Actually, the executive branch DOES make the bills, into laws, by signing them (normally).

But you're quite right that we do need a Conservative House of Rep. and Senate, to help him.

Or you can listen to the mad ravings of Nancy Pelosi! :eek: :eek:

Let me try another tack.

What do you think should have happened starting 21 Jan 2009? What do you think the Obama administration should have done that they did not do?

Another similar question.

What do you think a McCain-Palin administration would have done starting in Jan 2009? How would things have been different?

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about needing a "Conservative House of Rep. and Senate" to "help" anybody, nor is that relevant to the actual process of legislation.

That will not solve the problem of an inactive Congress either because there will always be varying degrees of everything, even Conservatives, and they will oppose each other for the sake of image and career. Plenty of times they've been too busy focused on calling each other out, posturing, blocking, and whining within their own ideology, trying to prove themselves More Conservative Than That Guy/Gal instead of putting that energy towards work that they actually support. Liberals do it too. Tea Partiers do it. Libertarians do it. They all do it. Even independents will argue with each other over how independent they are/aren't. If you take out the visceral need to one-up the other guy, Congress would get a lot more done, regardless who's sitting in the seat.

And if we're going to pick even smaller nits, the Executive Branch does not create any laws. It only signs off on(or not, if they don't sign) a final submission and that finalization turns it into law. It does none of the actual writing, scripting, lawyering, debating, pushing, blocking, etc. All of the making, all of the creating, all of the growth of a bill is done in Congress. Executive Branch is only a cheerleader here.

And for the record, I don't give Pelosi a second thought. Or a first one. Unless someone invokes her, like you did. Then I promptly forget about her. Until you invoke her again, which I'm sure won't take long.

That ultra liberal newspaper (sarcasm), the Wall Street Journal, says you are full of shit. Why do you lie so much?

What's that you say? Oh, I see, you said "overspend" not "spend". You don't care that Obama has increased the budget less than any president since Ike in the 1950s? You still think that when the economy is weak and tax revenue is lower, the government should spend within its means? Don't you realize that when times get tough, that's when you get more people who are unemployed and you need the government to come in and pay for services that weren't needed so much during the boom years.

It like a family, saving up for a rainy day during the good times, and then spending some of that rainy day fund to get through the bad times.

Hm. The Force is strong with this one.

I accept your challenge to discuss this issue by using factual realities.

In light of the first quote here, please explain the second quote.

Hm.

I think Adak is maybe a college frosh.

Across the pond.

Right. That famously liberal president GWB...talk about moving the fucking goalposts.

And as to failing to rein in Wall St types....I'm sorry are we talking about the same mitt Romney? Are you seriously suggesting that he will in any way take on the Wall St types? They are his people. Look at how he conducted himself in business. He didn't create jobs in America, the country he professes to love, he sent that work to other countries where the workforce have fewer demands (like a living wage and contracted protections).

He ran his companies for the sole benefit of the high-end shareholders and boardmembers. At the expense of the workforce.

He pays minimal tax on vast wealth compared to most ordinary Americans, and that still wasn't enough for him. No, he still had to siphon funds offshore to reduce that bill still further. For himself and for his companies.

That tax, which he is choosing to divert through international systems rightly belonged to the American people. He begrudges the American people the same levels of tax that other people are expected to pay out.

Frankly, if he's so patriotic, if he loves his country if he feels the burden of national duty is upon him, then he should have put his money where his mouth is.


He'll definitely run you somewhere mate. And it may well be a black place.

Is that code for trolling dumbass? Cuz, I'd have to agree.

My patience wears thin pretty fast when someone makes up stuff and posts it thinking nobody will check on it, and if they do and prove the info is wrong, thet just ignore that and roll right along as if everyone thinks they are right.

Romney is a liar. It's been proven over and over by independent sources as well as partisan ones. He has no actual plan for fixing anything. He wants us to believe he can create 12 million jobs after SAYING it is NOT the job of government to create jobs.
He told us to let Detroit go bankrupt and when that didn't happen, he had the nerve to say HE desrves the credit for SAVING Detroit, not President Obama.
He's for access to birth control except when he's against it. He's for the Lilly Ledbetter act except when he's against it. He's for gay marriage except when he's against it.

