R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => R/E/P Saloon => Topic started by: Barry Hufker on November 03, 2010, 01:44:23 am

Title: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Barry Hufker on November 03, 2010, 01:44:23 am
Feingold and Grayson losing... that's the toughest.

Guess we'll see how the country goes for the next two years as we pursue a more conservative agenda.  Unfortunately, we never pursued a liberal one...

Barry

Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Jay Kadis on November 03, 2010, 10:06:19 am
California is still ahead of the curve.  It could have been worse.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: mazoaudio on November 03, 2010, 10:22:02 am
Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 00:44

Feingold and Grayson losing... that's the toughest.

Guess we'll see how the country goes for the next two years as we pursue a more conservative agenda.  Unfortunately, we never pursued a liberal one..




I know!  These people think that voting the republicans back is going to do any good?  The corporate brainwash media seems to be working just fine.

Too bad about Feingold, he's been at least a small source of hope in the senate, but never could pass much of his agenda. How many people have been in there that long that have not been corrupted?   I mean, the guy has been in the senate for 18 years and is only worth about $500,000!

Wisconsin is  weeping.

But Jay is right in could've been worse.


Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Taproot on November 03, 2010, 10:46:58 am
Jay Kadis wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 08:06

California is still ahead of the curve.  It could have been worse.


I wonder how many stoners will show up to the polls today to vote for Prop 19?  Laughing
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Jay Kadis on November 03, 2010, 10:56:37 am
Taproot wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 07:46

Jay Kadis wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 08:06

California is still ahead of the curve.  It could have been worse.


I wonder how many stoners will show up to the polls today to vote for Prop 19?  Laughing
We all showed up yesterday. ( I wouldn't be so sure all the stoners wanted it legal anyway.)

Today it's the Giants!!!
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Les Ismore on November 03, 2010, 04:37:58 pm
God bless America.
"Obama hasn't gotten enough accomplished to please me. So I'm going to vote so that he can't get anything accomplished from now on!"
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) on November 03, 2010, 05:57:13 pm
Les Ismore wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 16:37

God bless America.
"Obama hasn't gotten enough accomplished to please me. So I'm going to vote so that he can't get anything accomplished from now on!"



Perhaps that's the problem, people looking to the government to do something to "please" them.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: PRobb on November 03, 2010, 05:59:40 pm
I can't watch the tea party people. How can anyone not see they're totally full of crap.
CUT SPENDING!!!
Ever see someone ask them to specify exactly what spending they think they're gonna cut? Major tap dancing.
We're gonna cut that spending. But we're not gonna touch Social Security, Medicare and the military.
Yeah, right.
I'm gonna quit drinking. Except for beer, wine and vodka.
Idiots.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: ssltech on November 03, 2010, 08:30:15 pm
Barry Hufker wrote

Feingold and Grayson losing... that's the toughest.


Feingold is a tough loss, but Grayson shot himself in the face.

Time and time again.

I don't know how effective he is in terms of actual results in government, but he essentially campaigned against himself. His final ads were offputting and made himself look like an overbearing asshole.

The guy actually sent voters the other way; both with his out-of-context 'taliban Dan' adverts, and with his "Big Brother" ads in the last week. -He actually made HIMSELF look unelectable, creepy, irritating and shady in a 15-second clip.

While I may not like his opponent, I shuddered to contemplate what wacky crap he'd get up to next. I don't think i can recall seeing anyone commit political suicide so needlessly.

Keith
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: jonathan jetter on November 03, 2010, 09:31:15 pm
overall i am not certain that a little bit of gridlock is a bad thing.

i am infuriated about Feingold losing, though.  his standing alone in the Senate to vote against the Patriot Act is probably the most courageous political act i've seen in my adult life.

and Grayson earned my respect for how hard he grilled the Fed.

i think the bigger issue is that the average voter is so ignorant that he almost brings it upon himself.  2 years ago voting out all the republicans was going to solve our problems.  2 years later voting out all the democrats is going to solve all our problems.  and in reality both parties support an imperialist agenda.  both parties cede power to the Federal Reserve.  both parties support runaway governmental spending.  both parties kick the can down the road when it comes to dealing with social security.  etc etc ad infinitum.

meanwhile i bet that Joe Average can't name more senators than he has fingers, and can't identify which amendment is which in the Bill of Rights.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: danickstr on November 03, 2010, 11:10:33 pm
46% Yes to 53% No is at least pretty close on the pot initiative.

Pure misinformation was the key to GOP victory.  A morally bankrupt informationally shallow media blitz.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Strummer on November 03, 2010, 11:14:33 pm
Truly a watershed moment in our history.

The new 'pubs will take office mid January, so I figure by the end of February they'll have everything fixed and there will be a Cadillac in every pool.

Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Edvaard on November 03, 2010, 11:17:28 pm
Fiasco wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 17:57

Perhaps that's the problem, people looking to the government to do something to "please" them.


Yup.

jonathan jetter wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 21:31

 2 years ago voting out all the republicans was going to solve our problems.  2 years later voting out all the democrats is going to solve all our problems.


Yup.

jonathan jetter wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 21:31

i think the bigger issue is that the average voter is so ignorant that he almost brings it upon himself.



Ignorant, yes. Brought upon himself, no.

Print media editors and TV media producers (and their online extensions) are paid quite handsomely to make sure that all issues are presented to the masses with minimal useful content and maximum focus on contentiousness. Their exemplary record for leaving the most obvious and most germane questions unasked on any given issue is quite astounding.



Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: fiasco ( P.M.DuMont ) on November 04, 2010, 07:47:48 am
Edvaard wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 23:17

Print media editors and TV media producers (and their online extensions) are paid quite handsomely to make sure that all issues are presented to the masses with minimal useful content and maximum focus on contentiousness. Their exemplary record for leaving the most obvious and most germane questions unasked on any given issue is quite astounding.




Yup.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: ssltech on November 04, 2010, 08:24:27 am
Edvaard wrote

Fiasco wrote

...

Yup.
jonathan jetter wrote

...

Yup.

