Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:44:59 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>   If that's so, then why was he elected a second time?
> 
> Both times Bush was elected it was controversial.  I'm still angry with 

	That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.

	Roughly half of the voters voted for him.

-- 
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

> That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
> elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.
>
> Roughly half of the voters voted for him.

It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46% for 
McCain.

From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions, and 
I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician would sound 
like that.  I'm going to wait to see how he tackles environmental issues, 
although judging by the size of his car he's not setting a very good example 
:-)  (yes I know it's armour plated etc, but still...)

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:497### [at] hotmailcom...
>
> > The Israeli government is probably not so certain about him or they would
> > not have used the last days of GW Bush to attack.
>
>   Oh, wow. I thought the very same thing. Why did they do what they did when
> they did and why did they pull out just before the next President was going
> to be in power. Apparently, this is a cease-fire for about a week. Will
> Isreal continue?
>
> Is this to see what Obama says about it all? (As far as I know, he hasn't
> said anything yet about it, but I think he may have something up his sleeve
> in some way).
>

I'm quite cynical when it comes to US/Israel relations, and I live in the US. My
own feeling is that Israel had this invasion planned in detail for some time,
had tacit US approval, and was simply waiting for a 'window of
opportunity'--either through their own machinations of 'forcing the issue'
through their military behavior, i.e., 'tweaking' the Palestinians one too many
times in hopes of a response--or by using some transgression/aggression by the
Palestinians as an excuse. In any case, a foregone conclusion. The timing of
their invasion, its ferocity, and the pullout on the very eve of the change in
US administrations, all point to this, in an oh-so-obvious way. And the latest
Gaza destruction could never have happened without US consent (or at the very
least, its lack of a restraining voice.) My only surprise, a real one, is that
the US media has not put forward or discussed this scenario in any meaningful
way. Perhaps over here it is just too much of a hot-button topic.  I can only
HOPE that Obama and his team will take a different tack in dealing with the
Middle East.  It can only be better than what's come before.

I'm definitely glad to see Bush go. It's a solemn but happy day: A dark veil has
been lifted off of my country.

Ken W.

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message 
news:web.4976ff4bfd4289c3f50167bc0@news.povray.org...
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
>> news:497### [at] hotmailcom...
>>
>> > The Israeli government is probably not so certain about him or they 
>> > would
>> > not have used the last days of GW Bush to attack.
>>
>>   Oh, wow. I thought the very same thing. Why did they do what they did 
>> when
>> they did and why did they pull out just before the next President was 
>> going
>> to be in power. Apparently, this is a cease-fire for about a week. Will
>> Isreal continue?
>>
>> Is this to see what Obama says about it all? (As far as I know, he hasn't
>> said anything yet about it, but I think he may have something up his 
>> sleeve
>> in some way).
>>
>
> I'm quite cynical when it comes to US/Israel relations, and I live in the 
> US. My
> own feeling is that Israel had this invasion planned in detail for some 
> time,
> had tacit US approval, and was simply waiting for a 'window of
> opportunity'--either through their own machinations of 'forcing the issue'
> through their military behavior, i.e., 'tweaking' the Palestinians one too 
> many
> times in hopes of a response--or by using some transgression/aggression by 
> the
> Palestinians as an excuse. In any case, a foregone conclusion. The timing 
> of
> their invasion, its ferocity, and the pullout on the very eve of the 
> change in
> US administrations, all point to this, in an oh-so-obvious way. And the 
> latest
> Gaza destruction could never have happened without US consent (or at the 
> very
> least, its lack of a restraining voice.) My only surprise, a real one, is 
> that
> the US media has not put forward or discussed this scenario in any 
> meaningful
> way. Perhaps over here it is just too much of a hot-button topic.  I can 
> only
> HOPE that Obama and his team will take a different tack in dealing with 
> the
> Middle East.  It can only be better than what's come before.
>
> I'm definitely glad to see Bush go. It's a solemn but happy day: A dark 
> veil has
> been lifted off of my country.

     I can only imagine. It wouldn't surprise me if this Israeli action was 
sanctioned by 'someone'.

      ~Steve~


>
> Ken W.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:56:40 +0000, St. wrote:
> 
>>    I can't see that relationship working well. I think Hillary will see
>> Barak as the 'new boy on the block', and will want to advise 'too' much.
> 
> One could argue that her being Secretary of State means that she'll be 
> traveling a lot and thus not around to "advise" him in ways that are 
> unwelcome.  :-)
> 
> Jim

Obama is smarter than we think.  The perfect plan!

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:25:32 -0000, Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay  
<jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> did spake thusly:

> Does this mean that the rest of the world will stop hating us (the USA)  
> now?

Barack - a-ah - he'll save everyone of us
Barack - a-ah - he's a miracle
Barack - a-ah - king of the impossible

:-P

> Yes, it's a dumb question, but the Bush hatred was so prevalent that if
> there were any other reasons to hate the US, they were overshadowed if  
> not completely forgotten.
>
> Bush may have been the worst President in my lifetime.

