State of the Union 2010 thread

[metsguy234]

Go.

[President]

Don't act like you'll be watching it!:)

[metsguy234]

Don't act like you'll be watching it!:)

What?

[President]

I think the message was pretty clear

[metsguy234]

I always watch the President's speeches.

I will be watching this in its entirety.

[Jeffy25]

He annoys me too much to keep watching.

[ragecage]

Im not wearing my boots, so Im afraid I cant watch.

[haveacigar]

I just bought Mass Effect 2. My roommate is a huge fan of BHO, however, and will be using the TV. ****ing BHO, bad enough he's taking all my wealth, now he's socializing my xbox time too!!!

[Jeffy25]

I just bought Mass Effect 2. My roommate is a huge fan of BHO, however, and will be using the TV. ****ing BHO, bad enough he's taking all my wealth, now he's socializing my xbox time too!!!

hahahaa

[ragecage]

:)

[haveacigar]

Biden is gonna fall asleep. Calling it right now.

Do you think Joe Wilson is banned from attending?

[metsguy234]

Is Joe like a foot taller than Nancy?

[acetoolguy]

I'm just going to wait till its over and have the media tell me what I think.

[ragecage]

I'm just going to wait till its over and have the media tell me what I think.

Nice lol.

[SirKodiak]

I just bought Mass Effect 2. My roommate is a huge fan of BHO, however, and will be using the TV. ****ing BHO, bad enough he's taking all my wealth, now he's socializing my xbox time too!!!

Well, if they had not moved the SotU in order to not interfere with the first episode of the last season of Lost, you wouldn't have that problem...

[HoustonGM]

Well, if they had not moved the SotU in order to not interfere with the first episode of the last season of Lost, you wouldn't have that problem...
Did they really do that?

[ragecage]

Well, if they had not moved the SotU in order to not interfere with the first episode of the last season of Lost, you wouldn't have that problem...

That just about sums it up with us Americans doesnt it?

What is more important, A show that doesnt make any sense or the SotU.

Lets go with Lost. :rolleyes:

[DarthJaker]

LOL Obama's on....nah I'll watch Something more important like Duke-Florida State

[DarthJaker]

Oh State of Teh Union is Terrible

[HoustonGM]

And that, my friends, is the future of America.

[Jeffy25]

hahahahahaha

[SirKodiak]

Did they really do that?

http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&cf=all&ncl=dw1wT4eK3PBIOmM_jflmXeab2kD3M

[haveacigar]

And that, my friends, is the future of America.

What is, Jaker not caring about the SotU or moving the SotU to accommodate Lost? I thought that the SotU was always at 9, so I doubt they moved it for Lost.

And even if they did, honestly, I'm impressed. Everyone complains about the govt being out of touch with the people. The fact that they changed something because of a demonstrated will of the people is laudable. Isn't that the point of democracy? To do what people would like you do to?

[HoustonGM]

What is, Jaker not caring about the SotU or moving the SotU to accommodate Lost? I thought that the SotU was always at 9, so I doubt they moved it for Lost.
I was referring to Jaker saying that a college athletic event is "more important" and then this gibberish:

Oh State of Teh Union is Terrible

[DarthJaker]

I can't vote for pres till 2012 so i dont really care until we get a good prez in the WH Obama cost half the USA Jobs, Bush took us to war, Clinton had an afair

[HoustonGM]

Like I said, future of America.

[DarthJaker]

No Didn't That Clinton Guy lie under oath? And haven't u seen the South Park Episode? Obama is only in the WH for some Jewel from the Smithsoinian and Obama and McCain were on the same team they just wanted that Jewel.

[reflections]

Biden is gonna fall asleep. Calling it right now.

Do you think Joe Wilson is banned from attending?

Who wins in the octagon. Wilson or Obama?

[haveacigar]

Ok, Jaker is not the future of anything. It's not like he's ever going to vote on anything.

He is, what Kissinger might call, a "useless eater."

[HoustonGM]

Ok, Jaker is not the future of anything. It's not like he's ever going to vote on anything.

He is, what Kissinger might call, a "useless eater."
Future of America.

[haveacigar]

Who wins in the octagon. Wilson or Obama?

Tough question. Obama would have stamina issues with the smoking, and he probably wouldn't care as much as Wilson. But I think Obama has more raw athleticism. I'd take BHO.

[Jeffy25]

Overall, I care very little about politics.

But I still see Obama as a talker, not a do-er. Everything I have seen is he just talking about how terrible it is for the middle class, that he understands that, and reads letters everything from kids who are struggling. How shitty Bush was and how terrible of a mess he inherited....and then pushing the agenda that healthcare still needs to be reformed.....and yet.....I look at what he has done in the last year.....and it isn't any different than Obama just talking.

[HoustonGM]

Obama, himself, can't make most of this stuff happen. With Congress being a cluster****, there isn't much he can do.

[haveacigar]

Future of America.

Speak for yourself. I'm not exactly looking forward to the time that your Becker-loving, Chipotle-chowing self is in charge of anything.

[HoustonGM]

Speak for yourself. I'm not exactly looking forward to the time that your Becker-loving, Chipotle-chowing self is in charge of anything.
:D lol

[President]

Obama's a talented speaker

Pelosi in the background gets annoying

[Jeffy25]

Obama, himself, can't make most of this stuff happen. With Congress being a cluster****, there isn't much he can do.

then he can keep talking and make Americans feel all warm and fuzzy inside, while nothing gets done.....great

[Jeffy25]

Obama's a talented speaker

Pelosi in the background gets annoying

now, that is my least favorite politician.


Obama himself may annoy me, but I don't dislike him like I do Pelosi

[HoustonGM]

then he can keep talking and make Americans feel all warm and fuzzy inside, while nothing gets done.....great
Blame the government as a whole.

[Jeffy25]

Blame the government as a whole.

I do, as a whole I hate the gov't. Lessen it as a whole (not specific programs of course), and I will be much happier as an American.

[haveacigar]

It's not that simple. Yeah, Congress is way worse than Obama, but there ARE things he can do.

[President]

Pelosi makes me want to punch someone

God she's irritable

[SirKodiak]

What is, Jaker not caring about the SotU or moving the SotU to accommodate Lost? I thought that the SotU was always at 9, so I doubt they moved it for Lost.

And even if they did, honestly, I'm impressed. Everyone complains about the govt being out of touch with the people. The fact that they changed something because of a demonstrated will of the people is laudable. Isn't that the point of democracy? To do what people would like you do to?

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/obama/article/748514--when-it-comes-to-country-s-future-americans-would-rather-be-lost

Fans of the television show Lost can finally relax – it seems the U.S. president just might have his priorities straight after all.

Legions of "Losties" suffered a collective panic attack when it was announced President Barack Obama could possibly delay the annual State of the Union address until Feb. 2 – already slotted for the premiere of the sixth, and final, season of the popular drama about plane crash survivors on a mysterious Pacific island.

The news uncorked a deluge of Internet backlash.

