75 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
75 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Bill Clinton is the man.

by Michael Motley
67 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
I've always said he was the man...and his actions of late just reinforced this.

They need to bring him back for pres again...the man..the legend...Big Bill.
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    No, actually Hitlery is the man....but Bill seems to be working on getting his testicles to drop again.

    Actually - I think it's time to get completely rid of the whole bilderberg group. I don't like our freedoms being passed around amongst the same elite group generation after generation. We need to get rid of career politicians completely and go back to the way we were intended to have gov in the first place.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056089].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      No, actually Hitlery is the man....but Bill seems to be working on getting his testicles to drop again.

      Actually - I think it's time to get completely rid of the whole bilderberg group. I don't like our freedoms being passed around amongst the same elite group generation after generation.

      We need to get rid of career politicians completely and go back to the way we were intended to have gov in the first place.
      And what is that?? the way we were intended to have gov in the first place????



      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056106].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        You know, how our "founding fathers" intended. Freedom for all. Well, OK. Just the rich white people. Boy, those were the days. Talk about the elite. They just don't make elite groups they way the used to. Sigh...

        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        And what is that?? the way we were intended to have gov in the first place????



        TL
        Signature
        Over 50 Dating
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056151].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          You know, how our "founding fathers" intended. Freedom for all. Well, OK. Just the rich white people....

          you say this like its a bad thing
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056169].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          You know, how our "founding fathers" intended. Freedom for all. Well, OK. Just the rich white people. Boy, those were the days. Talk about the elite. They just don't make elite groups they way the used to. Sigh...



          I'd love to hear HeySal's version of what type of federal gov the founders intended.

          Ladies and non land owners could not vote in the early days of the republic.

          Excluding non land owners is understandable since, almost everyone owned some land as it was cheap as dirt.

          also...

          The gen population did not directly vote for the president until the election of 1828.

          Before that, congress ( the house ) voted for the pres.

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056228].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            I'd love to hear HeySal's version of what type of federal gov the founders intended.

            Ladies and non land owners could not vote in the early days of the republic.

            Excluding non land owners is understandable since, almost everyone owned some land as it was cheap as dirt.

            also...

            The gen population did not directly vote for the president until the election of 1828.

            Before that, congress ( the house ) voted for the pres.

            TL
            Perhaps, JUST perhaps, she means some "COMMUNIST" idea such as THIS:

            The apportionment of taxes on the
            various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require
            the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative
            act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a
            predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every
            shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a
            shilling saved to their own pockets.
            It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to
            adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to
            the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the
            helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all
            without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which
            will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may
            find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
            The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of
            faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in
            the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
            If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is
            supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to
            defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the
            administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable
            to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.
            When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular
            government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling
            passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other
            citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the
            danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the
            spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object
            to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the
            great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued
            from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be
            recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
            Forgive my slightly off topic selection, but I figured it was the quickest way to select something that was at least THIS on topic:

            http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext91/feder16.txt

            Perhaps you should read them. I think I probably will read them instead of that dreck the call healthcare reform. I know only part of these, but they seem more just.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056256].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
    people dont care about 'freedom'

    they care about cable tv, who's winning american idol and can the get their favorite cd from bit torrent.

    People dont want to do anything for themselves becuase it may take them away from whatever little selfish endeavors they hav going, but they also dont want the government to do it for them either for fear of losing a 'freedom'

    cant have your cake and eat it too.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056114].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

      people dont care about 'freedom'

      they care about cable tv, who's winning american idol and can the get their favorite cd from bit torrent.

      People dont want to do anything for themselves becuase it may take them away from whatever little selfish endeavors they hav going, but they also dont want the government to do it for them either for fear of losing a 'freedom'

      cant have your cake and eat it too.
      I say we can have our cake and eat it too.

      It was like that from 1950-1980 in the golden age in America.

      We can get back to it but it won't be easy.

      Responsible individual effort combined with a smart federal government to help create and foster an environment so that everyone that truly wants to prosper can.

      We had it once and we can do it again.

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056131].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I say we can have our cake and eat it too.

        It was like that from 1950-1980 in the golden age in America.

        We can get back to it but it won't be easy.

        Responsible individual effort combined with a smart federal government to help create and foster an environment so that everyone that truly wants to prosper can.

        We had it once and we can do it again.

        TL
        We didnt have it then. We were just ill informed and 'thought' we had something. It was no different then than it is now. Now we just are a bit more informed.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056164].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

          We didnt have it then. We were just ill informed and 'thought' we had something. It was no different then than it is now. Now we just are a bit more informed.


          Are you kidding?

          By all accepted standard of living measurements the US had a golden age from say 1950 - 1980.

          People did not feel that the country was too expensive to live in like lots of people do now.

          One decent salary would support a family of 5 or 6. Is that the case now?

          Women did not have to work, they stayed home and raised the kids.

          ( I'm not a male chauvinist pig )

          The dollar carried a lot of weight.

          The penny postcard cost a penny - now it's 27 cents??

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056197].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            Are you kidding?

            By all accepted standard of living measurements the US had a golden age from say 1950 - 1980.

