When was America Great?

[simplybill]

9 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Wherein, if the person shows to be an ar$e during the courtship, only an idiot would marry said person... unless a masochist or befits that classification itself.

 

Questionmark: 

We only have two viable choices. One will be our next President. That's where the metaphor ends.

[questionmark]

Just now, simplybill said:

Questionmark: 

We only have two viable choices. One will be our next President. That's where the metaphor ends.

No, we have a dozen choices, and more importantly we can send a message to our dear political class that if they give us a conman and a liar to choose from we might decide that they are out. Completely.

What you are doing is dowsing your head in Vaseline(TM) and climbing your favorite party up its ar$e.

Don't forget to plug up your nose.

 

[Leonardo]

41 minutes ago, simplybill said:

Questionmark: 

We only have two viable choices. One will be our next President. That's where the metaphor ends.

You think there are only two viable choices because you think your vote won't matter - there are too many people who will "vote their Party regardless".

But you just became one of those people. How many people like you do you imagine there are, those who think "My vote won't make a difference, so I may as well choose what I think is the least worst of the two big Party options"?

Your vote is your ethical choice for putting in place a government you think will help your country.

[Tatetopa]

16 hours ago, simplybill said:

Tatetopa- I would be ecstatic if Henry Rowan was running for president. Just the fact that he's not interested in self-promotion is an indication of good character. 

You have to understand, this will be a gut-wrenching decision for me. I'm terrified of what could happen if Mr. Trump is our next president, but I may sink into utter despair for our country's future if Ms. Clinton is elected. I'm not just being hyperbolic; I really am concerned that we're on the brink of disaster. 

I believe we missed the boat by not electing Mitt Romney, and then again with Carly Fiorina. We desperately need someone with business sense to get us out of this financial quagmire we're in. If we continue passing up talented people, we'll go bankrupt. 

Simplybill, I share your concern on this level.  It is a terrible choice we have to make, either way we could be a lot worse off in two years than we  now are.  

Henry Rowan died a couple of years ago, that is why I said someone like him, but he was one of my heroes.  Let me tell you one more small thing about him.  He was the first person to give one hundred million dollars to a university.  I saw an interview with him.  He graduated from MIT.  He was approached about business schools and he said what the country needs is more engineers not more MBA's. He decided that he would not give to MIT, Stanford, Harvard or any other top school.  He said he wanted to make a difference in America so he funded an engineering school for Glassboro State College in Ct.  He said in the interview that the best and brightest were already well taken care of.  He thought what would make the most difference for the country was giving the bright kids of blue collar families the chance for a good engineering education.

So I'm suggesting that a thread of social engineering also influenced Rowan's decision.  There are many kinds of businessmen.  Rowan built quality innovative products that help hundreds of metal foundries process materials more efficiently and make more money.  He made his billion, but the companies  that buy his products generate many billions more.  Inductotherm has 27000 employees roughly.  The foundries he supplies maybe 10 times that many.  That is a multiplication of wealth and employment.

Mitt Romney is a decent guy, but he was another kind of businessman.  His firm like many others buys companies by leveraging debt, often stripping assets out of the company and then saddling them with the debt, then moving on.   That is not the same as a venture capitalist who funds new startups.  It may be a service to clean up inefficient companies, but it doesn't create new wealth.  For the capital partners, it is a transfer of wealth, I won't criticize someone for wanting to make money and taking opportunities to do so, but they need to do more than that to wind up on the short list of heroes.

I would say that Mr. Trump's skill is mostly in self promotion, Business-wise Mitt could probably run circles around him.  But I'm not sure that either one would provide the leadership we need.  Please don't take that as an endorsement of Hillary either.  It would make an interesting discussion; what qualities would make a business person a capable leader of a nation?

 

 

[Gromdor]

  From a labor standpoint he is terrible.  He doesn't bargain in good faith.  He promises payment, takes the goods, and then either refuses to pay or renegotiates after the fact.

Making America Great evidentially involves screwing over little girls: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/trump-freedom-kids.html?_r=0

That should teach them to trust Trump at his word and get a contract next time.

[GlitterRose]

14 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

You think there are only two viable choices because you think your vote won't matter - there are too many people who will "vote their Party regardless".

But you just became one of those people. How many people like you do you imagine there are, those who think "My vote won't make a difference, so I may as well choose what I think is the least worst of the two big Party options"?

