we don’t discuss politics, I have no argument with most of your views or with you as a person. But when it comes to politics, I think you have a dangerous and contageous mentality that is not destructive to everyone. Its not a matter of being inconsistent or having two personalities, its a matter that I still think your political views are that of an ignorant yankee with no real understanding or concern about the rest of the world, just your backyard. With the alignment of nations these days, it is NOT a world for self preservation but one that needs unified global approaches to improvement.

          I don’t deny that includes Canada’s political stand either, we don’t have a perfect government by any means, I also don’t pretend we do though.

          As for me always being right, well you are right on that, I am never wrong. The sooner you understand that, the easier it will be.

          When I disagree with you, I am just being polite, I am not actually disagreeing with you, you are simply wrong and need correcting sometimes.

          The way I continually disparage Americans is 100% due to US actions of late. Again, I once really liked America and Americans, the past 15-20 years have been a grave disappointment in what was once a strong and mighty nation. You have sunk to the bottom of the bottle and still think you are the cream on top. That is an opinion I share with MANY Canadians and from what I see here, many Americans too. I’m not the only one that sees America as going to hell in a handbasket and trying to drag everyone else down with you.

          The most annoying part is not that your government does these things, that’s to be expected of any government, but the fact that people actually drink the cool aid and support such insanity just gets under my skin, it’s just pure ignorance of those who follow like sheep and actually TRUST the government.

          Recently I see some thin shred of hope for you, whether it was Obama or McCain, you are of to a much better start with this election and maybe have some light on the horizon. Though Obama must have massive sleeves to hide that Ace. He ‘KNOWS’ about this, and his administration has “SOLUTIONS” for that
          and this secret money has been found that he will put to better use. Of course it is all, ‘wait and see what I’m gonna do’, sound sgreat but again he better have one HUGE Ace up his sleeve that he miraculously pulls out of thin air……one day (I think everyone’s waiting for it now).

          The world revolves around me? No thanks, its enough work for me just making the sun shine and the stars come out at night.

          As far as your political views and attackes on others, you are a hypocrite, you say one thing and then completely contradict it when it suits your means. Does everyone do it? Yes, damn right on that. But everyone else also accepts being called a hypocrite when they do.

          I don’t play silly words games either, I am just very careful in how I state something as I KNOW it will be taken out of context or you will suggest I said something I did not. People here read things that aren’t said, as you have proven in yuor last few posts. If you slowed down and paid closer attention, without the chip on your shoulder, it would be a lot easier for your to rebut my comments without making false assertions as to what I had said.
          I know what issues you pick up on and I am careful nto to make such false accusations in my comments to you as I know you will run with it.
          Instead you choose to form opinions on what I said based on your predertermined conclusion of what I said, not what was actually said, what you would deem ‘disingenius’.

          anyway, if it upsets you to discuss politics with those who don’t agree with your viewpoint or wont’ sit down and accept your views as correct, there’s not a lot I personally can do to help you, that’s on your plate.

          If you realize life is short and there’s too much to value in such a short time to worry about trivial issues such as this, then don’t. I sure as hell don’t worry about what is said here, I get PO’d with comments, I get frazzled trying to make sense with some people, but that doesn’t effect my quality of life or make me doubt who I really am. I had my awakening many years ago, I am at peace with who i am, comfortable in my own skin and while I do understand I am not perfect, I also realize that nobody else is either and dammit I better like myself because you never know when [i]you[/i] are all [i]you[/i] have.

    • #2762387

      Obama is #1

      by ho.nguyen ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      People all over the world are looking forward Obama change the world!

      http://ThuYPetPro.com
      http://NhakhoaLamAnhSaigon.com.vn
      http://3doanh.com
      http://bandovang.com
      http://VietBDS.com

      • #2762381

        Speechless.

        by boxfiddler ·

        In reply to Obama is #1

        .

        • #2762380

          Unless

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to Speechless.

          You know Vietnamese (cf., The Smaller Dragon).