            People did not feel that the country was too expensive to live in like lots of people do now.

            One decent salary would support a family of 5 or 6. Is that the case now?

            Women did not have to work, they stayed home and raised the kids.

            ( I'm not a male chauvinist pig )

            The dollar carried a lot of weight.

            The penny postcard cost a penny - now it's 27 cents??

            TL
            In 1970 i was paying a mortgage on a small house, owned a VW Beetle and an Indian motorcycle.
            My wife stayed home with our new born daughter.
            I payed all the bills, bought food and clothing and lots of diapers.
            The car and bike always had gas in them and my wife and I went out partying every Friday and Saturday night.
            My take home pay?
            $99 and change.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056330].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              In 1970 i was paying a mortgage on a small house, owned a VW Beetle and an Indian motorcycle.
              My wife stayed home with our new born daughter.
              I payed all the bills, bought food and clothing and lots of diapers.
              The car and bike always had gas in them and my wife and I went out partying every Friday and Saturday night.
              My take home pay?
              $99 and change.
              NIXON 69-74 REPUBLICAN
              FORD 74-77 REPUBLICAN
              CARTER 77-81 DEMOCRAT

              I say this ONLY because it dispells SEVERAL of TLs statements, especially in light of ThomMs!

              1. The two presidents preceding carter weer REPUBLICAN!
              2. They were prior to 1980!
              3. Houses were affordable.

              I wish my mother had listened to me. She gave up the OLD US dream for the current government dole NIGHTMARE! MAN, she is on section 8, and STILL has trouble getting by!
              Even HER insurance, secure horizons, is likely to go up in smoke if the new bill passes!

              As for me? She drives me NUTS, and I can NOT have her living with me! I have to provide for MY OWN retirement to avoid that nightmare, if I can!!!!!! I am saving perhaps 3 times what the government pays her, and that is not enough for ME ALONE! So you can only IMAGINE how little SHE is getting, and she paid into social security EVERY WORKING DAY!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056385].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                NIXON 69-74 REPUBLICAN
                FORD 74-77 REPUBLICAN
                CARTER 77-81 DEMOCRAT

                I say this ONLY because it dispells SEVERAL of TLs statements, especially in light of ThomMs!

                1. The two presidents preceding carter weer REPUBLICAN!
                2. They were prior to 1980!
                3. Houses were affordable.

                I
                the two repub presidents werent any more responsible for the prosperity of that time than obama is wholely responsible for the deficity.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056425].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                NIXON 69-74 REPUBLICAN
                FORD 74-77 REPUBLICAN
                CARTER 77-81 DEMOCRAT

                I say this ONLY because it dispells SEVERAL of TLs statements, especially in light of ThomMs!

                1. The two presidents preceding carter weer REPUBLICAN!
                2. They were prior to 1980!
                3. Houses were affordable.

                I wish my mother had listened to me. She gave up the OLD US dream for the current government dole NIGHTMARE! MAN, she is on section 8, and STILL has trouble getting by!
                Even HER insurance, secure horizons, is likely to go up in smoke if the new bill passes!

                As for me? She drives me NUTS, and I can NOT have her living with me! I have to provide for MY OWN retirement to avoid that nightmare, if I can!!!!!! I am saving perhaps 3 times what the government pays her, and that is not enough for ME ALONE! So you can only IMAGINE how little SHE is getting, and she paid into social security EVERY WORKING DAY!

                Steve


                I was making the point that it was a golden age in this country from 1950-1980 and I believe ThomasM was simply saying how great is was also.

                What on Earth are you talking about?????

                TL
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056440].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  I was making the point that it was a golden age in this country from 1950-1980 and I believe ThomasM was simply saying how great is was also.

                  What on Earth are you talking about?????

                  TL
                  Simply two things. One, that Carter was NOT a great president! HE is what got me to HATE a lot of democrats! And ALSO that republicans were certainly NOT the driving force in the decline of the US.

                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056452].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                    Simply two things. One, that Carter was NOT a great president! HE is what got me to HATE a lot of democrats! And ALSO that republicans were certainly NOT the driving force in the decline of the US.

                    Steve

                    I never said Carter was a great president.

                    So that's when it started, back in the Carter days.

                    Carter put solar panels on the white house and as soon as Reagan came in - he took them off.

                    Now...

                    Regarding repubs not being the driving force in the decline of the US...

                    The party of Lincoln was taken over by corporate interests in the 1880's. It's been that way ever since.

                    I give you George W. Bush and his republican congress of 2000-2006.

                    Do I need to recount ( no pun intended ) the sins of that admin???

                    Are you going to tell me that he was a great president?????

                    After dealing with you and a lot of your positions, I wouldn't be surprised if you proceed to do so.

                    One of the worst strategic moves by Americans was to elect a repub president with a republican congress. ( bad move )


                    Bush & that congress capped off a disastrous 40 year run of repub domination of the country with a historic doozie of a bang.

                    Most historians agree that he is at the top of the list of horrific presidents.

                    The proof is in the pudding.

                    and...

                    since 1968 republicans have held the office of president 28 out of the 40 years.

                    Whether you like it or not or will admit to it or not the President sets the tone for the nation.