May have been?

> Obama will not be pulling out of Iraq any time soon.  Dates will lapse.   
> New reasons for staying will be given.  Left-wing activists will begin to
> realize that, "OMG!  He's a politician!"

No, left-wing activists will be "OMG leave him alone look at what he's  
inherited" meh as an excuse it's worked well for our government here in  
the UK for the last ten years. Heh bet that'll be the first bit of  
'advice' Brown tries to give him.

>  The economy isn't going to pick up any time soon.

But that'll be Bush's fault - boo, hiss!

> (Just my $0.02USD.  I realize this is an international forum, and that's  
> why I posted it here.  I hope to hear several viewpoints.)

As has been mentioned the simple fact that he's not Bush will endear him  
to the world regardless of what he does next, the bonus that he's young  
(comparatively) and seems to recognise that other countries actually exist  
will certainly help even if he does produce insular reforms.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 21-Jan-09 9:06, scott wrote:
>> That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
>> elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.
>>
>> Roughly half of the voters voted for him.
> 
> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46% 
> for McCain.
> 
>  From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions, 
> and I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician 
> would sound like that.  I'm going to wait to see how he tackles 
> environmental issues, although judging by the size of his car he's not 
> setting a very good example :-)  (yes I know it's armour plated etc, but 
> still...)
> 
> 
armour plating does not make it more fuel efficient.

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:

> Bush may have been the worst President in my lifetime.   Nixon screwed up,
> was paranoid, etc.  Carter just didn't seem to know what to do.  But Bush 
> seemed to do whatever the **** he wanted, and never bothered to explain why 
> to anyone, least of all the American people.  World opinion could have been 
> swayed to some extent if he had given it a reasonable attempt, but he never 
> did.

Perhaps he noted that they hated the US before any American presently 
alive was born, and decided that courting their opinion was a waste of 
time.  Perhaps he noted that courting world opinion required the chronic 
habit of making unrewarded sacrifices and unreciprocated concessions. 
Perhaps he noted that the press had made a habit of distorting anything 
he said, so he decided that saying nothing was the wisest course of action.

> Obama will not be pulling out of Iraq any time soon.  Dates will lapse.  New 
> reasons for staying will be given.  Left-wing activists will begin to 
> realize that, "OMG!  He's a politician!"  The economy isn't going to pick up 
> any time soon.  Lucky for him, at least, it has probably bottomed out now. 
> But in the meantime, he gets the benefit of being a very new fresh face that 
> appears to be 180 degrees from Bush.

I think a rude awakening is in store for a lot of his supporters.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:40:41 -0500, Tom Austin wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:56:40 +0000, St. wrote:
>> 
>>>    I can't see that relationship working well. I think Hillary will
>>>    see
>>> Barak as the 'new boy on the block', and will want to advise 'too'
>>> much.
>> 
>> One could argue that her being Secretary of State means that she'll be
>> traveling a lot and thus not around to "advise" him in ways that are
>> unwelcome.  :-)
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> Obama is smarter than we think.  The perfect plan!

Well, here, we think he's pretty smart. :-)

Of course, the proof will be over the next 4 years, but we're pretty 
hopeful.

I'm so glad my hangover^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hheadache is gone now. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:47:23 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:44:59 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>>   If that's so, then why was he elected a second time?
>> 
>> Both times Bush was elected it was controversial.  I'm still angry with
> 
> 	That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
> elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.
> 
> 	Roughly half of the voters voted for him.

...or voted against the other guy.  In US elections, many people aren't 
voting for someone so much as voting against the other candidate likely 
to win.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:06:40 +0100, scott wrote:

>> That's skirting about the point. Even if he technically lost both
>> elections, the fact remains that it would have been a very near loss.
>>
>> Roughly half of the voters voted for him.
> 
> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
> for McCain.
> 
> From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions,
> and I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician
> would sound like that.  I'm going to wait to see how he tackles
> environmental issues, although judging by the size of his car he's not
> setting a very good example :-)  (yes I know it's armour plated etc, but
> still...)

The President doesn't get a choice on things like that - the Secret 
Service takes care of things like transportation details because it 
becomes a safety issue.

That said, I read something recently about them retiring the existing 
fleet of 747s that are "Air Force One" and that the USAF is looking to 
contract for some new planes for that purpose.  They actually are 
considering Airbus.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle escreveu:
> Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> 
>> Bush may have been the worst President in my lifetime.   Nixon screwed 
>> up,
>> was paranoid, etc.  Carter just didn't seem to know what to do.  But 
>> Bush seemed to do whatever the **** he wanted, and never bothered to 
>> explain why to anyone, least of all the American people.  World 
>> opinion could have been swayed to some extent if he had given it a 
>> reasonable attempt, but he never did.
> 
> Perhaps he noted that they hated the US before any American presently 
> alive was born, and decided that courting their opinion was a waste of 
> time.  Perhaps he noted that courting world opinion required the chronic 
> habit of making unrewarded sacrifices and unreciprocated concessions. 
> Perhaps he noted that the press had made a habit of distorting anything 
> he said, so he decided that saying nothing was the wisest course of action.

are you from Texas? ;)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
> for McCain.

