# U.S. Headed Down the Wrong Track??



## MA-Caver (Apr 4, 2008)

> NYTimes.com
> *81% in Poll Say Nation Is Headed on Wrong Track*
> Friday April 4, 8:38 pm ET
> By DAVID LEONHARDT and MARJORIE CONNELLY
> ...


81% that's quite a lot. It's going to take a big effort for the republicans to pull their butts outta the fire and make people want to vote republican this coming November. The democrats that are holding the Senate and House in majority are equally to blame. 

All the more need for a multi-party system of government. New ideas new methods to fix old problems instead of the old way to fix an old problem. 
May sound like a multi party system of 4 or 5 different political groups would cause more dissent and arguments and confusion but I think it'll help get the people who should be running this country, more aligned with whats going on in Washington. Telling Washington what to do instead of the other way around. 
The low morale is stemming from helplessness because of all the national security worries being heaped upon and any loud or vocal opposition may be viewed upon as Anti-American and a potential terrorist cell lying in wait. 

*sniff* hmm getting a tiny bit of a whiff of socialism here.


----------



## tellner (Apr 4, 2008)

Headed down the wrong track?

That is so understated as to be actively misleading.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 4, 2008)

Maybe the American people need to wake up and stop wanting Big Government to take care of every little thing, and stop supporting the "big 2" aand start actually demanding accountability of their elected officials, and take control back?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 4, 2008)

It's not my country, gentlemen but I think that Bob makes a very good point there.

I'm not so sure that a multi-party system will help matters particularly.  Somewhat like proportional representation, it sounds like a good idea in the beginning but the consequence is most likely to be akin to the Polish Parliament i.e. nothing will get done.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 4, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Maybe the American people need to wake up and stop wanting Big Government to take care of every little thing, and stop supporting the "big 2" aand start actually demanding accountability of their elected officials, and take control back?



Well the thing is people seem to forget that it's within our rights to do so by the constitution that if we don't like who ever is in office we can throw them out. We do that via electoral processes sure, but we keep re-electing these guys and they keep doing the same thing... letting Big Business tell them what to do instead of the little guys. And why not because the little guys don't give them paid vacations or other little "thank you" incentives for passing this or that bill so that their businesses can make more money. 

An AA speaker I love to listen to, talked about how important it is for us to get in touch with our feelings he comments on that... further saying: "... the government is terrified of us (the people) getting in touch with our feelings... you realize that if we were all in touch with our feelings we'd throw all these mother****ers out!..."

A little revolution is good now and again.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 4, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> An AA speaker I love to listen to, talked about how important it is for us to get in touch with our feelings he comments on that... further saying: "... the government is terrified of us (the people) getting in touch with our feelings... you realize that if we were all in touch with our feelings we'd throw all these mother****ers out!..."


 
A wise man.



MA-Caver said:


> A little revolution is good now and again.


 
Another very wise man.


----------



## tellner (Apr 4, 2008)

Or maybe Americans will wake up and realize that The Sacred Markte (LAAAA!) isn't


Omnipotent
Omniscient
Omnibenevolent
Efficient
Equitable
Capable of Long-Term Planning
When something has to be there today, tomorrow and next year you can't trust the need to be filled marketmagically. And you absolutely can not trust any for-profit firm to do anything for the public good unless doing so would serve its own good more than any other alternative. We've had twenty eight years of deregulation, "government-business partnership", "the magic of the Market", privatizing, and self-regulation. It. Has. Not. Worked. Far from the government doing "every little thing" for us it has gone further in the other direction than any time in the last century or so. 

Profit is a useful motive for a lot of things. It is not magic. It does not work automatically. And it does not work past the next quarter's balance sheet most of the time. 

What's required is careful planning and consideration with a clear view and the ****-canning of the last three decades of wishful thinking and naive faith that if we just punish the poor, reward the rich and vilify the essence of democracy that everything will miraculously be Good.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 4, 2008)

Given that, as far as I know, *Tellner* and I are the only qualified economists on the board and we agree with each other then perhaps it's time the Sacred Market got put back where it should be?

