TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Change You Can Believe In
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Change You Can Believe In - Page 2

post #31 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Oh really? I haven't seen it.
Nor have I seen him having them "do what he wants". I suppose it's a perception thing.
post #32 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Nor have I seen him having them "do what he wants". I suppose it's a perception thing.
All the spending and stimulus bills that Barack wanted/wants he had gotten and is getting.
post #33 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
All the spending and stimulus bills that Barack wanted/wants he had gotten and is getting.
So has every other president in the last decade. So what? They also got kicked in the head on a few things, just like now. It's a separate branch of government that does it's own thing, as it always has and always should.
post #34 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
So has every other president in the last decade. So what? They also got kicked in the head on a few things, just like now. It's a separate branch of government that does it's own thing, as it always has and always should.
What "few things" are those.

If you think Obama, Pelosi and Reid aren't in constant contact then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't think "every other president in the last decade" has spent the trillions Barach has in just his first 60 days.

All that aside, Barack is the one that promised this, it has nothing to do with past presidents, it is his promise. It was a good promise too, after all he is spending trillions of OUR money, should he not keep his promise?
post #35 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
There is still the old fashioned way. Go to the Senate Chambers. That big table right inside the door is covered with the things they'll be discussing that day. You can read to your heart's content.
That is such a clever idea. I should have taken the day off, flown in.

Okay, so I don't know why it was voted down. BO aside, perhaps posters who think it's a bad idea to require five days of public review of legislation before passage by the Senate could just say why they think so. And please, "Because Bush didn't," isn't an answer. Remember, you didn't like the way Bush did things. I'd think you'd want to see change.
post #36 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinder View Post
That is such a clever idea. I should have taken the day off, flown in.
That's what it's there for.
Quote:
Okay, so I don't know why it was voted down. BO aside, perhaps posters who think it's a bad idea to require five days of public review of legislation before passage by the Senate could just say why they think so. And please, "Because Bush didn't," isn't an answer. Remember, you didn't like the way Bush did things. I'd think you'd want to see change.
I think it's a good idea. I also think that it's impossible. In the time that it would take to get a completed bill online, let alone 5 days, the Republicans would have changed or added several more things, rendering the online copy obsolete, and would use that tactic for obstruction. In my opinion, they voted down simply for the sake of being able to get things done. And we've already seen change in the executive branch. Congress, on the other hand, didn't promise any changes.

And just for the record, "Clinton didn't..." wasn't a reason either, yet we saw page after page of that over the years.
post #37 of 50
I don't have any more answers/theories than the rest of you, but I do think it's interesting how people haven't come to the realization that despite all of the good intentions (or seemingly good intentions) laid out by politicians, it's still an Us vs. Them world. Political service isn't an honor that's taken upon by wise men and sages, it's a career move. Ours is a society honed on the principles of "Look out for Number One", and that's exactly what you're going to get; men (and women) of power looking to stabilize their future. And if something good just happens to occur to the balance of society, well then all the better. Then their legacy is secured, as well. Maybe a book deal.

One needn't look any further than our economic system to see why this is so. Capitalism gets painted with glittering generalities like "free market", when it's really just a means to exploit the have-nots. Coupled with a 'population growth v. technology' conundrum, where mechanization supplants (an increasing number of) workers, and you've got a serious problem. What we have now with the economy is just the last days of a natural evolution of things. No one should really be that surprised.

But I digress. Obama may very well have (had) a grand design for 'The Answer', but now he's just part of the machine. For all his brilliance (real or assumed), he still has to play by the rules.

To the Obama folk, the Bush references/comparisons really don't square. Bush unilaterally made poor choices, either prefaced by greed, pride, or ignorance (no one will ever really know the truth), and refused (even to this day) to admit fault with his heinous missteps. Obama is trying to reinvent the wheel by uprooting an economic system that's in dire need of a complete overhaul. This may end up in total disaster. But guess what...it was headed for disaster anyway. Depleting natural resources, mechanized labor, all of the unavoidable shortcomings of the evolutionary status quo...there's a finite end to the whole process. Welcome to it.

Mr. Obama, I wish you well. But I for one will not hold you accountable for the failure of an entire species, over many generations. Nor will I blame you for trying to radically counter things which we've grown accustomed to, but which seem to have exceeded their shelf life.

Maybe this isn't the proper place for this post, but something about these threads just strike a chord. I enjoy reading them, but I always get this image of the world in flames, the apocalypse nigh, and people still pecking away on their keyboards in bipartisan fashion, determined to have the last word.