	Yes, but your point is...?

	I was merely pointing out that the notion that not that many were
supporting Bush because the elections may have been rigged is pretty
weak ground to stand on.

-- 
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> As has been mentioned the simple fact that he's not Bush will endear him
> to the world regardless of what he does next, the bonus that he's young

	For a year or so. People here are notoriously amnesiac when it comes to
political issues.



-- 
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> As has been mentioned the simple fact that he's not Bush will endear him
> to the world regardless of what he does next, the bonus that he's young

	For a year or so. People here are notoriously amnesiac when it comes to
political issues.



-- 
I think animal testing is a terrible idea. They get all nervous and give
the wrong answers.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:57:51 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> scott wrote:
>> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
>> for McCain.
> 
> 	Yes, but your point is...?
> 
> 	I was merely pointing out that the notion that not that many were
> supporting Bush because the elections may have been rigged is pretty
> weak ground to stand on.

It's a starting point.  Then you have the bad decisions, bad presentation 
to the world as a leader, and so on and so forth.

The fact that he had the lowest approval rating of nearly any President 
since that's been tracked speaks volumes to his effectiveness as a leader 
as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>  From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions, 
>> and I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician would 
>> sound like that.  I'm going to wait to see how he tackles environmental 
>> issues, although judging by the size of his car he's not setting a very 
>> good example :-)  (yes I know it's armour plated etc, but still...)
>>
>>
> armour plating does not make it more fuel efficient.

No, but it provides a reasonable explanation of why it has to be so big and 
heavy.

Post a reply to this message

>> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
>> for McCain.
>
> Yes, but your point is...?

It's often quite close to 50/50 (for the raw number of votes) even though 
the media make it out to be a massive victory or loss for one side.

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> I think a rude awakening is in store for a lot of his supporters.

I'm some how reminded of this:

http://picturesforsadchildren.com/index.php?comicID=203

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions, and 
> I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician would sound 
> like that.

  "How can you tell when a politician is lying?"

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 22 Jan 2009 05:37:49 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good intentions, and 
>> I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every politician would sound 
>> like that.
>
>  "How can you tell when a politician is lying?"

His lips move.

Boom, boom!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:40:14 -0500, John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom>
wrote:

>
>Perhaps he noted that they hated the US before any American presently 
>alive was born,

I think that you're wrong about that, John. After WWII most of the world loved
America.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:00:34 -0000, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did
spake thusly:

>>> It wasn't far off half for Obama either, 53% people voted for him, 46%
>>> for McCain.
>>
>> Yes, but your point is...?
>
> It's often quite close to 50/50 (for the raw number of votes) even  
> though the media make it out to be a massive victory or loss for one  
> side.

It can be if you only look at the votes that count and that'd be the  
Electoral ones - 52.9% vs. 45.7% equaled 365 against 173 thus Obama
received over twice as many 'votes' as McCain - a landslide ;-)

Just for fun (if that's the right word) I've got a spreadsheet that sets  
out the electorial votes by proportion rather than as a block going back  
to 1980 so

Year (Candidates) - Actual Result - Proportional Result

1980 (Reagan, Carter, Anderson) - 489, 49 - 276, 223, 37
1984 (Reagan, Mondale) - 525, 13 - 320, 217, (1 Other)
1988 (Bush, Dukakis) - 426, 11 - 289, 247, (1 Other)
1992 (Cinton, Bush, Perot) - 370, 168 - 236, 197, 105
1996 (Clinton, Dole, Perot) - 379, 159 - 266, 223, 47, (2 Other)
2000 (Bush, Gore, Nader) - 271, 266 - 262, 261, 13, (1 Other)
2004 (Bush, Kerry) - 274, 264 - 278, 259, (1 Other)
2008 (Obama, McCain) - 365, 173 - 289, 248

To put it concisely the candidates who won would still have won just with  
a much smaller majority, except in the case of 2004 where Bush would have  
won by more!

For those interested Bush's gains would have been in California and New  
York; instead of a combined 86 votes for Kerry he would only have got 48  
with the remaining 37 going to Bush more than compensating any small  
losses from Republican States.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:40:14 -0000, John VanSickle  
<evi### [at] hotmailcom> did spake thusly:

> Perhaps he noted that they hated the US before any American presently  
> alive was born, and decided that courting their opinion was a waste of  
> time.

In one's own humble opinion the UK viewpoint is this:

Reagan - To busy worrying about Thatcher, IRA, and not being run-over by  
loud men in red braces coked out of their heads (or to be busy being a  
load man in red braces trying to find more coke)
Bush Snr - Who? Oh yeah Desert Storm; who was he again?
Clinton - "Love is in the Air"
Bush Jr. "Imperial March"

>  Perhaps he noted that courting world opinion required the chronic habit  
> of making unrewarded sacrifices and unreciprocated concessions.