I don't care if Mitt Romney turns out to be Jesus Christ in disguise. ANYONE who works and behaves like that shouldn't even have followers on TWITTER, much less politically.

I guess you missed my post.

Or campaign employee. Or both.

Adak is typical of baggage that Romney would bring to the White House. Is there anyone who has not been insulted by him? Or has accused him of overt lies? Or finds him honest? Welcome to what has happened to a wacko extremist wing of the Republican party. No wonder they tried to put a witch from Delaware into the Senate. And voted out a major asset of the Senate - Sen Lugar of Indiana. No wonder long time conservatives including Dole, Snow, Powell, Simpson, etc have complained about damage to their party.

Michelle Bachman said taxes should be zero. And then said we should double our military. So fringe Republican types strongly approved. Adak demonstrates the future of this Republican Party. Followers of Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and other extremist talk show hosts. People educated in soundbyte and ideology. He even blames George Jr's 2007 recession on regulations created in 2010. Baggage that a Romney presidency would impose on all Americans and American allies.

See his rhetoric? No wonder we decided to unilaterally attack three nations. And tried to get into a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane.

Defined long ago was a warning about destructive Limbaugh et al rhetoric. DanaC - appreciate what I was warning about more than 8 years ago?

Adak simply demonstrates kids raised on Limbaugh, et al. Expect to see more who rationalize just like him. This is our future. Not just in America. The adverse affects will be felt throughout the world. They were told we want America to fail. They will go to war on any excuse. They will enrich the rich as the expense of all others. Adak demonstrates how this will happen.

Bloody clear, mate. I'm just messing with ya.

The Conservative goals never budged, but Bush was a lunkhead of a social conservative, and a liberal on fiscal policies. In my view, that's backwards from what it should be.

More famously, (to me at least), he lied about WMD in Iraq. Iraq secret service had tried to assassinate his Dad on a trip (Bahrain I believe??), so he had an axe to grind with Saddam, clearly. Lying about the reason to go to war, is not the way to do it.

I'm not sorry to see Saddam dead, however. I don't think you are either?
Unfortunately, neither party will take on Wall St. :mad: I'm beating a dead horse on this matter, I know.

EVERY business is run to make profit. That benefits everyone, or the employees find better jobs.

Romney doesn't even know what he pays in taxes, until after he signs the return. That's ALL managed as a blind trust so he can avoid any hint of favoritism.

Of course, his tax preparer makes sure he pays the least taxes - that what tax preparers DO. That's their one and only job!
That's because of the way our stupid tax code is written. When you make money overseas, you pay taxes in the country you made it in, AND you pay taxes on it, in the USA.

Now, if you subsequently bring that money back to the states - guess what ?? You may be forced to pay tax on it, AGAIN.

That's one reason why all international investors in the US, keep a certain amount of money, OUTSIDE the US.

Romney did not create the tax code! He absolutely is following the requirements of the law - just like everybody else who invests both here, and overseas.

Actually Romney gives a great deal to charity, both inside and outside his church.

It's crazy, I drive past a Staples every day. Now, the libs near and far, are vilifying the guy, because he's successful and saved businesses AND JOBS. Net effect for Romney? More jobs saved or created in America. Yes, jobs were also created overseas, but more jobs were also created HERE.


In the UK, you have successful businesses, but I wonder when the last time was that you really felt the thrill of a major upturn in your businesses and economy as a whole? Do you remember how great that was?

Seems like you never really recovered that entrepreneurial spirit, after the two WW's. You did some great mad stuff during WWII, though! Dam busting bombs, night fighting in North Africa, the great Bletchley Park stuff, the "man who never was", in Spain, sinking the Bismark, and that lovely Spitfire.

I miss THAT UK.