On the Facebook group "Americans Against the State of the Union Address on the same night as LOST," one fan writes: "I have been waiting all freaking year. I can't wait for Lost another day!!! The State of the Union Address can wait!!!"

Another Lostie wonders why the White House can't be more accommodating and "just throw (Obama's address) on YouTube."

But it was on Twitter that Lost fans came out in legions. The micro-blogging site has been flooded with messages bearing the hash tag "#NoStateOfUnionFeb2."

"I want to know about the state of The Island, not the state of the union," wrote one outraged Twitterer. "@BarackObama I will never forgive you," tweeted another melancholy Lost fan.

On Friday, couch potatoes everywhere exhaled a huge sigh of relief when White House press secretary Robert Gibbs suggested a Feb. 2 date for the address was no longer in the running.

The revelation came during a White House press briefing, when an ABC reporter asked Gibbs whether Obama knew about the "Internet storm" caused by the potential scheduling conflict.

"I don't foresee a scenario in which millions of people that hope to finally get some conclusion in Lost are pre-empted by the president," Gibbs said, lightheartedly adding reporters were free to attribute his quote to a "senior administration official."

He would not say when the presidential address might actually be given. The State of the Union is typically delivered in late January, but some speculate Obama wants to ensure congressional Democrats finish their health-care bill before delivering his presidential speech.

In the Twitterverse, Lost fans crowed over their "victory" in the battle of Losties versus Barack Obama.

"LOST: 1 GOVERNMENT: 0 !!! Way to go LOSTIES!!!!!" wrote one jubilant fan.

"In one of the most sound decisions of his administration, the President has decided not to mess with the start of #LOST!" said Twitter user clarkw.

[Jeffy25]

It's not that simple. Yeah, Congress is way worse than Obama, but there ARE things he can do.

well he has one more year to get things done before the battle becomes much harder for him.

Let's see what he accomplishes in the next 12 months. If he is still treading water like he is now, he will be a do nothing President who was a big talker only.

[HoustonGM]

It's not that simple. Yeah, Congress is way worse than Obama, but there ARE things he can do.
Sure, but it's silly to lay a ton of blame on him for nothing getting done.

[Jeffy25]

Sure, but it's silly to lay a ton of blame on him for nothing getting done.

it's his job to make sure everything moves forward. Just like that article you shared with us about chemistry, how the CEO of UPS is in charge of the system.....it's the same thing. If Obama doesn't get things done, the blame falls on him.

You can pass authority, you can not pass on responsibility. Bush took the brunt of responsibility for things that happened during his administration that the American public disliked. If BHO doesn't get things done, he alone bears that same responsibility. If it doesn't get done, then he is the wrong guy for the job, or it's the wrong process to try to pass through.

[SirKodiak]

Sure, but it's silly to lay a ton of blame on him for nothing getting done.

Does that work for Bush too?

[Jeffy25]

Does that work for Bush too?

exactly what I said ;)

[HoustonGM]

Does that work for Bush too?
I don't blame Bush for getting nothing done, so, yes.

Obama can't pass healthcare reform, for example. I don't see how it's fair to lay the lion's share of the blame on him for that, when it's Congress pussy-footing around it.

[haveacigar]

Sure, but it's silly to lay a ton of blame on him for nothing getting done.

depends how you view the role of the President. If you take a classical perspective on an executive's duties, yeah, it's Congress' responsibility to create good laws and not on BHO. However, that hasn't been the accepted role of the President since Calvin Cooledge.

[free2131]

He got A LOT done. I agreed with about 0.9% of it. ;)

[haveacigar]

And yeah, the last thing you could say about GWB is that he didn't get things done. His problem was that he got bad things done, generally in ways that weren't constitutionally sound.

[haveacigar]

It's amazing that someone like me--who has spent 4 years studying the government, has worked in government, is attempting to work in government more, and will eventually spend 3 more years studying law and government--can care so little about a presidential speech. Alas, here I am. I haven't paid attention to a single thing he's said.

[SirKodiak]

I don't blame Bush for getting nothing done, so, yes.

Obama can't pass healthcare reform, for example. I don't see how it's fair to lay the lion's share of the blame on him for that, when it's Congress pussy-footing around it.

Do you blame him for what did get done?

[Jeffy25]

I don't blame Bush for getting nothing done, so, yes.

Obama can't pass healthcare reform, for example. I don't see how it's fair to lay the lion's share of the blame on him for that, when it's Congress pussy-footing around it.

Then either his majority in Congress doesn't agree with what he is trying to push through, or he isn't very good at getting people on his side (which would be surprising)....or he isn't a very good manager, capable of putting the right cogs in the right place to get it done.

It still falls on him, just like it did with Bush, and every other President before him. If it doesn't get done, the first head to roll is the guy on top. With great reward, comes a great call to action, and from a great call to action and high reward comes great responsibility. Don't take the job if you can't get things done successfully. Blame falls on him, unless he can get them to go through the wall for him.

That's a great way to gauge a successful manager....do they get people to walk through walls for them? Or do they have stalemates and scrutiny against them? If Congress isn't going through with his agenda, when he has the majority, it is very fair to point the finger and ask the question, why wasn't he able to get it done? Because it does land on him. In every notion.

[ragecage]

Watching it, Im glad he discussed the "Trust deficit," it looks like that notion fell on deaf ears on the GOP side though. :(

I never really doubted Obama's drive to get things done, its really tough to do when one side or the other doesnt even try to discuss and debate with each other. : /

[Jeffy25]

depends how you view the role of the President. If you take a classical perspective on an executive's duties, yeah, it's Congress' responsibility to create good laws and not on BHO. However, that hasn't been the accepted role of the President since Calvin Cooledge.

ya, that's pretty well how I view it....as you can tell from my posts.

[SirKodiak]

It's amazing that someone like me--who has spent 4 years studying the government, has worked in government, is attempting to work in government more, and will eventually spend 3 more years studying law and government--can care so little about a presidential speech. Alas, here I am. I haven't paid attention to a single thing he's said.

I'll outline it for ya (though I didn't watch it):
We are going to take less from you. We are going to spend more on you. The deficit is going to go down.

[Jeffy25]

Watching it, Im glad he discussed the "Trust deficit," it looks like that notion fell on deaf ears on the GOP side though. :(

I never really doubted Obama's drive to get things done, its really tough to do when one side or the other doesnt even try to discuss and debate with each other. : /

I still see/hear him bitching about the right side and playing petty political games. Of course, I wonder if we will ever have a President during our lifetime that won't play those games.

[HoustonGM]

Do you blame him for what did get done?
Yes, in conjunction with Congress. And if Obama passes bad bills, I'll blame him for those too.

I'm not saying that no blame whatsoever should be placed on him for the lack of action, but I don't think you can place the majority on him.


I never really doubted Obama's drive to get things done, its really tough to do when one side or the other doesnt even try to discuss and debate with each other.
This.

[ragecage]

I still see/hear him bitching about the right side and playing petty political games. Of course, I wonder if we will ever have a President during our lifetime that won't play those games.