Your vote is your ethical choice for putting in place a government you think will help your country.

I really liked what Bill Maher had to say on this. 

You want to go to San Diego and there are two trains leaving the station. One of them is gonna get there, but in a slow, roundabout way. 

The other one is going to Hell. 

If there was another train that was gonna make it out of the station, then the primaries would have shown us that. They didn't. The votes are in. There were not sufficient numbers for anyone else. A vote for anyone else is a vote for Trump. And Trump will appoint the next 1-3 Supreme Court judges. That alone would be a disaster, but then you look at his platform. 

[questionmark]

6 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

I really liked what Bill Maher had to say on this. 

You want to go to San Diego and there are two trains leaving the station. One of them is gonna get there, but in a slow, roundabout way. 

The other one is going to Hell. 

If there was another train that was gonna make it out of the station, then the primaries would have shown us that. They didn't. The votes are in. There were not sufficient numbers for anyone else. A vote for anyone else is a vote for Trump. And Trump will appoint the next 1-3 Supreme Court judges. That alone would be a disaster, but then you look at his platform. 

or in plain English, simplybill reversed., The same answer applies.

 

[simplybill]

Q + Leo-

We should have taken that opportunity decades ago. What we have now is the new normal, and there's no going back. The world has changed.

Gary Johnson would probably be a good President, and he has 99 days left to broaden his appeal to the voters. 98 days from now I may change my party affiliation to Libertarian, and I will gladly do so if I believe he has a chance of winning against Ms. Clinton who abandoned her people on the battlefield. I don't want our next Commander-in-Chief to be a proven coward. 

I voted for the Cruz/Fiorina ticket in the Primary; I liked the combination of an experienced politician and an experienced  businesswoman. I'm not happy with the choices we have now, though I'm absolutely sure who I won't be voting for.  

 

 

 

 

 

[GlitterRose]

Just now, questionmark said:

or in plain English, simplybill reversed., The same answer applies.

 

But that's not how I see it. I think things are better now that more people are covered under health care, gays can serve in the military and marry, and we did not sink into the equivalent of the Great Depression. 

I don't imagine that the Democratic party is perfect. I just realize that politics are supposed to be about working together, and sometimes that involves making compromises. 

I also see that for 25 years, Republicans have been trying to get Clinton on something, and they couldn't come up with anything to indict her with. Sure, people can disagree with some of the decisions she made, but they're tough decisions, and sometimes there is no decision that's gonna have a favorable outcome. When dealing with the Middle East, sometimes that's the case. 

[questionmark]

Just now, ChaosRose said:

But that's not how I see it. I think things are better now that more people are covered under health care, gays can serve in the military and marry, and we did not sink into the equivalent of the Great Depression. 

I don't imagine that the Democratic party is perfect. I just realize that politics are supposed to be about working together, and sometimes that involves making compromises. 

I also see that for 25 years, Republicans have been trying to get Clinton on something, and they couldn't come up with anything to indict her with. Sure, people can disagree with some of the decisions she made, but they're tough decisions, and sometimes there is no decision that's gonna have a favorable outcome. When dealing with the Middle East, sometimes that's the case. 

It does not matter which one of those two loonies screws us over. If we keep on flapping in our ears we will get more of that. And as far as I am concerned: we had enough.

 

[GlitterRose]

Just now, questionmark said:

It does not matter which one of those two loonies screws us over. If we keep on flapping in our ears we will get more of that. And as far as I am concerned: we had enough.

 

Oh I think it matters a great deal. Hillary might work with Wall Street, but Trump will work with Putin. And if you noticed any of the Social Darwinist posts...you can see what the true agenda really is. 

If we don't keep Trump from taking hold of the reins, this may be our last free election. I'll try and save you a nice spot on that island if they don't cut off our heads. 

[pbarosso]

39 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

But that's not how I see it. I think things are better now that more people are covered under health care, gays can serve in the military and marry, and we did not sink into the equivalent of the Great Depression. 

I don't imagine that the Democratic party is perfect. I just realize that politics are supposed to be about working together, and sometimes that involves making compromises. 

I also see that for 25 years, Republicans have been trying to get Clinton on something, and they couldn't come up with anything to indict her with. Sure, people can disagree with some of the decisions she made, but they're tough decisions, and sometimes there is no decision that's gonna have a favorable outcome. When dealing with the Middle East, sometimes that's the case. 

ok floor is tiled. backsplash backer board is in. lunchtime

you buy into the idea that the democrats are "working together" with republicans. the only working together theyll be doing is in the case we get a third party and that will be to undermine him/her.