Fiasco wrote

Edvaard wrote

...

Yup.


-Reminds me of a joke about a pair of cowboys...

Twisted Evil
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Kris on November 04, 2010, 08:26:35 am
PRobb wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 17:59

I can't watch the tea party people. How can anyone not see they're totally full of crap.
CUT SPENDING!!!
Ever see someone ask them to specify exactly what spending they think they're gonna cut? Major tap dancing.
We're gonna cut that spending. But we're not gonna touch Social Security, Medicare and the military.
Yeah, right.
I'm gonna quit drinking. Except for beer, wine and vodka.
Idiots.


Did you ramp up your spending to exorbitant amounts in this down economy to stimulate your families growth?  Just curious...

Common sense for a typical family man dictates that you cut spending when things are tough... Ideally you want to continue to feed your family.  

Why is it 'full  of crap' for a tea party person to think their Gov't shouldn't consider doing the same...and voicing their opinion about it, considering it's their money and all?

If you asked them where they'd cut spending in their own family budget I be they could give you specifics.  

Not everyone is a political scientist...doesn't make them an idiot!
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: PRobb on November 04, 2010, 10:09:58 am
Kris wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 08:26



Did you ramp up your spending to exorbitant amounts in this down economy to stimulate your families growth?  Just curious...

Common sense for a typical family man dictates that you cut spending when things are tough... Ideally you want to continue to feed your family.  

Why is it 'full  of crap' for a tea party person to think their Gov't shouldn't consider doing the same...and voicing their opinion about it, considering it's their money and all?

If you asked them where they'd cut spending in their own family budget I be they could give you specifics.  

Not everyone is a political scientist...doesn't make them an idiot!

This is the same line of crap we've been hearing from the right for 30 years. And we're not supposed to notice that we haven't seen the spending cuts.
CUT SPENDING!!!
YAAAAY!
WE WON!!!!
YAAAYY!
OK, here's the spending cuts
YAAAHANGON. Wait a minute, don't cut THAT. We want that.
Everybody hates pork as long as their guy brings home the bacon.
It's inherently dishonest. That it continues to work is depressing.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: ssltech on November 04, 2010, 10:17:21 am
It shall ever more be thus, for so long as people are foolish enough to confuse politics with government.

Politics is to government as marketing is to engineering.

Monster cable will fix poor room acoustics.

-Apparently.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: YZ on November 04, 2010, 10:31:19 am
ssltech wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 12:17

It shall ever more be thus, for so long as people are foolish enough to confuse politics with government.

Politics is to government as marketing is to engineering.

Monster cable will fix poor room acoustics.

-Apparently.


Yup   Smile

Any government that does precisely what's needed by the country, with no unnecessary/hidden benefits to any group/sector, with the focus on long-term solutions and no regard for ideology, just for actual results, will be hated by all sides.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Kris on November 04, 2010, 11:10:50 am
PRobb wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 10:09

Kris wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 08:26



Did you ramp up your spending to exorbitant amounts in this down economy to stimulate your families growth?  Just curious...

Common sense for a typical family man dictates that you cut spending when things are tough... Ideally you want to continue to feed your family.  

Why is it 'full  of crap' for a tea party person to think their Gov't shouldn't consider doing the same...and voicing their opinion about it, considering it's their money and all?

If you asked them where they'd cut spending in their own family budget I be they could give you specifics.  

Not everyone is a political scientist...doesn't make them an idiot!

This is the same line of crap we've been hearing from the right for 30 years. And we're not supposed to notice that we haven't seen the spending cuts.
CUT SPENDING!!!
YAAAAY!
WE WON!!!!
YAAAYY!
OK, here's the spending cuts
YAAAHANGON. Wait a minute, don't cut THAT. We want that.
Everybody hates pork as long as their guy brings home the bacon.
It's inherently dishonest. That it continues to work is depressing.


You didn't answer my question.  You'd make a wonderful politician.  Good for you.  
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Kris on November 04, 2010, 11:15:07 am
...
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Edvaard on November 04, 2010, 11:44:52 am

The idea is/was that government does the stimulus program thing because the rest of us can't in a down economy.

Not to say I agree with it, but after rewarding banks for the worst behavior nothing makes sense anymore anyway.

In any case government and businesses and individuals all play different roles in society and in an economy so it is a bit silly to have expectations that the spending patterns of all of them should be judged in some like comparison.

There can be legitimate gripes about government spending but the tea partiers have zero credability because the overspending was well in place before the most recent administration came to office and they were completely silent about it then.


Tea partiers and others like them are Rumpelstiltskins  when the party that actually drives up the deficit is in action, then they all of a sudden wake up and point fingers at the party that is left to clean up the mess because the process of cleaning up disturbs their gentle senses.


Oooooh, so sorry.

Just go back to sleep now.

Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: bblackwood on November 04, 2010, 12:10:51 pm
Edvaard wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 10:44


Tea partiers and others like them are Rumpelstiltskins  when the party that actually drives up the deficit is in action, then they all of a sudden wake up and point fingers at the party that is left to clean up the mess because the process of cleaning up disturbs their gentle senses.


Oooooh, so sorry.

Just go back to sleep now.

I'm neither a tea-partier nor a republican, but it's dishonest to blame the president for overspending - the House approves taxation and spending and it's been run by the D's since 2006.

Likewise, while Clinton certainly was the driving force behind it, the budgets which resulted in a surplus were voted on and passed by a R led House.

It's not so cut-and-dried as what letter is beside which name. Both parties have screwed us over, and asking them to make cuts necessary to protect our economy isn't foolish, imo.

Do I think it will happen? Probably not.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Edvaard on November 04, 2010, 12:22:30 pm
YZ wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 10:31

Any government that does precisely what's needed by the country, with no unnecessary/hidden benefits to any group/sector, with the focus on long-term solutions and no regard for ideology, just for actual results, will be hated by all sides.





I hope you don't mind if all the 'objective' and award winning media don't quote you on that. In fact, if you had any prominence in society and they could not stifle such commentary completely they would bring out all the right and left "common sense" pundits they could to deride a person espousing such notions as being morally irresponsible and shirking one's civic duty for not choosing a side.

Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Kris on November 04, 2010, 12:34:41 pm
My point is that thinking the principles you and your family live by when it comes to money should also apply to your Government doesn't make you full of crap and and idiot.  If that's your argument then you've already lost.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Edvaard on November 04, 2010, 12:35:56 pm
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 12:10

Edvaard wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 10:44


Tea partiers and others like them are Rumpelstiltskins  when the party that actually drives up the deficit is in action, then they all of a sudden wake up and point fingers at the party that is left to clean up the mess because the process of cleaning up disturbs their gentle senses.


Oooooh, so sorry.

Just go back to sleep now.

I'm neither a tea-partier nor a republican, but it's dishonest to blame the president for overspending - the House approves taxation and spending and it's been run by the D's since 2006.

Likewise, while Clinton certainly was the driving force behind it, the budgets which resulted in a surplus were voted on and passed by a R led House.

It's not so cut-and-dried as what letter is beside which name. Both parties have screwed us over, and asking them to make cuts necessary to protect our economy isn't foolish, imo.

Do I think it will happen? Probably not.




The tea partiers are not nearly that sophisticated. The point remains, they were silent when the initial spending spree was taking place because of who held the top job, and they are making a rukus about it now aimed directly at the person holding the top job.

They just hate Democrats. Nothing wrong with that, it's the American way. I'm not exactly a fan of them myself. But wearing some cloak of Constitution and fiscal responsibility over what is in fact everyday partisan politics is either laughable or sickening, depending on the mood.

Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Kris on November 04, 2010, 12:41:38 pm
I'm not sure if that's the right read.  The 'tea party people' (as a whole) most likely have had the same opinion(s) on spending for many years... they just didn't have a group voice that was reported in the news daily...
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: PRobb on November 04, 2010, 12:44:07 pm
Kris wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 11:10



You didn't answer my question.  You'd make a wonderful politician.  Good for you.  

I did answer your question. Yes, this is politics. Pointing out that politics is political is as insightful as pointing out that the Olympics is athletic.
The I balance my yada yada so government yada yada rhetoric is great at winning elections. But it's meaningless bullshit when it comes to actual governing. We've been hearing it for 30 years. Where are these famous spending cuts?

If you're going to talk about spending, you start with Medicare, Social Security and the military. Why? Because that's where the spending is.
So until we hear the tea party talk about major cuts to Medicare, Social Security and the military (don't hold your breath) I call bullshit. This is where the deficit comes from. Tax cuts are easy. The spending cuts never seem to follow. It's dishonest.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Jay Kadis on November 04, 2010, 12:45:39 pm
Kris wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 09:34

Wasn't there some incredible and unprecedented spending taking place when the 'tea party people' came along?
What about the two wars Bush undertook with no source of funding and his TARP?  Looking only at the immediate condition without investigating how it happened is a recipe for failure.  Much of the spending that led to this situation was done by previous administrations, but the blame was assigned to the current administration.

Kris wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 09:34

My point is that thinking the principles you and your family live by when it comes to money should also apply to your Government doesn't make you full of crap and and idiot.  If that's your arguement then you've already lost.
There are significant differences between individual financial responsibility and how the national government operates.  The Federal government can do things the individual cannot - print more money, raise taxes, change interest rates, etc.  Simply equating the two is an over-simplification.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Kris on November 04, 2010, 12:46:49 pm
Saying you answered my question when you didn't?  

You lost my vote! Smile
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: DarinK on November 04, 2010, 01:01:35 pm
Kris wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 09:34

My point is that thinking the principles you and your family live by when it comes to money should also apply to your Government doesn't make you full of crap and and idiot.  If that's your argument then you've already lost.


I'm all for government stimulus spending.  It's supply and demand.  The only way for the economy to recover is for people to purchase goods/services, which will stimulate the growth of businesses.  Until people start spending, there will be no growth/hiring - how could there be?  And the people currently do not have the money to increase spending - without an increase in jobs/income, how could they?  The point of stimulus spending is that it gets people back to work, hopefully doing useful things like improving our infrastructure.  This puts money back into people's hands, where it will be spent, spurring more business. Hopefully by the time the stimulus spending runs out, the economy will be doing well enough without it.
I am totally against giving the money directly to big business, in tax cuts or any other form.  This will not increase the need for workers, so will not result in hiring or expansion of business.
Of course, it's not as simple as all this.  But family money principles are not exactly the same as business money principles, which are not exactly the same as government money principles.  But there is one principle that applies to all:  when money is tight, just cutting spending is sometimes not enough; often there needs to be a way to increase income, as well.  And "it takes money to make money" - sometimes in tight times, you have to spend money (even borrowed money) to make more money in the long term.  Whether it's buying used tools to pick up some handyman work, or buying better recording gear to remain competitive, or government putting people back to work to jump start the economy, the principle is the same.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Kris on November 04, 2010, 01:03:03 pm
Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 12:45

There are significant differences between individual financial responsibility and how the national government operates.  The Federal government can do things the individual cannot - print more money, raise taxes, change interest rates, etc.  Simply equating the two is an over-simplification.



And there lies the debate.  One I'm not qualified for! Cool  I'm all for simplifying things though, when and if possible...  Use that mute button!
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Jay Kadis on November 04, 2010, 01:34:26 pm
Kris wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 10:03

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 12:45

There are significant differences between individual financial responsibility and how the national government operates.  The Federal government can do things the individual cannot - print more money, raise taxes, change interest rates, etc.  Simply equating the two is an over-simplification.



And there lies the debate.  One I'm not qualified for! Cool  I'm all for simplifying things though, when and if possible...  Use that mute button!
Nor am I.  That's just the point: most voters don't understand the entirety of the financial system so maybe we are not best served by making these decisions based on our own understandings.  The idea of having a government was to have people who DO understand it deal with it.  Unfortunately it looks like NOBODY understands the system fully.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Barry Hufker on November 04, 2010, 04:23:34 pm
Well, it's official.  Obama reached out to the Republicans in his message and they plainly stated theirs -- their sole mission in the next two years is to make sure Obama is a one-term president.