Um when has America ever courted world opinion when there hasn't been  
something in it for America? Not a negative mind, that's what they're  
elected for. The only difference between Clinton and Bush was that Clinton  
made a pretence of caring and asking.

> Perhaps he noted that the press had made a habit of distorting anything  
> he said, so he decided that saying nothing was the wisest course of  
> action.

Did the press need to distort anything he said, heck the White House's own  
transcripts could barely make sense of the man.

> I think a rude awakening is in store for a lot of his supporters.

Oh yes on that we can agree, though admittedly he's already made a start  
with the scheduled closure of Gitmo.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> It can be if you only look at the votes that count 

I've also heard (without substantiation on my part) that this is the first 
election where more than half the eligible general population actually cast 
a vote for the winner. So that's something.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

subject:   re: president obama
to:
cc:
bcc:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=# don't remove this line #=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
jeremy "unclehoot" praay wrote:
> does this mean that the rest of the world will stop hating us (the
> usa) now?
> 
> yes, it's a dumb question, but the bush hatred was so prevalent
> that if there were any other reasons to hate the us, they were
> overshadowed if not completely forgotten.
> 
> bush may have been the worst president in my lifetime.

When you and I were in school, guys who liked thick butts were 
considered "ghetto." Americans seem to have changed our minds about that 
one and fallen in love with big bootys. And on the subject of 
attraction, I very much doubt that Catherine Bach or Linder Carter would 
make it as a sex symbol today. Clark Gable wouldn't have a chance.

My point is that the media are very powerful, and have, I believe, 
changed something as fundamental as our sexual impulses by keeping us 
saturated with what they want us to accept or believe.

I don't like W either, but I have to wonder if some of my dislike isn't 
the result of exposure to eight years of "advertising" against him. I do 
catch myself checking out some rather swollen backsides on occasion. :)

And the message from our government is an easy sell:

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Dear American voter:
You've spent not only everything you've ever made in your life, but 
everything you're going to make for the next 18 months. Now, impending 
retirement, aging parents, college age kids, or some other evil is 
making it uncomfortable to make your credit payments. Have no fear, 
voter. We'll take money from people who make more than you AND people 
who haven't been born yet and we'll lesson the burden of living above 
your means.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Hopefully we get more (less) than that, but that's exactly what we voted 
for.  Barak articulated this message well, so the desperate consumers at 
all income levels are very excited right now. They'll remain excited 
until they retire, support the parents, or put the kids through college 
and find that additional spending has made doing so no less hard than it 
would have been without the emergency loan.

Panic Borrow Panic Borrow Panic Borrow. We NEED a new computer. We NEED 
    a bigger car. We NEED double-pane insulated glass on the windows. 
Always a new crisis; Always a new high from borrowing your way out of 
it. That explains the mania. That explains why we believe other 
countries MUST love our most recent savior - He gives GREAT loan. /Sorry 
peoplewhohavenotbeenbornyet./

Of course, the non-US will love Obama, but that's because they're as 
receptive to US media as they are to our fast food enterprises.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On 22-Jan-09 8:55, scott wrote:
>>>  From his speeches that I've heard it seems like he has good 
>>> intentions, and I like a lot of what he said, but then I guess every 
>>> politician would sound like that.  I'm going to wait to see how he 
>>> tackles environmental issues, although judging by the size of his car 
>>> he's not setting a very good example :-)  (yes I know it's armour 
>>> plated etc, but still...)
>>>
>>>
>> armour plating does not make it more fuel efficient.
> 
> No, but it provides a reasonable explanation of why it has to be so big 
> and heavy.
> 
Ah, ok, perhaps I misinterpreted your statement ;)

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <sha### [at] nonenone> wrote in message news:4978c26b@news.povray.org...
>
> When you and I were in school, guys who liked thick butts were considered 
> "ghetto." Americans seem to have changed our minds about that one and 
> fallen in love with big bootys. And on the subject of attraction, I very 
> much doubt that Catherine Bach or Linder Carter would make it as a sex 
> symbol today. Clark Gable wouldn't have a chance.
>
> My point is that the media are very powerful, and have, I believe, changed 
> something as fundamental as our sexual impulses by keeping us saturated 
> with what they want us to accept or believe.
>
> I don't like W either, but I have to wonder if some of my dislike isn't 
> the result of exposure to eight years of "advertising" against him. I do 
> catch myself checking out some rather swollen backsides on occasion. :)

It's a valid point, and I honestly can't say to what extent I have been 
influenced.  I do recall that early in Bush's Presidency, on a few 
occasions, I remember thinking that he was (to use a poker analogy) setting 
the trap.  In other words, sure, he looks like he's weak, he looks like he 
doesn't exactly know what he's doing, but watch out guys!  He's just setting 
things up for the big showdown!  After thinking that 3 or 4 times, and then 
realizing that there was not going to be a "surprise!" moment, I lost some 
faith in him and his abilities.

