Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on December 20, 2007, 12:40:34 PM
-
I think he's right. I don't think Hillary can win the general. I don't think Obama can overtake her in the primary, and if he does, no way we wins the general either. Edwards would be a stronger candidate.
Bush Confident Republicans Will Retain White House
Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:08 AM
President George W. Bush said Thursday that he was confident his Republican Party would retain the White House in next year's presidential election.
"I'm confident we'll hold the White House and I'm confident we can pick up seats in both the Senate and the Congress," Bush said at a press conference.
"I believe ours is the party that understands the nature of the world that we live in and that the government's primary responsibility is to protect the American citizens from harm," he added.
Bush said he would not comment on the primaries between the candidates seeking the Democratic and Republican party presidential nominations for the November 2008 vote.
"I will wait and reserve judgment," he said. "I will be patient, and after the primaries are over, I will help my party unify.
"I'm looking forward to doing my bit," he said. "In the meantime, I'm out raising money for the Republican Party, trying to make sure that once the primaries are over ... that we're united and ready to go."
Asked whether a candidate's religious views were important, Bush said the most important quality he looked for in a candidate for the White House was their "principles."
"What's important to me will be this: the principles by which people will make decisions," he said.
"People develop principles all different kinds of ways. But you can't be the president unless you have a firm set of principles to guide you as you sort through all the problems the world faces," he added.
"I would be very hesitant to support somebody who relied upon opinion polls and focus groups to define a way forward for a president," Bush said.
Religion has played a prominent role in the current presidential campaign, particularly on the Republican side where one leading candidate, Mitt Romney, is a Mormon, and another, Mike Huckabee, is an ordained Baptist minister.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/Bush_Confident_Republican/2007/12/20/58632.html
-
I knew this would happen... the Dems fucck themselves every time by putting up weak candidates, when post-Bush they should have won the election in a walk.
All they had to fucckin do was put up a moderate white guy with a personality, and they would have won in a landslide. But nooooooo..... they had to go with either Hillary Clinton or a black guy with an arab name who's only been in politics since like last Tuesday. ::)
-
I knew this would happen... the Dems fucck themselves every time by putting up weak candidates, when post-Bush they should have won the election in a walk.
All they had to fucckin do was put up a moderate white guy with a personality, and they would have won in a landslide. But nooooooo..... they had to go with either Hillary Clinton or a black guy with an arab name who's only been in politics since like last Tuesday. ::)
I agree, except Obama is white. :)
Both parties have been doing this for decades: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Hillary, Ford, Dole, Bush. There are always far better candidates on the sidelines. It's really a shame.
-
I agree, except Obama is white. :)
::) Beach Bum, stop being such an idiot... You are so clueless when it comes to race.
BLACK:
(http://www.imagedonkey.com/out.php?i=21423_obama2.jpg)
(http://www.imagedonkey.com/out.php?i=21422_obama.jpg)
This is about as dumb as Walker Texas Ranger thinking he's Indian :D
-
::) Beach Bum, stop being such an idiot... You are so clueless when it comes to race.
(http://www.imagedonkey.com/out.php?i=21423_obama2.jpg)
(http://www.imagedonkey.com/out.php?i=21422_obama.jpg)
This is about as dumb as Walker Texas Ranger thinking he's Indian :D
You first. ::)
Post a picture of his mother.
-
See the hands in front of Obama in the pic above beach bum? yea, what color are they? They're white. You must be color blind like Colbert is :)
-
You first. ::)
Post a picture of his mother.
I don't give two shits if he had a white parent, take a look at him, what are you trying to say, all his african genes were wiped out by his white blood ::) How freaking racist man... You're into some kind of purity crap. That makes a pretty large section of the African American community delusional about their race, they're actually white because they have white blood mixed in ::) Oh brother ::)
-
I don't give two shits if he had a white parent, take a look at him, what are you trying to say, all his african genes were wiped out by his white blood ::) How freaking racist man... You're into some kind of purity crap. That makes a pretty large section of the African American community delusional about their race, they're actually white because they have white blood mixed in ::) Oh brother ::)
lol. What?? You essentially said all his white genes were wiped out by his African father. Your classification is based solely on his appearance.
Now, consult your racial identity handbook and tell me how you determined he is black and not white? ::)
-
lol. What?? You essentially said all his white genes were wiped out by his African father. Your classification is based solely on his appearance.
Now, consult your racial identity handbook and tell me how you determined he is black and not white? ::)
No, you're saying all his black genes are gone because he's part white. You're calling a large percentage of the African American community delusional for going thinking they're black. Look, if Obama is part both, if he wants to associate with his black heritage, who the hell are you to announce he's wrong ::) You said, "HE'S WHITE" Well clearly that's wrong, he's only part white. His blackness is not negated because you announce it ::)
-
No, you're saying all his black genes are gone because he's part white. You're calling a large percentage of the African American community delusional for going thinking they're black. Look, if Obama is part both, if he wants to associate with his black heritage, who the hell are you to announce he's wrong ::) You said, "HE'S WHITE" Well clearly that's wrong, he's only part white. His blackness is not negated because you announce it ::)
::) Actually, I called him white, because his momma is white. Tomorrow, I might call him black, because his daddy is black. The next day, I might call him a Halfrican, because his parents are of different races. But for the sake of discussion, today he is white.
I actually prefer the term Halfrican American, which I've used to describe him on more than occasion.
What you've done is the simplistic "he looks black, so he must be black" identification. The old racist one-drop rule. ::)
-
::) Actually, I called him white, because his momma is white. Tomorrow, I might call him black, because his daddy is black. The next day, I might call him a Halfrican, because his parents are of different races. But for the sake of discussion, today he is white.
I actually prefer the term Halfrican American, which I've used to describe him on more than occasion.
What you've done is the simplistic "he looks black, so he must be black" identification. The old racist one-drop rule. ::)
Don't try and turn it on me... He's black, it's not my fault you're blind ::) You're the one saying a large section of that community are delusional... Nice, I'll idenity him differently as it pleases me BS you came up with ::)
-
Don't try and turn it on me... He's black, it's not my fault you're blind ::) You're the one saying a large section of that community are delusional... Nice, I'll idenity him differently as it pleases me BS you came up with ::)
Yes, oh racial identity grand poobah. ::) He's black, because he looks black. ::) I could care less how you identify him or any other mixed race person.
-
Yes, oh racial identity grand poobah. ::) He's black, because he looks black. ::) I could care less how you identify him or any other mixed race person.
No, he's black because he's half black and he came out black. black skin is black skin, it's just a fact, it's not racist to see the obvious ::) You're the one who changes his idenification as it pleases you.
-
No, he's black because he's half black and he came out black. black skin is black skin, it's just a fact, it's not racist to see the obvious ::) You're the one who changes his idenification as it pleases you.
And this is method of determining a person's race is based on what authority? You're using the one-drop rule. Very common. But it makes no sense and it has racist origins. No, I'm not calling you a racist. ::)
I've seen far too many mixed race people who you and others probably couldn't classify to simplify racial identity like you have. Saying a person is a certain race because they look a certain way is silly.
-
I knew this would happen... the Dems fucck themselves every time by putting up weak candidates, when post-Bush they should have won the election in a walk.
All they had to fucckin do was put up a moderate white guy with a personality, and they would have won in a landslide. But nooooooo..... they had to go with either Hillary Clinton or a black guy with an arab name who's only been in politics since like last Tuesday. ::)
100% correct.
-
And this is method of determining a person's race is based on what authority? You're using the one-drop rule. Very common. But it makes no sense and it has racist origins. No, I'm not calling you a racist. ::)
I've seen far too many mixed race people who you and others probably couldn't classify to simplify racial identity like you have. Saying a person is a certain race because they look a certain way is silly.
well you can't say he is white by your logic and you did... had you left it at some kind of mixed identification we would even be having this talk... You bought it, own it... You placed hin in a racial identity as much as I did.