They kind of are playing those games whether you believe it or not, and so is the other side. He mentioned its time to stop with that and he said both parties apply.

[SirKodiak]

Yes, in conjunction with Congress. And if Obama passes bad bills, I'll blame him for those too.

I'm not saying that no blame whatsoever should be placed on him for the lack of action, but I don't think you can place the majority on him.


This.

Are you saying a President carries more accountability for the things he gets done than the things he doesn't get done?

[Jeffy25]

They kind of are playing those games whether you believe it or not, and so is the other side. He mentioned its time to stop with that and he said both parties apply.

I just question if that will ever actually happen.

I think it would be hard to be a true professional in politics and not get into that game of they do this, we don't, we are great, they are bad types of games.


I def heard plenty of comments from him that talk about how shitty of a job Bush did and how terrible the right side is....followed by applause. Makes me wonder how sincere he is when he says what you just said.

[HoustonGM]

Are you saying a President carries more accountability for the things he gets done than the things he doesn't get done?
In a way, yes. Depends on what the "thing" is. Something that needs to get through Congress, I don't think the lion share's of the blame should be on the President if it doesn't get through.... but if it does get through and gets to his desk, it's his responsibility to make sure it's good before signing it into law.

[ragecage]

I just question if that will ever actually happen.

I think it would be hard to be a true professional in politics and not get into that game of they do this, we don't, we are great, they are bad types of games.


I def heard plenty of comments from him that talk about how shitty of a job Bush did and how terrible the right side is....followed by applause. Makes me wonder how sincere he is when he says what you just said.

I think your Republican ties are kind of exaggerating what hes saying. Im neutral here and listening to what hes saying is quite true. He didnt arrive into the office with a surplus and we are in a financial crisis.

Some shots taken? Yes I see that, but deservedly so, we need leadership and the GOP needs to quit sitting on their ass saying No and step up and bring ideas to the table.

[ragecage]

Anywho, I really hope that something can be done about the clarity in politics like Obama discussed. That would be great, and that and employment are my top 2 things.

[SirKodiak]

In a way, yes. Depends on what the "thing" is. Something that needs to get through Congress, I don't think the lion share's of the blame should be on the President if it doesn't get through.... but if it does get through and gets to his desk, it's his responsibility to make sure it's good before signing it into law.

I see things differently. I don't see the President as just a bill-signer. I believe he has the responsibility to do everything in his power to see that his policies (relative to their importance) are put into effect. If he does everything in his power and fails, then you have to look at why (Congress, poor leadership, bad policy, etc). If he does not do everything in his power and fails, then I don't believe there is any need to look at why.

[HoustonGM]

I see things differently. I don't see the President as just a bill-signer. I believe he has the responsibility to do everything in his power to see that his policies (relative to their importance) are put into effect. If he does everything in his power and fails, then you have to look at why (Congress, poor leadership, bad policy, etc). If he does not do everything in his power and fails, then I don't believe there is any need to look at why.
Oh, yeah, I definitely get that... Like I said, I'm not saying he's completely free from blame... just that I don't think it's fair to lay the blame completely (or mostly) at his feet when we have a numbskull Congress like we do that wouldn't be able to agree on the color of the sky.

[JamesMogul]

What. A. Speech.

I have lots of optimism about 2010 :)

[Jeffy25]

What. A. Speech.

I have lots of optimism about 2010 :)

and didn't everyone in 09?



but he didn't do anything.









sorry, i need to take my stabs elsewhere. Just irritated.

[guidi2009]

it's his job to make sure everything moves forward. Just like that article you shared with us about chemistry, how the CEO of UPS is in charge of the system.....it's the same thing. If Obama doesn't get things done, the blame falls on him.

You can pass authority, you can not pass on responsibility. Bush took the brunt of responsibility for things that happened during his administration that the American public disliked. If BHO doesn't get things done, he alone bears that same responsibility. If it doesn't get done, then he is the wrong guy for the job, or it's the wrong process to try to pass through.

Bush's responsibility that you speak of was left undone. 2 wars and the economy, not enough for you for Obama to deal with?

[filihok]

And that, my friends, is the future of America.

Don't forget the present of America. And the future with a bakers dozen of kids to keep up the legacy


He annoys me too much to keep watching.

[Jeffy25]

love the cheap shot.

expected you to actually openly argue with the above points with something other than kindergarten humor.

[filihok]

love the cheap shot.

expected you to actually openly argue with the above points with something other than kindergarten humor.

Once you make a point, I'll argue. ;)

[Jeffy25]

Once you make a point, I'll argue. ;)

I believe I made enough points in this thread already.

[Arctic Blast]

(sigh) Jaker, get back in here and share more of your...'wisdom'!

[filihok]

I believe I made enough points in this thread already.

Well, I first responded to the first point (post) you made.

So your point is that the president is ultimately responsible for what happens under his watch. He needs to rally YOUR elected representatives to vote for what he wants. Your representatives should vote based on what you want. When the POTUS comes to them and asks them to vote for, say, Health Care reform they need to balance what he is saying vs what their constituents are saying. But, you find Obama 'annoying' so you wont listen to what he is saying. How can your representatives know how you feel about an issue that Obama is pushing when you don't pay attention?

We the people, baby!

[Jeffy25]

Well, I first responded to the first point (post) you made.

So your point is that the president is ultimately responsible for what happens under his watch. He needs to rally YOUR elected representatives to vote for what he wants. Your representatives should vote based on what you want. When the POTUS comes to them and asks them to vote for, say, Health Care reform they need to balance what he is saying vs what their constituents are saying. But, you find Obama 'annoying' so you wont listen to what he is saying. How can your representatives know how you feel about an issue that Obama is pushing when you don't pay attention?

We the people, baby!

There we go! Good point!

and I said I couldn't watch it, but I did.

Regardless, I was looking for the heat from ya fili ;)

[ragecage]

Well I want to say again about what he mentioned during part of his speech. Unity, the Congress needs to work together (both sides) and decide what to do about things.

He jokingly mocked the Republican side but he made his point clear when he said basically that they came up with a Reform Bill for Healthcare, if its not good enough than please give him something, anything that would be better or an idea.

I dont know correct me if I am wrong, but the GOP hasnt had any ideas. Thats whats discouraging about the whole deal and its been going on to long, one side has an idea that might actually help and the other shoots it down and doesnt present an alternative.