WHAT?? The legislative branch of the federal government is NOT RELEVANT to the actual process of legislation?? :D :D

Thanks for the laughs.

Absolutely, I agree. We see it all the time, especially in the primaries.

The President will have input into legislation he will favor, but he does not write any of the bills for either legislative branch.

Oh, we could torture you with the socialist Maxine Waters! Have you met Ms Waters? She's so far left, right has disappeared entirely from her universe. :D

It shows that top management jobs in both business and government, are VERY largely held by males.

On every corporate board of directors I have every known, males have dominated. Perhaps one woman will be in charge of something like Human Resources (which is an increasingly important position).

I'm pretty sure I know who Adak is. We all like him under his regular name, but he is sticking to this login through election day because, let's face it, the group speak from the left is dominating the board right now. Imho he is getting some right wing group speak off his chest in an attempt at balance. I'm prolly voting the devil we know rather than the devil we don't because the GOP should not be rewarded for their obstruction of reasonable budget offers from Obama. That doesn't mean I'm happily running off the Democratic cliff. Both parties are populated by extremists right now but I don't consider Obama to be one.

It tells me you don't know what I'm saying. The dollar amount that we spend, is not important. What IS important, is the balance of income vs. expense. When your family income goes down you need to sharply curtail expenses, right?

Same with our government - if they were smart - but they aren't smart. And that is a problem IF WE KEEP IT UP.

Obama intends to keep it up! Do you know what an "Oh Holy Hell!!" is? That's what a monetary crisis is, in a nutshell. And that is what all this overspending is pushing us toward. We will ALL rue the day that we have a monetary crisis, in our country!

More immediately, his idea of pushing us all to depend on the gov't, is very unsettling. I don't want more gov't - I want my freedom, and my wallet left with something in it, thank you.
And if Obama's stimulus policy had worked, I'd say OK, let's re-elect him. But it has failed, and he has no new plan, no new WAY to fix it.

Obama is on Comedy Central tonight. He's been on: The Tonight Show, The David Letterman Show, "Pimp with a Limp", and just about every TV talk show you could imagine. He's bright, does some funny jokes, and can do an excellent imitation of Al Green (the singer).

But I don't CARE about any of that. I want to see our economy growing again, at by more than a crippling 1 or 2 percent!
If Obama could deliver that, and open up some federal lands to oil drilling (and lower the fuel costs), I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. But he can't, and with his ideology, he believes he SHOULDN'T.

Basically, Obama wants to piss down my backside, and tell me it's raining.

No thanks.

Oh! I wish!

Retired.

Exactly why our government should not be run like a business. What about the "employees" that don't benefit? Self deportation? Renunciation of citizenship?

Business experience has extremely limited usefulness as an indicator of ability to govern effectively.

I would have kept up our energy requirements. Obama jumped into "green jobs", before considering that Spain did a huge "green jobs" program, and had it backfire horribly on them.

Also, financial instruments that are either a) very highly leveraged, or b) are not dealing with principals (that is, with those who have no "skin in the game"), should be made illegal. These derivatives and etc., are nothing but gambling, without putting your bet on the table, and they WILL come back around and bite you on the bum, from time to time. And take a big bite when they do it.

I would not have given the 500 Million dollars to Salendra, because their business plan was already judged by the Bush administration, to be "too risky". But Obama did it because the owner was a big Obama money "bundler" for his campaign.

I would have started eVerify, to make our jobs start going to citizens and legal residents, only, and decrease our illegal border crossings.

I would NOT have allowed ATF and FBI to run the "Fast and Furious" gun smuggling program - stupid and deadly.

I would not have an "enemies list" where anyone who speaks out against the President (like Joe the Plumber), gets immediately audited by the IRS, etc. Now, Obama is prosecuting whistleblowers with a WWI espionage law!

I would not have put the 249 million dollars into A123 battery company, or allowed the stupid Volt car to be produced - GM loses some $40,000 dollars on each one it sells, and VERY few people want one, because they won't run on anything else but battery power. Their range is about 50 miles - and THAT's IT, until you recharge them for a few hours, at least.