                    We did in fact have a golden age in this country between 1950-1980.

                    Since 1980 ( that's 28 years ) 20 of those years we have had a republican president.

                    Whether you like it or not or will admit to it or not the President sets the tone and general direction for the nation.

                    Are you an operative for the repub party?

                    You're loyalty is interesting - if you are not.

                    I'm legally registered as an independent.



                    OK, back to your beloved GOP...


                    All the repubs have done especially since 1980 is...

                    ... blow out the national debt,

                    Clinton cleans it up, leaves Bush2 with a surplus and Bush2 proceeds to rev up the debt and war machine again for no good reason.

                    ... breed general uglyness and apathy among the population:

                    ... fostered a twisted hatred for the federal gov:

                    ... The only massive foreign terrorist attack on our soil - succeeded on their watch:

                    Then they told us to go shopping and proceeded to take advantage of our national grief, fear and anger to... ( you know the story )

                    ...convinced people to be selfish, short sighted & not look at the big national picture...

                    ... have spawned no national improvement projects. ( that are badly needed ) as a matter of fact...

                    ...they frown on any national endeavor except war.

                    The proof is in the pudding for any rational person to see.

                    If any party is to get the blame for the state of this nation the answer must be...

                    ... guess who?




                    Maybe you don't know it...

                    ... but here's the real republican philosophy in a nutshell.

                    - No national improvement projects: ( even when they are badly needed )

                    - War and belligerence: ( great for distractions, running up debt & funneling money to friends via contracts )

                    - Subtly fosters racism:

                    Now the party is simply a regional party - the old confederate states.

                    - Science sucks:

                    - The fed gov is your enemy and can never do no any good:

                    - Won't protect our water, food supplies, environment - nothing: ( hands off )

                    - No investments in education for the national good:



                    - Let corporations do what ever they want to the population: ( hands off )


                    Quick examples:

                    - Credit card companies: ( repubs would have never even proposed legislation )

                    - Health care companies: ( repubs would have never even proposed legislation )


                    - Let corporations do what ever they want to the population: ( hands off )

                    What do the french call it???



                    laissez-faire ( hands off )



                    Anyone wanna be on their own? Wanna be a rugged individual?

                    Well you've got it with the repubs and good luck if you're not independently wealthy.

                    Even if people were falling out in the streets, the fed gov should offer no help what so ever since it may get in the way of market forces.

                    The market rules...

                    No matter what happens in the society ( especially between the population and the corporations ) - fed gov, stay out of it.

                    The strong survive, the weak get crushed - too bad, who gives a _______?

                    What do they call it??

                    Social Darwinism.

                    - Tax cuts, at all costs even in time of war:

                    The well off get 10's of thousands in tax breaks the rest of us get $50 extra a month.

                    - Reagan's war was on the poor:

                    - Bush2's war was on the middle class:

                    Once again, here comes a dem president to clean up the mess of the repubs.

                    - Roosevelt did it in 1933:

                    - Clinton did it in 1993: ( the mess wasn't as big as 1932 )

                    - Obama begins the work in 2009: ( almost as big a mess as in 1932 )



                    Lots of Americans have no idea that we're at the beginning of another historical re-run.


                    The historical record is quite clear.


                    Republican attitudes and policies are not the primary cause of the decline of this great nation -


                    ...give me a brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr- reak.



                    TL
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056712].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                NIXON 69-74 REPUBLICAN
                FORD 74-77 REPUBLICAN
                CARTER 77-81 DEMOCRAT

                I say this ONLY because it dispells SEVERAL of TLs statements, especially in light of ThomMs!

                1. The two presidents preceding carter weer REPUBLICAN!
                2. They were prior to 1980!
                3. Houses were affordable.

                I wish my mother had listened to me. She gave up the OLD US dream for the current government dole NIGHTMARE! MAN, she is on section 8, and STILL has trouble getting by!
                Even HER insurance, secure horizons, is likely to go up in smoke if the new bill passes!

                As for me? She drives me NUTS, and I can NOT have her living with me! I have to provide for MY OWN retirement to avoid that nightmare, if I can!!!!!! I am saving perhaps 3 times what the government pays her, and that is not enough for ME ALONE! So you can only IMAGINE how little SHE is getting, and she paid into social security EVERY WORKING DAY!

                Steve
                I was just commenting on TL's statement about the dollar carrying weight back then.
                As for your mother I can understand what her and you are going through there. I went through a similar situation with mine.
                Also I was on social security disability from 02 to 07.
                When someone asked what I got I always replied, "just enough to slowly starve to death".
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056565].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                  I was just commenting on TL's statement about the dollar carrying weight back then.
                  As for your mother I can understand what her and you are going through there. I went through a similar situation with mine.
                  Also I was on social security disability from 02 to 07.
                  When someone asked what I got I always replied, "just enough to slowly starve to death".
                  She is in her seventies! She doesn't want to look for another job. If she makes even a DOLLAR, it will be deducted from what social security("RETIREMENT", NOT disability) "pays" her. HECK, shee paid in for SO long. She can't really work AT ALL unless she makes more than she gets now, and for WHAT!?!? And her doctor is an IDIOT! She could probably get any doctor I can, but she dopesn't really know, and he is an IDIOT! She is underweight, has low blood pressure, and WHO KNOWS what else. They EVEN put her on warfarin, but never monitored. Technically, that is ILLEGAL! Anyway, she is the eepitome of all I have been saying.