[Alloutwar]

Republicans: party of no ideas
Democrats: party of bad ideas

Lewis Black had it pegged years and years ago

[TheNamelessPoet]

I just bought Mass Effect 2. My roommate is a huge fan of BHO, however, and will be using the TV. ****ing BHO, bad enough he's taking all my wealth, now he's socializing my xbox time too!!!that explains why u left after 1 game of Catan :D


Speak for yourself. I'm not exactly looking forward to the time that your Becker-loving, Chipotle-chowing self is in charge of anything.you liked becker!!!
funny rage and HAC and I were talkin about that yesterday :p


then he can keep talking and make Americans feel all warm and fuzzy inside, while nothing gets done.....greatdont most polititions


It's amazing that someone like me--who has spent 4 years studying the government, has worked in government, is attempting to work in government more, and will eventually spend 3 more years studying law and government--can care so little about a presidential speech. Alas, here I am. I haven't paid attention to a single thing he's said.its probably lies anyway

[dickay]

I'm going to she so much fun with this thread after a business meeting today. I haven't read but I hear the ap has killed this speach with fact check. Shocker of the young decade eh? Lol

[TheNamelessPoet]

so what did he actual say that I care about? my roomate wanted to watch it on my tv and I refused, I watched the top 50 prospects instead

[ragecage]

I'm going to she so much fun with this thread after a business meeting today. I haven't read but I hear the ap has killed this speach with fact check. Shocker of the young decade eh? Lol

Yeah I read the fact checking last nite. Who do I wish to believe the government or the media? Tough call.

[Jeffy25]

Republicans: party of no ideas
Democrats: party of bad ideas

Lewis Black had it pegged years and years ago

That's pretty good actually.

I still stand by my own personal view point. It hasn't changed much over the years in general, even though my views on most things have.

Democrats = pussies
Republicans = dicks


and now I will leave you with a Team American Quote


We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an a$$hole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fu(ked by dicks. But dicks also fu(k assholes: assholes that just want to $hit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can Fu(k an a$$hole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fu(k too much or fu(k when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of $hit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fu(k this a$$hole we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in $hit

Now, do you want to be the dick? or the pussy?

[Tannhauser]

What does that Team America quote have anything to do with the current situation we're in???

I mean with regards to Iran and DPRK, yeah . . . but what else???

[metsguy234]

So I fell asleep around 9:45 with the speech on.

Did anything crazy happen after that?

[Jeffy25]

What does that Team America quote have anything to do with the current situation we're in???

I mean with regards to Iran and DPRK, yeah . . . but what else???

In context that Republicans are dicks, Democrats are pussies...and it works for how foreign affairs are approached, as well as internal domestic affairs seem to work in this country.

It's obviously a generalization.

[Tannhauser]

And a poor one at that . . .

[ragecage]

I prefer the two bowls of **** reference to the parties.

[Jeffy25]

you must be a Republican.

[metsguy234]

I prefer the two bowls of **** reference to the parties.

The two-party system is fine. It represents the two major viewpoints of Americans. If a fringe party wants to make it in though, then they can be my guest.

[Jeffy25]

The two-party system is fine. It represents the two major viewpoints of Americans. If a fringe party wants to make it in though, then they can be my guest.

They have only been trying since the Whig party.

[ragecage]

The two-party system is fine. It represents the two major viewpoints of Americans. If a fringe party wants to make it in though, then they can be my guest.

They might tell you that, but thats not what they are about. Really youre a kid and youre Metsguy, dont expect you to get it, when you are in adult land there is a lot of bad going on with a lot of people.

When the same parties have held power for so long and the times are like the way they are today, shitty, well look to no other than the two bowls of **** parties making it possible.

[BenFink]

A third party is a tough, tough proposition. Often times a third party is more related to one of the two mains parties than the other, and only succeeds in taking votes away from the party closer aligned to it, thereby defeating the purpose of it. (See: election of 1912)

In the election of 1912 we had three major presidential parties running: The democrats, the republicans and the progressives. The progressives were led by Teddy Roosevelt, a republican. So basically all he did was be republican-ish and split the republican vote in half, giving Woodrow Wilson and the democrats and easy victory.

[metsguy234]

They might tell you that, but thats not what they are about. Really youre a kid and youre Metsguy, dont expect you to get it, when you are in adult land there is a lot of bad going on with a lot of people.

When the same parties have held power for so long and the times are like the way they are today, shitty, well look to no other than the two bowls of **** parties making it possible.

Well we can't force third parties into prominence.

[ragecage]

Well we can't force third parties into prominence.

Thats not what I was saying. Im saying the two parties we have in office are shitty.

[Jeffy25]

A third party is a tough, tough proposition. Often times a third party is more related to one of the two mains parties than the other, and only succeeds in taking votes away from the party closer aligned to it, thereby defeating the purpose of it. (See: election of 1912)

In the election of 1912 we had three major presidential parties running: The democrats, the republicans and the progressives. The progressives were led by Teddy Roosevelt, a republican. So basically all he did was be republican-ish and split the republican vote in half, giving Woodrow Wilson and the democrats and easy victory.

yup, poor Teddy...would have probably had a good second run, but it could have potentially cost him some of his notoriety.

[guidi2009]

Third parties have no chance in the USA at all. That will remain until voting is overhauled, particularly run off elections. local elections are other story of course.

[Jeffy25]

Third parties have no chance in the USA at all. That will remain until voting is overhauled, particularly run off elections. local elections are other story of course.


and it would take a series of local elections of a new "concept" to take over...and even then, I don't see how a third party is really going to be able to separate itself from the current two. There will be similarities on many many issues...

It would be hard....and the intention can not be only to break up the powers that be.


What I could see happening, is a new version of each party coming through over the years. More liberal styled Republicans or more conservative styled Democrats.

[BenFink]

The only way for a third party to make a difference is to do well in local elections, gain national notoriety and have one of the two main parties add their stance to their platform.

[BenFink]

The reason you see so many parties in other countries is more cooperation and the parliamentary system.

[haveacigar]

Actually, the real reason you see more parties in other countries is that they run more narrow platforms which allow for more than two sides. The parties in the US really stand for like their entire side of the left-right spectrum. It's also the main reason they suck; they stand for everything so a good chunk of the party has absolutely nothing in common.

[free2131]

So I fell asleep around 9:45 with the speech on.

Did anything crazy happen after that?

Obama busted out a few 40's, then him and Biden got sh!t faced and tag teamed Helen Thomas.

[OregonDuck1989]

Obama busted out a few 40's, then him and Biden got sh!t faced and tag teamed Helen Thomas.

Best. State of the Union. Ever.

[Pete4256]

With companies now allowed to back anyone they want ... maybe now we can get something other than a f***ing Lawyer in Washington.

That's really problem gentlemen, you get a business owner running the show and things will turn around.

[Jeffy25]

With companies now allowed to back anyone they want ... maybe now we can get something other than a f***ing Lawyer in Washington.

That's really problem gentlemen, you get a business owner running the show and things will turn around.

Agree, big ****ing time!


Someone other than Ross Perot of course.

[metsguy234]

With companies now allowed to back anyone they want ... maybe now we can get something other than a f***ing Lawyer in Washington.

That's really problem gentlemen, you get a business owner running the show and things will turn around.

Woo corporate CEOs in politics! This is gonna be awesome! Everything is gonna come up roses now!

[Jeffy25]

Woo corporate CEOs in politics! This is gonna be awesome! Everything is gonna come up roses now!

sure would eliminate some of that wasteful spending.

And CEO's and business owners are not synonymous with each other

[metsguy234]

sure would eliminate some of that wasteful spending.