 

youve been seeing for 25 years theyve been  trying to get the clintons on something? there is plenty of things the clintons are guilty of. theyve provided their own fodder. and please tell me that the democrats have not been after the bushes for years. :/

 

[pbarosso]

39 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Oh I think it matters a great deal. Hillary might work with Wall Street, but Trump will work with Putin. And if you noticed any of the Social Darwinist posts...you can see what the true agenda really is. 

If we don't keep Trump from taking hold of the reins, this may be our last free election. I'll try and save you a nice spot on that island if they don't cut off our heads. 

you seem not have read machiavelli. you cant leave people free to undermine stability even if examples of "stability" are things that more deeply divide the population. it is by the majority, and efforts exist to brainwash our youth so they grow up to become sycophants of the new agenda. gay rights is a great example. it is pushed on us until people just accept it. 

[pbarosso]

dont be fooled by the third party choice. he stands no chance even if he did get elected. you need to build a house from the foundation not the roof. we need reps and senators first or he will get nothing done and HAVE to resort to decrees and executive action.

i myself would prefer a libertarian in office, but realize its not the way to do it. I will vote for libertarian local candidates senators etc....thats where we need to spend our energy right now.

 

democrats and other voters seem to think that it was OK to allow an untested freshman senator with no real job to be president on the idea that he is black. YES I SAID IT. but then they dont want trump for the same reason. 

 

thats why people are just too stupid to be allowed to vote. property owners should be the only people who can vote since they have a vested interest in the future because they are building wealth that can be passed down. certainly its not the ONLY way, but it is the time tested way. and by time tested i mean thousands of years.

 

 

 

47 minutes ago, simplybill said:

Q + Leo-

We should have taken that opportunity decades ago. What we have now is the new normal, and there's no going back. The world has changed.

Gary Johnson would probably be a good President, and he has 99 days left to broaden his appeal to the voters. 98 days from now I may change my party affiliation to Libertarian, and I will gladly do so if I believe he has a chance of winning against Ms. Clinton who abandoned her people on the battlefield. I don't want our next Commander-in-Chief to be a proven coward. 

I voted for the Cruz/Fiorina ticket in the Primary; I liked the combination of an experienced politician and an experienced  businesswoman. I'm not happy with the choices we have now, though I'm absolutely sure who I won't be voting for.

 

 

[Gromdor]

Just now, pbarosso said:

dont be fooled by the third party choice. he stands no chance even if he did get elected. you need to build a house from the foundation not the roof. we need reps and senators first or he will get nothing done and HAVE to resort to decrees and executive action.

i myself would prefer a libertarian in office, but realize its not the way to do it. I will vote for libertarian local candidates senators etc....thats where we need to spend our energy right now.

 

democrats and other voters seem to think that it was OK to allow an untested freshman senator with no real job to be president on the idea that he is black. YES I SAID IT. but then they dont want trump for the same reason. 

 

thats why people are just too stupid to be allowed to vote. property owners should be the only people who can vote since they have a vested interest in the future because they are building wealth that can be passed down. certainly its not the ONLY way, but it is the time tested way. and by time tested i mean thousands of years.

 

 

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Simpsons+Aliens+Run+for+President&&view=detail&mid=26045B640A9FA2EFDC0B26045B640A9FA2EFDC0B&FORM=VRDGAR

 

[simplybill]

Pbarosso-

I understand what you're saying about 3rd party candidates. Your words are similar to Rashore's, in that the coalition must be built from the ground up. In light of the Democrat Party's treatment of Bernie Sanders, and the Republican Party's efforts to block Donald Trump, I think a lot more voters will be interested in having a viable 3rd or 4th party to choose from. Hopefully, this election will inspire more voters to get involved in the ways that Rashore described.

[simplybill]

 

This is just speculation on my part, but I wonder if the invasion of Kuwait and the 9/11 attacks were carried out according to the principle of 'The reaction to the action is the action.'

Bush 1 made an appropriate response by dislodging the Iraqi invaders and going home. Bush 2 made an appropriate response by dislodging Al Qaeda from Afghanistan, but then went too far in toppling Saddam. Obama's weird invasion of Syria added to the confusion. The only people that have benefited from a now-unstable ME are the Jihadists. In other words, our 'reaction to the action' played right into their hands.

