Yes, GTF, the South, put a fence around it and one would have the largest nuthouse in the world. Learned that one living in Mississippi.
Now is that any way to talk about all my kin-folk that have kept you in Presidents and whacko radio-talk-show hosts for all these years ? Did you know that half of Georgia (and a number of other States) went to Texas in the 19th Century ? GTT -- Gone to Texas.
Of course, Bush ain't really from Texas and Cheney ain't really from Wyoming. Speaking of Cheney, who's going to sign Bush's pardon ?
"David Claudio Iglesias (born 1958) is an American attorney from Albuquerque, New Mexico.[1][2]
He was appointed by President George W. Bush as the United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico in August 2001 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in October 2001.[2] He was one of eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration in 2006 for "performance-related issues." (see Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy). Iglesias had received a positive performance review before he was fired.
On The Daily Show first broadcast on June 16, 2008, Iglesias was asked about his political ideology. Host Jon Stewart pointed out that Iglesias had been a committed Republican. Stewart asked whether Iglesias' experiences made him feel disappointed and betrayed. Iglesias replied, "Yes, and to use a Star Wars kind of imagery, I thought I was working with the Jedi Knights, and I was working for the Sith Lords." "
So, Rove will get one, Cheney (aka "The Dark Lord") will get one,...who else ? Miers ? Bolten ?
I sure hope you are right on 2010, if your 2008 prediction is wrong. My dread is BHO is really a stalking horse containing all the ideas of Rev Wright, Bill Ayres and his terrorist wife B. Dohrn, Nancy Pelosi, Ludricris, San Francisco Democrats, the AFL-CIO and NEA, Jimmy Carter, Bilary and a rogue's gallery of anti-American fellow travelers. Ideas like, increased taxes on the productive element in society, subsidies for the unproductive element, more government programs aimed at making everyone wards of the state and killing freedom and choice, more laws abrogating the Bill of Rights-campaign reform, "fairness doctrine", gun control all the while giving "rights" to terrorists, criminals and assorted bad actors. Have I left anything out? Oh, all of these terrible ideas will be instituted in violation of the Constitution, where the power to pass these "laws" was never granted by Article I, but BHO's Supreme Court justice appointments will just OK 'em like the 1937-1942 Supremes did for FDR's unconstitutional usurpations of power.
Bloody disaster!!
GTF I suppose the smart ones left for TX leaving you as the sole repository of smarts in the whole state. Except for the northerners from New York, New Jersey and New England who are running from a horrid business climate and taxation up the yin-yang. Oh, that's right Georgia is poverty-stricken hell that can't educate the young and don't provide health care for anyone, as you pointed out awhile back, so the escapees must be stupid, too.
Last edited by galaxy flyer : 9th October 2008 at 01:51.
The Pres Debate Version 2 was a bore. Nothing beyond prior sound bites. As they say in poker, "Call". STFU, let's vote and get it over with.
But I've enjoyed revisiting the VP debate, especially all the histrionics here about Palin.
It seems the chattering classes in the big media (who I suppose is all our Euro friends can get their information from) were quick to pronounce that debate for Biden over Palin. "She was insulting us all by winking." "She has too much hair." "She pulled the wool over Biden by calling him Joe." (Turns out that's his real name!) "She's an empty pantsuit." and on and on.
But Biden, well "He had command of the issues." "He showed understanding of foreign affairs." "He looked presidential." "He explained the nuances of his positions."
Never mind the fact that within a day or two, most everything he said turned out to be either a lie, misleading, or a stretching of the truth. A true Gasbag Tour de Force. But did anyone call him on it? Noooo.
By the way, where's Biden these days? Just "Biden his time" I guess.
Never mind the fact that within a day or two, most everything he said turned out to be either a lie, misleading, or a stretching of the truth. A true Gasbag Tour de Force. But did anyone call him on it? Noooo.
A few white lies. Amusing.
But at least it wasn't pure fantasy.
"John McCain knows how to win a war. Who's been there and he's faced challenges and he knows what evil is and knows what it takes to overcome the challenges here with our military."
Here was me thinking he was shot down and tortured as a POW in a war that America eventually lost.
Hey ! Wait a minute...isn't that what you said the last time around ? How'd that work out ?
If you are referring to the 2004 election, it is not my fault that the Democrats cannot find a halfway decent Presidential candidate. Matter of fact they still can't.
Even though they have had some good people, like Joe Lieberman and Bill Richardson. But they just keep going with the most liberal one they can find. Now, you have to admit that John McCain is not or was not the most conservative candidate on the Republican side, neither was Rudy Giuliani.
Justice Curtis had this to say in the his dissenting opinion in the famous Dred Scott decision:
Quote:
To engraft on any instrument a substantive exception not found in it, must be admitted to be a matter attended with great difficulty. And the difficulty increases with the importance of the instrument, and the magnitude and complexity of the interests involved in its construction. To allow this to be done with the Constitution, upon reasons purely political, renders its judicial interpretation impossible-because judicial tribunals, as such, cannot decide upon political considerations. Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford rules of juridical [60 U.S. 393, 621] interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean. When such a method of interpretation of the Constitution obtains, in place of a republican Government, with limited and defined powers, we have a Government which is merely an exponent of the will of Congress; or what, in my opinion, would not be preferable, an exponent of the individual political opinions of the members of this court.
You wonder why I cite the Constitution and demand amendments for some of the ideas that have been passed-Social Security, gay marriage, Medicare, proposed health care program, the bailout, it goes on. In the pre-1937 constitutional regime, we got citizens to approve the major changes in their government that went beyond the enumerated powers, not the Courts or Congress. We need to return to those days, instead of your standard of "what works"; a phrase Mr Madison didn't include in the document.