A snake can shed its skin but Republicans can't.  In fact they only get more diseased.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101104/ap_on_re_us/us_bipartisa n_challenge


Barry
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Berolzheimer on November 04, 2010, 05:21:52 pm
Republicorp spent 7 times as much as the Dems & their supporters in this election.  In a way it's encouraging that, despite that, they didn't take over the Senate.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: PRobb on November 04, 2010, 05:54:56 pm
Kris wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 12:46

Saying you answered my question when you didn't?  

You lost my vote! Smile

Anything to avoid the real issue. Which is that since Reagan the right has been feeding us the same line of bullshit.
-Balance the budget!
-How?
-Tax cuts!
-But that makes no sense.
-The cuts stimulate the economy and increase revenue.
-Been trying that for 30 years. The data is in. No it doesn't.
-And we'll balance it with spending cuts.
-Hearing that for 30 years too. Guess who the only president in that time to cut spending was? Did you say Clinton? Cause that's the answer. Cut spending, raise taxes, Oh My God! the deficit went away! That's why the right hates Clinton so much.

Cut taxes, raise spending.That is where these huge deficits come from. And the people who created them keep getting reelected by opposing deficits while hawking the same pile of bullshit that caused them.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Steve Hudson on November 04, 2010, 07:34:15 pm
Berolzheimer wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 16:21

Republicorp spent 7 times as much as the Dems & their supporters in this election.  In a way it's encouraging that, despite that, they didn't take over the Senate.


I read somewhere that $4 billion was spent on political advertising this election, a record for a mid-term election. I have to agree that the Republican'ts didn't get a very solid payback for the $3.5 billion they spent. But I suppose that's why the GOP wants to extend the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% - so the rich can afford to donate at those levels.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Skullsessions on November 04, 2010, 08:49:20 pm
You liberal progressives instinctively know that you've been caught red-handed...and that's why you're shitting yourselves right now.

You who argue that Tea Partiers aren't upset about federal spending prior to Obama aren't listening.

It took both GWB and BHO to bring the pot to a boil.

Bickering over D's and R's is to miss the fact that Tea Partiers don't care about D's and R's.  You're all fair game.  And I think the fact that Tea Partiers were knowingly willing to lose a couple of battles this time around shows that they stand for concrete principals, rather than group-think "we gotta have more R's than D's".

If the R's survive the next decade, it's because they will move to the Tea Partiers...not the other way around.

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
Indeed.  The election of BHO is bringing about consequences that no one intended.  On the heels of a two-term "conservative" President that turned his back on conservatism and ran up a giant deficit, we get the most liberal, progressive, leftist, unqualified President of all time?  THAT almost makes me want to believe in God.  Is that YOU, baby Jesus, that woke everyone up from their slumber?

Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: ssltech on November 04, 2010, 08:56:24 pm
Skullsessions wrote

...the most ... unqualified President of all time?



nope.

That would be his predecessor.

To whos 'unqualified', you might add 'inept' and -just to add insult to those who can clearly speak and think- 'ineloquent'.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: PRobb on November 04, 2010, 09:50:38 pm
ssltech wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 20:56

Skullsessions wrote

...the most ... unqualified President of all time?



nope.

That would be his predecessor.

To whos 'unqualified', you might add 'inept' and -just to add insult to those who can clearly speak and think- 'ineloquent'.

Really. People who supported Bush don't get to talk about qualified.
People who support Palin don't get to even think about it.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: el duderino on November 04, 2010, 10:28:13 pm
Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 20:49

You liberal progressives instinctively know that you've been caught red-handed...and that's why you're shitting yourselves right now.


HA! the R's took the house of representatives dude. those people are in place for only 2 years which means they work for about 10 months and go into campaign mode. what makes you think that the first 10 months of the next congress will be more productive on any front than the last?

Quote:

You who argue that Tea Partiers aren't upset about federal spending prior to Obama aren't listening.

It took both GWB and BHO to bring the pot to a boil.

Bickering over D's and R's is to miss the fact that Tea Partiers don't care about D's and R's.  You're all fair game.


So how many tea party backed D's were there this year?

Quote:

 And I think the fact that Tea Partiers were knowingly willing to lose a couple of battles this time around shows that they stand for concrete principals, rather than group-think "we gotta have more R's than D's".


is that why they were third party candidates?

Quote:

If the R's survive the next decade, it's because they will move to the Tea Partiers...not the other way around.



if that happens they're toast. but maybe i think of the tea party differently than you.

Quote:

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.
Indeed.  The election of BHO is bringing about consequences that no one intended.  On the heels of a two-term "conservative" President that turned his back on conservatism and ran up a giant deficit, we get the most liberal, progressive, leftist, unqualified President of all time?  THAT almost makes me want to believe in God.  Is that YOU, baby Jesus, that woke everyone up from their slumber?




you seem to buy into waaay more bullshit than the average person.

what makes him the most liberal, progressive, leftist president?

let me guess, its because someone sick and poor will be able to see a doctor and be treated right?
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Barry Hufker on November 05, 2010, 12:09:59 am
I'm willing to give Tea Partiers a chance.  The proof is in their actions.  Do something wonderful for the country and you won't hear me bitch.  But the odds are against them as I haven't heard any TP say one sensible thing.  However, if they prove me wrong I'll give them the credit.

Now, will TP people do the same for the Dems?

Barry
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Skullsessions on November 05, 2010, 08:49:59 am
ssltech wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 19:56

Skullsessions wrote

...the most ... unqualified President of all time?



nope.

That would be his predecessor.

To whos 'unqualified', you might add 'inept' and -just to add insult to those who can clearly speak and think- 'ineloquent'.


THIS is exactly the point.

You still want to play tit-for-tat.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Skullsessions on November 05, 2010, 09:04:46 am
PRobb wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 20:50

ssltech wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 20:56

Skullsessions wrote

...the most ... unqualified President of all time?



nope.