 We may be electing a 'Wartime President' in November. Whoever finds themselves in the Oval Office in January will likely be tested immediately to see what they're made of. 

Who will respond appropriately: Clinton, Trump or Johnson?

 

[rashore]

1 hour ago, pbarosso said:

thats why people are just too stupid to be allowed to vote. property owners should be the only people who can vote since they have a vested interest in the future because they are building wealth that can be passed down. certainly its not the ONLY way, but it is the time tested way. and by time tested i mean thousands of years.

 

No way man. It would be messed up to deny a citizen their voting rights because they don't own property.

Almost 40% of home occupiers are not owners. What about young people that are going to college, or are saving up to try to buy a house? Or want to enter the military first before anything else, and get penalized for that because they chose the military over buying property? What about the homeowner that got laid off and lost their home despite their best efforts, and no longer being able to vote anymore, unless they can figure out how to buy property again after that kind of scenario? Or older people that would have to give up their right to vote because they are old and need to live in a senior community? Or move in with their children because they need help and have to decide if they want to give up their rights in exchange? What about people that aren't citizens but own property? What about people that might own a business property, but are living in a rented place?

What about if a dozen people decide to put their name on the deed to a piece of property, and they are all property owners? What if whole townships or even cities decided to put every single member of the community onto the deed to a property just to ensure they can retain their rights? Or people that might decide not to try to sell their house in a presidential election year because they don't want to lose their right to vote if the house sells at the wrong time? Or people that would flush the market with cheap property in an election year to try to secure votes? What about scammers or "walk-arounds" that would sell people a square foot of land just so they can pay for their poll tax to vote? Just one acre of land could secure the voting rights for over 40,000 people if someone wanted to sell off square feet so people could vote.

Or people that can't afford to own a house somewhere because their work makes them travel too much, and they rely on work paid housing? Or people that just simply can't afford property being shut out of voting because they are poor? Or how about divorcees that suddenly can't vote because they didn't get the house in the split, and can't afford to buy another property yet?

What about people that rent, but have extremely vested interest in the future because they have children? Or would children become "property" to denote their importance, and thus assurance that the parent is interested enough in the future to vote? What about students that have shelled out tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes the same amounts of money required to buy property) to become vested in their future, because the choice was either you can vote or get an education with that money?

What about inheritance situations? Man, that could be a whole realm of entanglements. Parents deciding to to leave kids property or not in their wills depending on political opinions, or widows/widowers that used to have the property in the now deceased partners name, but are held up in processing title transfer, and can't vote because of it.

 

And hell.. what's to prevent property owners from being stupid? A bit over 60% of home occupiers are owners, and none of them are more intelligent, well read, or interested in knowing what is going on by mere virtue of having their name on a deed. It's not like when you sign your name and get those keys they hand you a "smarts" pill you take and suddenly you are magically intelligent about voting. You don't get an educational manual on voting and politics when you buy property.

What about property flippers? People that don't give a crap about vestment in the future by virtue of property ownership, but rather about profit of buying and flipping properties.

What about people that don't live where they own property? Say one lives in California, but owns property in New York. Would they be right to vote in California, because that's where they live, or in New York, because that's where they own property. How about people that own multiple properties in multiple states? How would their votership status be defined?

 

We would have to strike down the 24th amendment that expressly forbids this kind notion, that one must pay in order to vote. And nix the 19th, because that guarantees all women can vote, the 15th because that guarantees all men can vote, and the 26th because it guarantees that 18 year olds can vote. 23rd amendment for those DC folks would be out too. Because not all women, men, 18 year olds, and DC folks are property owners. We would strike down FIVE amendments and throw ourselves back to pre-1870 voting conditions.

 

Just no way man.

Edited July 31, 2016 by rashore

[pbarosso]

the idea is at least  some kind of qualification. there is no qualification right now. you can get a job with a bachelors degree, but to vote you need nothing. its a sham that allows politicians to rig things. like voter ID to vote. i mean why the fcku not? in the 1800s they used to get foreigners off ships in port to come and vote.

my idea is poorly timed though i know. it should have been in the constitution....the founding fathers were educated about the ancients that much is clear. anyone with basica knowledge of the history of Venice can see the parallels. poor people are too easily controlled.

julius caesar knew what to do with the poor, move to their district and get to know them and appeal to their plight and then gain office in the senate. did you know that? can you see the perils therein? and how it applies to today?

