Bush 2000 All the Fla Countys that had voting irregularities had Supervisor of Elections that were registered Democrats. Fla Law requires that absentee ballots have postmarks, this was traditionaly overlooked on military ballots because of the no provision for them. Legally the Prez & VP were right in the challenge, but it is still unsettling that they were activly seeking disinfranchisement of military votes while intentionally trying to pull stuff like the hanging chads. There was a demonstration that it is impossible to create a hanging chad on purpose, muchless accidentally, with a single punch card, can only be done by putting multiple cards in @ 1 time. Bush & the Big Govt. Republicans were a real dissapointment to us Conservatives.
Michelle: Barak's home Country is Kenya
HokieMSG
Active member
They (Republicans) still are to many. It is a shame that many republicans are becoming as statist as liberal democrats.
We haven't had that in years, what we have up there now days and in recent past is a socialist congress.
In a democracy the govt works for the good of the people, not the good of the govt
HokieMSG
Active member
I would go one step further and say that the congress continues to work to expand the role of governement in our lives. The ultimate goal being significantly more control over basic decisions. In this case I feel that the congress is only working toward socialism as a stepping stone towards statism.
stat·ism
/ˈsteɪ
Show Spelled[stey-tiz-uh
Show IPA –noun 1. the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.
2. support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.
so·cial·ism
/ˈsoʊ
Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uh
Show IPA –noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
www.dictionary.com
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
I think one reason for this is because this society values law so much that we turn to law for just about everything. When that is the case, more laws will be created as a result of disputes and the more laws there are, the bigger the control of the government.
Almost everyone in the States complains about the government. Then, they re-elect the VERY SAME people they are complaining about. I`m sure most of you know one of the signs of insanity.....doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. For any chance of a better government, stop voting for career politicians. For that matter, I`m no longer voting for anyone with a D or R after their name.
HokieMSG
Active member
I don't think enough people hold their politicians feet to the fire. Every vote their politicans cast is recorded and availalbe. Pay attention to what the politicians do and hold them accountable. Often we are too busy to check up on them and take their word for it during elections. I have only voted for 1 incumbent. MY congressman is a democrat who is more conservative than any NE republican. He is pro gun too and has the A+ rating from the NRA to prove it. Other than that I examine the issues and vote based on that. Irrespective of ANYTHING else.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
That is the death of freedom and liberty.
It's bigger than the government or the President or whatnot. Ultimately it's about our own collective choices in life. These are the consequences of our collective choices.
Basicly the belief that all Congressman are crooked dumbazzes except thier own Senator/Represenative.
I would go one step further and say that the congress continues to work to expand the role of governement in our lives. The ultimate goal being significantly more control over basic decisions. In this case I feel that the congress is only working toward socialism as a stepping stone towards statism.
stat·ism
/ˈsteɪtɪzəm/m]
–noun 1. the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.
2. support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.
so·cial·ism
/ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/m]
–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
www.dictionary.com
I'll go a step further than that and say I'm honestly waiting for the leaders in congress to raise their right hand at the end of an extended arm and say sieg Obama. On that day you will all see me on the news.
HokieMSG
Active member
LOL. I wonder how long it will take. First he has to get himself elected as Fuhrer. Then there will be the anschluss of Mexico then he will invade Canada. Seem to remember something like this happening before. When was it again?
BTW, If you ever do plan to "Make it on the news" let me know. I'll be right beside you passing the ammo.
mmarsh
Active member
Forgive me Wolfen, I don't mean to be rude but you are really going off the deep end here. And what will you do if this DOESN'T happen?
I am glad you brought up the definition of socialism because there is a important detail that keeps getting overlooked by the "socialist" criers.
SNIP "vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
They key words here are PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION. Very simply, if you think the US is really going into socialism (according to the dictionary definition) ask yourself the following:
How many factories does the US own?
How many banks? Financial Services etc?
How much land of the entire US geography is Federally owned?
How any wells, mines, or other natural resources does it control?
How many shops or other businesses does it run?
I think you all get the point...
In fact the only thing the government is really involved in is SERVICES the largest ones are from the 1930s. But SERVICES is NOT part of the definition of Socialism. The government is not even involved in MOST of the services industry, (who runs the power, what airline do you fly, who is your telephone/internet provider). As you can guess...Most services remain privatized.
So how far are we from socialism (according to the dictionary)? When you get past all the screaming rhethoric about Marxism/Socialism/Communism the real answer is a few hundred million light years.
Now if we want to talk about which President vastly expanded the powers of the executive office we can dial back a few years.
EDIT: Sorry Wolfen, it was HokieMSG that brought up socialism. My apologies.
Last edited:
HokieMSG
Active member
Actually, it was me that brought up the definitions.