        • #2762327

          I know quite a few Vietnamese – Just not the language :-)

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Unless

          We have a Vietnamese section of town (as well as a Korean village, Thai, Chinatown, Japanese market etc. I learned a bit of Mandarin one summer, (needed it to host some guys from Hong Kong) but I still can’t read a damn word of Vietnamese beyond the signs on the storefronts.

          What’s funny about Canada is that we have a mandate that anything sold in Canada must bear both English and French labels.

          However, Vancouver is littered with areas where the signage is foreign but with no English equivalent to be found. This isn’t just for signs from the Orient, but Italian, Punjabi, Greek, Arabic, you name it (we have all immigrants here and each has a section of town as their own). I don’t mind it at all, its multiculturalism and illustrates that we can actually all live together and the language barrier is only a surface issue.

          You know where you are because of the signs, no a word of English but you get to recognize and identify signs from the various nations represented. While I can’t read of understand Vietnamese, I can tell you what language a sign is in, even if I don’t understand it. You also get better at identifying people, I know whether I am looking at or speaking to someone who is Chinese as opposed to Japanese you can identify Pakistani from Hindi religions etc.

          All of a sudden everyone becomes unique and identifiable, understandable, it really is pretty cool to have such exposure, especially for children!

        • #2762323

          I don’t either.

          by santeewelding ·

          In reply to I know quite a few Vietnamese – Just not the language :-)

          Learned from a great deal of occupational research years ago that the written form was cobbled together by a westerner.

        • #2762294

          We agree!

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I know quite a few Vietnamese – Just not the language :-)

          [i]All of a sudden everyone becomes unique and identifiable, understandable, it really is pretty cool to have such exposure, especially for children![/i]

          Our children and their children are going to inherit a truly exciting world 🙂

        • #2762278

          Hopefully

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to We agree!

          I think teh ultimate goals for any human on Earth is that all nations work together and live in peace. Even terrorists would rather just live in peace, I’m sure.

          I think there are very few truly evil people and those eveil people would also be much happier if they didn’t feel a need to be evil.

          I don’t see world peace happening in my short lifespan but I can only hope that we and future generations just keep laying down the path for others to follow and improve upon too.

          If we don’t wipe out our own race first, we have hope.

        • #2762263

          A Utopian view

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Hopefully

          [i]I think the ultimate goals for any human on Earth is that all nations work together and live in peace.[/i]

          That’s both unrealistic and unattainable – as long as people want to gain or take that which belongs to another, or as long as there are those who are intolerant of others. I don’t think it’ll ever happen.

          [i]Even terrorists would rather just live in peace.[/i]

          Yea, right. That sure is a naive view. The only way that would happen is if it were on their terms – and not even you would do that.

          Desiring world-wide peace is easy to think about, want, or say, but the $64,000 question is on whose terms? Until the terms are universally agreed upon, it’ll never happen – so it will never happen.

        • #2762251

          Oooooooh, AAAaaaaarchie!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Hopefully

          Yeah like I said, it will never happen in my lifetime, as long as there are people with your mentality around. but there is hope for future generations.

          Even Iraq is full of young people who want no part of this religious war bullsh1t, and who’s to say we need terms anyway? Why should one set of terms apply to all nations? You are wrong in suggesting single set of laws is the only solution, and even more wrong to suggest one person, or nation can or should impart those laws upon others. That’s the whole problem today, they don’t want your laws in their country, you fear that they live by different laws than you do, and THEY have all the oil!

          America and Britain overthrew a democratic, elected government that knocked BP out of ownership in Iranian oil. Americans then set up their government with a dictatorship style of government that they hadn’t elected themselves. Now you are trying to get an elected, democratic government into power again, though it has to be one that approves of your ideals and allows US and British control of oil in the region.

          If Canadian oil companies were not as established, massive and capable as they are today, in order to suit your demands, there’s little doubt that you would be doing the same thing here, except under the guise of free trade. do you not think Canada, Britain and other allies would quickly go to war against America? And if they didn’t the citizens of Canada wouldn’t revolt and terrorize you in retaliation?

          If your nation has a practice of demanding what it needs and using bully tactics to obtain them, you will always have aggressors looking to stop you.