IMHO.
post #38 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keycube View Post
I don't have any more answers/theories than the rest of you, but I do think it's interesting how people haven't come to the realization that despite all of the good intentions (or seemingly good intentions) laid out by politicians, it's still an Us vs. Them world. Political service isn't an honor that's taken upon by wise men and sages, it's a career move. Ours is a society honed on the principles of "Look out for Number One", and that's exactly what you're going to get; men (and women) of power looking to stabilize their future. And if something good just happens to occur to the balance of society, well then all the better. Then their legacy is secured, as well. Maybe a book deal.

One needn't look any further than our economic system to see why this is so. Capitalism gets painted with glittering generalities like "free market", when it's really just a means to exploit the have-nots. Coupled with a 'population growth v. technology' conundrum, where mechanization supplants (an increasing number of) workers, and you've got a serious problem. What we have now with the economy is just the last days of a natural evolution of things. No one should really be that surprised.

But I digress. Obama may very well have (had) a grand design for 'The Answer', but now he's just part of the machine. For all his brilliance (real or assumed), he still has to play by the rules.

To the Obama folk, the Bush references/comparisons really don't square. Bush unilaterally made poor choices, either prefaced by greed, pride, or ignorance (no one will ever really know the truth), and refused (even to this day) to admit fault with his heinous missteps. Obama is trying to reinvent the wheel by uprooting an economic system that's in dire need of a complete overhaul. This may end up in total disaster. But guess what...it was headed for disaster anyway. Depleting natural resources, mechanized labor, all of the unavoidable shortcomings of the evolutionary status quo...there's a finite end to the whole process. Welcome to it.

Mr. Obama, I wish you well. But I for one will not hold you accountable for the failure of an entire species, over many generations. Nor will I blame you for trying to radically counter things which we've grown accustomed to, but which seem to have exceeded their shelf life.

Maybe this isn't the proper place for this post, but something about these threads just strike a chord. I enjoy reading them, but I always get this image of the world in flames, the apocalypse nigh, and people still pecking away on their keyboards in bipartisan fashion, determined to have the last word.

IMHO.
Wonderful post. It reminds me so much of something a Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant told me once on a long flight over the Pacific in a KC-130.

He said "Washington DC is just like that hydraulic enunciator panel (indicator panel). The big light on top is the President, and all the little lights are the Congress and the Senate. And when the lights tell us that something is broken, we don't fix the problem. We just change the light bulbs."

I sure miss that guy.
post #39 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
That's what it's there for.


I think it's a good idea. I also think that it's impossible. In the time that it would take to get a completed bill online, let alone 5 days, the Republicans would have changed or added several more things, rendering the online copy obsolete, and would use that tactic for obstruction. In my opinion, they voted down simply for the sake of being able to get things done. And we've already seen change in the executive branch. Congress, on the other hand, didn't promise any changes.

And just for the record, "Clinton didn't..." wasn't a reason either, yet we saw page after page of that over the years.
Skippy, you're saying that our government can't even post a bill online for public review because it's too ineffective to figure out a way to post it in a timely manner, define rules, review response, etc. Hmmm... you could be on to something there.
post #40 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinder View Post
Skippy, you're saying that our government can't even post a bill online for public review because it's too ineffective to figure out a way to post it in a timely manner, define rules, review response, etc. Hmmm... you could be on to something there.
That's very close to what I'm saying, with the only exception being I'm not sure if "ineffective" is the word. It may be lack of cooperation, it may be lack of motivation, it may even be utter laziness.

And, it could be that the whole thing was a campaign(ish) promise, and we know what happens to 99% of those.
post #41 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
That's what it's there for.


I think it's a good idea. I also think that it's impossible. In the time that it would take to get a completed bill online, let alone 5 days, the Republicans would have changed or added several more things, rendering the online copy obsolete, and would use that tactic for obstruction. In my opinion, they voted down simply for the sake of being able to get things done. And we've already seen change in the executive branch. Congress, on the other hand, didn't promise any changes.

And just for the record, "Clinton didn't..." wasn't a reason either, yet we saw page after page of that over the years.
FTR, I didn't mind Clinton. I thought he was to easy on terrorists and said so.
As far as the Republicans going after Clinton for 8 years, I thought that was bull and said so many times and I thought the Monica deal was a crock and said so also.
So, when you talk about:
Quote:
And just for the record, "Clinton didn't..." wasn't a reason either, yet we saw page after page of that over the years.
you aren't talking about me.