That would be his predecessor.

To whos 'unqualified', you might add 'inept' and -just to add insult to those who can clearly speak and think- 'ineloquent'.

Really. People who supported Bush don't get to talk about qualified.
People who support Palin don't get to even think about it.


I see that you quoted me, but left out the part where I show no love for GWB....yet you spin it to make it look like I'm a supporter of GWB.

More of the "but he started it" bullshit that's got us all stuck in a position of accepting ANY answer over the correct ones.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: ssltech on November 05, 2010, 09:08:34 am
Not at all... YOU said that BHO was the most unqualified president ever, not me.

I pointed out that I consider that to be entirely inaccurate, and merely added some other qualifications of his predecessor.

Simple.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Skullsessions on November 05, 2010, 09:14:34 am
Fine...sure...I take it back.

They both are equally qualified, as are all natural born citizens of age 35yrs +.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Jay Kadis on November 05, 2010, 10:18:40 am
Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 17:49

 we get the most liberal, progressive, leftist, unqualified President of all time?
What an obtuse thing to say.  Better have a look at history.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: jonathan jetter on November 05, 2010, 11:07:33 am
most liberal president?

i think that has to be FDR, and it's not even close.

least qualified to hold office?

in terms of prior experience....perhaps Abraham Lincoln.  one term in the House and several terms in the state legislature

least able to fulfill his obligations?

maybe Hoover.  or Grant.  Harding could probably have been indicted.  GWB makes my short list too.

the Tea Party has some admirable goals.  but their candidates are often just flat-out stupid.  Christine O'Donnell, for example, is an idiot.  a completely indefensible idiot.

and overall i take issue with the idea that this new batch of politicians assembling under this new Tea Party banner will somehow be inherently more honest.  these people say whatever needs to be said in order to get elected and then, once in office, they plunder whatever can be plundered to make the rich richer.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: ssltech on November 05, 2010, 11:19:42 am
Elections are just a popularity contest when you boil it all down.

-And if the people who vote are 'mushrooms' (Kept in the dark and fed crap occasionally) then you can see what happens.

I suppose Winston Churchill summed it up best when he said that democracy was the WORST form of government... apart from all the others.

Keith
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Barry Hufker on November 05, 2010, 12:22:43 pm
I wish they were just a popularity contest.  I probably would have agreed with that up until the last decade.  I think they are much more sinister than that.  Most pop contests don't have such serious consequences.

Barry
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: ssltech on November 05, 2010, 03:36:34 pm
The ELECTION itself is a popularity contest.

What the electees do is the problem.

Trouble with democracy is that the largely uninformed (in which number I count myself!) get to choose who gets to do whatever they can. -When people with selfish aims or malice in mind figure out ways to win those 'popularity contests', they can -under the right conditions- win with such large margins, that they claim a 'mandate'.

For so long as there's people like Sarah Palin (with no apparent comprehension whatsoever of important stuff like what goes on in the globe with which she would have to interact) who play to the whims of the popularity contest, we'd better ALL watch out.

The era of the 'celebritician' is not a particularly new one... but the prospects as of today are truly horrifying.

Keith
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Jay Kadis on November 05, 2010, 03:48:41 pm
As long as popular culture rewards the outliers, the political system won't work as intended.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 06, 2010, 02:01:43 am
Fiasco wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 17:57




Perhaps that's the problem, people looking to the government to do something to "please" them.



I don't ask for anything I can't afford. I'd never have you afford something for me. Ever. Nothing. Even if it would keep me alive for 6 months.

If you ever come down to Georgia, look me up. We aren't as retarded as we are made out to be.

Firing the whole government has occurred to me frequently. I still don't understand what the DOE or DOEd do. I can't help but throw up in my mouth just a little when I see someone who truly dislikes America reading another teleprompted edict.

Not me. Not now. Not ever. I'll starve before I feed that machine.

Rough election? Yeah. No way to reverse the damage caused in the last 100 years, and the 100 years before that, and the 100 before that.. and the.... humanity sucks. It's made of people.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Barry Hufker on November 06, 2010, 02:29:57 am
People, money, people and money... all are bad elements of elections and government.  Things would be fine if everyone thought exactly as I do.  You know... and then voted me king.

Barry

Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 06, 2010, 02:41:49 am
I'd rather take that bet than the one presented, anytime.

I think you have too much respect for people to do the things that are done to the people, on the people, by other people.

We may never agree, but we will always agree.. ya know.

Wink
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Barry Hufker on November 06, 2010, 04:59:51 pm
 Smile

Very kind of you.

But frankly, I wouldn't want me either.  Power corrupts and all that.  And I'm too much of a PITA.

But I'm grateful for the confidence and kind thought.  It shows what a good guy you are.

Barry
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 06, 2010, 06:07:37 pm
I don't have to agree with someone to make them a good leader.

There is a great deal of underused pragmatism involved in herding cats.

Wink


M
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Paul Cavins on November 06, 2010, 09:34:59 pm
Maybe a case can be made that as crappy as politicians and the gubmint are, then the ideal setup would be a society where the central gubmint has much less influence on society, and is as small as possible.

Then whatever they did wouldn't impact the greater society as much.

If power corrupts, then wouldn't less power corrupt to a lesser degree?

PC
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Barry Hufker on November 06, 2010, 10:52:59 pm
Take a look at Somalia.  Ain't much of a government there.  The power has shifted to the pirates who do whatever they want.  There is no such thing as a power vacuum.  Someone or something always fills it.

Barry

Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Paul Cavins on November 06, 2010, 11:05:50 pm
Well, there is not much of a tradition of democracy and the rule of law in Somalia. I don't want some kooky law-of-the-jungle situation, just what we have today but with a significantly smaller government that isn't seen as the natural place to go for solving problems.

BIg can with lots of worms, I know.

PC
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Barry Hufker on November 07, 2010, 01:51:59 am
Government wouldn't be the place to go if people were nicer to others.  There's a powerful group in government right now made up of people who don't want to be nicer to others.  A second group in government tries to make the government fill in for those people who don't want to be nicer.  And therein lies the problem.