-
well you can't say he is white by your logic and you did... had you left it at some kind of mixed identification we would even be having this talk... You bought it, own it... You placed hin in a racial identity as much as I did.
Own what? The fact I've previously called him black? The fact I've previously called him Halfrican? Or the fact I've called him white?
I can indeed call him white, because his mother is white. I can call him black because his father is black. Dude, this is a twisted exercise. That was sort of my point when I made the first comment. But we've had this discussion.
-
Beach Bum is correct in his assertion that Obama is both, and can be called as either one. HOWEVER. That is not important. The overwhelming majority view him as black. He is called by the majority as black, so therefore, he is black. African Americans believe him to be black. To someone who knew nothing about him, he would be seen as black. Hell, some Americans even think he's a Muslim. Remember, facts usually take a backseat to public perception :(
Anyway, didn't El Presidente Jorge Bush proclaim that the Repubs would retain back in '06? Hillary can definately win this election, though she would need a very wide margin to do it, as I suspect Republican tinkering when the election gets too close to call.
-
Beach Bum is correct in his assertion that Obama is both, and can be called as either one. HOWEVER. That is not important. The overwhelming majority view him as black. He is called by the majority as black, so therefore, he is black. African Americans believe him to be black. To someone who knew nothing about him, he would be seen as black. Hell, some Americans even think he's a Muslim. Remember, facts usually take a backseat to public perception :(
Anyway, didn't El Presidente Jorge Bush proclaim that the Repubs would retain back in '06? Hillary can definately win this election, though she would need a very wide margin to do it, as I suspect Republican tinkering when the election gets too close to call.
I didn't say he wasn't both but his skin is black, that's just a fact nobody can change, it is the color of his skin. yes racially he's mixed. The fact is Beach bum wants to ID him as it best fits his post for the day. Today he was white. He said he disagreed with goatboy that he was black then latter in this same thread he says he's black too... well why the hell did you disagree with goat then Beach bum ::)
-
I wouldn't expect Bush to say anything else
This is the same guy who said "stay the course" ad naseum and when he finally stopped he told Stefanopolis "we were never about stay the course"
Rove was confident that the Repugnants would retain both the House and the Senate in the last election - remember his comment about "The Math".
These guys are not going to come out and say we're due an ass whupping.
-
Hillary can definately win this election...
How long have you been living outside America?
-
How long have you been living outside America?
I think any dem can win this election.
while the dems are being stupid putting up a non-white man when you consider trend voting prejudices, I think the repubs are being stupid with their batch as well.
for some reason, repub voters are EXTREMELY forgiving of their guys who vote LIB their whole life, then change their tune during the primary season of 2007. you have guys who gave haven to illegals, used city $ to protect mistress, hired illegals, banned guns, promoted abortion, and consorted with groups that help terrorists (as rudy did with ihs rudy inc business in 2005). ANd the repubs don't care. They have no standards anymore.
another thing- I was perhaps the BIGGEST clinton hater during the 90s. Today? I see her as MORE HONEST than Bush and MORE LIKELY to fix fractured world relations than Bush. More likely to fix health care and domestic economy too. If I'm any barometer of a lifetime repub who can suddenly stand hilary due to 911 lies, wmd lies, and just plain tired of bush lying/abusing constutition... well... I think anyone they run will have a decent chance.
-
Beach Bum is correct in his assertion that Obama is both, and can be called as either one. HOWEVER. That is not important. The overwhelming majority view him as black. He is called by the majority as black, so therefore, he is black. African Americans believe him to be black. To someone who knew nothing about him, he would be seen as black. Hell, some Americans even think he's a Muslim. Remember, facts usually take a backseat to public perception :(
Anyway, didn't El Presidente Jorge Bush proclaim that the Repubs would retain back in '06? Hillary can definately win this election, though she would need a very wide margin to do it, as I suspect Republican tinkering when the election gets too close to call.
You are absolutely correct. In our society, people use race classifications based on a person's appearance, regardless of what the person's true ethnicity might me. A person who "looks black" is considered black by society. Just look at Tiger Woods. His mother is Asian and his father was part black. But because he has dark skin and some "black" features, society says he is black. Have you ever heard Tiger describe himself as a black man?
Perception is reality. You are right again.
Regarding Hillary, I think her negatives are way too high to win the election. Unless the Republicans nominate a real dud, I just can't see her winning the election.
-
I didn't say he wasn't both but his skin is black, that's just a fact nobody can change, it is the color of his skin. yes racially he's mixed. The fact is Beach bum wants to ID him as it best fits his post for the day. Today he was white. He said he disagreed with goatboy that he was black then latter in this same thread he says he's black too... well why the hell did you disagree with goat then Beach bum ::)
Oh I don't know. Maybe I was trying to highlight the problems with race classifications? Trying to be funny? Something like that. ::)
-
I am still amazed that republican candidates get elected.
Their interests in privatizing everything and legislating solely to the benefit of the monied elites while overloading the burdens of the middle and lower class should bar them from receiving even scant support in popular elections.
But their political bullshit still draws votes from the great unwashed:
Tax cuts double tax revenues.
It's normal to work 2500 hours a year.
Any government program that helps you out is socialism and it fosters dependence.
Real americans hate corrupt unions.
You really can work your way up the income mobility chain.
Racism is over and everyone should be treated equally.
Tax rates are confiscatory and everyone should pay the same rate.
Abortion is the single most pressing issue--Once in office, I won't do anything about it--but it is the single most pressing issue facing us today.
Every country is threat to our well-being and we must be prepared to attack any country with our smart bombs which only kill bad guys.
You may not have health insurance but you certainly don't want socialized medicine...it's better to die a dignified manner--uninsured with no commie medical plan.
The government is stoopid and couldn't find a couch in a fucking living room....but I still want to be president!
God Bless and Good night.
-
I am still amazed that republican candidates get elected.
Their interests in privatizing everything and legislating solely to the benefit of the monied elites while overloading the burdens of the middle and lower class should bar them from receiving even scant support in popular elections.
But their political bullshit still draws votes from the great unwashed:
Tax cuts double tax revenues.
It's normal to work 2500 hours a year.
Any government program that helps you out is socialism and it fosters dependence.
Real americans hate corrupt unions.
You really can work your way up the income mobility chain.
Racism is over and everyone should be treated equally.
Tax rates are confiscatory and everyone should pay the same rate.
Abortion is the single most pressing issue--Once in office, I won't do anything about it--but it is the single most pressing issue facing us today.
Every country is threat to our well-being and we must be prepared to attack any country with our smart bombs which only kill bad guys.
You may not have health insurance but you certainly don't want socialized medicine...it's better to die a dignified manner--uninsured with no commie medical plan.
The government is stoopid and couldn't find a couch in a fucking living room....but I still want to be president!
God Bless and Good night.
Do you support Ron Paul?
-
Do you support Ron Paul?
I support his anti-war stance. I do not support his economic, educational or health insurance policies.
I support Russ Feingold but he's not running for president.
Here is a website for Ron Paul fans. http://www.antiwar.com/
It's a libertarian website.
-
I support his anti-war stance. I do not support his economic, educational or health insurance policies.
I support Russ Feingold but he's not running for president.
Here is a website for Ron Paul fans. http://www.antiwar.com/
It's a libertarian website.
Democrat, are you?
What do you have against his economic, educational and health insurance policies?
-
I support his anti-war stance. I do not support his economic, educational or health insurance policies.
I support Russ Feingold but he's not running for president.
Here is a website for Ron Paul fans. http://www.antiwar.com/
It's a libertarian website.