I believe that as long as the government can control industries/production facilities, ownership is not important. The current U.S. government is attempting to control, through regulation, Banks and Financial Industries, as well as wells and mines. Government regulation is the single biggest mechanism to stifle free enterprise. Some regulation is needed, but owing to the litigiousness of our society, it has gotten completely out of hand.
If, through providing services (read welfare), the government can control the population, they can and likely will use it to their advantage.
True they do not control who prvides the goods/services but....
POWER -> Energy is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the U.S.
AIRLINES -> The FAA is pretty involved with the running of the airlines.
TELEPHONE/INTERNET -> Look at your next bill and you will see just how involved government is.
Actually not that far considering the current administration, with the help of congress is trying to force people to carry health insurance. Last plan I heard about. $1000 fine for not carrying private insurance. OK. I'll cancel my private insurance (costing me $257/2 weeks or $6682/year) pay the fine, invest the rest and rely on the governement to provide my health insurance. I may not get preventative care but I'm covered in an emergency.
Here we go. Just admit you hate Bush and we can put that to bed.
mmarsh
Active member
HokieMSG
If anything that this financial mess has proven is that its Business that controls Government not the other way around.
Government regulations prevent the economic disaster that we have experienced over the last two years. Like the Crash of 1929 (which was also caused by market over-speculation) this crisis is CASE IN POINT of what happens when the government deregulates. Its like the old saying: "When the cats away the mice will play".
But its business that rules government, a few examples
1. Want a bailout for risky gambles your company made. Who you going to call?
2. You want EPA regulations loosened for your factories SMOG Chimney
3. You are CEO, of a major corporation and Got Fed regulators on your back, who do you call?
And what do you think happens if a politician says "NO"? Come next reelection they discover they have no donations, no allies, and they are facing a primary challenger who war chest dwarfs yours.
Business rules government, Republican or Democrat Make no error on that.
We are in no danger of Socialism but of NEO-CAPITALISM where all roads lead to Wall Street.
Do you really think the US government rules Microsoft, the Healthcare industry, or Exxon. The US government (both GOP and Dems) tried to reign the giants in with little success. Governments come and go but I guarantee you these behemoths will be here even after all humans have died off the planet.
ENERGY is not as regulated as you think. The industry makes the rules, the government signs off on them. Think BP will really pay the estimated $3.2 Billion in Gulf cleanup despite Obama saying "BP will pay". Exxon didn't pay for even half of the Exxon Valdez spill. The Federal cap (created by Valdez disaster) for oil spill cleanup is currently $75 Million. Thats the maximum legally BP is obliged to pay. BP will pay more than $75, but not everything. You and I will be paying for the rest.
FAA. There is no business requirement for the FAA. Everything they do could be outsourced, in fact Ronald Reagan even proved that when he fired the Air traffic controllers.
TEL/INTERNET -Do you remember the MA BELL monopoly? Its coming back. As for internet This one I know alot about as I am a computer engineer. The government was actually FOR Net neutrality, take a guess who it was who got NET neutrality abolished at the supreme court. It was the telecoms industry (COMCAST) that was behind its destruction.
About the Healthcare plan. George Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion ordered every single man to own a rifle and other military equipment. So there is a direct precedent to what Obama did. You may not like it, but its legal.
I don't like Bush but thats not the point. You cannot call Obama a imperial-dictator and conveniently ignore the 800-pound elephant in the room called the Bush Administration. You see this is where the GOP argument about Obama's abuse of power falls flat. Where was the outcry about warrant-less wiretaps? The suspension of Habeas Corpus? The hundreds of signing statements that dwarfed the total number of signing states of every president prior to Bush. SILENCE.
But my favorite quote of course: "The office of the VP is not part of the executive branch" saga. Absolutely Priceless bit of Cheney's personal revision of the constitution.
So you cannot have it both ways. One invites the other, and I absolutely guarantee you I will be able to prove far more serious abuses of Federal power under Bush than under Obama.
If anything that this financial mess has proven is that its Business that controls Government not the other way around.
Government regulations prevent the economic disaster that we have experienced over the last two years. Like the Crash of 1929 (which was also caused by market over-speculation) this crisis is CASE IN POINT of what happens when the government deregulates. Its like the old saying: "When the cats away the mice will play".
But its business that rules government, a few examples
1. Want a bailout for risky gambles your company made. Who you going to call?
2. You want EPA regulations loosened for your factories SMOG Chimney
3. You are CEO, of a major corporation and Got Fed regulators on your back, who do you call?
And what do you think happens if a politician says "NO"? Come next reelection they discover they have no donations, no allies, and they are facing a primary challenger who war chest dwarfs yours.