          Your post isn’t worth anything to anyone, it is just complete BS from a naysayer who doesn’t believe the world can be atoned. One who has lived his whole life as a fight to be won. There is no hope for your or my generation, there is hope for future generations though, people reflecting on how poorly we managed our nations and priorities will seek out new ways to avoid what we have done to the world.

          You have a very negative, biased and self encompassing view of the world; one that will never be changed, one that will never be of any help to anyone else and one that only serves to prove that if you believe something will fail, it will, every time.

          There’s one true thing about saying something can’t be done, you will ALWAYS be right.

          hopefully our kids kids will see a brighter future for mankind and open their minds to possibilities that may seem unrealistic but worth trying anyway.

          Didn’t you say you don’t like being like this?

          Take a vacation, go for a hike, get out on a few Scout trips or something positive for a change,you need it.

          HOPE, you don’t believe it when Obama says it and you don’t have any yourself, what’s the point on trying to sort out the world when there are such people in the way?

          I’ve seen terrorists interviewed and when they are not ‘performing’ for the camera’s they are pretty normal sounding people that don’t want war but want their freedoms that they feel are being given to America by their governments. of course you will see that they want freedoms to kill, terrorize and antagonize, but that’s not it at all, I don’t think.

          The younger generations there have hope, the elders are too far gone, just as they are in North America too.

        • #2762242

          It’s not a negative view. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Hopefully

          …..it’s a realistic view.

          As long as one person – or a group of people – want that which another has, and as long as there’s intolerance, there will be conflict.

          That’s being realistic, not negative. I’m probably more willing to live and let live then even you – in fact, I know I am.

          I neither want that which another has, nor am I intolerant of anyone. The only problem I have is with those who want what I have and are intolerant to what I believe. I don’t care what anyone’s belief system is, and as far as I’m concerned, they’re free to practice it as long as they leave me free to practice mine.

          Any [i]collective[/i] effort will eventually lead to conflict. You’re the [i]collectivist[/i] thinker, not me. I’m an individualist who believes in the [i]live and let live[/i] principle – and you’ve criticized me for it. Now you tell me I should be more like that. Sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

        • #2762235

          C’mon Oz

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Hopefully

          [i]Yeah like I said, it will never happen in my lifetime, as long as there are people with your mentality around. but there is hope for future generations.[/i]

          Because your respective outlooks on human nature differ it’s his fault we’ll never have world peace?

          Now you’re being pissy just to be pissy.

        • #2762228

          C’mon Nick

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Hopefully

          If you feel that you can’t do something, you are ALWAYS correct.

          If Max feels that it is impossible, as many others do too, then they are also 100% correct, thus it will never happen in their lifetimes.

          Pretty simple, not exactly brain surgery.

        • #2762219

          C’mon Oz – [i]Just give peace a chance[/i] is laughable

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Hopefully

          It’s not that I don’t want peace around the world, because I do. I just see the reality that there are others who won’t allow it. I can tap the heels of my red shoes all I want, and I can muster up all the want and wish there possibly is, but it still ain’t gonna’ happen.

          Let’s just want and wish like one big happy family – and let’s dismantle our militaries and law enforcement agencies as a show of good faith. If that was done, there’d be more war, death, and destruction than you could ever [i]imagine[/i].

          But gee, because I don’t think it’s possible, I’m causing it! That’s simply laughable!

        • #2763517

          Yeah that’s what I was getting at

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Hopefully

          I thought you were a little quicker than that.

        • #2763256

          we love foreigner speak Vietnamese

          by ho.nguyen ·

          In reply to I know quite a few Vietnamese – Just not the language :-)

          Oz_Media,

          I am Vietnamese. I am glad to know you know Vietnamese.

          In Vietnam, we have “Let’s talk” TV program. This is designed for foreigner. All we love foreigner speak Vietnamese.

          Thanks for your interesting in Vietnam!

          http://ThuYPetPro.com
          http://NhakhoaLamAnhSaigon.com.vn
          http://3doanh.com
          http://bandovang.com
          http://VietBDS.com

        • #2762324

          Would you rather they prefer…..

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Speechless.

          Mao Tse Tung?
          Che Gueverra?
          Vladimir Putin?