I support Colin Powell, but he ain't running either, unfortunately.
-
Democrat, are you?
What do you have against his economic, educational and health insurance policies?
I've looked at his issues here: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
Economics usually means tax policy. Less taxation is fine but I also noted that he mentions that capital gains taxes should be reduced too. This smells of flat taxation which is really a tax hike on the lower and middle class...I mean the capital gains tax rate is already very low.
I believe Universal healthcare is the right course for this country. Ron Paul does not.
I believe a citizenry educated as a matter of right at the gov.'s expense is in the best interest of the country as a whole. Ron Paul doesn't.
He is a man of character. I am not debating that.
-
I support Colin Powell, but he ain't running either, unfortunately.
Same here - America's one true leader refuses to enter the race.
-
I've looked at his issues here: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
Economics usually means tax policy. Less taxation is fine but I also noted that he mentions that capital gains taxes should be reduced too. This smells of flat taxation which is really a tax hike on the lower and middle class...I mean the capital gains tax rate is already very low.
I believe Universal healthcare is the right course for this country. Ron Paul does not.
I believe a citizenry educated as a matter of right at the gov.'s expense is in the best interest of the country as a whole. Ron Paul doesn't.
He is a man of character. I am not debating that.
I like RP too but when he talks about abolishing the FDA, Dept of Ed, CIA, etc...I just can't get on board
-
Same here - America's one true leader refuses to enter the race.
yes... who can forget him knowingly lying his ass off at about mobile bio labs and bla bla bla... great guy...
-
Same here - America's one true leader refuses to enter the race.
Yep.
-
yes... who can forget him knowingly lying his ass off at about mobile bio labs and bla bla bla... great guy...
yeah, powell used to be my #1 choice for President.
But yeah, history will show him to be a big liar on that one.
-
Its hard to hang your head high, when the stupidest man on the planet, is your president.... :'(
-
I like RP too but when he talks about abolishing the FDA, Dept of Ed, CIA, etc...I just can't get on board
Why do you think that the FDA and the Department of Education are necessary? Or the CIA for that matter?
-
War, i'm not sure how to post links up on GB so google..... youtube "bush on contractors in iraq" and post the link up for all to see. this jackass in the WH amazes me with his utter stupidity.
watch how a first year college student runs circles around bush. truely pathetic.
Are you the chick in the picture? ;D
-
Trap, can you find this and post the link here ?
thanks in advance.
-
I am still amazed that republican candidates get elected.
Their interests in privatizing everything and legislating solely to the benefit of the monied elites while overloading the burdens of the middle and lower class should bar them from receiving even scant support in popular elections.
But their political bullshit still draws votes from the great unwashed:
Tax cuts double tax revenues.
It's normal to work 2500 hours a year.
Any government program that helps you out is socialism and it fosters dependence.
Real americans hate corrupt unions.
You really can work your way up the income mobility chain.
Racism is over and everyone should be treated equally.
Tax rates are confiscatory and everyone should pay the same rate.
Abortion is the single most pressing issue--Once in office, I won't do anything about it--but it is the single most pressing issue facing us today.
Every country is threat to our well-being and we must be prepared to attack any country with our smart bombs which only kill bad guys.
You may not have health insurance but you certainly don't want socialized medicine...it's better to die a dignified manner--uninsured with no commie medical plan.
The government is stoopid and couldn't find a couch in a fucking living room....but I still want to be president!
God Bless and Good night.
Well, democratic candidates are basically offering the same thing. Nowadays there isn't much of a difference between republicans and democratic candidates in that, when elected, their agendas are already set and their main purpose is to make sure the ones with the money get to keep the money they have.
Obama is a fake, and Ms Clinton does not stand a chance vs any republican candidate because they will eventually bring out the subject of Mr Clinton's affairs and use it against her in some ugly manner, which is going to polarize the folks in "God's country". Fucking shit!!!!
-
Why do you think that the FDA and the Department of Education are necessary? Or the CIA for that matter?
Even with the FDA in place we still have outbreaks of deadly diseases from our food. Without its regulation, the next food product you buy could be your last. Not to mention that having no requirement to list food ingredients on a product's label would incline me to think that the manufacturer would be overloading your food with sawdust fillers and whatever the hell else they can get away with to save a buck.
It is in the interest of the country as a whole to have an educated citizenry. I shouldn't have to explain this one b/c thanks to the federal government, we are educated enough to understand its implications.
The CIA and its unaccountable ass should be shitcanned.
-
Well, democratic candidates are basically offering the same thing. Nowadays there isn't much of a difference between republicans and democratic candidates in that, when elected, their agendas are already set and their main purpose is to make sure the ones with the money get to keep the money they have.
Obama is a fake, and Ms Clinton does not stand a chance vs any republican candidate because they will eventually bring out the subject of Mr Clinton's affairs and use it against her in some ugly manner, which is going to polarize the folks in "God's country". Fucking shit!!!!
You are pretty much correct. Except the democrats throw a bone to the middle and lower class once in a while.
Where are the Universal Healthcare Plans of the republican candidates? Why do the republicans want to destroy Social Security (which benefits that same middle and lower class of people)?
But on the whole, this is a country by and for the wealthy vested interests.
-
Even with the FDA in place we still have outbreaks of deadly diseases from our food. Without its regulation, the next food product you buy could be your last. Not to mention that having no requirement to list food ingredients on a product's label would incline me to think that the manufacturer would be overloading your food with sawdust fillers and whatever the hell else they can get away with to save a buck.
It is in the interest of the country as a whole to have an educated citizenry. I shouldn't have to explain this one b/c thanks to the federal government, we are educated enough to understand its implications.
The CIA and its unaccountable ass should be shitcanned.
Private companies and the market place could take better care of the food products than the FDA. Market competition would ensure better quality and service.
So you think it is right to force an uneducated farmer to pay for your education?
-
Private companies and the market place could take better care of the food products than the FDA. Market competition would ensure better quality and service.
So you think it is right to force an uneducated farmer to pay for your education?
That's a nice story but simply unfounded. Caveat Emptor went the way of the dinosaur for a reason. The buyer was always getting screwed. Market competition/self regulation by its own hand is another popular fallacy. Without stringent regulation of the marketplace, there would be no "Free Market" or put another way, we would have a few massive corporations owning everything while the scraps are left to small time participants battling in the free market.
We're already seeing evidence of this with Bush's deregulation of the FCC for example. Monopolies are taking over. 5 or 6 corporations own the country's media.
The market as a self-regulating force for the benefit of the public is a fairy tale propped up by Ayn Rand followers like Allen Greenspan.
Another way to think about the Free Market is to think of it as an athletic competition. The regulations and regulatory agencies are the referees enforcing the rules under which the athletes play.
Nothing wrong with that.
Yes I think an uneducated farmer or a childless couple should pay their taxes to educate our nation's children. We have a more productive workforce if it's educated, no?
-
That's a nice story but simply unfounded. Caveat Emptor went the way of the dinosaur for a reason. The buyer was always getting screwed. Market competition/self regulation by its own hand is another popular fallacy. Without stringent regulation of the marketplace, there would be no "Free Market" or put another way, we would have a few massive corporations owning everything while the scraps are left to small time participants battling in the free market.
We're already seeing evidence of this with Bush's deregulation of the FCC for example. Monopolies are taking over. 5 or 6 corporations own the country's media.
The market as a self-regulating force for the benefit of the public is a fairy tale propped up by Ayn Rand followers like Allen Greenspan.
Another way to think about the Free Market is to think of it as an athletic competition. The regulations and regulatory agencies are the referees enforcing the rules under which the athletes play.
Nothing wrong with that.
Yes I think an uneducated farmer or a childless couple should pay their taxes to educate our nation's children. We have a more productive workforce if it's educated, no?