There are some things that should not be driven by profit motive.  Self interest is an engine for innovation, there is no gainsaying of that but it is also blind and forgetful.  A mixed economy is one that works - we've found out to our cost what trying to be like America brings us:

A National Grid on it's knees through under-investment
A National Health Service that is far from First World any longer .. through under-investment
A Royal Mail that has lost the sterling reputation it once had and is closing Post Officers all over ... through under-investment
A rail system that is falling apart through ... oh ... under investment
A telecommunications system that makes vast profits by scalping those too gullible to know better

Well you get the picture.  Short term profit taking can make a few rich at the long term expense of everyone else.  Servicing the greed of shareholders (oh, sorry, can't call it 'greed' can we, it's 'accelerated return on investment by liquidation of taxpayers assets') reduces provision of services to a level below minimum.

As well as taking the political leaders by the scruff of the neck, the banking system needs to be returned to a sensible mode of operation - trust me, the fantasy-land of the past few decades cannot be sustained.

If radical steps are not taken to reverse the trends then the shadow of the Depression of the '30's will return (except for the drug dealers of course, who thrive under any circumstances).


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 4, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Well you get the picture.  Short term profit taking can make a few rich at the long term expense of everyone else.  Servicing the greed of shareholders (oh, sorry, can't call it 'greed' can we, it's 'accelerated return on investment by liquidation of taxpayers assets') reduces provision of services to a level below minimum.


No, you were right the first time mate, but I'll just call it for what it really is... Greed!


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 4, 2008)

Yes, this is what it is, plain and simple.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 4, 2008)

One thing that I'd like people to consider is that we live in a planned society.  Whatever "wrong track" we are on is actually just a continuation of the same Hegelian dialectic philosophy that gave birth to other "wrong tracks" in the past.  

In MN, we have saying, "if you don't like the weather, wait 5 minutes."  This is sort of like that except that some person down the road decided what the weather would be at this time and planned to make it happen.  You put on a sweater because someone constructed the conditions for you to do so.  You discard that sweater before it has lost any actual usefulness because someone has constructed a reality where that sweater has no usefulness.  

So, what track are we headed down?  I'm sure the media will tell you.  I'm sure that a bunch of true believers on both sides will tell you.  The one thing to keep in mind is that the people who planned this society believed in Hegel's philosophy.  In particular, the part about the Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.  If you control the Thesis and Antithesis, you control the Synthesis.

So, what track are we headed down?  I don't know.  Someone filled our heads with thoughts of utopia and dumbed everyone down so that it would eclipse the real machinations.  Only real students of history will know that we haven't reached the end of this journey yet.  

It will come, as it has before.

One of my favorite quotes is an old german proverb...

"The dead are not dead.  The past is not past."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 4, 2008)

The US is on the track initially desired by Alexander Hamilton, worked for by Henry Clay, and firmly put upon at gunpoint by Abraham Lincoln. It is a track to big government, corporate subsidies, and empire.

This track is NOT the one that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the majority of those who created this Union of once seperate and independant nations envisioned, nor governed.

There is a saying, "Washington and Jefferson created the republic; Lincoln destroyed it."

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson 

The fix might be here:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 4, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The US is on the track initially desired by Alexander Hamilton, worked for by Henry Clay, and firmly put upon at gunpoint by Abraham Lincoln. It is a track to big government, corporate subsidies, and empire.
> 
> This track is NOT the one that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the majority of those who created this Union of once seperate and independant nations envisioned, nor governed.
> 
> ...


 
Bob, you are a terrorist.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 4, 2008)

Well, so were the Founding Fathers.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 4, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Well, so were the Founding Fathers.


 
Certainly.  Seems like its time to change the history books.

Oh wait, that already happened.  It's amazing how little of our founding father's writing is actually found in a modern textbook.

They have become nothing more then weapons of conformity.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 4, 2008)

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 5, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> upnorthkyosa said:
> 
> 
> > Bob, you are a terrorist.
> ...


Ah, but now they're known as patriots. 

I tell people. I love my country. I'd be willing to die for it. I do not, however; love/trust my government, nor shall I be willing to die for THEM. They have not shown that they are willing to die for me. Our soldiers, yes. But presently they're dying for Iraqi's who, do need our help, but I hardly think they need as much blood as we've so far been shedding for them. But the government officials... will they give up what they have to ensure I keep what is my own? My life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? 
Am I willing? Yes, if need be, without hesitation, but not on the whim of those wishing to maintain their seats and power over me, unless they are as willing as I am in defense of (our) native soil. These United States Of America. 
If this soil, this country, these people are surely threatened then I shall do my part, however that I best may. 
But let me be assured that my sacrifice, my blood and the blood of my brothers and compatriots in arms will not be shed in vain, for it is precious to me as it is as pure as the land where I was born. 

Ok enough of that... eventually I think that 81% is going to get higher. I've always said that if a people get tired of how things are done, they'll take care of it themselves. 
I think this will happen with the Somalians, Ethiopians and other starving countries being runned and argued and fought over by so called War-Lords vying for the ultimate seat of power in their lands. They can and will take care of themselves. Just as I believe the Iraqi's and North Korean citizens will take care of the oppression and bloodshed in their respective countries. 
The U.S. as a police force should help out... when a outsider threatens the security of another nation... we should help. But inner turmoil and strife should be best left to the people involved. We need to focus on ourselves and make sure we remain strong to protect ourselves and our liberties from outside invasions. The dispersement of troops to die in a foreign land is not the way to maintain national security IMO. 
81% of the people are beginning to see this as well.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 5, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Given that, as far as I know, *Tellner* and I are the only qualified economists on the board and we agree with each other then perhaps it's time the Sacred Market got put back where it should be?


 
I don't mean to be rude, but this is the second time I have heard this statement on this forum.  Are you saying that because you and Tellner are the "only qualified economists on the board" (whatever that means), that we should defer to your opinion in all things economic?  That we should ignore any other information that we have come across that directly conflicts with what you and Tellner state.

I would agree, that perhaps your opinion should possibly be weighed more heavily in this area then others on this board, but not that their opinion should be ignored.  That's like saying that just because I'm a police officer, on any issue regarding law enforcement, you should just agree with me.  

Again, I'm not trying to be confrontational.  But I just wonder as to the purpose of a statement like that.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 5, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I don't mean to be rude, but this is the second time I have heard this statement on this forum. Are you saying that because you and Tellner are the "only qualified economists on the board" (whatever that means), that we should defer to your opinion in all things economic? That we should ignore any other information that we have come across that directly conflicts with what you and Tellner state.
> 
> I would agree, that perhaps your opinion should possibly be weighed more heavily in this area then others on this board, but not that their opinion should be ignored. That's like saying that just because I'm a police officer, on any issue regarding law enforcement, you should just agree with me.
> 
> Again, I'm not trying to be confrontational. But I just wonder as to the purpose of a statement like that.


 
I kinda agree-it certainly isn't as though anyone has deferred to me as a physicist or engineer, and I don't expect them to-though, I am *awfully damned good at what I do, and certain of what I know*-and think they'd often be foolish not to-though not always.

While he did draw on the work of Adam Smith, Malthus would hardly agree with him on everything-and while only passingly familiar with economics ("voodoo science, as far as I can tell :lol: )  I know that you could have a room full of "qualified economists" in one room and they'd hardly all be in agreement about a given economic situation.

As for the blessed market, I agree with Tellner and Sukerkin-I also think our country is headed down the wrong path, and has been since before Eisenhower's "dangers of the military-industrial complex" speech-which is funny, considering what I do for a living.

Should have made this a poll.......


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 5, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
> Thomas Jefferson


Ouch.  That's gonna leave a mark.

"Oh, please keep us safe from the terrorists at any cost!!!" Does not lead to a free and open society.  There's a choice, safety or freedom.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 5, 2008)

People who will trade liberty for safety, deserve neither and will lose both.

That's a paraphrase of something attributed to another pretty smart guy, Ben Franklin.


Here's the question. With all these expensive layers upon layers upon layers of government, with all these levels of police, with all these ID requirements, and invasive searches at airports, and continually lessened freedoms and liberties......are we truly any safer?

I think not.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 5, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> People who will trade liberty for safety, deserve neither and will lose both.
> 
> That's a paraphrase of something attributed to another pretty smart guy, Ben Franklin.
> 
> ...


While probably this can be a whole other thread in of by itself it jives with this one as a symptom of the 81% (I'll probably break this off anyway as it bears scruitiny)


> http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/07/america/NA_GEN_US_Profiling_Terrorist_Behavior.php
> * Miami airport expands efforts to screen travelers' behavior*
> The Associated Press
> Published: September 7, 2006
> ...


So now we gotta watch how we *act* around airports and other places of high security risks.  

*sniff-sniff* damn,  that socialist odor is getting stronger... or may be it's fascism??

We used to be so relaxed so secure in our safety within the borders of the U.S. until 9-11 now it's looking over our shoulder, cameras every fricken where, watching what we say on the net and in public speaking... (isn't that a constitutional right by the way??) especially at anti-war rallies, demonstrations, register our firearms (yeah, we've *been* doing that... but it's more strict now isn't it?) and so on. Now airport screenings on how we act. This will spread to banks, government offices and eventually schools of higher learning and other places... like, malls and sporting events. 

So are we headed down the wrong track?? 

*sniff-sniff* there's that whiff again...


----------



## Big Don (Apr 5, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> People who will trade liberty for safety, deserve neither and will lose both.
> 
> That's a paraphrase of something attributed to another pretty smart guy, Ben Franklin.



*Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.*
This statement was used as a motto on the title page of _An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania._ (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he _published_ this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The _phrase_ itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania




> Here's the question. With all these expensive layers upon layers upon layers of government, with all these levels of police, with all these ID requirements, and invasive searches at airports, and continually lessened freedoms and liberties......are we truly any safer?
> 
> I think not.


Most of the Conservatives (Limbaugh, etc) said the TSA would be a boondoggle before it started, that the Department of Homeland Security was redundant, (That is the purpose of the military...) but, politicians of BOTH parties disagreed. 
Here is a better quote, although I don't know or care who originally said it:


> The only thing that protects us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency


 Politicians and bureaucrats are rarely leaders...


----------



## tellner (Apr 5, 2008)

Bob, you have a good heart, but you need to stop and consider a few of the things you're saying.

There's a constant high level of background noise in your posts that filters down to "The government is evil. Government is always the problem. Government makes people weak and passive."

Government is the expression of the will of the people. It may do wise things or foolish things. But it is ultimately no better or worse than any other center of power and influence. The alternatives are the Union Hall, the Church and the Boardroom.

The Union Hall is gone. Almost forty years of unremitting war against organized labor has destroyed its political power. The race to the bottom was considered a paranoid fantasy in the days of the last liberal in the White House - Richard Nixon. Today we have been taught from the cradle that it is an inexorable Law of Nature. Labor can not bargain for the marginal product of its own input. Wages have been stagnant or falling as a portion of GDP for decades. Pensions are a thing of the past. We get less vacation time than any developed nation and use a smaller fraction of it. Healthcare is going the same way. The forty hour work week is a pale joke. The NLRB now spends more time rolling back the last seventy years of workers' protections than seeing to their rights.

The Church is close to the most horrible center of power imaginable. By its own standards it can never be wrong. It has the right and duty to impose its will on every aspect of human life. Its corrosive effect on human rights, science, the arts, political freedom and just about everything else in the public sphere is difficult to overestimate. There was a reason the Founders were children of the Enlightenment, not the Reformation. They abhorred and feared the idea of a "Christian government". 

Wall Street? Take a look at what you get with the Untrammeled Power of Business. You get Bear Sterns, Enron, Global Crossing, Wal Mart and so on. General Motors spends hundreds of billions of dollars to destroy the very idea of mass transit and redesign cities so that people will be forced to use its products exclusively. Short term thinking rules. If you do anything that does not "maximize shareholder equity" you will be replaced. Run a company into the ground and you can loot it on the way down. Lie? Cheat? It's only a problem if you get caught. And that won't happen because Business has been freed from the Nanny State with its onerous regulations and laws.

Remember that race to the bottom? Where do you think it came from? There are laws in place to keep people from bringing any unfavorable fact about anything related to the food industry to light. Safety, health, living wages, even what you do with your spouse in the privacy of the marriage bed and what you eat or smoke on your own time are grist for their mill. Halliburton in Iraq is a perfect example. Female employees are raped to the point where they are bleeding from their anuses. Object? You'll never work again. Go to the authorities? You are stuck with binding arbitration with Halliburton's internal arbitrator. And our embassy/fortress is being built quite literally with slave labor.

