VABills Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Oh God please no. Why not. It's not like your vote in California counts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 but, it will never happen, and we will probably destroy ourselves in the process Which is a great thing. You really want some of the bassakwards countries having a say how your life will be governed?? Really dude, come back to us when you've lived in the real world for a few decades, not the academia bubble you're in now. Why not. It's not like your vote in California counts Not on the national stage but it does count in CA. It's amazing how conservative this state becomes with regard to some of the propositions we vote on. Those affect me more than who the damn President is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Which is a great thing. You really want some of the bassakwards countries having a say how your life will be governed?? Really dude, come back to us when you've lived in the real world for a few decades, not the academia bubble you're in now. Not on the national stage but it does count in CA. It's amazing how conservative this state becomes with regard to some of the propositions we vote on. Those affect me more than who the damn President is. doesnt the same process happen in the US. those commies still have a say lol? would you just jail them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 BO was bumbling last night. He clearly got crushed. A couple thoughts: I'm wondering how Romney's domineering attitude toward Lehrer (who's too old for this role) played with the female voters? Obama barely responded to so many openings. Romney basically said, "we'll give rainbows and ponies to everyone," without saying they will come flying out of his arse. I won't be voting for either of these bozos. Quoted for truth. When you consider that there are over 300 million people in this country, it's absurd that we're given two individuals with whom we can invest our political hopes and expecations. Like Rod Serling absurdity. We can vote for one intelligent jackass or one intelligent dumbass, both of whom inspire zero confidence as a galvanizer of meaningful, sincere, substantive, change. Serling absurdity. And the electorate are a bunch of inconsiderately fu(((ked Henry Bemis'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 doesnt the same process happen in the US. those commies still have a say lol? would you just jail them? The commies are a very small minority in this country. In your world governed utopia we'd be a very small minority. The commies are a very small minority in this country. In your world governed utopia we'd be a very small minority. You'd be the first one crying when your cushy US lifestyle was comprimised. Quoted for truth. When you consider that there are over 300 million people in this country, it's absurd that we're given two individuals with whom we can invest our political hopes and expecations. Really? Is that how our government works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I shall be telling this with a sigh, Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads converged in a debate, and I -- I took the easy one to travel by, and that has made all the difference. Mr. Obama is not up to the job, he is voting present again, sometimes you just have to let a man go. . . . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Really? Is that how our government works? Sure is. In a decidedly partisan political universe, where "crossing the isle" is a talking point that people say just to get votes but not with any real intention, and where the POTUS can't garner any effort from any in the opposite party because of concerns over political self-preservation, and where the highest court in the land is nominated by the President, and where the President sets the legislative agenda for their party, and can disrupt the legislative agenda for the opposing party... ....it's absurd that we're given two individuals with whom we can invest our political hopes and expecations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Sure is. In a decidedly partisan political universe, where "crossing the isle" is a talking point that people say just to get votes but not with any real intention, and where the POTUS can't garner any effort from any in the opposite party because of concerns over political self-preservation, and where the highest court in the land is nominated by the President, and where the President sets the legislative agenda for their party, and can disrupt the legislative agenda for the opposing party... ....it's absurd that we're given two individuals with whom we can invest our political hopes and expecations. I think you're giving too much power to the President. The inability to cross party lines in the fault of the President not the system. As we all know Clinton was very good at crossing the line and actually getting some things done. Sure the President chooses the SC but that too is a revolving door albeit a slow revolving door. Unfortunately our founding fathers didn't anticipate the current life expectancy when they designed their seats for life but that will some day, I hope, be changed. This is why Romney works in my opinion. He comes from a board room where you HAVE to listen to both sides and make a judgement call on which idea or combination of ideas is the best solution. In corporate America it's all about negotiation and comprimise and I feel we can get the back with our government. I'm as cynical as the next guy but I have hope for change. Wait, did I really just say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I think you're giving too much power to the President. The inability to cross party lines in the fault of the President not the system. As we all know Clinton was very good at crossing the line and actually getting some things done. Sure the President chooses the SC but that too is a revolving door albeit a slow revolving door. Unfortunately our founding fathers didn't anticipate the current life expectancy when they designed their seats for life but that will some day, I hope, be changed. This is why Romney works in my opinion. He comes from a board room where you HAVE to listen to both sides and make a judgement call on which idea or combination of ideas is the best solution. In corporate America it's all about negotiation and comprimise and I feel we can get the back with our government. I'm as cynical as the next guy but I have hope for change. Wait, did I really just say that. Point taken. Clinton was good at that. Just seems like things have been hyper-partisan since (with the exception of roughly 18 months post fall, 2001). Both Bush and Obama haven't been successful at all at conciliation and political road-making. I know that the Congress' during both administrations were obstructionist. I don't know if that was a Congressional reaction to a perceived unwillingness of the President to