                  And YEAH, I, heysal, etc... have ALL been saying the dollar is basically WORTHLESS! It has been pretty worthless since about the 1930s. The U.S. was just FLUSH with everything good about a nation for several decades later. THAT is what kept people from LAUGHING at creating an INTERNATIONAL conspiracy to make the dollar worth something. f they refused, we could have simply(heck, it would have been AUTOMATIC) shut our doors, and left them HIGH AND DRY! Well, the U.S. has been withering away. As that happens, imports go up, exports go down, and the DOLLAR goes down. HECK, the Eurodollar was supposed to be indexed to the dollar. It ISN'T anymore!

                  Outside of a few big companies, like Boeing, GE, etc... what do we REALLY have? Even Boeing and GE have a lot of FORIEGN parts. And don't say walmart either, as that is simply a store chain. GRANTED, they are BIG, make a lot of money, etc... but what do they BUILD? If every country decided to not have a walmart, would it really hurt them?

                  Eventually, countries may abandon the dollar. THEN, it will only be good DOMESTICALLY. Eventually, people may decide to only accept barter or foreign currency. At that point, a few rare dollars may suddenly have more value, AS SOUVENIRS OF A DEFUNCT CURRENCY! Others, of course, may be burned as kindling.

                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056717].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Chuck Avants
                    I thought religious and political threads were forbidden.

                    You guys are funny though.
                    Signature
                    Do the right thing---
                    Because it is the right thing to do
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056784].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                      Originally Posted by Chuck Avants View Post

                      I thought religious and political threads were forbidden.

                      You guys are funny though.
                      I guess as long as it's civil we can continue with our fun.

                      TL
                      Signature

                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056817].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      She is in her seventies! She doesn't want to look for another job. If she makes even a DOLLAR, it will be deducted from what social security("RETIREMENT", NOT disability) "pays" her. HECK, shee paid in for SO long. She can't really work AT ALL unless she makes more than she gets now, and for WHAT!?!? And her doctor is an IDIOT! She could probably get any doctor I can, but she dopesn't really know, and he is an IDIOT! She is underweight, has low blood pressure, and WHO KNOWS what else. They EVEN put her on warfarin, but never monitored. Technically, that is ILLEGAL! Anyway, she is the eepitome of all I have been saying.
                      Yep very similar.
                      Except my mother was in her 80's was over weight and had a bad bout of shingles she couldn't shake.
                      She was on SSI retirement also. I was on the disability and got a real good taste of what those that try to live on retirement only go through, you get less on disability.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056824].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
    You'll probably like this video by Jon Stewart then Michael:

    William Jefferson Airplane | The Daily Show | Comedy Central
    Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

    I've always said he was the man...and his actions of late just reinforced this.

    They need to bring him back for pres again...the man..the legend...Big Bill.
    Signature
    Over 50 Dating
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056166].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

      You'll probably like this video by Jon Stewart then Michael:

      William Jefferson Airplane | The Daily Show | Comedy Central
      Loved the Regan reference at the end. The part left out was Bush Sr. orchestrated all that as he was head of the CIA at the time.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056838].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        I know. The ending was perfect. Jon seems to be at his best lately.

        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Loved the Regan reference at the end. The part left out was Bush Sr. orchestrated all that as he was head of the CIA at the time.
        Signature
        Over 50 Dating
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1057287].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Okay - okay I'm back.

    We were not intended to have career politicians. Politicians served free, and didn't try to stay in office their entire lives. Now we have career politicians who see benefits after even just one term that most of us could never dream of. Presidencies and other high level posts are passed back and forth amongst groups of elitists - families, and friends. By the look of the US treasury we could actually be called the United States of Goldman Sachs - we are owned by a bank (uh..nobody has heard of Central Bank?) I was called lunatic fringe for 20 years because I insisted the FED was not part of the government but rather a bank - it took people twenty years to quit flapping their arms and clucking about tinfoil over that one, yet the fact we are owned by a bank is now general knowledge. We were not intended to be owned by a bank and our forefathers warned about that becoming a possibility. Not only did it happen - the people were just literally fooled over it for over half a century.

    What was intended was gold backed money with volunteer politicians rather than career politician families that would eventually gain enough money and power from their career status that they would just tromple us in the long run. Gov and the people have divided and that is what I mean - as intended.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056251].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Okay - okay I'm back.

      We were not intended to have career politicians. Politicians served free, and didn't try to stay in office their entire lives. Now we have career politicians who see benefits after even just one term that most of us could never dream of. Presidencies and other high level posts are passed back and forth amongst groups of elitists - families, and friends. By the look of the US treasury we could actually be called the United States of Goldman Sachs - we are owned by a bank (uh..nobody has heard of Central Bank?) I was called lunatic fringe for 20 years because I insisted the FED was not part of the government but rather a bank - it took people twenty years to quit flapping their arms and clucking about tinfoil over that one, yet the fact we are owned by a bank is now general knowledge. We were not intended to be owned by a bank and our forefathers warned about that becoming a possibility. Not only did it happen - the people were just literally fooled over it for over half a century.

