stolikat Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 That's it? 18 posts from 6 members? I guess that the reason is most of us come here to relax and enjoy watches. I get enough of this [censored] elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I looked all over for that and all I found were right-wing blogs making that accusation. Blogs are just another opinion, as yours is. But not fact. I said it then, and I haven't changed my mind. I would have bought a hooker and paid for Clinton's weekly BJ if it meant that he'd maintain the record level employment, record level growth, a balanced budget with a plan to pay down the National Debt by 2006, and the leadership to bring the first attacker of the Twin Towers to justice. The sex part or the Social Security part? The former was a dumb joke, the latter is simple to verify. Oh and by the way, I voted for Clinton in '92, so don't think I'm biased when I tell you that he didn't do any of the things you mention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Technically, it is not the governments job to create jobs. It's definitely not the government's job to do so. And the government generally makes a mess of things when it tries. The problem with Obama isn't that he hasn't done enough.... quite the opposite, in fact. Also, this perception that unemployment makes for a good/lazy living is totally false. The MAX payout IIRC is $1400 a month or $18,000 a year. Honestly, I don't know many people who would be happy "getting by" on that. Feed a family of 4 and try and pay a mortgage on unemployment. Uhhh, No. They're not your type, but there are plenty of them out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I guess that the reason is most of us come here to relax and enjoy watches. I get enough of this [censored] elsewhere. Ya... that and these types of conversations usually just happen spontaneously, rather than under explicit direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 The sex part or the Social Security part? The former was a dumb joke, the latter is simple to verify. Oh and by the way, I voted for Clinton in '92, so don't think I'm biased when I tell you that he didn't do any of the things you mention. The SS part. I voted for Bush1 in `92 and Dole in `96. I didn't understand what Clinton was doing to our military. Once I did, I wish I had voted for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 It's definitely not the government's job to do so. And the government generally makes a mess of things when it tries. The problem with Obama isn't that he hasn't done enough.... quite the opposite, in fact. They're not your type, but there are plenty of them out there. The government's job is to serve the People. WE are the government, and if we want the government to create jobs, then it should. Obama has done plenty and then some. His opposition has done nothing but stymie at every opportunity. No, there are not plenty of people who would rather be getting unemployment than be working. That's a ridiculous conservative talking point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave123 Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 The government's job is to serve the People. WE are the government, and if we want the government to create jobs, then it should. Oh boy,Joey. If only that old saying had any truth to it. Would be nice wouldn't it. But then again,there is daily Jerry Springer episodes so i'm not so sure the 'WE' is such a good idea over there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 The SS part. I voted for Bush1 in `92 and Dole in `96. I didn't understand what Clinton was doing to our military. Once I did, I wish I had voted for him. SS, the Federal Highways fund, among others. I still believe Clinton was the better choice in '92, and don't think I made the wrong choice - given the choice at the time. He had the potential to be a great president; but he wasn't a great president. The budget surplus was an illusion created by "creative" book-keeping adjustments to intragovernmental holdings, by neglecting the needs of our military, by illusory tax income projected to be created by the illusory wealth of a tech bubble economy, and by "growth" from spending time bombs scheduled to detonate after his departure - a.k.a. mostly fiction. The national debt never came down under Clinton. Not once; not in any year during his term. And by the way, take a look at the Constitution some time, and see who has budgetary authority under our form of government... Hint: it ain't the Prez. So if you think the budget chicanery of the Clinton years is commendable, then Congress (mostly Republican controlled during that era) deserves the credit. I, however, would say the blame. No, all said an done, there was nothing special that happened during the Clinton term worth noting other than his impeachment. The tech bubble was exactly that - an artificial bubble, and certainly not of Clinton's making. He made a major blunder by ignoring the power vacuum created by the collapse of the Soviet Union while trying to spend a fictional peace dividend and failing to anticipate the likelihood that an Islamo-Fascist movement would fill that void. He can point to no important, even if fictional, foreign policy triumph like the Camp David accords. Janet Reno was an utter disaster, as was Jocelyn Elder. And monetary policy was (as is always the case) controlled solely by the Federal Reserve. So, what did he bring to the table other than a world class ability to lie through his teeth, take credit for the work of others, and deflect blame for his failures? While these may be admirable and formidable qualities in a politician, posterity doesn't tend to reward them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwatch Posted October 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 The royal "WE" voted in a republican majority, so I guess the royal "WE" isn't interested in our government doing anything at all for the american people except banter over why we shouldn't implement a $447 Billion jobs bill. (and yes, I know that it was the democrats