Iraq and the failure to find any true WMD's (they did find some old useless 
chemical weapons) didn't help, even though pretty much the entire world 
thought Saddam had WMD's.  Saddam deserved what he got.  But are we better 
off?  Not at the moment.  Will we be in the futre?  I don't think we will 
have any idea for decades.  At the moment, it certainly appears to be a 
failure and a waste of human life.  I hope that view changes some day, but 
that's probably unlikely in the next 20 years.  Having discussed the issue 
with some Vietnam veterans, they generally seem to think we've made the same 
mistake twice.  The real difference is that those fighting in Iraq are not 
doing it with the hope of having a better future, but that's a whole-nuther 
issue...

The "tough on terror" seemed to become an excuse for practically anything 
Congress/Bush wanted to do, which really made me sick.  Killing the bad guys 
is fine, but each time Americans lose more rights/freedom, it's almost 
impossible to get those things back.  I, for one, would rather have a plane 
blow up each year than to have everyone subjected to the type of airport 
security that we now have.  But I also feel that way about pseudoephedrine 
and meth labs.  You have to practically file a police report to get access 
to the Claritin-D now, and the government actually keeps that info, unlike a 
normal prescription, where they are generally prohibited by law from 
accessing such information.  That should scare the crap out of people.  But 
it doesn't.

>
> And the message from our government is an easy sell:
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> Dear American voter:
> You've spent not only everything you've ever made in your life, but 
> everything you're going to make for the next 18 months. Now, impending 
> retirement, aging parents, college age kids, or some other evil is making 
> it uncomfortable to make your credit payments. Have no fear, voter. We'll 
> take money from people who make more than you AND people who haven't been 
> born yet and we'll lesson the burden of living above your means.
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> Hopefully we get more (less) than that, but that's exactly what we voted 
> for.  Barak articulated this message well, so the desperate consumers at 
> all income levels are very excited right now. They'll remain excited until 
> they retire, support the parents, or put the kids through college and find 
> that additional spending has made doing so no less hard than it would have 
> been without the emergency loan.
>
> Panic Borrow Panic Borrow Panic Borrow. We NEED a new computer. We NEED a 
> bigger car. We NEED double-pane insulated glass on the windows. Always a 
> new crisis; Always a new high from borrowing your way out of it. That 
> explains the mania. That explains why we believe other countries MUST love 
> our most recent savior - He gives GREAT loan. /Sorry 
> peoplewhohavenotbeenbornyet./

Obama is a Socialist.  He may even be a Marxist.  Is that bad?  Well, 
Communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere was pretty bad, but I don't 
personally blame Karl Marx.  Certainly there are a lot of friendly Socialist 
countries.  I hope we don't become one, and I hope that the moderate 
Democrats will take a stand against anything too far left.  But, under Bush, 
we've already begun racing down the road of Socialism, starting with 
prescription drug coverage, and ending with what historians may view as the 
moment when the US finally embraced Socialism: The Great Bank Bailout of 
2008.  Now we're bailing out the auto industry, too.  When will it stop?  It 
won't.  Every time any failing enterprise is in trouble, and it's large 
enough, this same thing will happen.  Perhaps the real failure was allowing 
them to become so large that states like Michigan will simply not survive if 
GM folds.  (Actually, I don't believe that.  With a hole that big, something 
would fill it in, but yeah, it would really suck for awhile).  Republicans 
and Democrats both love the auto-industry.  The Union vote is HUGE for the 
Democrats.  The money coming from the auto-industry (execs, esp) is HUGE for 
the Republicans.

> Of course, the non-US will love Obama, but that's because they're as 
> receptive to US media as they are to our fast food enterprises.

After the election, I remember CNN showing a young woman visbily crying (for 
joy, presumably) in the streets of Paris.  That made a big impression on me, 
and it really made me wonder just how far things have gotten out of hand. 
Bush was not Hitler for crying out loud (no pun intended).  The gap between 
Bush and Clinton, and even Obama, isn't nearly as wide as has been 
portrayed.  If Bush was Hitler, then Clinton would be Stalin.  If Obama is 
Jesus Christ, then Bush must have been John the Baptist.  Instead, Obama is 
Jesus, and Bush is Satan.  Again, I could care less who hates Bush and who 
doesn't, but I would hope that everyone would stay somewhat grounded in 
reality.  The difference between Democrats and Republicans is a lot smaller 
than the gap between Democrats and, say, Britain's Conservative Party (and 
that doesn't even mention French politics).  But each has a couple 
diametrically opposed issues that they like to talk/fight about.  Hey, at 
least they're not blowing each other up over it.

Unlike Rush Limbaugh, I hope Obama has a good Presidency.  I think our 
country needs that.  But I don't think we need to travel farther down the 
road to Socialism for that to happen.  He can be kept in check and balanced 
by other reasonable people in Congress, if we still have any of those, and 
there are a lot of things that "middle-of-the-road" issues that members in 
both Houses can support.  If he sticks to that, he can't fail.  That's 
largely what Clinton did.