      What was intended was gold backed money with volunteer politicians rather than career politician families that would eventually gain enough money and power from their career status that they would just tromple us in the long run. Gov and the people have divided and that is what I mean - as intended.
      Now I get what you meant.

      I've known about the fed for quite some time.

      Ron Paul has sponsored a bill that would audit the fed for the first time in history.

      I'd love to see their books.

      It was president Nixon that took us off the gold standard and begin the floating rates that we have today. ( it's been downhill for the dollar ever since )

      Most of the European countries also have a private central bank.

      I understand that there will be a certain amount of graft etc. when it comes to a federal government but we still had a golden age between 1950-1980 but since then it's been an all out war to destroy the living standard of the people of this nation.

      All The Best!!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056380].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Now I get what you meant.

        I've known about the fed for quite some time.

        Ron Paul has sponsored a bill that would audit the fed for the first time in history.

        I'd love to see their books.

        It was president Nixon that took us off the gold standard and begin the floating rates that we have today. ( it's been downhill for the dollar ever since )

        Most of the European countries also have a private central bank.

        I understand that there will be a certain amount of graft etc. when it comes to a federal government but we still had a golden age between 1950-1980 but since then it's been an all out war to destroy the living standard of the people of this nation.

        All The Best!!

        TL
        Gee, I didn't know nixon was around that long. He looked SO young!

        Fed Funds Rate History

        BTW you are beginning to tread DANGEROUS waters!!!!!! This graph indicates that the economy between 1977 and 1982 ran a wipsaw contrived to make things BAD!!!!! Carter was 1977-1981! This dispels your "only oil" theory.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056422].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
    Carter was awesome.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056455].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Carter was great. He was the one who got me to HATE a lot of Republicans.

      Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

      Carter was awesome.
      Signature
      Over 50 Dating
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056820].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Ellis
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Carter was great. He was the one who got me to HATE a lot of Republicans.
        Well, at least we can now say he did something. LOL
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056862].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by Michael Ellis View Post

          Well, at least we can now say he did something. LOL
          LOL - finally you said something political that made me laugh with you in a good way. Hahahahaha.


          TL - In 1917 it was made illegal for Americans to own gold - the war was used as an excuse and later that law was suspended. So there was an illusion of nomalicy. Actually that law was never revoked, rescinded, or changed, or over-written - it was suspended. If the public forces a ditch of the FED, you will see that law pulled out of suspension so fast your head will spin. Your gold - savings, rings, dishes, etc will be confiscated and you will be given worthless paper in exchange. The FED set itself up almost infallibly to be impossible to get away from.

          America has been on a debt system since the institution of the FED in 1917 - however, it took time to get the numbers, technology, and to be able instutute the brainwashing into the school systems that would allow them to enact enough debt and ownership to bring us to the point we were at today. In my Macro-Econ class in 1980, the professor knew we were headed in that direction - any good economist then knew because the Kaynsian system went irratic and that was all it took for those with the brains to cut through the brainwash and lies. It was about that time that the Professors started getting RIled about the Fed and it was about that time the riled profs that wanted to talk about it started seeing the pink slips.

          Nixon just enacted his part of the system that he was supposed to enact. We haven't had a true president since before Teddy Roosavelt took office and bankrupted us.

          Actually the way the money system we are on works is a debt system - you have a growing debt automatically just because of the intrinsic build of the system on interest that does not exist and can never exist so there will always be more debt than money supply and it will always grow - there is no way to reverse this process unless you just decide to act on the constitution, which means charge Central Bank and every politician who aids its existance with treason and going back to cash. All the big hype about Nat'l Debt is just BS because nothing works at the Macro level like it does in your household finances where debt is a bad thing. Using this system they are able to accumilate all the wealth for them and completely disrupt the people's stability - which they have just done. While you and I at the micro level can pay off a personal debt under their paper ledger system, at the Macro level they can't pay off debt.......the talk about balancing the Nat'l budget by grabbing more of your money to do it is all smoke and mirrors.

          When we were bankrupted and instituted the FED - there was collateral on that loan. Take awhile to think what that collateral might be - then take a look at the progression of bills in the last 10 years. When the bail out took place it took place around 6 months after the expiration date on the bankruptcy instituted by Roosavelt. We could get our Constitution back - or we could have a rupture that would put us back under the dictate of the FED. Remember the bailout? Remember how a few of us warned under no circumstances to let it happen? There you go.

          Anyway - that's just an outline - enough to show who still thinks and who is programmed to scream about tin-foil every time the Gov is mentioned in a controlling light. If people have issues with it, don't scream at me about tinfoil - I have run out of patience with your lack of understanding of what is going on in your own country. Instead of yacking at me - Call the University of Michigan Political Science Department heads and tell them what a bunch of idiots, conspiracy theorists, and kooks they are. I'm sure they will be quite thoroughly intimidated by folks who get their magnificent political educations from FOX news.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056942].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Michael Ellis
            Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

            LOL - finally you said something political that made me laugh with you in a good way. Hahahahaha.
            My mission in life is now complete.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1057065].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
          Originally Posted by Michael Ellis View Post

          Well, at least we can now say he did something. LOL
          Carter has done more out of office than in. I would say he has easily done more than most republicans in or out of office
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058439].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Carter was great. He was the one who got me to HATE a lot of Republicans.
        Carter did do something that we really can't tell the effects of...Getting Isreal and Egypt to sign a peace agreement is historical in every sense of the word.