And, what does that have to do with Barack's promise anyway?
Bush had nothing to do with it and Clinton had nothing to do with it.

This little vote very neatly got Barack out of his promise. Gee, what a surprise.
post #42 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
you aren't talking about me.
That's why I didn't quote you when I said it.


Quote:
This little vote very neatly got Barack out of his promise.
Yes it did, didn't it. So why say he broke his promise?
post #43 of 50
Thread Starter 
Because Barack Obama is behind this, just like he is behind everything this moronic, corrupt Congress does.

If Barack really wanted to keep this promise, there is no way the Dems would have voted it down. No way, no how.
post #44 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Because Barack Obama is behind this, just like he is behind everything this moronic, corrupt Congress does.

If Barack really wanted to keep this promise, there is no way the Dems would have voted it down. No way, no how.
Funny, I could have sworn that you just told me in another thread that I couldn't speak of someone else's motives, yet here you are doing it with Obama.
post #45 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Funny, I could have sworn that you just told me in another thread that I couldn't speak of someone else's motives, yet here you are doing it with Obama.
Yeah, I must have learned it from you. You are rubbing off on me.


I don't have much trust in the motives of most politicians, but especially ones that break every dang campaign promise they have.

But people don't seem to care about that as, we are all expecting
politicians to break all their campign promises. I find that very disturbing that we have become so jaded that we vote for someone knowing, full well that they are lying through their teeth.


But John McCain, a tried and true politician, and public servant, and war hero that has served his country his entire life, one that I felt we could trust, that hasn't taken pork and earmarks, we threw him away for a little snot nosed liar. We got the government we deserve, that is for darn sure
post #46 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
But John McCain, a tried and true politician, and public servant, and war hero that has served his country his entire life, one that I felt we could trust, that hasn't taken pork and earmarks, we threw him away for a little snot nosed liar. We got the government we deserve, that is for darn sure

I get that you are upset that President Obama won. I respect your opinion on his policies. You have every right to voice your opinions but to call our President a "little snot nosed liar" is childish and disrespectful to the office. And I don't know that John McCain would have been as great as you have envisioned him as in regard to changing Washington. Most Presidents go in to change the culture and I can't think of one who actually acheived it.
post #47 of 50
Thread Starter 
McCain has been a Senator for, almost, 30 years and has kept his integrity intact and knows how to play the politics game and has reached across party lines repeatedly. But, that didn't matter and it is all over now.

And yes, Barack is baby in this politics business and his lying is clear.
I don't respect liars and in 2 months that is all he has done IMO.
post #48 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
McCain has been a Senator for, almost, 30 years and has kept his integrity intact and knows how to play the politics game and has reached across party lines repeatedly. But, that didn't matter and it is all over now.

And yes, Barack is baby in this politics business and his lying is clear.
I don't respect liars and in 2 months that is all he has done IMO.
There are many examples of Presidents who's terms were preceded by notable public service. Yet not one ever remained "untouched" by the office of President. Had McCain won, he would have been "touched" as well.
post #49 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
That's very close to what I'm saying, with the only exception being I'm not sure if "ineffective" is the word. It may be lack of cooperation, it may be lack of motivation, it may even be utter laziness.

And, it could be that the whole thing was a campaign(ish) promise, and we know what happens to 99% of those.

Part of it could also be that it would a way for them (Congress) to be held accountable by their constituents if the voters can see the same bills. Then again, the majority of the country doesn't pay any attention to what goes on in Washington.

Of course, when it comes to this current Congress, we are talking about people who keep trying to stick the square peg in the round hole.
post #50 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keycube View Post
Maybe this isn't the proper place for this post, but something about these threads just strike a chord. I enjoy reading them, but I always get this image of the world in flames, the apocalypse nigh, and people still pecking away on their keyboards in bipartisan fashion, determined to have the last word.

IMHO.
I did enjoy your post Keycube, but I have to leave for work.

For some reason I pictured us as a bunch of chickens pecking away at our keyboards. Every now and then the government dropped us a few kernals of corn and we all pecked faster, except of course for Skippy, who did this...



I will always have a soft spot in my heart for John McCain. He fits my definition of a hero. Whether being president would have changed him, I'm not so sure. Now if being president changes someone I didn't like to begin with... well, maybe that's a good thing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Change You Can Believe In