Wow, that's a lot off my chest!  :-)  I need to think about something else 
now...

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4978b02c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I've also heard (without substantiation on my part) that this is the first 
> election where more than half the eligible general population actually 
> cast a vote for the winner. So that's something.
>

Voter turnout in the US, even when relatively very high, is still fairly 
low.  http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

When George Bush (not W) was elected, he won a majority of the popular vote 
(meaning more than 50%).  I don't think that happened again until Obama's 
election, as very close elections and 3rd party candidates got in the way.

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:

> I do recall that early in Bush's Presidency, on a few occasions, I
> remember thinking that he was (to use a poker analogy) setting the
> trap.  In other words, sure, he looks like he's weak, he looks
> like he doesn't exactly know what he's doing, but watch out guys!
> He's just setting things up for the big showdown!  After thinking
> that 3 or 4 times, and then realizing that there was not going to
> be a "surprise!" moment, I lost some faith in him and his
> abilities.

Don't know. Obama's position shifts immediately after getting elected 
lead me to believe that there is a lot more that we don't know than I 
ever realized/accepted.

> Obama is a Socialist.  He may even be a Marxist.  Is that bad?
> Well, Communism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere was pretty bad,
> but I don't personally blame Karl Marx.  Certainly there are a lot
> of friendly Socialist countries.

We've improved upon Marxism: From each who can't grant power [felons, 
babies, political minorities] according to ability; To each who can 
grant power [rich, political majorities] without restriction.

The Socialism isn't as bad as the unrestrained Democracy - the tyrany of 
the Majority. We all want to take (by force) from "someone else." Our 
vote is an act of force, and when that force is used to take from 
someone, no matter how just we may feel that taking to be, we have done 
no different than if we had beaten him with a stick and robbed him. Too 
few realize that everyone gets a chance to hold the stick and everyone 
takes his turn getting beaten. Wealth centralizes around a tiny, tiny 
group while the rest of us sit around bloody, toothless, and stupefied 
waiting for our turn to wield the rod.

That's exactly the tendency our Constitution is meant to protect us 
from. But it has been lost. "Moderates" couldn't protect us even if they 
wanted to. The majority WILL make themselves miserable and desperate, 
and desperate people WILL act unconscionably and stupidly (lottery 
ticket, anyone?) to cure themselves.
  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:

Also, women in France cry when the American Idol winner is announced. I 
wouldn't make too much of that.

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> Voter turnout in the US, even when relatively very high, is still fairly 
> low.  http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

Good reference, thanks! I guess my hearsay was incorrect, then.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> I supported Bush for at least 3 years.  By the second election, I had strong 
> doubts, but believing that Republicans were more in-touch with my beliefs, I 
> went and voted for him again.  Republicans later proved that no one in 
> government shares my beliefs, save a small few, like Ron Paul.  They seemed 
> to think that they could pass some worthless legislation to impress the 
> Religious Right, instead of passing legislation that really speaks to the 
> core values of those of us who are more Libertarian than Republican (limited 
> government/taxation, and basically a "just stay out of my way" attitude). 
> The Republicans, largely under Bush's guidance, completely lost touch with 
> that segment of the American Public, and it was largely those people that 
> voted them into office in 1994.  So, we made sure to vote them out in 2006. 
> At this point in my life, I no longer feel a strong party affiliation.  I 
> find myself agreeing with Barney Frank (a far left gay congressman from 
> Massachusettes), than I do with just about any of the Republicans currently 
> in office.
> 
> Poor John McCain got associated with Bush, and yet he was the one Republican 
> to actually stand up against the President and the rest of his party when he 
> felt it was necessary.  No, he wasn't 180 degrees different, but perhaps 30. 
> LOL. 
> 

What you failed to grasp is that the only "libertarian" values shared by 
the Republicans is to "keep hands off ***their*** industries." They have 
no problem screwing everyone else's. That said, I think the Libertarian 
position is naive, and fails to, often, even acknowledge, the prior time 
periods, "before" legislation of businesses, when the only thing not 
controlling them got was everything from arsenic in medications or 
making people work for less money than they could live off of, while at 
the same time, selling them everything from the houses they lived in, to 
the clothes on their backs. I think you miss a key point. Innovation 
must be unfettered, but "commerce" can't be. Innovation creates new 
things, commerce will quite happily ignore the new, if its more 
profitable, would cost them more money than they want to spend, or 
threatens something else they make. And, no, I am not talking about 
something like someone finding a cure for cancer. For one thing, the 
insurance companies wouldn't stand for it, if something denied such a 
medication, thus making the insurance companies pay thousands for years 
of treatment, if their was a $20 solution. You don't find a lot of 
"syphilis" specialist doctors around, for precisely that reason. It was 
cheaper to pay for $20 of penicillin than pay thousands to doctors that 
treated it with the older methods.