work with them,, or political self-preservation on the side of the opposing Congress. Think about it though, the system is counter-intuitive...a majority party in Congress of the opposite ideological persuasion to the WH has no incentive to work with the WH. If they help to advance WH initiatives, and they're successful, they're sustaining the political power of that opposing party. It actually behooves them to stonewall and obstruct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 I won't be voting for either of these bozos. I keep hearing people say this, and the funny thing is that all the people who say this voted for Obama in 2008. So I encourage you to stick to your convictions. Vote Gary Johnson 2012! Because as long as the media ignores him, you'll never see what a bozo he is, too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Point taken. Clinton was good at that. Just seems like things have been hyper-partisan since (with the exception of roughly 18 months post fall, 2001). Both Bush and Obama haven't been successful at all at conciliation and political road-making. I know that the Congress' during both administrations were obstructionist. I don't know if that was a Congressional reaction to a perceived unwillingness of the President to work with them,, or political self-preservation on the side of the opposing Congress. Think about it though, the system is counter-intuitive...a majority party in Congress of the opposite ideological persuasion to the WH has no incentive to work with the WH. If they help to advance WH initiatives, and they're successful, they're sustaining the political power of that opposing party. It actually behooves them to stonewall and obstruct. Oh no doubt it's gotten a hell of a lot worse in the past few years and it's not a perfect system but damn those guys over 200 years ago really came up with something quite special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 For more than four years the Press hasn't been tough on BO. That probably contributed to BO's craptacular Presentation. He's surrounded by lackeys and toady sychophants in a bubble world where never a discouraging word is uttered. Thank you mainstream media! The man of your making was exposed as the vapid, vacuous, empty suit he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Al Gore said that the reason obama did so poorly was he didnt have time to adjust to Denver's alttitude. :lol: :lol: I just heard the clip and actually chuckled out loud. And this is the guy that lectures us on global warming or climate change or whatever the marketing is these days. And how long until someone Photoshops one of those respirators NFL teams use on the sideline beside Barry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 For more than four years the Press hasn't been tough on BO. That probably contributed to BO's craptacular Presentation. He's surrounded by lackeys and toady sychophants in a bubble world where never a discouraging word is uttered. Thank you mainstream media! The man of your making was exposed as the vapid, vacuous, empty suit he is. I heard that this morning as probably one of the reasons he didn't do so well. He doesn't know how to respond to criticism seeing he gets very little. That's another reason Romney would work. In the board room your ideas are shot down all the time and shot down not because the person dislikes you or is partisan but they want the overal company to succed or do better. You should hear some of our RVP meetings. I went against another VP (my original mentor in this biz) regarding referrals and his response was "I disagree and by the way Jim how is your office at getting referrals?" Good point man....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) Point taken. Clinton was good at that. Just seems like things have been hyper-partisan since (with the exception of roughly 18 months post fall, 2001). Both Bush and Obama haven't been successful at all at conciliation and political road-making. I know that the Congress' during both administrations were obstructionist. I don't know if that was a Congressional reaction to a perceived unwillingness of the President to work with them,, or political self-preservation on the side of the opposing Congress. Think about it though, the system is counter-intuitive...a majority party in Congress of the opposite ideological persuasion to the WH has no incentive to work with the WH. If they help to advance WH initiatives, and they're successful, they're sustaining the political power of that opposing party. It actually behooves them to stonewall and obstruct. With Clinton....it helped that he was a successful 3? term(I know 2 for sure) Democratic gov...in a Republican state. Actually, I don't think that can be overstated. Romney may be garbage to you...but, he is garbage that got a lot done as a Republican...in THE Democratic state. In fact, I think any candidate should get a +5 for being able to get things done in a contentious State. I think it depends on the person...but...we should also be very wary of those who come from "machine" states....like Bush, Texas, and Obama, Illinois. Edited October 4, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Point taken. Clinton was good at that. Just seems like things have been hyper-partisan since (with the exception of roughly 18 months post fall, 2001). Both Bush and Obama haven't been successful at all at conciliation and political road-making. I know that the Congress' during both administrations were obstructionist. I don't know if that was a Congressional reaction to a perceived unwillingness of the President to work with them,, or political self-preservation on the side of the opposing Congress. Think about it though, the system is counter-intuitive...a majority party in Congress of the opposite ideological persuasion to the WH has no incentive to work with the WH. If they help to advance WH initiatives, and they're successful, they're sustaining the political power of that opposing party. It actually behooves them to stonewall and obstruct. It was nasty until Clinton crushed Gingrich's power march, just as nasty as it was under Pelosi or Boehner. One big problem is that Congress is not independent anymore. The President is the most powerful figure in government, the President is a member of party X, therefore the President is the leader of party X, therefore it is the duty of Party X members in Congress to serve the President. But the real harm is the internal workings of Congress itself. It's rigged TO BE PARTISAN and has been trending that way more and more for 30 years w/ Sir Gingrich kicking it into overdrive. Committees are not deliberative bodies....it's a complete joke. The Speaker is automatically selected based on the party in power...the Speakers doesn't even HAVE to be a member of Congress...in a perfect world it would be someone outside Congress who 60% or more of Congress could agree should be speaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 It was nasty until Clinton crushed Gingrich's power march, just as nasty as it was under Pelosi or Boehner. One big problem is that Congress is not independent anymore. The President is the most powerful figure in government, the President is a member of party X, therefore the President is the leader of party X, therefore it is the duty of Party X members in Congress to serve the President. But the real harm is the internal workings of Congress itself. It's rigged TO BE PARTISAN and has been trending that way more and more for 30 years w/ Sir Gingrich kicking it into overdrive. Committees are not deliberative bodies....it's a complete joke. The Speaker is automatically selected based on the party in power...the Speakers doesn't even HAVE to be a member of Congress...in a perfect world it would be someone outside Congress who 60% or more of Congress could agree should be speaker. I volunteer for this position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 With Clinton....it helped that he was a successful 3? term(I know 2 for sure) Democratic gov...in a Republican state. Actually, I don't think that can be overstated. Romney may be garbage to you...but, he is garbage that got a lot done as a Republican...in THE Democratic state. I thought a very interesting part of the debate that hasn't really received any attention (that I'm aware of) is when Romney sort of addressed the 'lack of details' charge from President Obama. He said (and I'm obviously paraphrasing): "Look, I'm not going to come to the table with my proposal written down and tell everyone "It's my way or the highway". There are a number of different ways to get where I want to go. You can lower rates farther and take away more deductions, or you could lower them less and take away less deductions. I am setting out the broad principles of where I want to go, and we'll work together on how to get there." He also referenced Ronald Reagan, and, I think, Bill Clinton as having done that and proved that it worked. Anyway. Just thought that was a huge win on the point at the time. He also made some reference to President Obama having a lot of details about his plans for all of his claiming there are no details. I thought that was a nice point at the time, too. Of course, no one is really talking about either of these things today, so that tells you how in touch I am with America. Or rather, how in touch I am with what the media thinks is important to tell America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 It was nasty until Clinton crushed Gingrich's power march, just as nasty as it was under Pelosi or Boehner. One big problem is that Congress is not independent anymore. The President is the most powerful figure in government, the President is a member of party X, therefore the President is the leader of party X, therefore it is the duty of Party X members in Congress to serve the President. But the real harm is the internal workings of Congress itself. It's rigged TO BE PARTISAN and has been trending that way more and more for 30 years w/ Sir Gingrich kicking it into overdrive. Committees are not deliberative bodies....it's a complete joke. The Speaker is automatically selected based on the party in power...the Speakers doesn't even HAVE to be a member of Congress...in a perfect world it would be someone outside Congress who 60% or more of Congress could agree should be speaker. It's also rigged...to give itself more power. More than half the reason the budget/deficit/debt is what it is...is because in general...nobody wants to be part of the "do nothing Congress" ever since FDR called it that. So...they have to do "something"...even when nothing is the better choice. How many unintended consequences are we dealing with today...because "something" was done? More "oversight" is necessary...the more things you create. If you simplify the tax code, you also severely limit the power of Congress.. You do a flat tax/fair tax, whatever....you just took away 70% of Congress's ability to hold their constituencies hostage for campaign money. Hell a simplistic tax code would chase half of Congress out of the profession altogether...as it would no longer be profitable. I thought a very interesting part of the debate that hasn't really received any attention (that I'm aware of) is when Romney sort of addressed the 'lack of details' charge from President Obama. He said (and I'm obviously paraphrasing): "Look, I'm not going to come to the table with my proposal written down and tell everyone "It's my way or the highway". There are a number of different ways to get where I want to go. You can lower rates farther and take away more deductions, or you could lower them less and take away less deductions. I am setting out the broad principles of where I want to go, and we'll work together on how to get there." He also referenced Ronald Reagan, and, I think, Bill Clinton as having done that and proved that it worked. Anyway. Just thought that was a huge win on the point at the time. He also made some reference to President Obama having a lot of details about his plans for all of his claiming there are no details. I thought that was a nice point at the time, too. Of course, no one is really talking about either of these things today, so that tells you how in touch I am with America. Or rather, how in touch I am with what the media thinks is important to tell America. How you do things as a Chicago Democrat...because we are all Democrats, and this is about maintaining the pecking order.... How you do things as a Massachusetts Republican...because every has their eye on you...and they can all take you out any time...especially the voters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) It's also rigged...to give itself more power. More than half the reason the budget/deficit/debt is what it is...is because in general...nobody wants to be part of the "do nothing Congress" ever since FDR called it that. So...they have to do "something"...even when nothing is the better choice. How many unintended consequences are we dealing with today...because "something" was done? More "oversight" is necessary...the more things you create. If you simplify the tax code, you also severely limit the power of Congress.. You do a flat tax/fair tax, whatever....you just took away 70% of Congress's ability to hold their constituencies hostage for campaign money. Hell a simplistic tax code would chase half of Congress out of the profession altogether...as it would no longer be profitable. Congress has delegated more power (hard/soft..whatever) through partisan urges to the President (both sides)...even to the point of failed unconstitutional attempts... And Truman coined the do nothing congress not FDR...in any event the last congress did far less than that congress so it's hard to say they are afraid of being that again Edited October 4, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts