clever :) ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo7
Printable View
clever :) ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo7
I think Obama was so occupied with getting elected that once he got there, he had no clue what to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo7
This is human, and one of the reason many people drop out of martial arts after getting their black belt they focused so hard on it that they feel lost, once they get there. In our organization it is called 'shodan syndrome'.
I am wondering about the dollar signs though.
IIRC, a president does not really earn that much, and I don't see too much room for blatantly enriching themselves.
They do ok, at least by my standards. :) But then there's life after the presidency to think about. Making people happy along the way helps you out in your retirement. Sort of like an extra presidential pension.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
I'll admit that it's not the dollar signs, specifically...or at least solely. Especially with respect to our senators. The money's nice, but its the power they crave. More and more of it.
Most of them, since Eisenhower anyhow, are rich when they get in there. The guy who is governor of Florida spent millions of his own money to get the job ..... as did Bloomberg in NYC. Perhaps it is a thirst for power, fame, immortality via the history books ? Bill Clinton certainly got rich as a result of being president. The Lincoln bedroom was like a suite at the Holiday Inn IIRC. His speaking engagements since his time in office have certainly added to the coffers.
Years ago a friend of mine became business agent for the ironworkers union we belonged to. He and I had often complained of policies of previous biz agents. He told me that once in office he couldn't believe the perks.... outright bribes the contractors offered for special favors and consideration. I joke that whoever runs for president should be disqualified because they have to be insane. There may be an element of truth to it. If not insane, egomaniacs.
Too bad it isn't constitutionally possible, but I bet that if Ahnold ran, he'd win :). At least, he would have before his illegitimate child came to light. I can about picture him with his fingers on the big red button. Or perhaps color commenting one of those surgical strikes. Hasta la vista, baby!
:rofl2:
The govenator would never win. He left office less popular than his predecessor, who was recalled.
Maybe, however a few movies and he'll once again be loved by all and people will forget.Quote:
Originally Posted by markdfhr
That's what attack ads are for.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
American Politics =
40% that always vote Left wing because of the issues
40% that always vote Right wing because of the issues
20% In the Middle that vote for whichever party promises to give them the most...
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."
Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"
The only thing that stops this from happening in the USA, is what we love to bitch about, ie: "Deadlock"
I almost never discuss politics or religion, but I offer this for your consideration:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...symptoms_.html
The only hope this country has going forward is someone who can bring all the foaming-at-the-mouth partisans together to get real work done in the middle. Our government/congress/economy have been just about wrecked by know-nothing obstructionists who consider the honorable compromise that is a cornerstone of democracy to be heresy; Chris Christie, for instance, would have made a very compelling candidate.
I look at the current choices in '12, and just shake my head...
What was that T.V series where they said about the "bad guys", they have a plan. Well the folks who are controlling things in our society have a plan too and its right on schedule. Just create hate and discontent and keep things churning so the populace is bambooseled.
Personally, I think Gingrich would take Obama apart in a debate. It's obvious to me that Obama's lack of experience shines through every day and with every utterance. I'd rather see Gingrich as President than another term for Obama, et al or someone whose only experience is as governor of TX or MA.
“In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.”
John Adams
I have not been paying any attention to any of this stuff, but one thing recently came to my attention, and that was the reports of this Gingrich character's ideas about Palestine being an invented culture...
I have no idea if it is true or not, though I do know Palestine as a geographical area appears in the Bible and is historically an area, so it would be weird if some kind of national identity had not developed over the past 4000 years or so. But my biggest concern is, so what if they are invented as a culture? Americans should know better than anyone else that all cultures need to start somewhere.
The idea that because you are not an historically entrenched people or culture, that you have therefore no right to claim an area as your own, is patently absurd. (I wonder what Mr Gingrich's time limit on a culture is before it becomes a valid one. One hopes more than 200 years.....) If you want to use that logic, the US will help liberate Australia for the Indigenous population - we are a made up culture only around 200 years old. And then perhaps Mr Gingrich would like to help the Native Americans liberate the USA from the made up culture of the USA - Australians and Americans are, after all, simply Anglos who moved in a few hundred years back. And then perhaps he could move on to South America and liberate it from the Spanish and Portugese....
Really, this is the best the Republicans have? Oh dear.
James.
Jimbo Roo did you actually see the entire clip or did you see just the snipetts from the "News"...
What Newt meant, was that the "Palistinian" people were being played as pawns on the Middle Eastern stage... at least that is what I understood his story to mean... heck maybe I could be wrong at that too..,. :)
PS: Newt would not be my first choice as President either
I have been doing this for several election cycles now, AFIAC there is nothing conservative about most of the Republicans and very few true liberals in the Democratic party. The people are too easily divided and conquered .Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoutHikerDad
Glen I only saw the news snippet, so yes it is entirely possible I have completely misconstrued the entire thing. I sincerely wish that is the case - I would prefer to be wrong than to think there are people like that in the world.
James.
If what Gingrich meant to say is that they are pawns in Middle East Arab-Israeli politics, then he should have said as much. To say, however, that the Palestinians are an "invented people" implies that neither their territorial claims nor their very existence as a people has any validity in the international community that the world's nations are bound to respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
A man should say what he means--and mean what he says.
LMAO we are talking of politicians here, none of them say what they really mean...Quote:
Originally Posted by jhenry
I still say, if Newt is the best we have to offer, we are in DEEEEEEEEEEEP trouble. 300 Million people and all we can come up with is this guy? Pretty bad if you ask me.
For your reading pleasure:
http://www.newswithviews.com/israel/israel14.htm
Here's that portion of the interview published by the interviewer. It doesn't appear to be edited for content:
The Jewish Channel Exclusive Interview With Newt Gingrich Excerpt: "Invented Palestinian People" - YouTube
I think it's pretty clear what Gingrich is saying - (1) The Jewish people have the right to have a state (2) There was no historic palestinian state (3) Palestinians are 'invented people' who are actually arabs and should've gone to other places (4) It's mostly political reasons why there is a war against Israel.
As a historian he certainly knows about developing national identity, so this wasn't about history as his advisors tried to spin it afterwards. It was a political answer to a political question.
If the right wing media has dumbed down the views on issues of the republican electorate so much that they end up going with Gingrich I think they're in trouble when it comes to the election.
His argument can be used on Americans as well, on more than one occasion in history. :)
If he is indeed a historian, there are surely many omissions in his long term memory.
As I said before, in the primaries, the candidates need to say what the card carrying members want to hear, even if it is stupid. And as a result, the moderates get to choose between left and far right, there is not a center candidate. Every so many years, people get annoyed with the incumbent party, so the other candidate gets chosen pseudo automatically, regardless of the fact that he is far left or far right.
As a result, you get a race to the bottom in which the moderates always lose.