I agree; I am not advocating anarcho-capitalism and I think one of the jobs of the government is to enforce contracts when necessary. You are talking about corporatism, not true free market capitalism.
Why shouldn't the farmer be allowed to keep his money to spend it how he sees fit? For example on a silo or tractor? Why must he pay for someone else's ambitions?
-
I agree; I am not advocating anarcho-capitalism and I think one of the jobs of the government is to enforce contracts when necessary. You are talking about corporatism, not true free market capitalism.
Why shouldn't the farmer be allowed to keep his money to spend it how he sees fit? For example on a silo or tractor? Why must he pay for someone else's ambitions?
I just reread my response and I don't mean to sound like a jackass....that's what happens when I have to come into work without dinner on a Sunday night after the Packers just got assraped by the Bears in a frickin blizzard(now that's ironic).
Free Market Capitalism fettered only by contract law quickly devolves into monopolies. Then freedom is really in the crapper.
All of society is better served by an educated workforce. From the silo or tractor line workers manufacturing the farmer's equipment, to the traffic cop or sewer worker.
I'm all for lower taxes, but not at the expense of education. Anyway, the point may be moot b/c the bulk of school taxes are state/local affairs and not the federal government's.
-
I just reread my response and I don't mean to sound like a jackass....that's what happens when I have to come into work without dinner on a Sunday night after the Packers just got assraped by the Bears in a frickin blizzard(now that's ironic).
Free Market Capitalism fettered only by contract law quickly devolves into monopolies. Then freedom is really in the crapper.
All of society is better served by an educated workforce. From the silo or tractor line workers manufacturing the farmer's equipment, to the traffic cop or sewer worker.
I'm all for lower taxes, but not at the expense of education. Anyway, the point may be moot b/c the bulk of school taxes are state/local affairs and not the federal government's.
In income tax is implicit the idea that the federal government owns your earnings. Roles of government are: 1. Enforcing Contracts, 2. Defence, 3. Protection of Individual Rights; that's it. You know it's funny, when I argue with social interventionists whatever the moniker they might give themselves and they insist on government intervention in our lives I always take it to the next step. You start asking them where it stops, should the government put you on a diet if you are overweight? Should it tell youwhat to eat? What to drink? How about government dress code? Then they start folding. They realise there is no end game in sight. If government can tell you not to smoke a joint where does it stop? The argument that there will be poor people or people who don't do too well is fallacious; in the USA we have a War on Drugs, a War on Poverty and a War on Illiteracy and none of these has cured these ills. When people can keep their earnings they prosper and do well and people are content instead of forking over a quarter or even half of what they earn to the government to be used for either well intentioned but ill begotten purposes or entirely nefarious purposes. When there is an income tax (which is necessary for the gigantic bureaucracy we have going), it is the government telling you it owns you and the fruits of your labour are not yours to spend as you will; it does not matter whether it is 3% or 60% because the minute a government starts stealing from your labour the amount stolen is arbitrary and the principle remains the same: it owns you. Free markets and individual freedom are all about the individual making choices for himself.
-
In income tax is implicit the idea that the federal government owns your earnings. Roles of government are: 1. Enforcing Contracts, 2. Defence, 3. Protection of Individual Rights; that's it. You know it's funny, when I argue with social interventionists whatever the moniker they might give themselves and they insist on government intervention in our lives I always take it to the next step. You start asking them where it stops, should the government put you on a diet if you are overweight? Should it tell youwhat to eat? What to drink? How about government dress code? Then they start folding. They realise there is no end game in sight. If government can tell you not to smoke a joint where does it stop? The argument that there will be poor people or people who don't do too well is fallacious; in the USA we have a War on Drugs, a War on Poverty and a War on Illiteracy and none of these has cured these ills. When people can keep their earnings they prosper and do well and people are content instead of forking over a quarter or even half of what they earn to the government to be used for either well intentioned but ill begotten purposes or entirely nefarious purposes. When there is an income tax (which is necessary for the gigantic bureaucracy we have going), it is the government telling you it owns you and the fruits of your labour are not yours to spend as you will; it does not matter whether it is 3% or 60% because the minute a government starts stealing from your labour the amount stolen is arbitrary and the principle remains the same: it owns you. Free markets and individual freedom are all about the individual making choices for himself.
The government is entitled to a portion of each citizen's earnings to maintain the infrastructure of the nation.
There is such a thing as a national interest. We are not merely an amalgam of individuals doing our own thing. That sort of freedom is available to us but we must fund the national interest.
I have yet to see a tax system implemented in this country where the federal government owns or takes all of a citizen's earnings. So I disagree with you on that.
So you get your opposition to fold under the old slippery slope argument of "where does the regulation stop?!."
Here's where it stops: We are the government. It is a government by and for The People. Being the reasonable people that we are, our consitution is predicated on principles from the Elilghtenment, we the people set the boundaries for where government intervention begins and ends.
I think that's a pretty good idea.
The Government can be misused if we let it. Just look at the Bush administration which privatizes as many government functions to enrich cronies and remove accountability while these privatized functions are done at extreme costs and in a half-assed manner.
Taxation without representation can be characterized as stealing.
This country has taxation with representation. We are the government. We decide the level of federal taxation as a nation. We can take it (gov) back from special interest.
Too bad the republican propaganda machine makes that damn near impossibile.
The democrats contribute to that equation too but not as brazenly or completely as the republican party.
In principle, I am with you. I first believe that we need a strong federal government to break the corporate hold on our representative form of government. We can't do that without a strong federal government.
After corporations are handled, then we have various federal agencies reduced in size or eliminated and devolve power to the states to leave the decisions for certain things in local hands.
-
The government is entitled to a portion of each citizen's earnings to maintain the infrastructure of the nation.
There is such a thing as a national interest. We are not merely an amalgam of individuals doing our own thing. That sort of freedom is available to us but we must fund the national interest.
I have yet to see a tax system implemented in this country where the federal government owns or takes all of a citizen's earnings. So I disagree with you on that.
So you get your opposition to fold under the old slippery slope argument of "where does the regulation stop?!."
Here's where it stops: We are the government. It is a government by and for The People. Being the reasonable people that we are, our consitution is predicated on principles from the Elilghtenment, we the people set the boundaries for where government intervention begins and ends.
I think that's a pretty good idea.
The Government can be misused if we let it. Just look at the Bush administration which privatizes as many government functions to enrich cronies and remove accountability while these privatized functions are done at extreme costs and in a half-assed manner.
Taxation without representation can be characterized as stealing.
This country has taxation with representation. We are the government. We decide the level of federal taxation as a nation. We can take it (gov) back from special interest.
Too bad the republican propaganda machine makes that damn near impossibile.
The democrats contribute to that equation too but not as brazenly or completely as the republican party.
In principle, I am with you. I first believe that we need a strong federal government to break the corporate hold on our representative form of government. We can't do that without a strong federal government.
After corporations are handled, then we have various federal agencies reduced in size or eliminated and devolve power to the states to leave the decisions for certain things in local hands.
I have to head to the gym but I would argue that we DON'T have taxation wtih representation. When I get back I will reply.
-
The government is entitled to a portion of each citizen's earnings to maintain the infrastructure of the nation.
There is such a thing as a national interest. We are not merely an amalgam of individuals doing our own thing. That sort of freedom is available to us but we must fund the national interest.
I have yet to see a tax system implemented in this country where the federal government owns or takes all of a citizen's earnings. So I disagree with you on that.
So you get your opposition to fold under the old slippery slope argument of "where does the regulation stop?!."
Here's where it stops: We are the government. It is a government by and for The People. Being the reasonable people that we are, our consitution is predicated on principles from the Elilghtenment, we the people set the boundaries for where government intervention begins and ends.