What I am talking about is the short sighted stuff you get every place. 
Light rail. If Obama's Change.gov site didn't have that on the "top" of 
a list of things people like the idea of, it might never happen. It 
would require technology from a numerous industries, but its "existence" 
would, at the same time, undermine car sales, undermine plane travel, 
undermine... nearly every industry that right now makes 100% of their 
money off of selling "bad" systems to people, while only giving them 
back about.. 40% of that, maybe? Companies do not do what is in the best 
interest of people, of nations, of other companies, or even, in some 
case, themselves. They would rather make $1M now, than spend $2M to make 
$5M later, even if in 20 years, it will cost them 50 times as much to 
finally convert to something else, when they have no damn choice but to 
do so. And that is without even considering what they will do to screw 
everyone they can on the way there.

Example, where I work, they renegotiate with what in Arizona is 
"laughably" called a union every 3 years. In the 15 one person has been 
working there, her salary has "dropped" every single year, while 
everything else has gone up, and we have less vacation, shorter breaks 
(two 10 minute breaks in 8 hours), and we get paid, over all, $2 less 
per hour than the same chain a few hundred miles away, despite the fact 
that, as a resort location, some months we have "more" business than the 
other place gets in the same time period. Every time they "negotiate" 
the company steals something else. This wouldn't happen in a state that 
wasn't "unregulated", and where the only thing the damn union does is 
make sure you get 20 hours a week, some, but less than before, vacation 
time, and insurance. Without them, they would make me work only one day 
a week, and, without "federal laws", probably give me no vacation at 
all, and deny me insurance too.

Companies don't think like individuals, they think like groups, and 
basic group psychology is that **groups** will do things that, if given 
bad direction, will be worse, more vile, less moral or ethical, and 
fundamentally less beneficial to anyone "but themselves", than they 
would as individuals.

So, stop all the BS preventing people using ideas to make new things, 
but nail the fracking "companies" feet to the floor, if you have to, to 
keep them from using that in a way that "impedes" rational progress, for 
idiotically short term goals. Because, most of them, once they start 
seeing "numbers" instead of people, communities, or even countries, 
won't be able to tell the difference, and "will" do things that hurt 
everyone, long before they hang themselves with the rope they wove.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:39:23 -0000, Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay  
<jer### [at] questsoftwarecmo> did spake thusly:

> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
> news:4978b02c$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>> I've also heard (without substantiation on my part) that this is the  
>> first
>> election where more than half the eligible general population actually
>> cast a vote for the winner. So that's something.
>>
>
> Voter turnout in the US, even when relatively very high, is still fairly
> low.  http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
>
> When George Bush (not W) was elected, he won a majority of the popular  
> vote
> (meaning more than 50%).  I don't think that happened again until Obama's
> election, as very close elections and 3rd party candidates got in the  
> way.

2004 was 51.0%/48.1%/0.9% with a turnout of 55.3% hence all the talk about  
Dubya receiving a 'mandate' from the people.

30% of the eligible voting population voted for Obama, Dubya got 26% in  
2004 and Bush Sr. got 27% in 1988

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Halbert [mailto:hal### [at] gmailcom]
> You might have been able to make the same comment even if you were 250
> years
> old. I think he may very well be the worst *ever*.

To be fair, a lot of people said the same thing about Harry S. Truman.
Yet history seems to indicate that the guy did a rather decent job[1].

Along those same lines, JFK was extremely popular, but there's good
evidence that he would have caused us quite a few problems had he not
been assassinated[2].

[1]At least, if preventing Ike from starting WWIII is considered a
decent job.
[2]I think there was even a Red Dwarf episode about this.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

A render isn't slow unless it won't finish until after your next
birthday.

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warp [mailto:war### [at] tagpovrayorg]
>   If that's so, then why was he elected a second time?

As one of the people who voted for him (twice), let me defend myself by
saying that his true incompetence wasn't manifest until his second term.

Until then he made unpopular choices, sure, but that doesn't make him
any different from any other president.  I try not to second guess other
people's decisions, especially when they have access to information I
don't.  The nature of the decisions the President makes are such that
there's no way to maintain a proper perspective at the time; you have to
wait a while for all the facts to come to the surface.

After which many things became apparent about Bush that made me regret
my choice.  Although, it's not like the Dems actually had a decent
candidate during that timeframe.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

What's the difference between a drug dealer and a whore?
A whore can wash her crack and sell it again.

Post a reply to this message

You know, from your post it seems that you would enjoy a book I'm
reading right now.  It's called "Real Change," and it was written by
Newt Gingrich.

Basically, it's a da**ing indictment of both political parties, along
with specific examples of failed government contrasted with successful
government.  Oh, and he pushes his civic action group a lot in it.

The only problem I really have with him is his insistence that public
opinion should be consulted when determining long-term policy (he's
careful in his emphasis on long-term planning & policies rather than
short term, which limits mob mentality a bit).  It's not that I think
the average person is incapable of making a good decision, it's just
that the average person hasn't done the research in order to make a good
decision.