I would have allowed GM to go through regular bankruptcy, and get re-organized, as business law decrees. Not rip off the bond holders and shareholders, and give it to the Unions and the gov't.

I would change the Ted Kennedy citizenship law, where if one member of a family is a citizen, then every member of the family can become one. That is entirely laughable.

I would reform our immigration service, so immigrants (legal), don't have to wait years to be approved.

I would stop the billions of foreign aid we give out every year, on a case by case basis. We need to pay Egypt 400 Million in foreign aid every year, like we need a new hole in our heads.

I would work to have a nation of Palestine be created, in the middle east, but not in Israel. Perhaps in the Sinai next to Israel, and then extending up a bit, toward Jerusalem. The Jews keep Jerusalem, but the Muslims keep access to it, as well as the Jews. The Jews get more of the West Bank area, because it's critical to their strategic safety - from those heights, you can shoot rocks or mortars, onto a great deal of Israel, and the Palestinians have shown an unholy willingness to do launch both, by the thousands.

Despite their behavior, the Palestinians deserve a country of their own, and need to get out of Gaza. We should REALLY help them make their new country. It was passed by the UN, in 1948 - it's well overdue.

These economic sanctions we're taking now against Iran, I would have initiated sooner. The earlier one's were nothing but cotton candy, with no bite to them.

Our Embassies and consulates clearly needed to be either strongly reinforced, or closed. They remind me of the strategy we used against the Japanese in WWII, except we have taken on the role of the Japanese - and Al Qaeda has taken on MacArthur: ridiculous!

The "nation building" efforts we've made in Iraq and Afghanistan, were a huge drain on us. We don't owe these people billions of dollars to reshape their country.

It was a military necessity to take on Al Qaeda. (and the Taliban if they wanted to fight us, as well.) That is all we needed to do. We don't need to be there for 10 years, trying to make a backward tribal country, into a modern one. That is something they must do for themselves. :mad:

I would have given more support to the drive to remove polio from the planet. They need more support to finish it off, just like they did with Smallpox.

I would have started a much more aggressive program to help research into stem cells and regeneration of organs - especially Islet of Langerhorn's, (diabetes), kidneys, and hearts.

In fiscal policy, I'd have used the old tried and true approach - cut gov't spending, and cut taxes. Stop the gov't from buying sub prime mortgages. Stop anyone from passing off fraudulent loan applications, without being prosecuted. A fraud is a fraud, period.

Make banks, back into banks, not gambling casinos.

Some stimulus money was needed, but not NEARLY all that Obama gave.

So many things, I can't begin to list them all.

McCain is not a Conservative. He's a middle of the road guy. Palin is a conservative, but had limited experience. John would have gone with a strong stimulus, I'm sure. Not as big as Obama's, but big.

It would have been interesting, but probably not the success we all want.

Great questions! :cool:

Gov'ts can't be run like a business. Entirely different model. But many of the characteristics of a successful businessman, can help a government, when it's economy is not doing well.

Romney is a great choice, because he's done both business and gov't, and quasi gov't/business (the Olympics).

Employees that don't benefit, in gov't, or in business? (commerce)

It's classicman, isn't it?

I'll betcha.

My vote too...

I don't. But anywho...


Our country is not a business. That's the problem with promoting a businessman to run it. Running our country isn't about making money for the stockholders/elite and squeezing the most out of the employees/working folk in order to do it. Unless you are an elite, then maybe that IS what it's all about?