that caused this but it just shows how ineffective the current governing body is - both the republicans & democrats) I think i'll just move back to Canada where it makes a lot more sense (and enjoy the lovely health care while I'm there) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave123 Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 The royal "WE" voted in a republican majority, so I guess the royal "WE" isn't interested in our government doing anything at all for the american people except banter over why we shouldn't implement a $447 Billion jobs bill. (and yes, I know that it was the democrats that caused this but it just shows how ineffective the current governing body is - both the republicans & democrats) I think i'll just move back to Canada where it makes a lot more sense (and enjoy the lovely health care while I'm there) It is very simple but will continue to be ignored by simpletons that will go into a long rant about [censored]. This thread a prime example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwatch Posted October 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 It is very simple but will continue to be ignored by simpletons that will go into a long rant about bullshit. This thread a prime example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave123 Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Meh,windbags. Let them keep ranting and getting nowhere. I have lobster to eat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Canada is a nice place to visit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave123 Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Canada is a nice place to visit. Indeed. Your refugee application is still decined. Just too many yanks trying these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 SS, the Federal Highways fund, among others. I still believe Clinton was the better choice in '92, and don't think I made the wrong choice - given the choice at the time. He had the potential to be a great president; but he wasn't a great president. The budget surplus was an illusion created by "creative" book-keeping adjustments to intragovernmental holdings, by neglecting the needs of our military, by illusory tax income projected to be created by the illusory wealth of a tech bubble economy, and by "growth" from spending time bombs scheduled to detonate after his departure - a.k.a. mostly fiction. The national debt never came down under Clinton. Not once; not in any year during his term. And by the way, take a look at the Constitution some time, and see who has budgetary authority under our form of government... Hint: it ain't the Prez. So if you think the budget chicanery of the Clinton years is commendable, then Congress (mostly Republican controlled during that era) deserves the credit. I, however, would say the blame. No, all said an done, there was nothing special that happened during the Clinton term worth noting other than his impeachment. The tech bubble was exactly that - an artificial bubble, and certainly not of Clinton's making. He made a major blunder by ignoring the power vacuum created by the collapse of the Soviet Union while trying to spend a fictional peace dividend and failing to anticipate the likelihood that an Islamo-Fascist movement would fill that void. He can point to no important, even if fictional, foreign policy triumph like the Camp David accords. Janet Reno was an utter disaster, as was Jocelyn Elder. And monetary policy was (as is always the case) controlled solely by the Federal Reserve. So, what did he bring to the table other than a world class ability to lie through his teeth, take credit for the work of others, and deflect blame for his failures? While these may be admirable and formidable qualities in a politician, posterity doesn't tend to reward them. Clinton was not "great", but he was very good. The rest, as i said before, is your opinion, and it seems to be the opinion of many a right-wing blog. It is not fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 The royal "WE" voted in a republican majority, so I guess the royal "WE" isn't interested in our government doing anything at all for the american people except banter over why we shouldn't implement a $447 Billion jobs bill. (and yes, I know that it was the democrats that caused this but it just shows how ineffective the current governing body is - both the republicans & democrats) I think i'll just move back to Canada where it makes a lot more sense (and enjoy the lovely health care while I'm there) "WE" bought into what the Tea Party/Republicans were selling, and then didn't do. We voted for jobs and got job cuts. The Democrats caused what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Clinton was not "great", but he was very good. The rest, as i said before, is your opinion, and it seems to be the opinion of many a right-wing blog. It is not fact. It is not opinion. And I don't read right-wing blogs. I would encourage you to expand your factual repertoire beyond the internets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 "WE" bought into what the Tea Party/Republicans were selling, and then didn't do. We voted for jobs and got job cuts. The "Tea Party" candidates have actually delivered on what they were selling, insofar as they've been able to do so being in the minority (at this point). We voted against never-ending spending, and the notion that the solution to our debt problems are never-ending debt ceiling increases. They put up one hell of a fight, but simply didn't have the strength in numbers that the deficit spenders still have. Me thinks, however, that's short lived. I see no indication in polling numbers that anyone is happy with the status quo, and suspect all establishment politicians are very much at risk. Heck, the guy who used to run a few pizza parlors is more popular than the sitting president! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 It is not opinion. And I don't read right-wing blogs. I would encourage you to expand your factual repertoire beyond the internets. My "factual repertoire" disputes your opinion. The "Tea Party" candidates have actually delivered on what they were selling, insofar as they've been able to do so being in the minority (at this point). We voted against never-ending spending, and the notion that the solution to our debt problems are never-ending debt ceiling increases. They put up one hell of a fight, but simply didn't have the strength in numbers that the deficit spenders still have. Me thinks, however, that's short lived. I see no indication in polling numbers that anyone is happy with the status quo, and suspect all establishment politicians are very much at risk. Heck, the guy who used to run a few pizza parlors is more popular than the sitting president! Nope, the Tea Party elected did not campaign on or promise what they've so far delivered. Before they even took their oath Grover Norquist strong-armed them to sign his pledge to not raise taxes - EVER. Without knowing a single issue, without understanding how to govern, with no knowledge of their job at hand, they signed. That, added to the marching orders from the Koch brothers, and the Tea Party clearly shows they do not represent their constituents. The protests in Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana, recall elections held and still coming, a 12% approval for the Republicans in congress after making John Boehner cry again over the debt ceiling, and the current protesters on Wall Street whose movement is exploding across the Nation, looks to me that it is the Tea Party that will be "short lived". And that guy who ran the corporate pizza chain squeezing every nickel out of the tomato sauce? He is not more popular than the President, that's simply not true. He wasn't even a blip on the radar 3 weeks ago, the secessionist from Texas was. "Establishment" Republicans are desperate for a candidate who isn't a member of a "cult", isn't 'W' #2, and certainly won't back Cain much more than they do Obama, and for the very same reason. Thanks to the GOP Los Bravos would have a comeback hit. 'Black is black, I want my country back...' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomhorn Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I see no indication in polling numbers that anyone is happy with the status quo, and suspect all establishment politicians are very much at risk. I agree. Just wish more people would stand up to the establishment at the ballot box. In the last major election I voted against every incumbent that I could ... didn't matter what their beliefs were ... I did it on the principle of throwing all of them out of office. I also voted for any independent candidate that made the ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I agree. Just wish more people would stand up to the establishment at the ballot box. In the last major election I voted against every incumbent that I could ... didn't matter what their beliefs were ... I did it on the principle of throwing all of them out of office. I also voted for any independent candidate that made the ballot. Ya, and all indications are that it won't let up. You've got a pizza guy beating a sitting pres head to head in polls now. Then again any republican to be named later is ahead of him so that's not saying much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxman Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I guess I will add my to 2 cents to the debate. I watched this George Carlin live HBO special back in 2007...although I did not like what he said...I had to admit ..thats how I felt at the very core of my being...every single word of It. So much so that it's been in my favorites for over four years now. I feel that everyone is entiteld to there own opinion...reguardles of how much I may agree or disagree with that opinion. I usually dont engage In political online debates...for various and obvious reasons.....but I cant express my views any better than Mr Carlin has done durring this clip. RIP George. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Ya, and all indications are that it won't let up. You've got a pizza guy beating a sitting pres head to head in polls now. Then again any republican to be named later is ahead of him so that's not saying much! The pizza guy is not "beating" the President, and none of the Republican candidates poll better than the president. But the latest polls do show that the Wall Street Protesters have a higher approval rating than the Tea party does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I guess I will add my to 2 cents to the debate. I watched this George Carlin live HBO special back in 2007... I would say 'almost'. Yes, big business and big money do influence much of the country, and have the funds to push politics and lawmakers their way. The deregulations done under the Bush/Cheney Administration and GOP led congress are proof of that, along with the vanishing pensions thanks to the 'Enron Loophole'. The Republican/conservative led Supreme Court ruled that corporations CAN affect our elections with their money, over the strong objections of our President, and thanks to the do nothing GOP led House. That includes corporations such as British Petroleum, Saudi Oil and Chavez' Citgo. You see, dictatorships and socialist/communist politics don't matter to big business, only money does. And some people want more deregulations. BUT... there are some politicians who DO care about their constituents. Not nearly enough, but some. And there are others that will bend to public demands fearing for their job. Not the best of situations but it gets the job done. We have witnessed big business being beaten. See what Obama did to GM. And British Petroleum. They are not all powerful just yet. The power in this Nation still resides with the People. As Carlin said, most people don't seem to care. That is how big business gets our power, when The People don't take care of the power, they take it. Keep an eye on the Wall Street Protesters. If they continue to grow, and if they get real American Leadership, you just might want to become part of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.