Business rules government, Republican or Democrat Make no error on that.
We are in no danger of Socialism but of NEO-CAPITALISM where all roads lead to Wall Street.
Do you really think the US government rules Microsoft, the Healthcare industry, or Exxon. The US government (both GOP and Dems) tried to reign the giants in with little success. Governments come and go but I guarantee you these behemoths will be here even after all humans have died off the planet.
ENERGY is not as regulated as you think. The industry makes the rules, the government signs off on them. Think BP will really pay the estimated $3.2 Billion in Gulf cleanup despite Obama saying "BP will pay". Exxon didn't pay for even half of the Exxon Valdez spill. The Federal cap (created by Valdez disaster) for oil spill cleanup is currently $75 Million. Thats the maximum legally BP is obliged to pay. BP will pay more than $75, but not everything. You and I will be paying for the rest.
FAA. There is no business requirement for the FAA. Everything they do could be outsourced, in fact Ronald Reagan even proved that when he fired the Air traffic controllers.
TEL/INTERNET -Do you remember the MA BELL monopoly? Its coming back. As for internet This one I know alot about as I am a computer engineer. The government was actually FOR Net neutrality, take a guess who it was who got NET neutrality abolished at the supreme court. It was the telecoms industry (COMCAST) that was behind its destruction.
About the Healthcare plan. George Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion ordered every single man to own a rifle and other military equipment. So there is a direct precedent to what Obama did. You may not like it, but its legal.
I don't like Bush but thats not the point. You cannot call Obama a imperial-dictator and conveniently ignore the 800-pound elephant in the room called the Bush Administration. You see this is where the GOP argument about Obama's abuse of power falls flat. Where was the outcry about warrant-less wiretaps? The suspension of Habeas Corpus? The hundreds of signing statements that dwarfed the total number of signing states of every president prior to Bush. SILENCE.
But my favorite quote of course: "The office of the VP is not part of the executive branch" saga. Absolutely Priceless bit of Cheney's personal revision of the constitution.
So you cannot have it both ways. One invites the other, and I absolutely guarantee you I will be able to prove far more serious abuses of Federal power under Bush than under Obama.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
And Comcast provides rubbish service. Especially for the prices.
HokieMSG
Active member
I too feel as you do about business involvement in politics. NEVER should have happened. Trial lawyers contribute the most to both parties.
I was not referring to the government trying to de-regulate. I am of the opinion that the government is trying to over regulate. THe new finance reform bill in from of congress now is worthless. It fails to prevent a repeat of the rampant speculation which was part of the current melt down.
If you are looking to place blame. THen blame Clinton. He was the one that required fannie mae and freddie mac to lend to less than qualified candidates. This enabled the bundling which is the root of the crisis.
I cannot agree with your belief that business is the root of all evil.
As far as MA-BELL goes, my fathers phone bill went from $20 to $60 after they broke up MA BELL. Tell me how that is good again?
I feel that efficient government is better than bigger government.
A one time payment for a rifle is a little different than the recurring costs of helathcare. Do you agree that it would be more efficient for me to dump my private healthcare, pay the fine and invest my savings?
The reason that I feel the way I do about Obama is the fact that he is appointing so many CZAR's.
Obama: 38 (2009-present, 1+ year)
Bush: 35 (2001-2009, 8years)
Clinton: 7 (1993-2001, 8 years)
H.W. Bush: 2 (1989-1993, 4 years)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
My concern is that president obama has appointed more than any other president and has only been in office a year and a half.
I resent the attitude from this administration that they know what is better for me than I do.
Note the original Cabinet posts, all things of national importance that the Fed. Govt. needed to be involved in. Treasury, State, Post Office, War & Navy, Attorney Gen. Militia Act of 1790 is a ligit part of national defence. Not untill recent activist types got involved do you see Health even being mentioned. Your health care has always been between you & your Doc. ObamaCare is just another way to increase the size of the Dependant Class.
HokieMSG
Active member
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I figured this would be a relevant location to add this....
Czar Search
September 25, 2009
Updated: September 25, 2009
Q: Does Obama have an unprecedented number of "czars"?
A: "Czar" is media lingo, not an official title. But our research shows that George Bush’s administration had more "czars" than the Obama administration.
FULL QUESTION
A friend of mine sent me a link claiming that Obama has more czars than any other president ever and he is trying to turn the USA into a dictatorship. Please give me confirmation so I can give it to her that she has no reason to fear. Does hiring czars allow a president to bypass Congress for approval? And does President Obama have more than any other president?