And CEO's and business owners are not synonymous with each other

The caps that were previously in place allowed for any business to donate pretty large amounts to campaigns. The removal of the caps allows companies like Exxon-Mobil to buy their agendas into office if they so please.

And CEOs don't spend wastefully? lol... look at the Wall Street bonuses

[Jeffy25]

An efficiency expert in the white house would probably do us a lot of good. Not all business owners are corrupt/selfish.

all lawyers suck..........sorry HAC.

[guidi2009]

An efficiency expert in the white house would probably do us a lot of good. Not all business owners are corrupt/selfish.

all lawyers suck..........sorry HAC.

First there is no literal person that would be in the white house doing a job, I think you dont understand what this means.


So a company like Haliburton can influence our government even more now to serve its own self interests and you think this helps the country?

The average citizen just lost power with this and corporations gained, this is good how?

[Jeffy25]

First there is no literal person that would be in the white house doing a job, I think you dont understand what this means.


So a company like Haliburton can influence our government even more now to serve its own self interests and you think this helps the country?

The average citizen just lost power with this and corporations gained, this is good how?

sigh....quit grouping all corporations as 'evil'.

You want to give the people the power? Then take it away from the gov't.

If our President was someone who believed in a small gov't, cared about gov't spending and limited it in many ways would allow the people the ability to spend their non taxed dollars and get a healthy economy going.

Not all corporations are evil, I wish the generalizations would stop.

[metsguy234]

First there is no literal person that would be in the white house doing a job, I think you dont understand what this means.


So a company like Haliburton can influence our government even more now to serve its own self interests and you think this helps the country?

The average citizen just lost power with this and corporations gained, this is good how?

What's best for Exxon-Mobil is what's best for America.








:rolleyes:

[Jeffy25]

What's best for Exxon-Mobil is what's best for America.








:rolleyes:

well of course, the 25,000 employed because of them doing good business sure is bad for America :rolleyes:


Everyone bitches about wanting more jobs, yet you think the gov't is the one's to give them out......


The better a company does, the more they can serve. The more they can serve and give good, competive prices to, the better they are for America....especially when they are able to employ so many.

[kenny1234]

all lawyers suck..........sorry HAC.



Not all corporations are evil, I wish the generalizations would stop.
You first.;)

[guidi2009]

sigh....quit grouping all corporations as 'evil'.

You want to give the people the power? Then take it away from the gov't.

If our President was someone who believed in a small gov't, cared about gov't spending and limited it in many ways would allow the people the ability to spend their non taxed dollars and get a healthy economy going.

Not all corporations are evil, I wish the generalizations would stop.

I have no problem with a business person taking up politics as long as he doesn't break the law and still work for his company while in office. But thats not what this new law is about is it?

btw you should start supporting a third party because the Republicans have proved time and time again that they like big government even more then the democrats. They just cut taxes and spend more, as a business owner what do you think is more responsible?

[guidi2009]

With companies now allowed to back anyone they want ... maybe now we can get something other than a f***ing Lawyer in Washington.

That's really problem gentlemen, you get a business owner running the show and things will turn around.

Examples please

[guidi2009]

Year GDP-US
$ billion Total Spending-total
pct GDP
1903 25.9 6.80
1904 25.7 7.28
1905 28.8 6.89
1906 31 6.81
1907 33.9 6.61
1908 30.1 7.90
1909 32.2 7.84
1910 33.4 8.03
1911 34.3 8.31
1912 37.4 8.09
1913 39.1 8.22
1914 36.5 9.55
1915 38.7 9.80
1916 49.6 8.22
1917 59.7 9.49
1918 75.8 22.12
1919 78.3 29.38
1920 88.4 12.81
1921 73.6 14.31
1922 73.4 12.67
1923 85.4 11.27
1924 86.9 11.49
1925 90.6 11.44
1926 96.9 11.12
1927 95.5 11.75
1928 97.4 11.75
1929 103.6 11.27
1930 91.2 13.07
1931 76.5 15.92
1932 58.7 21.19
1933 56.4 22.38
1934 66 19.40
1935 73.3 20.17
1936 83.8 20.00
1937 91.9 18.74
1938 86.1 20.53
1939 92.2 20.66
1940 101.4 20.14
1941 126.7 19.22
1942 161.9 28.15
1943 198.6 46.68
1944 219.8 50.02
1945 223.1 52.97
1946 222.3 35.86
1947 244.2 23.64
1948 269.2 20.46
1949 267.3 23.46
1950 293.8 23.94
1951 339.3 22.38
1952 358.3 27.88
1953 379.4 29.01
1954 380.4 29.27
1955 414.8 26.69
1956 437.5 26.47
1957 461.1 27.21
1958 467.2 28.84
1959 506.6 28.77
1960 526.4 28.74
1961 544.7 30.26
1962 585.6 28.94
1963 617.7 28.71
1964 663.6 28.50
1965 719.1 26.96
1966 787.8 27.45
1967 832.6 29.79
1968 910 30.46
1969 984.6 30.07
1970 1038.5 30.99
1971 1127.1 31.48
1972 1238.3 31.35
1973 1382.7 29.77
1974 1500 30.22
1975 1638.3 33.60
1976 1825.3 33.98
1977 2030.9 32.90
1978 2294.7 32.01
1979 2563.3 31.57
1980 2789.5 33.71
1981 3128.4 33.62
1982 3255 36.23
1983 3536.7 36.29
1984 3933.2 34.42
1985 4220.3 35.46
1986 4462.8 35.69
1987 4739.5 35.07
1988 5103.8 34.71
1989 5484.4 34.92
1990 5803.1 36.00
1991 5995.9 37.20
1992 6337.7 37.07
1993 6657.4 36.36
1994 7072.2 35.45
1995 7397.7 35.62
1996 7816.9 34.79
1997 8304.3 33.88
1998 8679.66 33.68
1999 9201.14 33.19
2000 9749.1 33.24
2001 10058.2 34.14
2002 10398.4 35.56
2003 10886.2 36.11
2004 11607 35.56
2005 12339 35.68
2006 13090.8 35.93
2007 13715.7 35.90
2008 14165.6 37.82
2009 14240.2 46.22
2010 14728.8 43.47

[Jeffy25]

You first.;)

Oh I know, I have just never met a lawyer that didn't suck ass. However, I have met several business owners that are great.

