| Author |
Message |
|
| chillywilly |
 Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:16 pm |
 |
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8250
Location: Salt Lake City
|
yambu wrote: billyweeds wrote: [......Obama is definitely not a one-term president. You're the only one I know who's so definite. Will unemployment definitely fall appreciably? If not, then he's gone. Suppose we wait and see.
US politics are based on reactionary decisions, so with what you are saying, Yambu, then it may be possible that Obama will only go one term. But everyone that wasn't happy with GWB also said the same thing, yet he went two terms. Granted, he had the advantage of starting a war and history has shown that we don't change presidents during war time.
I personally think Obama will go two terms, but it will be more out of the lack of better option for the conservatives than the majority feeling like he did a bang up job. Personally, I think he's doing good, with some missteps (as any president does). I want more bullish and no so many compromises. I'm realistic in that may not be ideal, but at the same time, it's more practical for all. |
_________________
Chilly
"If you should die before me / Ask if you could bring a friend" |
|
| Back to top |
    
|
| Befade |
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 5:27 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 3784
Location: AZ
|
Look at what a lame-duck congress can do!!!
A Christmas present for all.......except the illegals (the Dream Act).
And to think last night I dreamt that W. Bush was running for president again.........  |
_________________
Lost in my own private I dunno. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| jeremy |
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:03 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6794
Location: Derby, England and Hamilton, New Zealand (yes they are about 12,000 miles apart)
|
Although from an establishment background, Orwell was representative of a certain nonconformist tradition. He sat on the fault line of that innate dichotomy in protestant thought, the perceived godliness of hard work and the acquisition of wealth (Calvinists in particular saw earthly success as a sign of being in God's grace) and the idea that all men are created equal before God. The American civil war was this divide writ large.
In some respects, a Britain in relative decline, shed of its colonial possessions and with some sense of a national consensus built around the welfare state has reached an accommodation with this split in its collective personality. Or at least it has striven to grapple with it in terms of class. America founded in white heat of protestant zeal and refusing to acknowledge the realities of class (which is anti-thetical to the concept ofthe American dream) and community, can be strangely unempathetc towards its fellow citizens, let alone foreigners.
I realise this analysis is a hopelessly simplistic, and there is a good argument to suggest that the Protestant work ethic is still a great motor for World's most successful economy. Regardless, it may still contain a grain of truth. |
_________________
I am angry, I am ill, and I'm as ugly as sin.
My irritability keeps me alive and kicking.
I know the meaning of life, it doesn't help me a bit.
I know beauty and I know a good thing when I see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| carrobin |
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:12 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 7795
Location: NYC
|
The ironic thing is.....
In today's America, doing actual productive work will very seldom make you rich. If you can entertain people (acting, singing, writing about teenage vampires or da Vinci's code) or play ball really well or juggle numbers at a financial firm, you can make big, big bucks. And if you're really good at new technology, you can invent Facebook or something similar. But most Americans these days work hard at jobs that don't pay a lot and won't get them far with the retirement fund, and just hope to win the lottery so they can take advantage of that tax cut that the billionaires just got. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The Republicans were getting a pasting from many sides opf their own support groups so they had to retreat.
Why a party would think denying virtually, national heroes, of government help is so stupid that it makes you wonder if they have a suicide fetish. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lshap |
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:16 pm |
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 4246
Location: Montreal
|
carrobin wrote: The ironic thing is.....
In today's America, doing actual productive work will very seldom make you rich. If you can entertain people (acting, singing, writing about teenage vampires or da Vinci's code) or play ball really well or juggle numbers at a financial firm, you can make big, big bucks. And if you're really good at new technology, you can invent Facebook or something similar. But most Americans these days work hard at jobs that don't pay a lot and won't get them far with the retirement fund, and just hope to win the lottery so they can take advantage of that tax cut that the billionaires just got.
Big name actors and athletes are too rare to be statistically useful. I've found the real difference between rich and middle class is the different degree of investment made. Those who become rich invest time, strategy and money into their business. They make concrete plans to grow and accept the accompanying risk. It sounds like a cliche, but the truth is that 'thinking big' really is the crucial difference. There's nothing wrong with a career built on doing your job well, but that's not the direction to go if you're aiming for wealth.
I think the reason so many creative people don't become rich - aside from the exceptionally gifted or lucky - is that their energy is channeled inward to their craft, rather than outward to the marketplace. They're more interested in the process of making it better rather than the process of selling it better. |
_________________
"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:42 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
chillywilly wrote:
I personally think Obama will go two terms, but it will be more out of the lack of better option for the conservatives than the majority feeling like he did a bang up job. Personally, I think he's doing good, with some missteps (as any president does). I want more bullish and no so many compromises. I'm realistic in that may not be ideal, but at the same time, it's more practical for all.
I certainly think Obama will go two terms, and not just for lack of competition. Look at the last week alone. DADT and the 9/11 First Responders Bill, with START in the wings. Easy to knock O for compromising too much, but if that's what it takes then maybe that's what it takes. In any case, he's a slam dunk. Don't believe me? Your problem. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marj |
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:49 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:48 am |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
| Obama is getting it done the only way you can with this pathologically obstructionist bunch of Republican whack jobs. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:13 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
I have no doubt Obama will be a two-term president. I'm not happy about it, but what have the Republicans to offer in place of him? No one.
I'm shocked by the responses to the article I posted. Covert operations before they take place, okay. But for our government to blatantly lie after, and all of you to be okay with that? Wrong, wrong, wrong. |
_________________
You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:37 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Joe Vitus wrote: I have no doubt Obama will be a two-term president. I'm not happy about it...
I'm ecstatic. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:38 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Marc wrote: Obama is getting it done the only way you can with this pathologically obstructionist bunch of Republican whack jobs.
Terse and true. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| lshap |
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 7:56 am |
|
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 4246
Location: Montreal
|
Joe Vitus wrote: I have no doubt Obama will be a two-term president. I'm not happy about it, but what have the Republicans to offer in place of him? No one.
I'm shocked by the responses to the article I posted. Covert operations before they take place, okay. But for our government to blatantly lie after, and all of you to be okay with that? Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I know where you're coming from. Thing is, I hate seeing this issue painted in simple blacks and whites. True, there's a potential danger in a government operating beneath the public's radar. But on the other hand, we elect these guys to work for us and protect us, which is a business that involves many countries with opposing interests. That often means withholding information.
There's a perfect balance somewhere between monitoring our governments and allowing them to do the job we elected them to do. But I don't believe Wikileaks gives us that balance. A bunch of anonymous hackers with no connecting thread other than, "Because I can", does not inspire trust. A man like Assange, with his own questionable leanings, isn't qualified to be the arbiter of that mountain of stolen information. |
_________________
"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marj |
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:07 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
As has become usual of late, I agree with my fellow Canadian. Maybe Canadians judge things with a more moderate reasoning than Americans that tend to be a extreme on both sides of issues.
Re: Assange; To Americans he is either a great hero of free speech or an American hating, traitor who wants to destroy the western democracies (or some such things).
To Canadians he is just a self aggrandizing jerk who doesn't give a damn about the consequence of his actions.
So far the consequences have been rather inconsequential.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