For the last forty years we've had the most expensive and all-pervasive propaganda machine in human history singing a refrain. Government is evil. Democracy is a sham. The rich are that way because they are better, smarter and more touched by the gods than the rest of us. Whatever they want is better than what we could possibly dream for ourselves. We should shun the power that comes from our collective will and turn everything over to them. "They" are the Church and the Boardroom. They are turning us into a Third World dictatorship with a President whose advisors refer to him as the "Sovereign" to quote John Yoo's memo. Income and wealth distribution are quite literally in line with Bolivia and Uruguay. Johnson's Great Society is gone. The Great Compression which did so much to create the Middle Class is gone. The New Deal is almost gone. And the K-Street/Wall Street Axis is hard at work on the Constitution. 

This is what happens, Bob, when the People take your advice and run in terror from their own power. It means that they have nothing with which to defend themselves from the utterly selfish and amoral powers of the Cross and the Dollar. Far from "Big Government doing everything for us" we have a government which does little or nothing for us but more to us at the behest of the super-rich. During America's heyday - the 50s through the early 80s - it did quite a bit, more than it does now. That worked pretty well. During the 1930s and 1940s it saved us from Fascist treason, bloody unrest and a World War. It can grow out of control. It can become corrupt just like anything else that gives men wealth and power. But we really can't do without it. Suck it up. Deal with the reality you have rather than the fantasy.

Private industry does a quantifiably, verifiably crappy job of handling large scale-long term systems like health, transportation, power, water, prisons and schools. Where profit is an effective motivating and regulating force in these fields it only works when there's an independent third party representing the interests of those whom the infrastructure is supposed to  benefit. That is to say, the government. 

We can not go back to being a nation of small shop owners and single-family farmers. That romantic ideal never really was how we lived. It worked for a while sorta kinda. That was mostly because income and wealth were not ideally but at least reasonably equitably distributed. There was a lot of resources available relatively cheaply on an expanding frontier. To make things work we need a government that is effective, transparent, accountable and not overly friendly to Wall Street. In short, we need to grow up and stop wishing that the Magical Fairy in the Sky be He Jesus or The Invisible Hand will somehow miraculously make it all better.

Communism doesn't work.
Capitalism doesn't work.
Mixed economies can work, but it takes work to make them work.
Slogans and magical thinking really don't work.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 5, 2008)

tellner said:


> Bob, you have a good heart, but you need to stop and consider a few of the things you're saying.
> 
> There's a constant high level of background noise in your posts that filters down to "The government is evil. Government is always the problem. Government makes people weak and passive."
> 
> ...


... your eyes are brown


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 5, 2008)

Big Don said:


> ... your eyes are brown


Really?  So are mine.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 5, 2008)

Big Don said:


> *Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.*
> This statement was used as a motto on the title page of _An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania._ (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he _published_ this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The _phrase_ itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania
> Most of the Conservatives (Limbaugh, etc) said the TSA would be a boondoggle before it started, that the Department of Homeland Security was redundant, (That is the purpose of the military...) but, politicians of BOTH parties disagreed.
> Here is a better quote, although I don't know or care who originally said it:
> Politicians and bureaucrats are rarely leaders...






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

"*Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.*
This statement was used as a motto on the title page of _An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania._ (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he _published_ this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The _phrase_ itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Tho&#383;e who would give up Essential Liberty to purcha&#383;e a little Temporary Safety, de&#383;erve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of *Richard Jackson* is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the _statement_ is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the _Poor Richard's Almanack_ of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "*Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.*""
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Disputed



tellner said:


> Bob, you have a good heart, but you need to stop and consider a few of the things you're saying.
> 
> There's a constant high level of background noise in your posts that filters down to "The government is evil. Government is always the problem. Government makes people weak and passive."
> 
> ...



I've not suggested people flee in terror from their government. The opposite in fact, that they reach up and reclaim it, and make it do what it's intended to do. To stop sitting by and letting things happen, but to become involved and make things happen.  Not to let career politicians do their thinking for them. You say "third party", and I agree. But the rules are stacked against that happening, and until people get their heads out of their asses and do something to change it, it won't. Change doesn't happen on it's own.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 5, 2008)

My heart will regret this post because I look on this thread and I see some bright minds really do care about making a difference.  I really wish it was possible to change this direction, but I don't think its going to happen.