[Jeffy25]

Year GDP-US
$ billion Total Spending-total
pct GDP
1903 25.9 6.80
1904 25.7 7.28
1905 28.8 6.89
1906 31 6.81
1907 33.9 6.61
1908 30.1 7.90
1909 32.2 7.84
1910 33.4 8.03
1911 34.3 8.31
1912 37.4 8.09
1913 39.1 8.22
1914 36.5 9.55
1915 38.7 9.80
1916 49.6 8.22
1917 59.7 9.49
1918 75.8 22.12
1919 78.3 29.38
1920 88.4 12.81
1921 73.6 14.31
1922 73.4 12.67
1923 85.4 11.27
1924 86.9 11.49
1925 90.6 11.44
1926 96.9 11.12
1927 95.5 11.75
1928 97.4 11.75
1929 103.6 11.27
1930 91.2 13.07
1931 76.5 15.92
1932 58.7 21.19
1933 56.4 22.38
1934 66 19.40
1935 73.3 20.17
1936 83.8 20.00
1937 91.9 18.74
1938 86.1 20.53
1939 92.2 20.66
1940 101.4 20.14
1941 126.7 19.22
1942 161.9 28.15
1943 198.6 46.68
1944 219.8 50.02
1945 223.1 52.97
1946 222.3 35.86
1947 244.2 23.64
1948 269.2 20.46
1949 267.3 23.46
1950 293.8 23.94
1951 339.3 22.38
1952 358.3 27.88
1953 379.4 29.01
1954 380.4 29.27
1955 414.8 26.69
1956 437.5 26.47
1957 461.1 27.21
1958 467.2 28.84
1959 506.6 28.77
1960 526.4 28.74
1961 544.7 30.26
1962 585.6 28.94
1963 617.7 28.71
1964 663.6 28.50
1965 719.1 26.96
1966 787.8 27.45
1967 832.6 29.79
1968 910 30.46
1969 984.6 30.07
1970 1038.5 30.99
1971 1127.1 31.48
1972 1238.3 31.35
1973 1382.7 29.77
1974 1500 30.22
1975 1638.3 33.60
1976 1825.3 33.98
1977 2030.9 32.90
1978 2294.7 32.01
1979 2563.3 31.57
1980 2789.5 33.71
1981 3128.4 33.62
1982 3255 36.23
1983 3536.7 36.29
1984 3933.2 34.42
1985 4220.3 35.46
1986 4462.8 35.69
1987 4739.5 35.07
1988 5103.8 34.71
1989 5484.4 34.92
1990 5803.1 36.00
1991 5995.9 37.20
1992 6337.7 37.07
1993 6657.4 36.36
1994 7072.2 35.45
1995 7397.7 35.62
1996 7816.9 34.79
1997 8304.3 33.88
1998 8679.66 33.68
1999 9201.14 33.19
2000 9749.1 33.24
2001 10058.2 34.14
2002 10398.4 35.56
2003 10886.2 36.11
2004 11607 35.56
2005 12339 35.68
2006 13090.8 35.93
2007 13715.7 35.90
2008 14165.6 37.82
2009 14240.2 46.22
2010 14728.8 43.47

so you proved that it has increased similar to the same level of inflation? What a surprise!

[BenFink]

well of course, the 25,000 employed because of them doing good business sure is bad for America :rolleyes:

Could we try to have a thread which has anything remotely to do with business where you don't just say that businesses that hire a lot of people are inherently not bad. Please.




That's really problem gentlemen, you get a business owner running the show and things will turn around.

This doesn't make any sense.



Also, your signature is fairly ignorant. I suggest you change it.

[Jeffy25]

I have no problem with a business person taking up politics as long as he doesn't break the law and still work for his company while in office. But thats not what this new law is about is it?

btw you should start supporting a third party because the Republicans have proved time and time again that they like big government even more then the democrats. They just cut taxes and spend more, as a business owner what do you think is more responsible?

I am a very small gov't Republican and business owner. It doesn't mean that I agree with whatever one else does that is claimed as a Republican etc.

[Jeffy25]

Could we try to have a thread which has anything remotely to do with business where you don't just say that businesses that hire a lot of people are inherently not bad. Please.





This doesn't make any sense.



Also, your signature is fairly ignorant. I suggest you change it.

How is his signature ignorant? He stated two facts. Sorry if you don't like them. And that isn't what I say. But if that is how you want to sum it, than I am sorry that is how you view it. But libs want to ***** about how they want jobs for the people, but the ones that provide jobs are corporations. You can't just hate businesses and expect to have jobs.....unless you want to live in a communist state.

[guidi2009]

What can we learn from the spending chart above.

1. The most obvious is that spending goes up during war time and economy hardships.

Spending in 1918 doubled as ww1 hit, then went back down after the war

in 29 When the depression hit spending increases every year by around 2-5% per year as the nation tried to get out of it.

ww2 spending more than doubled then came down again

bump ups for Vietnam and Korea and post 9/11. First Iraq war didn't cost us much cause the spending was already there for that minor war.

Then for the first time in history we have war and economic hardships. War has always took us out of economic problems in the past so now we have the most spending in history during the last year. Much of the 2009 spending was emergency spending enacted by Bush.

OK so lets take war and economic hardships out of the question, does anyone see any difference between Republican and Democrat? lets look at four peace time Presidents in modern times average spending

Carter 32.55
Reagen 35.18
Bush Sr 36.30
Clinton 34.53

So Jeffy where are your small government republicans? they are a myth, they dont exist

[BenFink]

Because it's a perversion of facts used to somehow be against Obama. Facts are facts, the application of facts make all the difference.

Saying that:


Jan 25, 2010- Gas @ $2.53
Unemployment @ 10.0%

Remember GW's last days when:
----------------------------------------------
Dec. 31, 2008— Gas @ $1.61
Unemployment @ 6.9% (we all had jobs)


is an extremely ignorant way to be against Obama.


Also, a combination of small businesses provide the same amount of jobs as a corporation. It's not like people were unemployed before wal-mart came along... but this debate has been in enough threads.

[Arctic Blast]

How is his signature ignorant? He stated two facts. Sorry if you don't like them. And that isn't what I say. But if that is how you want to sum it, than I am sorry that is how you view it. But libs want to ***** about how they want jobs for the people, but the ones that provide jobs are corporations. You can't just hate businesses and expect to have jobs.....unless you want to live in a communist state.

Gee...I dunno. Maybe because most of those jobs are in China he talks about at the end came about because previously US-based corporations closed up shop domestically, moved over to China where they can get people working for 33 cents an hour, and helped add to the massive trade deficit the US is embroiled in?

Of course, I'm SURE that such things ONLY happened under Clinton and Obama...

[guidi2009]

so you proved that it has increased similar to the same level of inflation? What a surprise!

might look that way if you only glance at it without thinking...yeah

[Jeffy25]

OK so lets take war and economic hardships out of the question, does anyone see any difference between Republican and Democrat? lets look at four peace time Presidents in modern times average spending

Carter 32.55
Reagen 35.18
Bush Sr 36.30
Clinton 34.53

So Jeffy where are your small government republicans? they are a myth, they dont exist

and who is taxing the most during this spending? How are Americans doing during these times of heavy spending?

And they do exist, I would be one. It doesn't mean that the elected conservative Presidents are people that agree with me.

[Jeffy25]

Gee...I dunno. Maybe because most of those jobs are in China he talks about at the end came about because previously US-based corporations closed up shop domestically, moved over to China where they can get people working for 33 cents an hour, and helped add to the massive trade deficit the US is embroiled in?

Of course, I'm SURE that such things ONLY happened under Clinton and Obama...