Our country is supposed to be about ensuring the future of our children and their children. Are we educating our children? Are we creating an economic model that will keep the working people happy and working for generations to come? Because when they become disillusioned, you will have revolt against the powers-that-be. Are we treating 50.8% of our population like second-class citizens or recognizing their right to be in charge of their own bodies/destiny? Are we teaching future generations to be tolerant of cultural/religious differences or are we teaching them hate and bigotry and intolerance? Because that won't end well.... Are we cultivating positive relationships with other countries or are we playing my military/penis is bigger than yours with everyone? Because our children have to deal with the consequences of this. We will be dead and gone while they send THEIR children off to die. Are we raping the limited natural resources of the only planet we have to live on? Or are we protecting them so future generations will have clean air and water and a healthy ecological cycle? It's not just about spending, although that matters too. History has shown that the economy is healthiest when taxes on the top earners is highest. Why is that such a sticking point? Taxing the Rich Clearly, because the richest and most powerful don't care about the economy/the rest of us in the long run, they care about their dollars, right now.
It isn't just about profits and sadly, that's what too many "businessmen" type politicians are focused on. How can I maximize the profit for me and my buddies? Use natural resources? Increase military spending? Remove financial regulations? Force working class to do more for less so my net income goes up? (ie: no minimum wage, no safety regulations, no unions, no benefits).

What I look for in a politician/leader is a vision for the future. How are their decisions going to impact future generations? What sort of world will my grandchildren be forced to live in?

If Mitt Romney and the religious right have their way, the future I foresee is incredibly grim.

Well said, Stormie. That was brilliant.

In the Hall of Fame

I don't think Adak=Classicman. Classic doesn't put together so much undefensible bullshit.

He also tends not to do mega long posts either.

Totally different...I don't think it's c-man either. Plus, c-man is way busy these days.

Nice pivot, son.

Re-read my statement:

Allow me to rephrase it since you completely missed the point. Twice.

The political leanings of the members of the House and Senate have nothing to do with the actual process of legislation.




$5 says my words get spun again.

No, but our economy is sick, and it depends to a large extent on the health of our businesses, to keep everything together in our fiscal world.

Think about our children's future, if we have to close our businesses. Our entire economy would go belly up. That means our gov't won't be able to help us, either - because it will have no means to do so.

It's always smart to look as far ahead as you can to see whether you're headed in the right direction or not. Individually, or as a city, county, state, or country.

But let's put your concerns into context, with some facts:

1) We can never know all the implications of how what we do now, will impact our descendents. Hubris galore to believe that we could do that. Trying? Sure, but never knowing them fully.

2) Romney is not a religious nutter. He has a religion - isn't he supposed to have the FREEDOM to practice it, just as you or I have the FREEDOM to practice one or not, as we choose?

I don't see any threat from the right, to our Bill of Rights. If you do, what are they?

3) All the surveys indicate that religions in both the UK and the US, have lost a huge amount of members, in the last 50 years. That trend is showing every indication of continuing. That is causing the religious right to lose power, not gain it.

4) We need to re-think the idea of nation building when we go to war with groups like Al Qaeda. They are not a nation, and we don't owe Afghanistan billions of dollars in nation building and 10 years of fighting their "jihadi's". If they attack us, we attack them, but we don't stay for 10 years, traveling around the countryside with bulls-eyes on our backs. Six months should be plenty of time to defeat them, and go home.

5) If you're talking about Crony Capitalism for buddies, Obama is famous for it, as was Bush. It's a bad deal, because sometimes their "buddies", really are very well qualified for a federal position, but usually they're woeful. How can we make a law that permits the former, and stops the latter?

Probably best to simply have the press shame them. Will the press do that to Obama? Absolutely not. Barely did it to Bush, and the press didn't like Bush jr.

I reject the idea that we want to have one part of society, pitted in class warfare mode, against another part. That's been part of Obama's playbook, which is also a central theme in many radical playbooks. Typically, it's used to invoke changes that otherwise would be too unpopular to the public. If you work up some hatred for some class of people, then nobody will speak up when you take something from them - because they're hated now.

I'll promise you one thing, Obama will NOT be looked upon kindly by historians, for his use of class warfare. Frankly, it's contemptible.

Did you hear V.P. Joe Biden giving his first speech since his debate with Paul Ryan? The guy is wired stupid - referring twice to how Obama got our soldiers out of "Iran and Iraq".

Huh?

We've never been in Iran since Regan got our embassy hostages back, in 1980.