I think that's a pretty good idea.
The Government can be misused if we let it. Just look at the Bush administration which privatizes as many government functions to enrich cronies and remove accountability while these privatized functions are done at extreme costs and in a half-assed manner.
Taxation without representation can be characterized as stealing.
This country has taxation with representation. We are the government. We decide the level of federal taxation as a nation. We can take it (gov) back from special interest.
Too bad the republican propaganda machine makes that damn near impossibile.
The democrats contribute to that equation too but not as brazenly or completely as the republican party.
In principle, I am with you. I first believe that we need a strong federal government to break the corporate hold on our representative form of government. We can't do that without a strong federal government.
After corporations are handled, then we have various federal agencies reduced in size or eliminated and devolve power to the states to leave the decisions for certain things in local hands.
Decker you have way too much faith in the government. Our government is probably the worst money manager in the history of the planet. The service stinks. Government workers are often indifferent and lack business sense. I was just talking with my friend about this. He works for the federal government. I work in the private sector. We were comparing how indifferent his boss is to a lot of issues, because the boss has been working for the federal government for over 30 years and he's at the top of the food chain. He treats his employees like pieces of a board game. We compared that to a meeting we recently had at my company where we were talking about things like fairness and perception when it comes to certain income issues involving employees. Night and day. That kind of indifference is epidemic in government.
In general, I would trust a business over the government any day of the week.
-
Decker you have way too much faith in the government. Our government is probably the worst money manager in the history of the planet.
Wrong. Our govt is probably the BEST mone manager in the history of the world. Cheney and crew are lifetime politicians with longtime work in companies like haliburton. They got into power and have funnelled trillions of dollars into these very firms. Our tax money.
You can say that accidentally wasted it and it happened to fall into the hands of the companies who they've worked with their whole lives. It's like saying I accidentally dropped CDs at the mall and they happened to fall into my buddy's backpack.
Give them more credit. They're in charge of the only superpower in the world. They are very smart, and they put the money where they want to.
In general, I would trust a business over the government any day of the week.
Businesses have less accountability - they can close up shop and open up with a new name tomorrow and relinquish all responsibility. Politicians don't have that luxury.
-
Wrong. Our govt is probably the BEST mone manager in the history of the world. Cheney and crew are lifetime politicians with longtime work in companies like haliburton. They got into power and have funnelled trillions of dollars into these very firms. Our tax money.
You can say that accidentally wasted it and it happened to fall into the hands of the companies who they've worked with their whole lives. It's like saying I accidentally dropped CDs at the mall and they happened to fall into my buddy's backpack.
Give them more credit. They're in charge of the only superpower in the world. They are very smart, and they put the money where they want to.
Businesses have less accountability - they can close up shop and open up with a new name tomorrow and relinquish all responsibility. Politicians don't have that luxury.
Good grief. Where do I start?
1. Congress manages the money, not the president and vice president.
2. Congress has done a horrible job with our money, including an increase in the national debt about every year since about 1940. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html No private business could run this way for nearly 70 years. If there has been a company with such a dismal performance, it is an anomaly.
3. Bush and Cheney did not funnel trillions into Halliburton. ::)
4. No, a business cannot simply walk away, open a new business with a different name, and leave its customers and creditors in a lurch. That's asinine. Anyone with experience in business will tell you that is a recipe for a lawsuit. Here are your words and phrases of the day: "alter ego," "unfair or deceptive trade practices," and "continuation of entity." If you think a business can simply close and open its doors with a new name, then you need to know what those things mean. There are many others, but that's a start.
5. A business has enormous accountability. First and foremost, any business that wants to stay in business takes care of its customers. The saying "the customer is always right" is an overstatement, but is a mantra used by most successful businesses. You take care of your customers, they come back, and they refer new customers. The government doesn't have that kind of accountability.
Second, there are a number of safeguards in the marketplace, including anti-trust laws, licensing regulations, ethical boards and commissions, the courts, administrative agencies, and state and federal entities that provide consumer protection.
Third, if the business is a corporation, the employees are accountable to the managers and officers, the officers are accountable to the board, and the board answers to shareholders.
-
The government is entitled to a portion of each citizen's earnings to maintain the infrastructure of the nation.
There is such a thing as a national interest. We are not merely an amalgam of individuals doing our own thing. That sort of freedom is available to us but we must fund the national interest.
I have yet to see a tax system implemented in this country where the federal government owns or takes all of a citizen's earnings. So I disagree with you on that.
So you get your opposition to fold under the old slippery slope argument of "where does the regulation stop?!."
Here's where it stops: We are the government. It is a government by and for The People. Being the reasonable people that we are, our consitution is predicated on principles from the Elilghtenment, we the people set the boundaries for where government intervention begins and ends.
I think that's a pretty good idea.
The Government can be misused if we let it. Just look at the Bush administration which privatizes as many government functions to enrich cronies and remove accountability while these privatized functions are done at extreme costs and in a half-assed manner.
Taxation without representation can be characterized as stealing.
This country has taxation with representation. We are the government. We decide the level of federal taxation as a nation. We can take it (gov) back from special interest.
Too bad the republican propaganda machine makes that damn near impossibile.
The democrats contribute to that equation too but not as brazenly or completely as the republican party.
In principle, I am with you. I first believe that we need a strong federal government to break the corporate hold on our representative form of government. We can't do that without a strong federal government.
After corporations are handled, then we have various federal agencies reduced in size or eliminated and devolve power to the states to leave the decisions for certain things in local hands.
Decent Chest and Triceps workout.
Anyway...how can you argue that we have taxation with representation when our taxes are used for premptive wars, murdering elected leaders in other countries and creating unrest throughout the world? Maybe that is what you want, but I am not being represented well by that!
-
That's a nice story but simply unfounded. Caveat Emptor went the way of the dinosaur for a reason. The buyer was always getting screwed. Market competition/self regulation by its own hand is another popular fallacy. Without stringent regulation of the marketplace, there would be no "Free Market" or put another way, we would have a few massive corporations owning everything while the scraps are left to small time participants battling in the free market.
We're already seeing evidence of this with Bush's deregulation of the FCC for example. Monopolies are taking over. 5 or 6 corporations own the country's media.
The market as a self-regulating force for the benefit of the public is a fairy tale propped up by Ayn Rand followers like Allen Greenspan.
Another way to think about the Free Market is to think of it as an athletic competition. The regulations and regulatory agencies are the referees enforcing the rules under which the athletes play.
Nothing wrong with that.
Yes I think an uneducated farmer or a childless couple should pay their taxes to educate our nation's children. We have a more productive workforce if it's educated, no?
I think you previously responded to this in the affirmative, but I hope you're writing a book, because you're clearly one of the best thinkers I've encountered in my umpteen years of life online.
The working title should be: "Think, America, THINK".
As always, you're spot-on. :)
-
I'm going to have to keep banging the same drum.
The Democrats' only job for the 2008 national elections was to make the election a referendum on Iraq, Katrina, and the tanking economy.
That's all they had to do. Highlight those tremendous failures, get people out to vote, and ring in a new chapter in American politics.
But nooooo...
Instead of saying, "Let's get ourselves a candidate and try to right the ship", the Democrats have decided to make the election about an entirely different question:
"Is America ready for a Black or woman President?"
Why why why why WHY???
This isn't middle school anymore where anyone who gets 12 signatures can run. This is high-stakes politics, where the one who makes the smartest moves is the one who will come out on top most often.
As of right now, I'm sad to say that Bush is correct.
-
Decent Chest and Triceps workout.
Anyway...how can you argue that we have taxation with representation when our taxes are used for premptive wars, murdering elected leaders in other countries and creating unrest throughout the world? Maybe that is what you want, but I am not being represented well by that!