A joke someone recently told me:
Democrats believe the glass is half full.  Republicans believe the glass is theirs.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Jay Kadis on November 07, 2010, 02:14:30 am
Our system of government in  the US is over 200 years old.  It took days for information to spread.  Now we know what just happened in milliseconds.

Our best hope is to eliminate from the equation all the trashy advertising and somehow get people to think about the issues for themselves for a while - real deliberation with reading up on it and all...

Nah, that's not gonna happen.

Technology offers potential alternatives to what we're doing for government, but  Diebold has poisoned the well.  Open source software seems a prerequisite for any trustworthy voting system.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: MDM, on November 07, 2010, 07:23:27 am
Personally, I am beginning to think that most of these things are rigged.

like Wrestling Matches on TV

A friend of mine said he saw the Rolling Stones when Italy won the world cup in the early 80's and Jagger said on stage that Italy would win 3 to 1 before the match. How did he know?

I guess I am influenced, in a way, by living in Italy, where apparently almost everything is rigged.  The politicians we see here have been in office for decades.  Corruption and mafia is out in the open... almost
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: DarinK on November 07, 2010, 01:05:17 pm
Paul Cavins wrote on Sat, 06 November 2010 20:05

... I don't want some kooky law-of-the-jungle situation, just what we have today but with a significantly smaller government that isn't seen as the natural place to go for solving problems.

PC



Theoretically, our government is, "of the people, by the people, for the people."  It can be a mechanism through which people help other people.  Ideally, "going to government for solving problems" is exactly the same as "the citizens solving the problems for themselves."
I don't see the issue as being one of people looking to government for help, I see the issue as being that the government is no longer of, by & for the people.  Making government smaller may help somewhat, but it's not dealing with the fundamental problem that there are other forces that have much more influence on government than the people do.  Taking the money out would be the best thing, but unfortunately in the 1970's the Supreme Court ruled that restricting spending money on campaigns was an infringement of the right to free speech.  Add in the more recent ruling that corporations are essentially people, and the system's rigged.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: YZ on November 07, 2010, 01:54:36 pm
DarinK wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 16:05

(...)the fundamental problem (is) that there are other forces that have much more influence on government than the people do.


Yup.

As individuals, we have a negligible amount of political power.

If many individuals congregate around a commonly-agreed set of goals and premises, then such group has more political power.

That's how political parties start...

IMHO, things will only get better in the USA if there are more than two big parties; people have been left with no options lately.

Some 'smart' politicians saw that a little while ago and created a 'fake' alternative with the tea party, an amazing example of astroturf that I thought couldn't happen in this age of widespread communication.

Oh well...
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Paul Cavins on November 07, 2010, 03:10:53 pm
'Ideally, "going to government for solving problems" is exactly the same as "the citizens solving the problems for themselves."'


I don't see it that way at all. I don't want a situation of the rulers and the ruled. I don't see how you avoid that with a big and active government.

I think the nugget of wisdom that makes America great is individual freedom (and therefore responsibility). I see that as the step of progress in human development, and I see collectivist systems as a step back.

Not that I know what I'm talking about or anything.

With all we have at our disposal with modern technology and an open society, smaller government seems to be the way up for me.

PC
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Barry Hufker on November 07, 2010, 03:54:10 pm
I agree personal responsibility is a key to any well-lived life.  And I don't think we should have one ounce more government than needed.  The problems occur when some conspire against others to hold them down because they are different or in order to take advantage of them.  That's when someone larger than this group (government) has got to try to make the offenders back-off.

We can all thank Dems for the Civil Rights Act, Minimum Wage, Unions (for good and for bad),food inspection and other benefits. If America is where everyone has a chance to be who they want and to do the things they want, then it is government which makes the rules so that can happen.  Otherwise self-interest runs rampant (which it still does but...) and you get no government oversight of anything - as was the case during the Bush Jr. admin.  Think then of government's role in Katrina, the oil disaster, e coli outbreaks, etc.  Unbridled, Wall Street's greed drove this country into ruin.

Personal freedom is a fine thing when someone knows how to handle it.  When it's abused, there needs to be a "policeman".  Fighting between law and personal freedom is unending.  Even now we don't have the personal freedoms we did 15 years ago.  Think illegal wiretaps, "Patriot Act" and no Habeas Corpus...  We lost more personal freedoms during the Bush admin than we'll ever get back.

Barry

Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 07, 2010, 04:13:50 pm
Barry, we agree on the what, it's the how where we diverge.

I think you see the shiny bouncing thing receding from the scene, and it looks to be the culprit. I see the culprit, he tossed the shiny ball..

Tiny, miniscule, POWERLESS government is the answer. The government requires NOT power, but privledge, and responsibility to us, the lives that make the humanity that is harmed by even the most righteousy (tip) idea.

The privledge granted to the government should be serving the people at no direct cost.

To serve the people, not any intrests.. none.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: YZ on November 07, 2010, 04:59:21 pm
Well, it should first be defined what are the responsibilities of a government and then based on that see what size it needs to be to fulfill them.

Apparently the USA hasn't reached the first stage yet...
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 07, 2010, 06:10:17 pm
The government has well defined responsibility. The government has grown itself far beyond it's granted power. The government needs to get a job.

We, The People.

The government is no less than a very rude drunk at your party.

(who you catch downloading porn on your child's computer)

(using your credit card)
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: YZ on November 07, 2010, 07:43:27 pm
Tidewater wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 21:10

The government needs to get a job.


Fantastic!
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Edvaard on November 07, 2010, 08:05:30 pm

Government serving no outside interests or having no external influence sounds great, and hardly anyone would not agree with that. But the outer influence is so entrenched I don't see it ever changing to any significant degree. And this influence works today and has worked in the past regardless of the size of government, and regardless of whether one political party has had near total control (as both parties have on occasion) or more often when the control is split into whatever proportion.

It just doesn't matter.

The government did not grow itself into more power, it has been fed growth hormones by corporate interests forever.