Wasn't saying it had anything to do with the President or what the president wanted.

I also never said that I hated Clinton and Obama and magically like all Republican Presidents.

[guidi2009]

sigh....quit grouping all corporations as 'evil'.

You want to give the people the power? Then take it away from the gov't.

If our President was someone who believed in a small gov't, cared about gov't spending and limited it in many ways would allow the people the ability to spend their non taxed dollars and get a healthy economy going.

Not all corporations are evil, I wish the generalizations would stop.

OK so now you want to talk about taxes? this was the post I was responding to. You gave the text book republican speech about gov spending. I just wanted you to know that in reality there is little difference between the two parties, the only difference is when all things are equal Conservative Republicans spend a little more than democrats, not a lot of people know this because of the lies, but now you know. So when you say Obama spends to much you should really say all modern day Presidents including Reagen spent to much to my liking. Now we can talk about taxes if you wish.

Also lets remember where the massive amount of our spending goes to . The military. So I dont even want to hear about cutting government unless you talk of cutting the military drastically. That chart has nothing to do with inflation and we can get back to pre ww2 spending, but are you as a Conservative ready to give up the military presence we have around the world? I know I am.

[Jeffy25]

Actually, I believe the role of the gov't should be, provide roads, military, police, fire, protection for the people, and that is really it. So the military is one of the only things I think the gov't should be spending a heavy percentage of tax dollars on.

[haveacigar]

There are plenty of lawyers not equipped to handle executive government. Same can be said for business owners. BHO is a lawyer and really isn't doing particularly well. GWB was a business owner (albeit a bad one) and he was a disaster. The governor of Michigan, Granholm is a lawyer and is also a disaster.

I will say that now is probably a good time for some fiscal conservativism. Gimme a call when the Reps bother to nominate one.

[Jeffy25]

There are plenty of lawyers not equipped to handle executive government. Same can be said for business owners. BHO is a lawyer and really isn't doing particularly well. GWB was a business owner (albeit a bad one) and he was a disaster. The governor of Michigan, Granholm is a lawyer and is also a disaster.

I will say that now is probably a good time for some fiscal conservativism. Gimme a call when the Reps bother to nominate one.

Tell me if you can find a good one that is actually willing to be in politics. Because I don't see any that the Republicans are sending out there. I would rather have our local mayor try his hand at President than what the Republicans have been trying to pass through.

[OregonDuck1989]

Tell me if you can find a good one that is actually willing to be in politics. Because I don't see any that the Republicans are sending out there. I would rather have our local mayor try his hand at President than what the Republicans have been trying to pass through.

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

But he loses Republican primaries...or rather Scott McInnis "convinces" him that he will not win the primary so he drops out.

All of the fiscal conservative speech is spoken like true moderates. All we want is to live our days without fear of losing our jobs or getting blown up by a nuclear bomb. We don't want the government telling us what doctors we can go to and what doctors we can't. We don't want the government telling us what age is perfectly acceptable to drive or drink. What we want is for the government to do it's job without ruining ours.



But we are informed. And we are disillusioned. And a lot of us...don't vote. So we get stupid heads.

[Jeffy25]

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

But he loses Republican primaries...or rather Scott McInnis "convinces" him that he will not win the primary so he drops out.

All of the fiscal conservative speech is spoken like true moderates. All we want is to live our days without fear of losing our jobs or getting blown up by a nuclear bomb. We don't want the government telling us what doctors we can go to and what doctors we can't. We don't want the government telling us what age is perfectly acceptable to drive or drink. What we want is for the government to do it's job without ruining ours.



But we are informed. And we are disillusioned. And a lot of us...don't vote. So we get stupid heads.

well said my friend.

[haveacigar]

Problem is, every election devolves into BS social issues that really don't have any affect on the nation's health. Abortion and gay marriage impact lives, but, they don't have necessarily have to. The important issues, the economy, corporate regulation, education, impact the whole of the nation at all times. But we don't ask questions about those things during primary and presidential races. And when we do, when don't bother to remember the answers.

I don't think Mitt Romney is the greatest candidate ever, but I know he's got a lot more business working the economy than McCain. But what happened? Lost the primary because McCain did a better job to pandering to the base. I know Hillary would've done a better job than BHO. She lost the primary because the Dems were afraid that a strong female leader would be perceived to be too much of a ***** to be electable, compared to the young minority who made everyone feel good about voting for the guy.

[OregonDuck1989]

Problem is, every election devolves into BS social issues that really don't have any affect on the nation's health. Abortion and gay marriage impact lives, but, they don't have necessarily have to. The important issues, the economy, corporate regulation, education, impact the whole of the nation at all times. But we don't ask questions about those things during primary and presidential races. And when we do, when don't bother to remember the answers.

I don't think Mitt Romney is the greatest candidate ever, but I know he's got a lot more business working the economy than McCain. But what happened? Lost the primary because McCain did a better job to pandering to the base. I know Hillary would've done a better job than BHO. She lost the primary because the Dems were afraid that a strong female leader would be perceived to be too much of a ***** to be electable, compared to the young minority who made everyone feel good about voting for the guy.

When it comes to elections, everyone in politics has figured out the American people don't think ahead a lot. Especially when it comes to their own party.

A lot of times they just want to see a R or a D in the White House or political office so bad that they just go with the most electable instead of the most qualified.

[Jeffy25]

Problem is, every election devolves into BS social issues that really don't have any affect on the nation's health. Abortion and gay marriage impact lives, but, they don't have necessarily have to. The important issues, the economy, corporate regulation, education, impact the whole of the nation at all times. But we don't ask questions about those things during primary and presidential races. And when we do, when don't bother to remember the answers.

I don't think Mitt Romney is the greatest candidate ever, but I know he's got a lot more business working the economy than McCain. But what happened? Lost the primary because McCain did a better job to pandering to the base. I know Hillary would've done a better job than BHO. She lost the primary because the Dems were afraid that a strong female leader would be perceived to be too much of a ***** to be electable, compared to the young minority who made everyone feel good about voting for the guy.

each party only cares about getting their guy elected....so they obviously will only send out whoever they think has the best chance of appealing to the most people. I agree with everything you said.

[haveacigar]

When it comes to elections, everyone in politics has figured out the American people don't think ahead a lot. Especially when it comes to their own party.

A lot of times they just want to see a R or a D in the White House or political office so bad that they just go with the most electable instead of the most qualified.

Yup. A relic from the days when party bosses controlled things. In those days the actual president didn't matter because the party agenda would come from outside and be pushed through the legislature anyways. President just needed to avoid ****ing things up.

Now we're in the situation where we only nominate people because they are electable rather than qualified, and then once they win we pretend that they were elected on qualifications and treat them accordingly.

[Jeffy25]

That would be the young, likable Senator elected from Illinois this time around ;)

[OregonDuck1989]

The interesting thing about the election of BHO was that it was, for the first time in 8 years, a well run election by the Dems and a poorly run election by Republicans.