We are all represented by our elected leaders. Sometimes your view carries the day for tax policy and sometimes your view loses.
As for misusing governmental funds, yeah it happens. Gov. isn't pretty. But what we break as a govt., we can fix.
And for the record, I do not support the Bush administration and its criminality.
-
I'm going to have to keep banging the same drum.
The Democrats' only job for the 2008 national elections was to make the election a referendum on Iraq, Katrina, and the tanking economy.
That's all they had to do. Highlight those tremendous failures, get people out to vote, and ring in a new chapter in American politics.
But nooooo...
Instead of saying, "Let's get ourselves a candidate and try to right the ship", the Democrats have decided to make the election about an entirely different question:
"Is America ready for a Black or woman President?"
Why why why why WHY???
This isn't middle school anymore where anyone who gets 12 signatures can run. This is high-stakes politics, where the one who makes the smartest moves is the one who will come out on top most often.
As of right now, I'm sad to say that Bush is correct.
I hate to say it but the responsibility for the clowns in office lies at the People's feet. Sloth, ignorance and childish political prejudice seem to govern a good part of our citizenry.
We get who we vote for. That's facile but true.
If the people listened and studied the platforms of the candidates and the circumstances our country is in today, Ron Paul would do very well instead of being relegated to independent party status which seems like a foregone conclusion.
The democrats, as a party, are bad politicians. I think that goes without saying after Bush's first election theft and re-election.
-
Decker you have way too much faith in the government. Our government is probably the worst money manager in the history of the planet. The service stinks. Government workers are often indifferent and lack business sense. I was just talking with my friend about this. He works for the federal government. I work in the private sector. We were comparing how indifferent his boss is to a lot of issues, because the boss has been working for the federal government for over 30 years and he's at the top of the food chain. He treats his employees like pieces of a board game. We compared that to a meeting we recently had at my company where we were talking about things like fairness and perception when it comes to certain income issues involving employees. Night and day. That kind of indifference is epidemic in government.
In general, I would trust a business over the government any day of the week.
It used to be that the Govt. got the brightest people. Look at some of the government infrastructure in place--Social Security is brilliantly formed, the FDIC is also great and there are many more. The 'lack of business' sense is a red herring argument b/c it proves your conclusion without proof.
Your anecdotal evidence about your friend is not convincing. I have friends that are attornies in the IRS and DOL that would really disagree with you.
-
It used to be that the Govt. got the brightest people. Look at some of the government infrastructure in place--Social Security is brilliantly formed, the FDIC is also great and there are many more. The 'lack of business' sense is a red herring argument b/c it proves your conclusion without proof.
Your anecdotal evidence about your friend is not convincing. I have friends that are attornies in the IRS and DOL that would really disagree with you.
I have had had too much interaction with the government to believe otherwise. Yes there are educated and talented people working for the government. I never stated otherwise. But the lack of business sense? That really is a fact. I was just talking to guy last week about a government sponsored trip he made to the mainland last year. He wanted to rent a car, but the "rules" didn't allow it. They told him he could take a cab. The cab cost about $200. Rental car would have been about $80. I have about a hundred stories like this.
There have been plenty of systems established by the government that look great on paper. What they haven't done is efficiently carried them out, and they definitely are not more efficient than the private sector.
I doubt most people enjoy having to deal the government.
-
Good grief. Where do I start?
1. Congress manages the money, not the president and vice president.
2. Congress has done a horrible job with our money, including an increase in the national debt about every year since about 1940. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html No private business could run this way for nearly 70 years. If there has been a company with such a dismal performance, it is an anomaly.
3. Bush and Cheney did not funnel trillions into Halliburton. ::)
4. No, a business cannot simply walk away, open a new business with a different name, and leave its customers and creditors in a lurch. That's asinine. Anyone with experience in business will tell you that is a recipe for a lawsuit. Here are your words and phrases of the day: "alter ego," "unfair or deceptive trade practices," and "continuation of entity." If you think a business can simply close and open its doors with a new name, then you need to know what those things mean. There are many others, but that's a start.
5. A business has enormous accountability. First and foremost, any business that wants to stay in business takes care of its customers. The saying "the customer is always right" is an overstatement, but is a mantra used by most successful businesses. You take care of your customers, they come back, and they refer new customers. The government doesn't have that kind of accountability.
Second, there are a number of safeguards in the marketplace, including anti-trust laws, licensing regulations, ethical boards and commissions, the courts, administrative agencies, and state and federal entities that provide consumer protection.
Third, if the business is a corporation, the employees are accountable to the managers and officers, the officers are accountable to the board, and the board answers to shareholders.
Government's fiscal function is to create budgets and use conservative investments where necessary.
The national debt was not a problem until Reagan got into office. Bush made Reagan look like a piker in drawing up debt. Clinton paid down the debt.
You've never heard of leveraged companies?
A business can declare bankruptcy leaving the shareholders in the lurch without the ability to pierce the corporate veil and reach the private assets of the corp. board members.
Government is much more accountable than private business. Are all private business records public records?
Private business is a good thing and there are good ones. But when left to its own designs without gov. oversight, many businesses screw the customer, the environment and crush the competition in the name of inflating the bottom line.
-
I think you previously responded to this in the affirmative, but I hope you're writing a book, because you're clearly one of the best thinkers I've encountered in my umpteen years of life online.
The working title should be: "Think, America, THINK".
As always, you're spot-on. :)
Thanks. I work very hard on this stuff b/c my real job of being a pension lawyer is driving me to drink. Politics is a great diversion.
-
I have had had too much interaction with the government to believe otherwise. Yes there are educated and talented people working for the government. I never stated otherwise. But the lack of business sense? That really is a fact. I was just talking to guy last week about a government sponsored trip he made to the mainland last year. He wanted to rent a car, but the "rules" didn't allow it. They told him he could take a cab. The cab cost about $200. Rental car would have been about $80. I have about a hundred stories like this.
There have been plenty of systems established by the government that look great on paper. What they haven't done is efficiently carried them out, and they definitely are not more efficient than the private sector.
I doubt most people enjoy having to deal the government.
I have a hundred stories of how government has improved the lives of ordinary americans.
Government is only as good as the people that are in it. To wit, the Bush administration stocks government positions with yes-men, contrarians, and incompetents and then it points out that gov. doesn't work when these people fuck up.
Government is not an evil. Abusive government is an evil. Incompetent government is an evil.
Are there bad regulations? Probably. But government is a necessity in our lives. We must be diligent to improve it.
-
Government's fiscal function is to create budgets and use conservative investments where necessary.
The national debt was not a problem until Reagan got into office. Bush made Reagan look like a piker in drawing up debt. Clinton paid down the debt.
You've never heard of leveraged companies?
A business can declare bankruptcy leaving the shareholders in the lurch without the ability to pierce the corporate veil and reach the private assets of the corp. board members.
Government is much more accountable than private business. Are all private business records public records?
Private business is a good thing and there are good ones. But when left to its own designs without gov. oversight, many businesses screw the customer, the environment and crush the competition in the name of inflating the bottom line.
We will not agree on whether the government has been fiscally responsible the last 70 years. Clearly, it hasn't been. We have to agree to disagree.
Regarding bankruptcy, it is not accurate to say a business can simply declare bankruptcy and walk away. Depends on what kind (7, 11, or 13), whether the debts are secured, and whether things like fraud are involved.
No, not all business records are public records, just like not all government records are public records. I'm aware of the Freedom of Information Act, but the government can and does withhold information all the time. That's only one component of accountability. I think the primary component is the fact private business needs positive responses from its customers to stay in business. The government does not. The result is a much greater concern for the needs of its customers in the private sector than when dealing with the government.
No private business can routinely screw its customers and stay in business.
There are no legitimate businesses without government oversight.
-
I have a hundred stories of how government has improved the lives of ordinary americans.
Government is only as good as the people that are in it. To wit, the Bush administration stocks government positions with yes-men, contrarians, and incompetents and then it points out that gov. doesn't work when these people fuck up.
Government is not an evil. Abusive government is an evil. Incompetent government is an evil.
Are there bad regulations? Probably. But government is a necessity in our lives. We must be diligent to improve it.
Yes the government has improved the lives of "ordinary" citizens.
Problems in government are party neutral. Doesn't matter whether a Republican or Democrat is in office. These problems predate Bush. They were present with Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, etc.
No one is contending the government isn't necessary. I think the point (at least mine anyway) is whether the private sector is more efficient than the government.
I doubt we ever see a substantial improvement in government service, particularly when it comes to money management. This excludes our current governor, who has been a master. She forced Democrats to become more responsible. A billion dollar turnaround on her watch.
-
We will not agree on whether the government has been fiscally responsible the last 70 years. Clearly, it hasn't been. We have to agree to disagree.
Regarding bankruptcy, it is not accurate to say a business can simply declare bankruptcy and walk away. Depends on what kind (7, 11, or 13), whether the debts are secured, and whether things like fraud are involved.
No, not all business records are public records, just like not all government records are public records. I'm aware of the Freedom of Information Act, but the government can and does withhold information all the time. That's only one component of accountability. I think the primary component is the fact private business needs positive responses from its customers to stay in business. The government does not. The result is a much greater concern for the needs of its customers in the private sector than when dealing with the government.
No private business can routinely screw its customers and stay in business.
There are no legitimate businesses without government oversight.
I am not making a blanket oversimplification that gov. is better than private interests at managing money. It depends on too many factors to make a conclusion like that. Our government is one of consent by the governed--a give and take...private enterprise is "everything for me". It's apples and oranges.
In the last 3 decades, whenever a republican president takes office, it's like a crazy uncle getting a hold of your checkbook and spending like a maniac. If it weren't for Bill Clinton, the national debt and fiscal state of the gov. finances would be much worse. Bush has doubled the debt. Irresponsible leaders in government leave government worse off. They grab as much as they can from the public coffers through privatization and then point to gov. as something that cannot manage money.
If you want to discuss bankruptcy law and corporate liability, that's fine with me. Oversimplifying the bankruptcy process to the conclusion that shareholders can lose everything is still accurate. How are your shares of ENRON doing?
FOIA requests can only be defeated by National Security Interests.
Private Businesses need only stay one step ahead of the cost of lawsuits due to their lethal or injurious product/services.
Is it cheaper to build a car with a gas tank that explodes in rear end collisions, or is it cheaper to pay off the estimated lawsuits from such deaths?
That sort of risk analysis is a cottage industry onto itself.
The whole world is a pretty big market place. Big business has lots of pigeons to pluck.
-
I am not making a blanket oversimplification that gov. is better than private interests at managing money. It depends on too many factors to make a conclusion like that. Our government is one of consent by the governed--a give and take...private enterprise is "everything for me". It's apples and oranges.
In the last 3 decades, whenever a republican president takes office, it's like a crazy uncle getting a hold of your checkbook and spending like a maniac. If it weren't for Bill Clinton, the national debt and fiscal state of the gov. finances would be much worse. Bush has doubled the debt. Irresponsible leaders in government leave government worse off. They grab as much as they can from the public coffers through privatization and then point to gov. as something that cannot manage money.
If you want to discuss bankruptcy law and corporate liability, that's fine with me. Oversimplifying the bankruptcy process to the conclusion that shareholders can lose everything is still accurate. How are your shares of ENRON doing?
FOIA requests can only be defeated by National Security Interests.
Private Businesses need only stay one step ahead of the cost of lawsuits due to their lethal or injurious product/services.
Is it cheaper to build a car with a gas tank that explodes in rear end collisions, or is it cheaper to pay off the estimated lawsuits from such deaths?
That sort of risk analysis is a cottage industry onto itself.
The whole world is a pretty big market place. Big business has lots of pigeons to pluck.
If we're talking about shareholders, then the amount of information available to them is comparable, if not greater, than information available to citizens under FOIA.
I don't have Enron shares, but I do have the government wasting my money and running our debt through the roof.
Your oversimplification regarding companies filing bankruptcy isn't accurate at all. It might be accurate if the business is filing chapter 7 and no fraud is involved, etc., but there are many exceptions. The government, on the other hand, doesn't file bankruptcy. It just tells citizens to go screw themselves.
Yes there are abuses in the private sector. Yes some companies do a cost/benefit analysis and decide it's more profitable to sell defective products and pay lawsuit judgments/settlements than correct defective products. This make the private sector less accountable and less efficient? No.
-
If we're talking about shareholders, then the amount of information available to them is comparable, if not greater, than information available to citizens under FOIA.
I don't have Enron shares, but I do have the government wasting my money and running our debt through the roof.
Your oversimplification regarding companies filing bankruptcy isn't accurate at all. It might be accurate if the business is filing chapter 7 and no fraud is involved, etc., but there are many exceptions. The government, on the other hand, doesn't file bankruptcy. It just tells citizens to go screw themselves.
Yes there are abuses in the private sector. Yes some companies do a cost/benefit analysis and decide it's more profitable to sell defective products and pay lawsuit judgments/settlements than correct defective products. This make the private sector less accountable and less efficient? No.
Shareholders and a company prospectus and citizens and GAO reports—The GAO report is likely much more exhaustive.
If gov. is wasting your money why do you support Bush and the Republican party?
Chptr 7 bankruptcies happen all the time with public corporations. The Shareholders may get pennies on the dollar after the liquidation. That is accurate.
We’d better pray that the government does not declare bankruptcy and dissolve—which could happen if we let it.
Beach Bum, the people are the government. At some point we hold ourselves accountable unless we are using the gov. as a source of enrichment (Bush) or we are trying to drown our gov. in a bath tub (Bush again).
Knowingly selling harmful or fatal products is not a matter of accountability to you? What about accountability to the consumer who unknowingly buys the tire that blows out or the SUV that rolls over? Killing the elderly or invalids is also a matter of efficiency. Perhaps we can incorporate that into our lives.
-
Shareholders and a company prospectus and citizens and GAO reports—The GAO report is likely much more exhaustive.
If gov. is wasting your money why do you support Bush and the Republican party?
Chptr 7 bankruptcies happen all the time with public corporations. The Shareholders may get pennies on the dollar after the liquidation. That is accurate.
We’d better pray that the government does not declare bankruptcy and dissolve—which could happen if we let it.
Beach Bum, the people are the government. At some point we hold ourselves accountable unless we are using the gov. as a source of enrichment (Bush) or we are trying to drown our gov. in a bath tub (Bush again).
Knowingly selling harmful or fatal products is not a matter of accountability to you? What about accountability to the consumer who unknowingly buys the tire that blows out or the SUV that rolls over? Killing the elderly or invalids is also a matter of efficiency. Perhaps we can incorporate that into our lives.
As I stated earlier, government waste, inefficiency, and indifference are party neutral. I support whomever is in the White House. Unlike many partisans, I believe that is my obligation as an American citizen who loves his country.
I support candidates who I think will do the best job running the country. I make an independent decision in every election in this regard. Sometimes that results in a vote a Democrat. Sometimes that results in a vote for a Republican. What I believe is that, currently, Republicans on balance do a better job running the country at the state and federal level than Democrats. I've seen this first-hand with Governor Lingle, a Republican in a veto-proof majority Democrat legislature. She has completely changed the mindset of state government. From little things, like our State Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs becoming more people and business friendly, including calling consumers "customers," to big things like turning a $250 million budget deficit into a $730 million budget surplus. She has a different mindset: reduce expenses, be responsible, take care of the have nots, invest, take care of the business community, etc. It's that kind of mindset that I find more often with Republicans than Democrats today. Governor Lingle would make an excellent president, by the way.