        Egyptians and Jews have fought for all 5000 years of recorded history, but they've been at peace since the peace treaty...And Carter got both Sadat and Began to sit down and agree not to kill each other.

        It's impossible to know how different the World would be today without an Egyptian/Isreali peace agreement. But it's hard to think this World isn't ALOT better because of it. Can you imagine how the Middle East (and World security) would look now if Isreal and Egypt were still going at it for the past 30 years?
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1057258].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Good point Kurt and very true. I'll put that down as my #2 reason why Carter was great.

          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          Carter did do something that we really can't tell the effects of...Getting Isreal and Egypt to sign a peace agreement is historical in every sense of the word.

          Egyptians and Jews have fought for all 5000 years of recorded history, but they've been at peace since the peace treaty...And Carter got both Sadat and Began to sit down and agree not to kill each other.

          It's impossible to know how different the World would be today without an Egyptian/Isreali peace agreement. But it's hard to think this World isn't ALOT better because of it. Can you imagine how the Middle East (and World security) would look now if Isreal and Egypt were still going at it for the past 30 years?
          Signature
          Over 50 Dating
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1057278].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
      Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

      Carter was awesome.
      I was sure there had to be at least one person who isn't a homeless person that would say this.

      Thanks for proving me right.

      KJ
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056826].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Travis Van Slooten
      Are you drunk?

      The two worst Presidents in history will be Carter and Obama.

      Travis

      Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

      Carter was awesome.
      Signature
      TVS Internet Marketing: Helping small businesses get more visibility & sales online.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1057323].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by tvanslooten View Post

        Are you drunk?

        The two worst Presidents in history will be Carter and Obama.

        Travis
        We have yet to see the Obama presidency take form so it's way to early to make that judgement but...

        ...are you saying that Bush2 was not worse than Carter for the nation??

        I guess you are.

        ( you may as well continue the lunacy and proclaim Bush2 as the best prez ever even though he left us with 1932 type of mess )

        Case closed. ( carry on! )


        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058103].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          We have yet to see the Obama presidency take form so it's way to early to make that judgement but...

          ...are you saying that Bush2 was not worse than Carter for the nation??

          I guess you are.

          ( you may as well continue the lunacy and proclaim Bush2 as the best prez ever even though he left us with 1932 type of mess )

          Case closed. ( carry on! )


          TL
          I was mostly a democrat until Carter.

          I was mostly a Republican until Bush 2

          Now, I happily call myself an Independent (albeit leaning more right than left, but not all that far).
          Signature

          Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058155].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

            I was mostly a democrat until Carter.

            I was mostly a Republican until Bush 2

            Now, I happily call myself an Independent (albeit leaning more right than left, but not all that far).
            I was DISINTERESTED until carter. I looked at the democrats and said NO WAY!

            I am basically independent. I just tend to like the republicans more than the democrats, and most others don't have a chance. 8-(

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058187].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

            I was mostly a democrat until Carter.

            I was mostly a Republican until Bush 2

            Now, I happily call myself an Independent (albeit leaning more right than left, but not all that far).


            There really wasn't a big diff in the two parties' philosophy/policies because FDR had set the tone for gov's relationship with the population since 1932...

            ( and the following presidents had to subscribe to it )

            ...but in 1980 there arose a new attitude...

            ...instead of gov is your friend and is here to help you, it became...

            ...gov is not the solution, gov is the problem.

            Reagan set the tone until now.

            Lincoln set the tone up until TR.

            Example: Since the time of the founding of the republic, Great Britain was our chief rival.

            When TR came in, all of a sudden we had the beginnings of our oh so special relationship with the Brits.


            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058369].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by tvanslooten View Post

        Are you drunk?

        The two worst Presidents in history will be Carter and Obama.

        Travis
        One, the absolutely worst president in my lifetime,50+ years, just left office.

        Two, you can judge a presidency that hasn't occurred yet, Obama's.

        Well, I guess you can if you are either closed minded or psychic.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058140].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          One, the absolutely worst president in my lifetime,50+ years, just left office.

          Two, you can judge a presidency that hasn't occurred yet, Obama's.

          Well, I guess you can if you are either closed minded or psychic.
          Obama's presidency DID start already. They are ALREADY talking about the 200 day mark! And he is TAKING CREDIT for stuff during it, and even DENYING he had a hand in its beginnings that, though it happened prior to his presidency, is stuff he campaigned on, is furthering, and VOTED ON!

          So YEP, we CAN judge him!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058183].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            Obama's presidency DID start already. They are ALREADY talking about the 200 day mark! And he is TAKING CREDIT for stuff during it, and even DENYING he had a hand in its beginnings that, though it happened prior to his presidency, is stuff he campaigned on, is furthering, and VOTED ON!