FULL ANSWER
It’s meaningless to ask a question about what "hiring czars" allows a president to do, because presidents don’t hire czars. "Czar" is a label bestowed by the media – and sometimes the administration – as a shorthand for the often-cumbersome titles of various presidential advisers, assistants, office directors, special envoys and deputy secretaries. (After all, what makes for a better headline – "weapons czar" or "undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics"?)
There’s been a certain fascination with calling Obama’s advisers and appointees "czars." Fox News host Glenn Beck has identified 32 Obama czars on his Web site, whom he has characterized as a collective "iceberg" threatening to capsize the Constitution. Beck and other television hosts aren’t the only ones crying czar, either. Six Republican senators recently sent a letter to the White House saying that the creation of czar posts "circumvents the constitutionally established process of ‘advise and consent.’ " Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah issued a press release saying that czars "undermine the constitution." And Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison wrote an opinion column in the Washington Post complaining about the czar menace, including the factually inaccurate claim that only "a few of them have formal titles."
The habit of using "czar" to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but the real heyday of the czar came during President George W. Bush’s administration. The appellation was so popular that several news organizations reported on the rise of the czar during the Bush years, including NPR, which ran a piece called "What’s With This Czar Talk?" and Politico, which published an article on the evolution of the term. The latter, written during the 2008 presidential campaign, points out that czars are "really nothing new. They’ve long been employed in one form or another to tackle some of the nation’s highest-profile problems." Politico quotes author and political appointments expert James Bovard saying that the subtext of "czar" has changed from insult to praise: "It’s a real landmark sign in political culture to see this change from an odious term to one of salvation.”
Now it’s turned odious again, with Republican senators calling czars unconstitutional and cable hosts like Beck and Sean Hannity characterizing them as shadowy under-the-table appointees used by Obama to dodge the usual approval processes. In fact, of the 32 czars Beck lists:
Nine were confirmed by the Senate, including the director of national intelligence ("intelligence czar"), the chief performance officer ("government performance czar") and the deputy interior secretary ("California water czar").
Eight more were not appointed by the president – the special advisor to the EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan ("Great Lakes czar") is EPA-appointed, for instance, and the assistant secretary for international affairs and special representative for border affairs ("border czar") is appointed by the secretary of homeland security.
Fifteen of the "czarships" Beck lists, including seven that are in neither of the above categories, were created by previous administrations. (In some cases, as with the "economic czar," the actual title – in this case, chairman of the president’s economic recovery advisory board – is new, but there has been an official overseeing the area in past administrations. In others, as with the special envoy to Sudan, the position is old but the "czar" appellation is new.)
In all, of the 32 positions in Beck’s list, only eight are Obama-appointed, unconfirmed, brand new czars.
These new "czars" include the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan; the director of recovery for auto communities and workers; the senior advisor for the president’s Automotive Task Force; the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise, and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality; the federal chief information officer; the chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board; the White House director of urban affairs; and the White House coordinator for weapons of mass destruction, security and arms control. Or, as Glenn Beck would have it, the Afghanistan czar, the auto recovery czar, the car czar, the embattled green jobs czar, the information czar, the stimulus accountability czar, the urban affairs czar and the WMD policy czar.
Some of these new positions would have been meaningless in a previous administration. Previous presidents didn’t need an Automotive Task Force or a Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board. These positions are similar to George W. Bush’s "World Trade Center health czar" and "Gulf Coast reconstruction czar" in that they are new advisory positions created to deal with temporary challenges facing the administration. Others do represent new long-term concerns (urban affairs, climate change), but the act of appointing advisers to manage new areas of interest is hardly unique to the Obama administration. The Bush administration, for instance, created the "faith-based czar" and the "cybersecurity czar."
Another thing: Beck counts among his 32 "czars" three who have not been called "czars" by reporters at all, except in stories claiming that the Obama administration has lots of "czars." We’ve compiled a FactCheck.org list that discounts these positions, which seem to be "czars" only in the context of media czar-hysteria. (Our list also adds three czars Beck’s research didn’t find – a "diversity czar," a "manufacturing czar" and an "Iran czar.")
As for Obama having an unprecedented number of czars, the Bush administration had even more appointed or nominated positions whose holders were called "czars" by the media. The DNC has released a Web video claiming that there were 47, but it’s counting multiple holders of the same position. We checked the DNC’s list against Nexis and other news records, and found a total of 35 Bush administration positions that were referred to as "czars" in the news media. (Our list of confirmed "czars," with news media sources cited, is here.) Again, many of these advisory positions were not new – what was new was the "czar" shorthand. Like the Obama czars, the Bush czars held entirely prosaic administrative positions: special envoys, advisers, office heads, directors, secretaries. The preponderance of czars earned both ridicule and concern in editorials and in media, but no objections from Congress.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar-search/