 

bread and circuses. you trust the poor to run this country when they cant even run their own lives?

Edited July 31, 2016 by pbarosso

[pbarosso]

13 minutes ago, rashore said:

We would have to strike down the 24th amendment that expressly forbids this kind notion, that one must pay in order to vote. And nix the 19th, because that guarantees all women can vote, the 15th because that guarantees all men can vote, and the 26th because it guarantees that 18 year olds can vote. 23rd amendment for those DC folks would be out too. Because not all women, men, 18 year olds, and DC folks are property owners. We would strike down FIVE amendments and throw ourselves back to pre-1870 voting conditions.

it would not be that bad. it would obviously be replaced by an amendment that guarantees the right to vote with property ownership no matter the sex, ethnicity etc. why the fear rhetoric?

 

[rashore]

9 minutes ago, pbarosso said:

it would not be that bad. it would obviously be replaced by an amendment that guarantees the right to vote with property ownership no matter the sex, ethnicity etc. why the fear rhetoric?

 

It's not fear. It's a realistic grasp of what would happen. Five amendments would have to be stricken off, that would be true. Including the one that expressively forbids having to pay to be able to vote. So yes, abolishing 100 years worth of fighting and amendments to ensure all citizens can have a voice and be represented would be replaced by pre-1870 rules of you have to pay to vote. That's not fear, that's solid fact of what you recommend. That only people that can pay to vote should be able to do so. That's it's not a citizenship right, but a right only afforded to people with money and own property.

And you suggest this based off a notion that if you can afford to buy, or choose to buy property, that somehow makes you smarter, or better educated, or more vested or interested, or will make better choices than people that can't afford to, or choose not to buy property. And that is just such flawed logic.

 

 

[Paranormal Panther]

7 hours ago, pbarosso said:

bush didnt start the fire it goes back much further than that. post WW2 pretty much. then along comes the internet which started allowing the sharing of ideas globally. the arab spring came along because people could now communicate ideas to a large audience they couldnt reach before.

 

but youre right about hillary watching america burn. one wonders if the democrat party is part of some conspiracy to bring america down for either to build it back up in some new way, or cause the rest of the world to turn to CHINA as a new world leader....and behind it all i surmise is CHINA paying the clintons all along.

Bush started the fire when he started the Iraq War. That disaster led to so much death and destruction. Would he get a pass from you if he was a Democrat? Would you go after the Clintons if they were Republicans. They're not the Crips and the Bloods. People, in both political parties, are part of the "fire problem". It's up to libertarians to extinguish the inferno. The old paradigm is just a distraction from achieving this.

[Thanato]

8 hours ago, pbarosso said:

you said "political leader" i like him because he is not political. hell, i think we need a temporary dictator like marcus sulla in the last days of the roman republic. then i belive that we need to make a special island for people who are emotional based thinkers (liberals) because they are dangerous to a stable society. someday i will see this happen and dance in the streets

Both sides of the political spectrum are emotional. There are very very few logical people in politics.

[Paranormal Panther]

7 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

And there it is, folks.

Social Darwinism. 

And who says people aren't working hard? 

Hopefully there are enough people who feel differently than you do. 

Hitler had a plan as well to do away with those he saw as weak. Great moral values, there.

If you haven't noticed, it's no longer kids flipping burgers. A lot of people are trying to support their families flipping burgers because there aren't other opportunities for them. 

Amen, sister! You stole my thunder, but I loved your post. I appreciate your humanity, and I couldn't agree more with you. Who says that the Crips and the Bloods can't agree from time to time? 

[Paranormal Panther]

7 hours ago, pbarosso said:

well too bad for them. in france there are so many kids who cant get jobs and need them because of this kind of ****. 

thats because the politicians have brought in so many foreigners that it has saturated the market with laborers. the same has happened here. 

 

social darwinism is GOOD morals. it is completely natural! squirrels, chimpanzees, and every other organism on earth relies on social darwinism. humans have been relying on it since the beginning but in the last 200 years humanity has become sick because of "progress". 

Are you pulling our legs and yanking our chains? Your posts sound like parodies from Benito Barosso, created for black-shirted fans of fascism. As for social Darwinism, it's a vestige of the past that should be put in the historical dustbin next to eugenicists like Sanger. FWIW, we aren't just animals.