Well, I'm retired, so I'm probably not your "son", but you've skipped a few Poli Sci or Civics classes, somewhere along the way.

The President signs the bills, and he requests bills (as FDR famously did right after Pearl Harbor, in his "date that shall live in infamy" speech to Congress). But the House and the Senate must pass bills, BEFORE they ever reach the President and can be signed into law by him (or not).

So it's takes both the House and Senate, and usually the President (unless the Congress overrides his veto), to pass a bill, and enact it as a law.

Are you referring to the attorneys who write the bills? That's called "authoring", not legislating.

Poly Sci...the new synthetic breathable Sci! Now in four new colors!


Ohhhh, Poli Sci. nevermind.

I keep resisting posting this GIF every time Adak posts, so I'm just going to use it now. It applies both ongoingly and retroactively.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7w0jmkS1l1rsv9hz.gif

Funny!
I've been calling them Poly-tics for so long, I latched onto the 'y', instead of the 'i'.

Now corrected for your viewing pleasure!

I can see why you like that gif.

No damning facts, no common sense to have to face.

A true liberals dream!

Nah, if I had a son, he'd be more forthright. And no, you're wrong again. I had to slog through Civics classes in high school. And I'm still technically correct. The President does request bills, this is correct. The Presidential office is one of several places bills can come from. That is just a request, borne of an idea. Sure, the request will be written down but that in itself is not the bill. Later on, he can speak with House and Senate members/leaders to get them to pass it, champion the cause. All of the actual making, creating, AUTHORING is done by Congress. After the bill is made, written, debated, revised, rewritten, re-debated and passed (if it does), then and only then does it go back to the President for any tangible action, the signing.

This is starting to get into word usage and similar semantics so... potato, potahto.

And just out of curiosity, exactly how many Civics and Poli-Sci classes have you taken to be so impliedly qualified to speak on legislative processes? I wasn't aware there was a required number. How many does one need to take? Is there a certification?

Correct is as I stated, the President MAY request bills.

Yes, and you've come around nicely. The above is correct.

I'm not sure. You had to take at least one class in junior high, and a World History class in 10th grade (iirc). I'm not sure what you needed beyond that to graduate from high school, because I went into advanced courses offered from the college, while a Senior in high school. That's where I took Poli Sci.

The hard part was getting papers typed. High school didn't require that, and I didn't have a typewriter. Finally got an old manual one.

I had all A's in history classes, but this was the best in a large high school of 3,500 students, so everybody in there was REALLY smart. Most were smarter than I was, getting A's in every subject. Our instructor was a Marine Major, who was seriously smart.

He used to joke when the smartest guys were out of the class, that he should mark their papers down to a 'B', and we could watch them melt into a little spot of grease on their desk. It was funny the way he told it, but of course, he never did it.

I remember Paul Hall was perhaps the smartest student in the class, but he loved to "debate" (argue). Finally he went overboard with it, and was kicked out of the class for arguing with the instructor. What was the instructor saying that he had to argue against? That millions of people died in WWII!! We were stunned, I can tell you.

Days gone by.

Your name is Paul Hall, isn't it? ;)

glatt is teh lulz.

:)

I never did watch that show. I couldn't bear the idea of a show based on politics when its bad enough that we have real politics. Its kinda like 24 or the Claire Danes thing, a great way to put a false reality in peoples heads.

like our current political campaigns, right?

Yep.

No, I'm a Navy brat. Lived for awhile on Adak Island, as a kid. Dad was a chief, and was stationed there. Didn't pay to argue too much in our family. That's why that moment was so memorable. I'd never seen anybody argue so incessantly with a teacher before.

Yes, you indeed have, especially since I haven't changed what I was saying at all, just how I said it. That seemed to work for you. Cheers, I guess.