It is somewhat na
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 07, 2010, 09:43:34 pm
Another winner of a post from you, Ed. For sure.

What a mess.


M
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Edvaard on November 07, 2010, 10:01:13 pm

Thank you.

I am much more attuned to the plight of smaller businesses and proprietorships because a) they have more of an affect on overall employment than the largest businesses, b) the laws that are so convoluted, to either accommodate large corporations or account for their greater ability to evade intention, are much more burdensome for the small business, and c) they are much more sensitive to changes in their costs, changes in market conditions or the economy overall, and changes in regulations. They do not have the size to withstand the storms of these vagaries, too many of which are preventable.

 
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Paul Cavins on November 07, 2010, 10:16:15 pm
I see what you mean, Edvaard. I might not line up with you exactly as far as all of the FDA stuff. That is a tough one. We need to regulate food safety, but then with all of the regs in play, and the economics of our food supply being so vast, there is bound to be a lot of powerful interests battling it out.

I would guess that my take on such things would be less conspiratorial and less from the left side than yours.

Small business is where it is at. I would like to see less regulation where possible, so that the small guys are not at such a disadvantage when dealing with the feds.

I think farm subsidies and "corporate welfare" should go bye-bye. Although, maybe the definition of corporate welfare is in the eye of the beholder at times.

I would like to see an America where there was as little as possible to be gained by lobbying the federal government. It won't ever be ideal, but I wish it could be better.

PC
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 08, 2010, 01:51:51 am
I hear that too, Paul.. but in my perfect World people are loathe to mess up because word of mouth takes them out of business the next minute, and for more serious things one might worry that doing the wrong thing brings them trouble with the angry mobs who would brand them with the big hot red A.

Smile

I like laws that protect us from others, but not meant to protect us from ourselves.

I can assure you that my intentions are good. There is no need for a law to protect you from me.

We are permissive. Too very permissive. Polite people, and those learning how to be polite. That is what I think personal responsibility brings.

(yeah I am a gun owner and an armed robbery victim)

Subsidies are a hot button with me.. wow. What a load of crap that is. It's politicians lobbying for surreality. No thanks!

Brazil and sugar pisses me off. Mexico and oil drilling pisses me off.. anything that bends the truth with our resources makes me very angry.


M
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: YZ on November 08, 2010, 10:47:19 am
Tidewater wrote on Mon, 08 November 2010 04:51


Brazil and sugar pisses me off.


please elaborate.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: PRobb on November 08, 2010, 11:52:08 am
Paul Cavins wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 22:16

I see what you mean, Edvaard. I might not line up with you exactly as far as all of the FDA stuff. That is a tough one. We need to regulate food safety, but then with all of the regs in play, and the economics of our food supply being so vast, there is bound to be a lot of powerful interests battling it out.

Right. When government gets too big and too intrusive, it's trouble. But too little government is jut as big a problem. Let's remember that deregulation of the financial industry was one of the causes of our current mess.

Life is always a balancing act. The small government stuff sounds great until we get to specifics.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 08, 2010, 02:16:38 pm
Sorry I am in a time crunch and just wanted to pop in for a peek..

EDIT: Google I screwed the whole pooch on explaing when a call came..  brb

Ethanol is a HUGE other can-o-worms.

Google, and we'll discuss later?

Smile
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: YZ on November 08, 2010, 03:07:40 pm
Tidewater wrote on Mon, 08 November 2010 17:16


Ethanol is a HUGE other can-o-worms.


US-made, Corn-based Ethanol most certainly is.

Just another scheme to divert taxpayer money to a few 'interest groups'.

But Brazil's sugar-cane Ethanol? Fantastic.

I'll wait for your longer reply when you get the time.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: PRobb on November 08, 2010, 03:20:07 pm
YZ wrote on Mon, 08 November 2010 15:07

Tidewater wrote on Mon, 08 November 2010 17:16


Ethanol is a HUGE other can-o-worms.


US-made, Corn-based Ethanol most certainly is.

Just another scheme to divert taxpayer money to a few 'interest groups'.

But Brazil's sugar-cane Ethanol? Fantastic.

I'll wait for your longer reply when you get the time.

That's pretty much my understanding.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 08, 2010, 04:56:43 pm
YZ wrote on Mon, 08 November 2010 15:07

Tidewater wrote on Mon, 08 November 2010 17:16


Ethanol is a HUGE other can-o-worms.


US-made, Corn-based Ethanol most certainly is.

Just another scheme to divert taxpayer money to a few 'interest groups'.

But Brazil's sugar-cane Ethanol? Fantastic.

I'll wait for your longer reply when you get the time.



Nah! You got it. Subsidy keeping sensibillity off the table .. spelling aside.. I hate this keybpoard

Smile
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Paul Cavins on November 08, 2010, 05:57:52 pm
The regulation of food safety is a pretty well accepted function of government across the board. I don't think that is a good example of where the big gov/small gov line might be.

I think that the housing bubble might not have occurred if we had not encouraged home ownership so much and didn't have such easy money floating around. If such excesses don't come into being, then we wouldn't have to worry about regulating the feeding frenzy that ensues.

I think that having the govs big hands steering the economy will have unintended consequences.

I've been through that one with Edvaard before.





PRobb wrote on Mon, 08 November 2010 11:52

Paul Cavins wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 22:16

I see what you mean, Edvaard. I might not line up with you exactly as far as all of the FDA stuff. That is a tough one. We need to regulate food safety, but then with all of the regs in play, and the economics of our food supply being so vast, there is bound to be a lot of powerful interests battling it out.

Right. When government gets too big and too intrusive, it's trouble. But too little government is jut as big a problem. Let's remember that deregulation of the financial industry was one of the causes of our current mess.

Life is always a balancing act. The small government stuff sounds great until we get to specifics.

Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 08, 2010, 09:15:20 pm
Hmmm not sure about deregulation and the financial thing. The 'regulators' actually did that.