For the past 150 years, wealthy industrialists, with their heads full of visions of a stratified utopia, have planned the direction our society would take for their own benefit.  Peice by peice, they've bought our government and our institutions and rebuilt them so they would serve their interests.

Then, they dumbed us down, erasing any means of finding out what they did or changing it.

Now we are left burning like stars in the night, connecting at the speed of light but still separated by spaces to vast to cross.

This, too, was by design.

You can't take control of a system like this expect that change it through any movement.  The forces that our government truly represents could buy any movement and shape it to fit their own needs.   We possibly could destroy the whole edifice and start again, but unless you excise the tumor that infected our society in the first place (aka guillotine entire families), it will only rebuild itself anew.

Who here has the guts for that?  Too few.

My advice.  Find your Gray Havens.  Diminish into the West.  You will not escape, but at least you may find peace.


----------



## tellner (Apr 5, 2008)

Don, as always your logic and rhetorical skills are devastating. Stick to even shorter words. The ones you're using aren't working.

Bob, then we are in agreement.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 5, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I would agree, that perhaps your opinion should possibly be weighed more heavily in this area then others on this board, but not that their opinion should be ignored. That's like saying that just because I'm a police officer, on any issue regarding law enforcement, you should just agree with me.


 

 

The bit I've quoted above from your post is the way I intended my phrasing, *Kenpo*.  Think of it like 'expert testimony' in a court of law i.e. I know what I'm talking about but the 'jury' is by no means bound to agree with what I say.

Laymen holding personal-experience rooted opinions on economic issues don't invalidate their opinions just because they aren't backed by equations and statistics .  

They can sometimes be inaccurate because what is common-sense at the micro-economics level does not translate up to the macro-economics level (a bit like the difference between Newtonian and Quantum physics) but common-sense is always a good rule of thumb in any discourse.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 5, 2008)

*Tellner* your post#24 above was another in your current streak of excellent contributions - the Rep Gnomes deny me so the familiar embarassment of public praise will have to suffice.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 6, 2008)

It is interesting that you believe a woman who claims she was raped by employees of a company you don't like, but, the several women over the years who accused Bill Clinton of rape, sexual assault, etc were all liars...


----------



## elder999 (Apr 6, 2008)

Big Don said:


> It is interesting that you believe a woman who claims she was raped by employees of a company you don't like, but, the several women over the years who accused Bill Clinton of rape, sexual assault, etc were all liars...


 
Who, exactly is it that posted on this thread that they

1) Believe a woman who claims she was raped.....

2) By a company(what company?) "they" (WHO?) don't like.....

.....and what in the name of Zeus does it have to do with the Caligula from Arkansas? Where did anyone post that all those women were liars? Do you think anyone on this board believes that Monica Lewisnky was lying? More importantly, what bearing does it have on the current discussion, and why should we care where the man used his equipment?

Don, please recognize that all of the above questions are rhetorical, and don't require an answer-please spare us all your bileous nonsense-especially me.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 6, 2008)

Big Don said:


> It is interesting that you believe a woman who claims she was raped by employees of a company you don't like, but, the several women over the years who accused Bill Clinton of rape, sexual assault, etc were all liars...


 

Ok, you lost me......................:idunno:


----------



## Big Don (Apr 6, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Ok, you lost me......................:idunno:


Google "Juanita Broaddrick"
See Tellner's post with the included (unfounded) allegations against Halliburton and KBR, two companies he has railed against here many times.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 6, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Google "Juanita Broaddrick"
> See Tellner's post with the included (unfounded) allegations against Halliburton and KBR, two companies he has railed against here many times.


 

Don, go get a dictionary and see the difference between "unfounded" and "_unproven_."

...oh, and have a look  here first.

I still question the relevance of the Caligula from Arkansas-since you claim that someone here called "all those women" liars, I did a search here on 
"Clinton+sexual," and "Clinton+rape," and found surprisingly little that would support your claim-in fact, I didn't find any support for it at all.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2008)

:feedtroll:-offtopic:hb:

Okay, lets drop it and try and get back on topic...


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 6, 2008)

Tellner's post was essentially about ethics

that makes ethics fair game for questioning. Such as believing one claim, with little to no proof and not believing another claim, with little or no proof.