Interesting in it's way, and I'm sure civics curricula vary from public vs private school and where the schools are, not to mention my high school and college years were in a very different era than yours, Retired. And when you mention history, I assume you mean specifically American history, not world history or ancient history or similar. But it given that, it seems plenty of pundits, marketing ad writers and bumper-sticker writers never got even a single civics class, considering how they insist the President is the be-all-end-all on policy-making and whether or not an idea becomes law is all down to him.


Of course, if they did, then the one-line zingers wouldn't be as marketable.

They are quite complete. More to learn than you can possibly remember, but a great class. This was in the pre bilingual public school teaching era. Now the students learn about half as much, and are basically dumb as dirt, unless they attend private school or are home taught. I'm sure some learn a lot on the internet.

Yes, the President is a focus for things he has little to do with, at times. Sells more bumper stickers, gets higher ratings on the news, etc.

Alas poor Paul Hall! I knew him, Horatio.

And you're no Paul Hall.

:lol:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion...ident.html.csp


The Real Mitt Romney.

Whatever you want him to be, he'll be that for you. And the next guy gets the same deal. As long as each person promises to pay with a vote. He's open to all comers... If you've got the dime, he's got the time.

One more time:

Your post in #363:

Is incorrect.

The way it works is, congress can pass a law if it can break a Presidents veto, by getting a 2/3rds approval, in both the House of Rep. and the Senate.

It can pass a bill up to the President, despite opposition, if it has enough votes to break the opposition's filabuster, or if it can wear down the filabuster. That requires 60% of the Senators voting to stop the debate on the bill. Since a filabuster can done in different ways, what is needed to beat it may take different measures.

Without opposition, Congress can pass a bill up to the President if they have a majority who vote for it. On a tie vote only, the Vice President will cast the deciding vote.


Your post in #389:
That's incorrect, obviously.

Some references are here, others you'll have to Google for:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/ref...s/glossary.htm

Obviously, I'm not Paul Hall. Paul was absolutely brilliant, but unfortunately, he was also very much aware of it, and sometimes used it in an unwise manner.

If you believe I'm somebody else on this forum, you need to re-think that idea.

You're being deliberately obtuse in your conversation with cyber wolf

*meta-post*

This thread has been pretty good, mostly on the issues, mostly civil, occasionally amusing, and - especially for furriners like me - quite educational in seeing the current US politics play out.

Lately, things have been getting a bit snarky. How about we all take a deep breath and just remember, what ever it is that you're defending, the other guy is just someone being wrong on the internet. It's not worth getting all het up over.

And I'd also like to offer Adak the "Alamo Award*", for sticking to his (her?) position despite being seriously outnumbered and (from my point of view) outargued.

*I just invented this. And I was considering the "Little Big Horn Award". ;)

Play nice, now, folks.

Yes, I know. When the Liberal is wrong, and the Conservative calls him on it, the Conservative is always being<fill in the negative behavior here>

But I gave him facts straight from the gov't, and the link to most of it, so that's all I can do.

I'm sticking with my argument for one simple reason. In my several decades as an adult, I've seen both liberal and conservative Presidents, city councilmen, county supervisors, federal and state congressmen, governors, etc.

And I've noticed that when these politicians are smart Conservatives, the area of their control, thrives and prospers.

When the Liberals are in control, we have a terrible time of it. Witness San Diego. My town. When our Liberal City Council ran things, we were nearly forced into bankruptcy. The New York Times coined our city "Enron by the Sea".

Three San Diego mayors later, we're still trying to get a handle on how to fix the mess the Liberals made - because it's just that bad, and of course, we still have some Liberals in power here.

Contrast that, with the San Diego County Conservative gov't. They have a surplus! Things can get done in the County. Meanwhile, we have City water pipes that just explode and flood the stores and the homes, because they can't afford to replace the old water pipes, like they should have.

Conservatism WORKS. Liberalism FAILS. You can see it in every liberal nation, state, county, or city.

As Margaret Thatcher famously remarked:
"Socialism only works until the money runs out"

A Liberal government, is a BIG government. It has to be so it can do everything that Liberals want done. And the gov't - all of it, rides on your back, and pays it's way, by taking $$$ from your wallet. Your freedoms get more and more tightly constrained.