They are still doing it. I'm scared shitless.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Edvaard on November 08, 2010, 09:41:26 pm

What I tried to point out was that thinking strictly in terms of big vs. smaller govt. or more vs. less regulation is not precise enough. The issue has to be addressed case by case.

If a new regulation and concomitant expansion of powers is for purpose of having a government agency become the Gestapo in service of corporations to enforce hegemony of their product(s) and eliminate generations-old smaller businesses then I am against such corporate written and promoted regulation.

If a new law reduces or removes regulation that exists to protect consumers or ensure integrity of financial intermediaries then I am against legislation (again, corporate written) that would accomplish this.

And yes, the banking and commodity futures modernization acts in 1999-2001 are acknowledged by professionals in fixed income investment and advisement companies (the proper experts) as the primary impetus to the great credit expansion (i.e. significant lowering of loan standards and origination procedures) which started the snowball rolling, NOT a few GSEs that have been around 40-70 years prior to the meltdown. The whole sub-prime/CDO enterprise was so lucrative that that state legislatures trying to pass laws to stop the abuse and fraud of the sub-prime contracts were threatened by Moody's to refuse to rate their bonds if they proceeded.

That's called racketeering.

So, another instance where a particular corporate interest affected regulation.


The issue is not more vs. less regulation, but who wrote the law or who prevented a genuinely legislatively written law from being enacted.

 
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Edvaard on November 08, 2010, 10:26:40 pm
PS

Yes, the subsidies in almost whatever form or for whatever purpose are completely bogus. The farm price supports system is just a transfer of treasury money to the agro-chemical companies. The industrial farmer is just the bag man in the operation. But that's a tough one because the US and Europe are the worst offenders of that scam in the world, and both can say "no, you first" in perpetuity. Meanwhile less prosperous countries cannot afford to do likewise so their farmers are barely scraping by.

The considerable subsidies, tax credits, loophole investment structures etc. given to oil and nuclear will never go away, but not worth worrying about because their game will be over long before this century ends. This is why we should say no to most of the subsidies for newer energy technologies and have firm time limits on the few that might be in place, because they will be there forever otherwise. Aside from that, large corporations have a record of buying such companies just for the tax breaks. With their superstar accountants they can funnel amazing amounts of their main income stream through small tax advantaged subsidiaries. Happens all the time.

By 10-15 years from now companies will be very self motivated to have energy efficiency as standard MO. Once the economy recovers oil will continue to increase faster than it has historically.

The big well in Saudi Arabia pumps at a cost of `$10 a barrel, cheapest in the world. I think worldwide avg. has been something like $25-35 per bbl. for a few decades. The oil sands in Canada and Venezuela break even @ around $70-75 per bbl. Even in this downturn, they are producing, at that cost.

That should tell us all we need to know about where things are going energy-wise.



Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 09, 2010, 01:23:52 am
You are my new (cogent) freaking hero. I can't put the words together like you, but hey I am on that page.

Glad to share a state with you! There is hope!
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: YZ on November 09, 2010, 09:05:37 am
Edvaard wrote on Tue, 09 November 2010 00:41


The issue is not more vs. less regulation, but who wrote the law or who prevented a genuinely legislatively written law from being enacted.


Yes, it is basically an issue of Quality, not size or amount.

Better government, better legislation, better life for the citizens.

Now that it is plainly obvious that Communism does not work as advertised, it is time to realize that we need to move away from savage capitalism and closer to a more socially-conscious structure; not utopian socialism, but a decently-regulated capitalist model.

IMO, no corporation should be allowed to grow to be 'too big to fail', else we're leaving the stability of our society in the hands of the heads of such corporations.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 09, 2010, 01:50:58 pm
Eeeks.. things should be allowed to grow as they will.. and fail as they will when they do.

Nature has a law.. we call it the nature of things. Ebb and flow, in and out.. beginnings and ends.

This makes sense to me. It seems obvious. I don't see many stone wheel manufaturers, and I don't think election to an office in government makes a certain person suddenly have a grand understanding of how any particular business works. Regulations should be effective measures to prevent disaster, not 2 minute rules on over jubilation.

I have to be metaphoric, because to make a certain point about a particular issue is to derail the real topic.

Ethics, moral actions. Participate responsibly in the market place, or face the wrath of failure.

Th Federal Reserve is killing us. Get Barney's Frank out of Freddy's Fanny.

Yeah, dig.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Gio on November 09, 2010, 04:50:16 pm
Tidewater wrote on Tue, 09 November 2010 13:50

 Get Barney's Frank out of Freddy's Fanny.

That was great. Thank you.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Kris on November 10, 2010, 11:22:05 am
Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 01:51

Government wouldn't be the place to go if people were nicer to others.  There's a powerful group in government right now made up of people who don't want to be nicer to others.  A second group in government tries to make the government fill in for those people who don't want to be nicer.  And therein lies the problem.


A joke someone recently told me:
Democrats believe the glass is half full.  Republicans believe the glass is theirs.


Yet, there are studies and stats which show that conseratives are MUCH more liberal (charitable) givers than liberals... weird.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 10, 2010, 12:00:33 pm
uhoh careful with the insults

Smile
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Barry Hufker on November 10, 2010, 12:32:11 pm
No message.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 10, 2010, 12:39:25 pm
 Shocked

hahahaha Barry, what happened in traffic that brought you here today!?
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Barry Hufker on November 10, 2010, 12:49:11 pm
Well, I don't know.  Maybe I should rethink what I wrote.  I didn't think it was that big of a deal... Guess I'm wrong.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Barry
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 10, 2010, 02:48:29 pm
Oh no! I was just poking.

Let's argue! Let's argue without constraint to what other people think. I think our ideas are better than the ones on the floor.

I am all snappy and giddy. I think the seams are coming apart, and soon will have more to work with.

Less is more.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Jay Kadis on November 10, 2010, 02:53:21 pm
We are now running an experiment: California has taken the opposite direction from the rest of the country.  We'll see which approach works best.
Title: Re: Very Tough Election Night
Post by: Tidewater on November 10, 2010, 02:59:59 pm
Mr. JK, neither!

It's a prediction. I go work now. bbl