          I’m just sayin……

          James

        • #2762303

          Save the world.

          by boxfiddler ·

          In reply to Would you rather they prefer…..

          Don’t care who anyone prefers, no one man is going to ‘save the world’.

    • #2762261

      Another person who wisely agrees with me

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to President Obama is doing a grave disservice by. . . . . .

      [i]President Obama, in his pursuit of liberal big-government spending, has totally neglected the role of the president of the United States in reversing global panic. To the contrary, his every remark and the constant preoccupation of his Cabinet is to heighten the sense of crisis and to escalate the predictions of doom if we do not do as they tell us and raise spending now and taxes later.

      Instead of being a firewall, reassuring Main Street even as Wall Street crashed, he has become a conduit of panic, spreading the mood of desperation from the stock exchange floor to kitchen tables across the world.

      In addressing this panic, the president of the United States must truly be the leader of the world – showing the way back to confidence.

      Instead, Obama has been instrumental in purveying fear and spreading doubt. It is his pronouncements, reinforced by the developments they kindle and catalyze, that are destroying good businesses, bankrupting responsible people and wiping out even conservative financial institutions. Every time he speaks, he sends the markets down and stocks crashing. He doesn?t seem to realize that the rest of the world takes its cue from him. He forgets that he stands at the epicenter of power, not on the fringes campaigning for office. This ain?t Iowa.

      Why does Obama preach gloom and doom? Because he is so anxious to cram through every last spending bill, tax increase on the so-called rich, new government regulation, and expansion of healthcare entitlement that he must preserve the atmosphere of crisis as a political necessity. Only by keeping us in a state of panic can he induce us to vote for trillion-dollar deficits and spending packages that send our national debt soaring……

      The market collapse makes it evident that it is Obama who is the problem, where he should, instead, be the solution.[/i]

      http://thehill.com/dick-morris/its-obama-spreading-panic-2009-02-24.html

      [i]Why does Obama preach gloom and doom? [/i]

      Some people will soon start suggesting that he’s intentionally trying to destroy the United States as it once was – to intentionally put the final nail in Liberty’s coffin.

      • #2762243

        What, you believe his HOPE now?

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Another person who wisely agrees with me

        Is that just because he sides with your own views for a change or are you finally seeing him as capable?

        until now, anything he said has been unsubstantial and just hot air, but all of a sudden you buy into his HOPE as he shares your opinion?

        And we only just had a debate about hypocrisy!

        • #2762239

          What?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What, you believe his HOPE now?

          What are you talking about? And who is the [i]his[/i] you’re talking about?

          You make no sense.

        • #2762230

          seems you were siding with him

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What?

          Obama that is. He preaches doom and gloom only to suport his theory of ‘hope’, which you quickly denounced.

          Oh and, “What?

          What are you talking about? And who is the his you’re talking about?

          You make no sense.”

          [i]
          “I neither want that which another has, nor am I intolerant of anyone.”
          [/i]

          We just discussed hypocrisy, right?

          As for one person wanting something someone else has, we have that in our own nations, which are still free and proseprous places to live, so much so that mpost Americans think the rest of the world is knocking down teh door to get in.

          But there are thousands of peopl ein teh USA that want what YOU have and will help themselves to it or pay for someone else to do so, in such numbers and against the mainstream mentality, they have little hope of anarchy though.

          What’s funny is that you take control of another nations government, set up one you prefer. Then you take control of it again when it doesn’ tdo as you wish, and kill anyone who stands in the way to you achieving your goals.

          And then you think THEY have issues and THEY are terrosizing you and trying to instill their beliefs upon you.

          hypocrisy-
          :is the act of preaching a certain belief or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same
          : an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction
          : insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have

          [i]”What are you talking about? You make no sense…nor am I intolerant of anyone.” [/i]

          Ripe, Max. 😀

        • #2762229

          Siding with Obama? Are you serious?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to seems you were siding with him

          I was agreeing with Dick Morris’s article – but, of course, I said it first, so Morris was agreeing with me.

        • #2763515

          Fair enough

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Siding with Obama? Are you serious?

          I misread the intent of your post.

Viewing 23 reply threads