            So YEP, we CAN judge him!

            Steve

            Nobody said it didn't start.
            Steve, reread my post, I admitted you can right here:
            "Well, I guess you can if you are either closed minded or psychic."


            By the way, 4 times 365 =1460.
            divided by 200= 7.6
            So you are judging his whole presidency on this?
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058231].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jasonbird
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056876].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
      Originally Posted by jasonbird View Post

      I know him because Monica Samille Lewinsky。。。
      Hoohoo, Bill Clinton.
      It took the FBI ages to figure out what that thing on Monica's blue dress was.

      Turns out it was a wad of Bill's

      KJ
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056898].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Why did Bill Clinton name his new dog Buddy? A. He couldn't bear to say "Come Spot... Come Spot!"

        Originally Posted by Killer Joe View Post

        It took the FBI ages to figure out what that thing on Monica's blue dress was.

        Turns out it was a wad of Bill's

        KJ
        Signature
        Over 50 Dating
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056923].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author montero
    He most definitely was the man:

    Bill Clinton, Glass-Steagall and the Current Financial and Mortgage Crisis, Part Two of an InDepth Investigative Report | The Strange Death of Liberal America
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1056879].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    IMO, a lot of the problem of it taking two people to make a living today, as opposed to earlier in history, has as much to do with materialism.

    In the 50's, not only were homes smaller, there was nothing else to buy. Houses are much bigger today, even though families are smaller, and each kid has to have their own room.

    We didn't need to spend $100 on a pair of Nike's, with Michael Jordan getting most of that due to endorsements. Even into the 60s and 70s, "bling" was uncool.

    Kids had old, beat up cars, if they had a car at all. I wish I could count how many times I had to hitch hike home because either my car or a friend's would break down.

    Now kids are getting new cars just because the "graduated" from middle school to high school.

    You have video games that cost $100s for the console, plus more for each game. When I was a kid, we had a couple of balls (baseball, basketball and footballs) and that was it.

    We had one TV. Not one TV in every room. Other than a radio, there really weren't any other electronic devices we "had" to have.

    We ate at home.

    My grandma would get up at 5am every day during the summer and open all the doors and windows to let in the cool morning air. After a couple of hours, she'd close the house up, this was our air conditioning back then, and it worked.

    Granted, part of the problem is changing economics, but another part of the problem is how much "stuff" we "have to" have today. We got so much stuff that even our bigger houses can't hold it all and we need to rent storage space to hold all of our stuff.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1057319].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      IMO, a lot of the problem of it taking two people to make a living today, as opposed to earlier in history, has as much to do with materialism.

      In the 50's, not only were homes smaller, there was nothing else to buy. Houses are much bigger today, even though families are smaller, and each kid has to have their own room.

      We didn't need to spend $100 on a pair of Nike's, with Michael Jordan getting most of that due to endorsements. Even into the 60s and 70s, "bling" was uncool.

      Kids had old, beat up cars, if they had a car at all. I wish I could count how many times I had to hitch hike home because either my car or a friend's would break down.

      Now kids are getting new cars just because the "graduated" from middle school to high school.

      You have video games that cost $100s for the console, plus more for each game. When I was a kid, we had a couple of balls (baseball, basketball and footballs) and that was it.

      We had one TV. Not one TV in every room. Other than a radio, there really weren't any other electronic devices we "had" to have.

      We ate at home.

      My grandma would get up at 5am every day during the summer and open all the doors and windows to let in the cool morning air. After a couple of hours, she'd close the house up, this was our air conditioning back then, and it worked.

      Granted, part of the problem is changing economics, but another part of the problem is how much "stuff" we "have to" have today. We got so much stuff that even our bigger houses can't hold it all and we need to rent storage space to hold all of our stuff.
      Absolutely a spot on post Kurt.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058132].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
    Kurt - you pretty much summed up my childhood as well.

    Thanks for the memories
    Signature

    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058157].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I disagree with you TL, I think it all changed with Nixon.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058430].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I disagree with you TL, I think it all changed with Nixon.
      I agree. As soon as our president got caught red handed, then it was all different
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058445].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

        I agree. As soon as our president got caught red handed, then it was all different

        Lots of people believe it all changed when JFK was assassinated. Not me.

        Nixon's probs did put a dent in the way lots of Americans viewed the pres and the federal gov. Mostly the pres but not the fed gov in general.

        No pres had been touched by scandal since Harding.


        But no major policy shifts happened under Nixon.


        When inflation tried to get out of control...

        Nixon froze wages and prices - by executive order I think:

        ( dictator and very socialistic )

        This got him in trouble with the establishment more than anything else he did while pres.

        Nixon opened talks "red" China: ( making nice with commies ???? )

        Nixon started the EPA: ( gov intrusion!!!! )

        The above 3 policies are those that most people would think a dem would propose and try to conduct.

        But as I said, FDR set the tone and there where no major departures from his tone until...

        ...The Rise Of Ranger Ron.

        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058588].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I disagree with you TL, I think it all changed with Nixon.

      Lots of people believe it all changed when JFK was assassinated. Not me.

      Nixon's probs did put a dent in the way lots of Americans viewed the pres and the federal gov. Mostly the pres but not the fed gov in general.