I think one of things we should do is return as much power and money as possible back to the states, who should in turn give as much power as possible to counties and cities.
I didn't say selling defective products is a form of accountability. I simply acknowledged that this happens. The accountability comes into play with lawsuits, loss of revenue, and oversight by the government.
-
I support whomever is in the White House.
I believe that is my obligation
It is all so clear now.
we could have an adolf-stalin ticket, and you'd be cheerleading them.
You just undermined every defense of the white house you've ever made. You just admitted you'd defend someone who was outright wrong, because... you believe it's your obligation.
-
Somebody call animal control. There is a rabid Chihuahua that keeps following me around. :)
-
Somebody call animal control. There is a rabid Chihuahua that keeps following me around. :)
I am so glad you admitted your true belief today.
You don't support Bush. You support his office.
In 11 months, you'll be trumpeting the greatness of President Hilary or Obama or whoever else gets into office.
You have no original thought. You have no spine. You are a bandwagon political cheerleader.
I can't get annoyed at your inconsistent rhetoric (and lies) anymore because you're just parroting what the guy/gal in charge does.
You're Bill O Reilly :)
-
I am so glad you admitted your true belief today.
You don't support Bush. You support his office.
In 11 months, you'll be trumpeting the greatness of President Hilary or Obama or whoever else gets into office.
You have no original thought. You have no spine. You are a bandwagon political cheerleader.
I can't get annoyed at your inconsistent rhetoric (and lies) anymore because you're just parroting what the guy/gal in charge does.
You're Bill O Reilly :)
MELTDOWN ;D
-
It is all so clear now.
we could have an adolf-stalin ticket, and you'd be cheerleading them.
You just undermined every defense of the white house you've ever made. You just admitted you'd defend someone who was outright wrong, because... you believe it's your obligation.
I agree with 240. I support the presidency...whoever is in.
All I can say is...if they socialize medicine...say GOODBYE to doctors like me.
Mike
-
I agree with 240. I support the presidency...whoever is in.
All I can say is...if they socialize medicine...say GOODBYE to doctors like me.
Mike
Most modern countries have social healthcare and their doctors still drive mercedes , BMWs and have homes the size of shopping malls.
Would you go to canada? I may be there soon also.
-
I am so glad you admitted your true belief today.
You don't support Bush. You support his office.
In 11 months, you'll be trumpeting the greatness of President Hilary or Obama or whoever else gets into office.
You have no original thought. You have no spine. You are a bandwagon political cheerleader.
I can't get annoyed at your inconsistent rhetoric (and lies) anymore because you're just parroting what the guy/gal in charge does.
You're Bill O Reilly :)
It's ironic 240; that same criticism could have been launched at another fascist pig; namely YOU!
-
MELTDOWN ;D
lol. I get that a lot. :D I actually think it's cute that he hangs on my every typed word. :)
-
I agree with 240. I support the presidency...whoever is in.
All I can say is...if they socialize medicine...say GOODBYE to doctors like me.
Mike
That was me dawg. :)
Are you a doctor?
-
I agree, except Obama is white. :)
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Man, you ain't right. lol :D
-
As I stated earlier, government waste, inefficiency, and indifference are party neutral. I support whomever is in the White House. Unlike many partisans, I believe that is my obligation as an American citizen who loves his country.
I support candidates who I think will do the best job running the country. I make an independent decision in every election in this regard. Sometimes that results in a vote a Democrat. Sometimes that results in a vote for a Republican. What I believe is that, currently, Republicans on balance do a better job running the country at the state and federal level than Democrats. I've seen this first-hand with Governor Lingle, a Republican in a veto-proof majority Democrat legislature. She has completely changed the mindset of state government. From little things, like our State Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs becoming more people and business friendly, including calling consumers "customers," to big things like turning a $250 million budget deficit into a $730 million budget surplus. She has a different mindset: reduce expenses, be responsible, take care of the have nots, invest, take care of the business community, etc. It's that kind of mindset that I find more often with Republicans than Democrats today. Governor Lingle would make an excellent president, by the way.
I think one of things we should do is return as much power and money as possible back to the states, who should in turn give as much power as possible to counties and cities.
I didn't say selling defective products is a form of accountability. I simply acknowledged that this happens. The accountability comes into play with lawsuits, loss of revenue, and oversight by the government.
I agree with this entirely but only after government reigns in corporate dominance.
-
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Man, you ain't right. lol :D
;D He is a brotha this week. :D
-
;D He is a brotha this week. :D
ha hahahahaha
I can't believe folks were taking you seriously with that too. That made it even funnier.
-
Up until a couple of years ago, I followed a mostly Objectivist philosophy, derived from my reading of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, as well as the Randian Fantasy series, A Sword of Truth, by Terry Goodkind. I thought it was a good philosophy to follow, as I was searching for something during my early 20s.
A balance needs to be maintained via government and private enterprise. Can't have too much of either. I always hear that government is us, but so is private enterprise. Private companies exist in order to supply a service/product to meet consumer demand. If you fall into the category of not needing that particular service/product, than you do not need to shed your dollars to purchase it. Instead, you can go to a different company that offers a service/product that is good for you. With government, via taxes, my paycheck gets extracted(I've never paid taxes in my life, btw) so government can spend on what it deems to be necessary, even if it is contradictory to my wishes and doesn't serve any of my needs or wants. Besides, I thought this nation was built to be somewhat contradicting to total "mob rule?"
Ron Paul wants to dump the FDA, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Homeland Security, the CIA, the FAA, FEMA, and the IRS. All of these have shown to only compound problems, not solve them. Well, what has the FDA done but contradict what it was intended to do? Corruption, increased food poisoning incidents, and a recent rash of Ecoli among others. With the Department of Education and Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, public education has worsened. Why treat the problem with more and more bureaucracies? The old saying goes: "What happens when you stack a group of Geniuses together? You get a collective IQ of about 80."
-
I agree with 240. I support the presidency...whoever is in.
All I can say is...if they socialize medicine...say GOODBYE to doctors like me.
Mike
would you stop being a doctor and still live in the US or would you leave you leave the US and work as a doctor somewhere else? If so, where? just wondering.
-
Up until a couple of years ago, I followed a mostly Objectivist philosophy, derived from my reading of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, as well as the Randian Fantasy series, A Sword of Truth, by Terry Goodkind. I thought it was a good philosophy to follow, as I was searching for something during my early 20s.
A balance needs to be maintained via government and private enterprise. Can't have too much of either. I always hear that government is us, but so is private enterprise. Private companies exist in order to supply a service/product to meet consumer demand. If you fall into the category of not needing that particular service/product, than you do not need to shed your dollars to purchase it. Instead, you can go to a different company that offers a service/product that is good for you. With government, via taxes, my paycheck gets extracted(I've never paid taxes in my life, btw) so government can spend on what it deems to be necessary, even if it is contradictory to my wishes and doesn't serve any of my needs or wants. Besides, I thought this nation was built to be somewhat contradicting to total "mob rule?"
Ron Paul wants to dump the FDA, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Homeland Security, the CIA, the FAA, FEMA, and the IRS. All of these have shown to only compound problems, not solve them. Well, what has the FDA done but contradict what it was intended to do? Corruption, increased food poisoning incidents, and a recent rash of Ecoli among others. With the Department of Education and Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, public education has worsened. Why treat the problem with more and more bureaucracies? The old saying goes: "What happens when you stack a group of Geniuses together? You get a collective IQ of about 80."
Interesting analysis. I agree with part of this. Why haven't you ever paid taxes?