GF Bring Back Constitutional Government, no one in Government today would agree to it, BTW.
Last edited by galaxy flyer : 9th October 2008 at 03:33.
harrogate.... How do you suppose BHO possesses the skills of war, ie: when to engage, when it might be necessary to pull back, how such skills might add value in diplomacy... when he's experienced NONE, has not distinguished himself in such affairs and has such a short tenure in the Senate and has typically voted along party lines?
Palin might be enhancing McCain's attributes, but they far exceed BHO's in the art of int'l engagement. Like most career soldiers that achieve political status, including Colin Powell, sending troops into harms way is the last option. McCain lived through it, saw the repercussions and still serves this country. Not for one minute do I believe he would engage our men and women needlessly. But now is not the time to change horses in the middle of the stream.
I doubt that BHO even knows how to saddle the horse, much less ride it.
DENVER (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that a $150 billion economic stimulus plan is needed now because of the faltering economy and she may call the House into session after the election to pass it.
Pelosi told reporters that the stock market meltdown, which has caused an estimated $2 trillion loss from pension funds, was a factor in her recommendation for a second stimulus bill. The first relief plan sent out $600-$1,200 tax rebate checks to most individuals and couples this year.
The House did pass a $61 billion economic aid proposal last month before lawmakers left Capitol Hill ahead of the Nov. 4 election. But a similar plan failed to pass the Senate. President Bush had promised a veto anyway.
If Democratic nominee Barack Obama wins the White House and if Capitol Hill Democrats make gains in the elections as well, it might be easier to pass a stimulus measure over dispirited Republicans, especially if the economy remains in big trouble.
The Senate is expected to be back at work after Election Day to complete a public lands bill and perhaps deal with other matters, such as a measure to extend unemployment benefits. The House also could return to consider a stimulus plan and additional issues in a lame-duck session before the newly elected Congress takes over in January.
"We may have to go back into session before the next Congress," Pelosi said.
Pelosi said a stimulus package would create jobs by investing in public works, increasing food stamps benefits and extending unemployment insurance for the long-term jobless. She said lawmakers need to "hunker down" and look closely at the federal budget for possible savings, and reconsider whether the U.S. can afford to fight "a war without end" in Iraq.
"We have some very harsh decisions to make and some of them can't wait until January," said Pelosi, D-Calif.
"What we can't wait for is a stimulus package," Pelosi added. "We may have to go back into session before the next Congress."
__________________________________________________ _______________________
You all know that none of this can be good for you in the end, but like children, are you all foolishly hoping that the skinny black man, the man in the empty suit is really the Wizard of Oz promising you more of the same going to save you?????
DK
I'm looking over some very under priced stocks that I believe will rebound later.
Keep us posted how you go.
When the Dow hits 8800 its a 38% pull back from its 2007 highs. 38% was the pullback in 1928/1929. It eventually returned to its 1928 level in 1954, its lowest ever point was 1932.
It should blow to 8000 (7000? 6000?) at least once your economy actually starts to contract/depress.
Name the stock and the price you paid and we'll track it (I have gucci charting software).
My cynicism doesn't apply if its a Gold Mining stock (going up like a raped ape amongst the carnage).
I dont know what that is, but ok. I purchased 450 shares of SkyWest (SKW)stock. I don't care what former AAL chairmen Crandell says about buying airline stock. It made me a fair amount of money post 911. The stock dove and recovered to a nice profit. I'm also looking at some bio tech stuff here in San Diego that I think might take off. There's word that some large grants from the state and from other sources are in the works but I need a little more time on those.
As far as the market rebounding, well that's one bet I'll make with you. The dow will be back to 10K by this time next year if not sooner.
Quote:
Try Obama then
You may very well get your wish. Pop the corks on the 4th and enjoy it should it happen. You'll be crying in your warm beer not to soon after. The changes many in my Euro family (yeah, I really have family in old Europe) expect won't be realized. The US is still going to act in a manner that best suits our needs, as we don't have allies only interests. The US is still going to have a similar agenda as applied to it's domestic and foreign policies. The differences will likely be in shades of gray and not a departure from existing methods.
If style means a lot to you then you might be happy for awhile. Essentially BO role should he be elected is as the new public relations face for the US. He has an engaging smile and schmoozes with the best of them, at least as seen on TV. If that warm and fuzzy is sufficient enough for you to believe change has occurred, more power to you. If a substantial change of direction is what you seek, I think your going to be disappointed. You may get the news from a smiling lawyer from Chicago rather than a slightly more dour man from Arizona but it's a change of style not really substance.
Rather than telling me why I'm wrong, wait a year and see if there's been the massive transformation you seek beyond the accent of the one delivering news you don't like.
But don't underestimate the difference style can make. The president's Republican core (or what is left of it) did what it wanted and gave the finger to the rest of the world. Naturally the world became a lot less accommodating of the US and the US found itself all but alone. Obama will do what he wants (or at least, what he can do within the limitations imposed by the political classes in Washington), the rest of the world will get little say, but at least it will get some say and the US will be better supported as a result. Institutions matter and Obama seems far more likely to listen to, support and strengthen international institutions than the likes of Palin/McCain.
As for Obama representing a real difference, perhaps if comparing him to McCain the difference may be marginal, but that is as much to do with McCain being a middle of the road Reupublican as anything else. But comparing him to Bush, how could he be any more different? Bush took the opportunity after 9/11 to launch a war in Iraq. Obama bitterly opposed it (against popular support). That speaks volumes for me - the two are worlds apart.
The TV debates are nothing more than soundbites, and both candidates are playing to the middle of the road dissaffected swing voter. I have a feeling McCain will swing further right and Obama further left if elected, but right now, to do so, is a vote loser.
Linear Mode