      No pres had been touched by scandal since Harding.


      But no major policy shifts happened under Nixon.


      When inflation tried to get out of control...

      Nixon froze wages and prices - by executive order I think:

      ( dictator and very socialistic )

      This got him in trouble with the establishment more than anything else he did while pres.

      Nixon opened talks "red" China: ( making nice with commies ???? )

      Nixon started the EPA: ( gov intrusion!!!! )

      The above 3 policies are those that most people would think a dem would propose and try to conduct.

      But as I said, FDR set the tone and there where no major departures from his tone until...

      ...The Rise Of Ranger Ron.

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058592].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      I disagree with you TL, I think it all changed with Nixon.
      I think it changes with every president...
      Signature

      Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1062755].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    TL, you don't have to post the same thing twice.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058910].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      TL, you don't have to post the same thing twice.

      Sorry, my mistake.

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058959].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Np, actually I realized that might have come off rude and it wasnt intended that way.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1058992].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Np, actually I realized that might have come off rude and it wasnt intended that way.
      Not at all.

      All The Best!!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1059262].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Two party system is nothing but two sides of the same coin - until we elect a third party candidate we're just going through the loops - getting someone chosen by Central bank and bilderberg to further bilk us of anything we can earn.

    Kurt - I think your take on consumerism is spot on. It used to be that when corporations did what they shouldn't, they got boycotted. People now don't understand that you can ruin a corporation if it steps too far into the political arena - just don't buy for them -don't work for them. Their only power is customers and employees.

    We also were not set up for a 100% work force. There aren't enough jobs, not because of the jobs, but because the job market is flooded - every man, woman, and child now thinks they need a job. If those that don't need them would stay out of the market and maybe do something else like volunteer work, or creative endeavors, we might normalize faster. Keeping a home running takes one hell of a lot of work and when both have to work the division of labor falls apart - everyone ends up with too much and kids end up being raised by outsiders. Now I don't feel it's right to force women to stay home - but I do feel if she makes a choice to have a baby, she should be at home at least until that kid goes to school. All this have to have is doing is destroying the family unit, and making people tired, stressed, and ill.

    We are being taught very nicely to be voracious consumers --- and that is ALL we are being taught to be. The gov and corps can't just do anything they want to citizens - but they can do anything to a die-hard consumer because they will take anything dished out to keep their idiotic luxuries.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1059359].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
    Nobody is making people be consumers.

    and we would probably elect a third party candidate, if all the third party candidates weren't wackos.

    But then again if they weren't wackos, they would be picked up by the 2 major parties.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1059367].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HomeBizNizz
      Yes.... :p
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1059590].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Obama's presidency DID start already. They are ALREADY talking about the 200 day mark! And he is TAKING CREDIT for stuff during it, and even DENYING he had a hand in its beginnings that, though it happened prior to his presidency, is stuff he campaigned on, is furthering, and VOTED ON!

      So YEP, we CAN judge him!

      Steve
      Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

      Nobody is making people be consumers.

      and we would probably elect a third party candidate, if all the third party candidates weren't wackos.

      But then again if they weren't wackos, they would be picked up by the 2 major parties.
      Exactly. I looked at the list of the last third party candidates for US president, and I "think" every single one of them was a former member of the two major parties.

      Only when they got kicked out or were a big loser for a major party did they join a third party. Third party candidates are really just rejects from the two major parties.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1060358].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Exactly. I looked at the list of the last third party candidates for US president, and I "think" every single one of them was a former member of the two major parties.

        Only when they got kicked out or were a big loser for a major party did they join a third party. Third party candidates are really just rejects from the two major parties.
        Well, that is pretty much a given. The top 2 parties are the only ones really giving support, or being serious about candidates, and probably the only ones getting ANY money from the government. So you would think everyone would try them. Of course, if you can't run THERE, you have a better chance elsewhere, even if it isn't much of a chance.

        Frankly, I think they are ALL NUTS.(to put it politely). I have NEVER voted FOR a president, but against the other. It is voting for the lesser of two evils. I WISH there were a smart, moral, decent, commanding person that a party and people liked. Sadly, that is unlikely. The party wants an agenda, and the presidents act like there is a hidden agenda. So most such people won't make it to first base.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1060489].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Ah yeah. I guess you guys are totally right - the only ones that aren't whackos are the ones that are giving themselves raises while many Sr. Cits are now starving to death - signed a bailout againsst major opposition by the largest percentage of citizens against a bill ever, start illegal wars, tax us illegally, break laws like they think they are demi-gods rather than public servants, sign bills that break their oaths of office. Steal public lands then make you pay to walk on them and put curfews on your time allowed to be there, legislate according to the perks they receive from lobbyists, sign bills without knowing what is in them, vote against their constituent's wills................. write laws like the Pot laws that benefit a few corporations and nobody else but big gov and corps, "Lose" several trillion dollars and refuse to answer for it.....the list goes on....

    Well, good to know that everyone else is a whacko except those that have already commenced reaming you a new one...and are getting real close to finishing the job....even though the majority are saying NO to them. I'm glad you are satisfied with what you have given yourselves.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1060404].message }}

Trending Topics