As the gov't takes more control, you lose. The gov't is not your friend, they are your protector, but they are also a FIST, that can pound you or I, right into the ground. Your job, your business, your home, your car, your everything - they control with the force of law.

Here's an example from New Mexico:
The people are being hard hit by wildfires, and a lot of the land is owned by the feds. Locals want to remove dead trees which are leaning over high voltage electric lines. So does the power company.

But the US Forest Service won't allow it. Eventually, the dead tree falls against the high voltage line, and starts another wild fire. But now the Forest Service doesn't want to put out the fire. They want the fire to "meander" around, and re-introduce wildfires into the forest.

As a result of this policy by the US Forest Service, New Mexico residents have tens of thousands of acres of more fires sweep through the state, uncontrolled, every Summer.

If you'd like to hear the full discourse on the topic straight from the New Mexico Rep. Steve Pearce, you can d/l it from here:

You want Oct. 19th, H2 segment.
http://tunein.com/radio/The-Roger-He...k-Show-p20611/


See if you REALLY want the gov't running more of your life.

BTW, the Feds were supposed to give a lot of Western lands, back to the states, after they had their federal infrastructure set up.

They did that in the Eastern states, but never GOT AROUND to doing it, in the Western states. Rep. Pearce lays it out for you in the audio file.

Imagine that! :rolleyes:

This is quite an interesting assessment of Romney. To me. Bear in mind I really don't know much about him or the political mileu to which he belongs. It's more balanced than a lot of the stuff I've seen lately.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/us...ic.html?ref=us


[eta] I haven't read that last post in full, but I just scanned down and the name Margeret Thatcher jumped out at me. I gotta say that was an unpleasant thing to happen.

Margaret may not be popular with you, but the Falkland Islanders are QUITE fond of her! She stood strong when they were suddenly attacked and overrun by Argentina. She also is one of the reasons that millions of people are free today from Communist rule, in Eastern Europe. She's turning over in her grave, now that Socialism has eroded your budget to the extent that you have ZERO aircraft carriers, but that's Socialism for you. If you like Socialism, you wouldn't like M.T., and I'm sure it was very uncomfortable having her as your Prime Minister. Thatcher and Socialism would not be a good mix.

The fact that she had the backbone that few men have; to stand up against the Communists and the invading Argentinians. Well, she was very special, and very well liked by Conservatives.

Well, obviously some people liked her.

And, really...socialism has eroded our budget? Give me a break. Successive governments, 'left' and right have continued the privatisation of our public services and whole sale sell off of national assets, at a rate much faster and deeper than anything Margeret Thatcher would have tried for.

The difference is that under the current and recent governments, the privatisation has been couched in terminology which, by your reckoning may well sound socialist. Don't be fooled.

Do you see that one of the reasons privatization is making a comeback, is that the efficiency it brings is badly needed?

Of course, privatization is just another word for the private sector: ie., Conservative marketplace, ie.; Capitalism.

That's what I mean by Conservatism works. It runs at an efficiency Socialism can only dream of. When people are more rewarded for taking risks, and working hard - they're more willing to take risks, and work hard. It's common sense, it's Conservatism, and it works very well. You have more freedom, You have more choices, and You have more responsibility.

The gov't doesn't pay for your birth control or your gas, You do. The gov't doesn't take nearly as much from your paycheck, You do.

There is an undeniable beauty to it.

You misunderstood my post. Privatisation isn't 'making a come back' in the UK. We've never stepped away from it. It didn't end with Thatcher, it didn't even end with the Major government. It continued apace, through Labour and now Conservative-Liberal coalition governments.

A pleasant thought.

lol I didn't even spot that.

Adak, Thatch is still alive.

Well I hope you live long now, I pray the Lord
your soul to keep
I think I'll be going before we fold our arms
and start to weep
I never thought for a moment that human life
could be so cheap
'Cos when they finally put you in the ground
They'll stand there laughing and tramp the
dirt down