From the selection of Palin as the VP on, it was bad news for the Republicans and even though this young, likable, well spoken, inspiring, minority senator from Illinois stormed in and won the primaries with all the momentum in the world, it was the Republicans poorly run final months that ultimately sealed their own fate in the general election.

[Jeffy25]

yup

[OregonDuck1989]

All I know is, even the third parties put up bad candidates, imo.

Bob Barr? BOB BARR? THE GUY FROM BORAT? REALLY? Libertarians...

[haveacigar]

The interesting thing about the election of BHO was that it was, for the first time in 8 years, a well run election by the Dems and a poorly run election by Republicans.

From the selection of Palin as the VP on, it was bad news for the Republicans and even though this young, likable, well spoken, inspiring, minority senator from Illinois stormed in and won the primaries with all the momentum in the world, it was the Republicans poorly run final months that ultimately sealed their own fate in the general election.

The Republicans saw BHO coming along and they cracked, basically. Instead of just nominating a good candidate of their own, they tried to force in some youthful energy with Palin.

Fortunately, there is a limit to how stupid you can be before you get disqualified from a Presidential ticket.

[etothep]

The important issues, the economy, corporate regulation, education, impact the whole of the nation at all times. But we don't ask questions about those things during primary and presidential races. And when we do, when don't bother to remember the answers.

Corporations, after being granted rights of citizens, became eligible to lobby. As soon as that happened we ended any chance for corporate regulation until a verifiable revolution takes place. Would it be nice to see corporate regulation? Of course. Am I holding my breath for it? Not a chance in hell

Not to sound too loony, out there, crazy, psychotic, gun-crazy, blood-thirsty, etc...but the price for corporate regulation (of any serious measure) is [more] blood. Many don't like to hear it, & I don't like to say it, but that's honestly how I feel. By saying this, I'm not insinuating in any way, shape, or form that I plan on leading any kind of bloody coupe in the near (or even distant) future.

[Jeffy25]

Reminds of what a former mentor of mine told me.

He said, a company, l.l.c., corporation, etc. is treated and the same as an individual person. They get taxed the same way, they are viewed the same by our governing body, and they for all intended purposes, are the same as an individual person. And they should be treated and respected as such.

of course, they aren't by the general public and def not on this forum.

[filihok]

Reminds of what a former mentor of mine told me.

He said, a company, l.l.c., corporation, etc. is treated and the same as an individual person. They get taxed the same way, they are viewed the same by our governing body, and they for all intended purposes, are the same as an individual person. And they should be treated and respected as such.

You had a very brilliant mentor Jeffy. It explains much. It appears that the guy could, by memory, recite the definition of a corporation. Truly one of the great minds of the century.


of course, they aren't by the general public and def not on this forum.

[Insert broken record]
Wrong Jeffy
[/remove broken record]

The general public surely sees corporations as individuals. What do you hear people say?

"Walmart is bad"
or
"The individuals making the decisions for Walmart are bad"

RE Lobbying:

The problem, per se, isn't with granting corporations rights of individuals. The problems are how the corporations use those rights, how the politicians respond to the efforts of the lobbyists and the fact that 'lobby' has become a euphemism for 'bribe'.

[Jeffy25]

You had a very brilliant mentor Jeffy. It explains much. It appears that the guy could, by memory, recite the definition of a corporation. Truly one of the great minds of the century.



[Insert broken record]
Wrong Jeffy
[/remove broken record]

The general public surely sees corporations as individuals. What do you hear people say?

"Walmart is bad"
or
"The individuals making the decisions for Walmart are bad"

RE Lobbying:

The problem, per se, isn't with granting corporations rights of individuals. The problems are how the corporations use those rights, how the politicians respond to the efforts of the lobbyists and the fact that 'lobby' has become a euphemism for 'bribe'.

well then I have been misinterpreting everyone's issues with corporations and big business

[filihok]

well then I have been misinterpreting [/broken record] everyone's issues with corporations and big business

.

[Jeffy25]

.

why don't you contribute to the conversation rather than just pointing out the little things that you disagree with me on?

Sorry, I'm a conservative. In my eyes, you are an extreme liberal. So what? We disagree greatly on many issues. Doesn't mean the only thing you ever have to say on this forum is how much you distaste the things I say or search and find the only things you think are ignorant statements.

How about adding to the conversation instead?

[free2131]

Well, it's been at least a month since I slipped this in a thread, so how about...


MONEY (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x68fhy_serj-tankian-money-clip_music)

[etothep]

Well, it's been at least a month since I slipped this in a thread, so how about...


MONEY (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x68fhy_serj-tankian-money-clip_music)

Serj is my favorite Armenian

[free2131]

Serj is my favorite Armenian

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3gtt5_serj-tankian-elect-the-dead-epk_music

We all have one guy that we would do. I would do Serj.

Hard.

[SirKodiak]

The Republicans saw BHO coming along and they cracked, basically. Instead of just nominating a good candidate of their own, they tried to force in some youthful energy with Palin.

Fortunately, there is a limit to how stupid you can be before you get disqualified from a Presidential ticket.

Introducing..... Dan "The Limit" Quayle
http://www.texemarrs.com/images/dan_quayle.jpg

[OregonDuck1989]

Introducing..... Dan "The Limit" Quayle
http://www.thequoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/danquayle.jpg

Potatoe

[haveacigar]

Corporations, after being granted rights of citizens, became eligible to lobby. As soon as that happened we ended any chance for corporate regulation until a verifiable revolution takes place. Would it be nice to see corporate regulation? Of course. Am I holding my breath for it? Not a chance in hell

Not to sound too loony, out there, crazy, psychotic, gun-crazy, blood-thirsty, etc...but the price for corporate regulation (of any serious measure) is [more] blood. Many don't like to hear it, & I don't like to say it, but that's honestly how I feel. By saying this, I'm not insinuating in any way, shape, or form that I plan on leading any kind of bloody coupe in the near (or even distant) future.

I disagree. Plenty of corporations are regulated. Food and drugs, transportation, energy. Most of that was introduced well after corporations were recognized as individuals legally.

We just happen to not nearly have enough bank regulation right now.

[haveacigar]

Introducing..... Dan "The Limit" Quayle
http://www.texemarrs.com/images/dan_quayle.jpg

Exactly. They snuck the potatoe man out there once, he's pushing it, but you certainly can't get lower than him. I didn't think lower even existed, but Mrs. Palin is full of surprises.

[OregonDuck1989]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3gtt5_serj-tankian-elect-the-dead-epk_music

We all have one guy that we would do. I would do Serj.

Hard.

Over NICK PUNTO????

http://upnorthtwinsblog.mlblogs.com/2b690068-602f-45b1-a574-c9142b1c3422.jpg

Hey hot stuff, wanna watch me beat the Tigers?

[haveacigar]

OD, I am going to straight up murder you one of these days.

[OregonDuck1989]

OD, I am going to straight up murder you one of these days.

All I gotta say is...


COME AT ME, BRO!

http://static.tvfanatic.com/images/gallery/the-situation.jpg