He stated the alleged incident with the Halliburton woman as if it was proven.  It hasnt been proven.

It is fair although admittedly slightly off topic to ask him if the MANY claims against the former president also merited "automatic belief" 

Or is it, as i suspect and apparently Don did as well, that Tellner just hates Halliburton, and any allegation against them from tellner should be suspect? 

I mean, I basically proved  him wrong about Halliburton  half a dozen times the other night....... And he flat out refused to admit it or retract.

That alone makes that point, and really all his points suspect.


I think Don's question was fair, but yes, off topic. But only slightly.
 No one is attacking Tellner, just his post. Thats how message boards work.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 6, 2008)

Is the US headed down the wrong track? Maybe.
If it is, it is because of the Lack of leadership President Bush has exercised, aside from the war on terror. He allowed Congress to run amok, rather than vetoing things he damned well should have. He stood silent on too many occasions. His inactions are far more damning than his actions. 
Meanwhile, we have American Cities violating and enabling others to violate Federal Law (Sanctuary Cities) with NO meaningful action by the government to rectify the situation.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 6, 2008)

but, to get back on topic?

Is the country headed in the wrong direction? It is sort of a loaded question dont you think?

I mean, divorce rates are abysmally high, but then the average lifestyle is pretty nice too. i mean POOR people have cell phones and color tv's these days.

Yes, way too many people are in prison, but hey, prison isnt that bad these days, where prisons used to be working farms, now they have computer learning centers and cable tv. Although, that might explain why no one is afraid to go back to prison after they get out............

We have teenagers acting like hedonists on news every other day, yet graduation rates and college entrances are higher than ever.

Lots of people are crying about so called "loss of liberties" yet look at WW2, the last time we were really in a war where the mainland of the US was in danger. Compared to then, we are living in a utopia of freedom.

Yes, in many ways America is hard to recognize. But at the same time, it is the same as it has always been. Happy people are happy, and malcontents and *shock* not.

Thats because time changes everything.

I would change many things if  I could. But I am not really worried. No government, no matter how liberal or conservative, really does lasting dammage. 

America is not the government, it is the people.


----------



## tellner (Apr 6, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Is the US headed down the wrong track? Maybe.
> If it is, it is because of the Lack of leadership President Bush has exercised, aside from the war on terror. He allowed Congress to run amok, rather than vetoing things he damned well should have. He stood silent on too many occasions. His inactions are far more damning than his actions.
> Meanwhile, we have American Cities violating and enabling others to violate Federal Law (Sanctuary Cities) with NO meaningful action by the government to rectify the situation.


 
Ye gawds and little fishes.

Congress gave Bush everything he asked for from 2001 right up until the middle of 2007. He passed darned near every bill he wanted. When the Democrats had the House and Senate they couldn't pass anything with less than 60% thank you very much. And even then he's gotten more of his bills passed without changes than his Daddy or Bill Clinton. 

Your sort got exavtly what you wanted. With the Supreme Court, the Senate and the House in his pocket and with Presidential power unsurpassed since at least the early 19th century this was just about the purest expression of one Party getting exactly what it wanted. The Democratic Congress under the early Clinton Administration opposed him a fair bit. The Republicans under Dubya have always marched in lock-step. Dissent has been completely purged from the Party. The Decider Decided. What he Decided became Law. Congress went along with it for about seven uninterrupted years. 

What more do you need to stop the Republican whining about how unfair it all is? G-d Almighty and the Devil standing behind your Commander Guy and saying "We will smite anyone who even thinks of disagreeing with Him"?


----------



## mrhnau (Apr 7, 2008)

What is the wrong track? Is there some predefined correct track? The question was incredibly vague. Are we going down the wrong track politically with our role in the world? Are we going down the wrong track economically? Are we going down the wrong track morally? Two people can look at the same person (Bush) and say he is going down the wrong track. One can say he is too liberal, one can say he is too conservative, but both see him going down the "wrong track".

This is more of a measure of optimism. I don't think this is an edict against any particular policy or stance. The question is way too vague to have that kind of meaning. I think our country is going down the wrong track, but I imagine that statement from me implies a lot different things than the same statement from other members here.


----------