In theory[1], we elect leaders who are supposed to do the research to
make decisions that we don't have the time (or inclination) to study,
thus freeing us to pursue other interests.  It goes against common sense
to then second-guess those leaders because, at first glance, we don't
like the decisions they make.

[1]See my sig.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

I'd like to live in Theory.  Everything works there.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Companies don't think like individuals, they think like groups, and 
> basic group psychology is that **groups** will do things that, if given 
> bad direction, will be worse, more vile, less moral or ethical, and 
> fundamentally less beneficial to anyone "but themselves", than they 
> would as individuals.

And what is government but the biggest, richest "group" (mob)?

Post a reply to this message

On 23-Jan-09 12:02, Chambers wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Halbert [mailto:hal### [at] gmailcom]
>> You might have been able to make the same comment even if you were 250
>> years
>> old. I think he may very well be the worst *ever*.
> 
> To be fair, a lot of people said the same thing about Harry S. Truman.
> Yet history seems to indicate that the guy did a rather decent job[1].
> 
> Along those same lines, JFK was extremely popular, but there's good
> evidence that he would have caused us quite a few problems had he not
> been assassinated[2].
> 
> [1]At least, if preventing Ike from starting WWIII is considered a
> decent job.
> [2]I think there was even a Red Dwarf episode about this.

there was, only it was sort of suicide in that story.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:02:19 -0800, Chambers wrote:

> Along those same lines, JFK was extremely popular, but there's good
> evidence that he would have caused us quite a few problems had he not
> been assassinated[2].
> 
> [2]I think there was even a Red Dwarf episode about this.

There was, but Red Dwarf isn't exactly intended to be used as a show for 
prognostication about what "might have been". ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> Companies don't think like individuals, they think like groups, and 
>> basic group psychology is that **groups** will do things that, if 
>> given bad direction, will be worse, more vile, less moral or ethical, 
>> and fundamentally less beneficial to anyone "but themselves", than 
>> they would as individuals.
> 
> And what is government but the biggest, richest "group" (mob)?
Hmm. That is sometimes true. However, in principle, governments like 
ours have what corporations don't. In corporations you get one guy 
leading everything, a board that only sees what it wants, and everyone 
below that doesn't get much say on "anything". There are no checks and 
balances, no means to "elect" a new person, unless they lose money, 
etc., and the board gets rid of them (that they did the right thing 
isn't relevant at all, just that they hurt someone's pocket book). There 
is no principles in most businesses that demand they "try" to find the 
right path, not just the most profitable one. This means they are more 
stream lined, and directed at one thing, even if that thing leads to 
something like the near collapse of IBM back when the mainframe market 
failed, or the recent drop in Microsoft's fortunes, and the layoffs from 
it, which resulted from the same short sighted view of trying to "own" 
the market.

In short, Governments are made up of a "lot" of independent groups, all 
trying to get what they want, while businesses tend to all be one 
monolithic group, with a single goal. In the former, if one group drives 
over a cliff, only the people who attached themselves to that goal go 
over with them. With businesses, **everyone** goes over the same cliff. 
Its not much, but its "way" better than basically letting everyone jump 
off cliffs, without trying to prevent it. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:02:19 -0800, Chambers wrote:
> > [2]I think there was even a Red Dwarf episode about this.
> 
> There was, but Red Dwarf isn't exactly intended to be used as a show
> for
> prognostication about what "might have been". ;-)

What, you mean I shouldn't take it seriously? :o

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com



> 
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> In corporations you get one guy 
> leading everything, a board that only sees what it wants, and everyone 
> below that doesn't get much say on "anything".

Not really. Of course, it depends on the size of the corporation.

Stockholders elect the Board of Directors, who in turn hire the officers, 
who in turn run the business and make the decisions.

> is no principles in most businesses that demand they "try" to find the 
> right path, not just the most profitable one. 

For for-profit corporations, "profitable" is the "right path", by law.

> In short, Governments are made up of a "lot" of independent groups, all 
> trying to get what they want, while businesses tend to all be one 
> monolithic group, with a single goal. In the former, if one group drives 
> over a cliff, only the people who attached themselves to that goal go 
> over with them. 

I'll disagree. If a government goes over a cliff, they take everyone with 
them. See, for example, Zimbabwe.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:51:29 -0800, Chambers wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:02:19 -0800, Chambers wrote:
>> > [2]I think there was even a Red Dwarf episode about this.
>> 
>> There was, but Red Dwarf isn't exactly intended to be used as a show
>> for
>> prognostication about what "might have been". ;-)
> 
> What, you mean I shouldn't take it seriously? :o

Imagine that! ;-)

FWIW, I think the episode title was "Time Jump" - I haven't looked it up 
but that's what popped into my head.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> In corporations you get one guy leading everything, a board that only 
>> sees what it wants, and everyone below that doesn't get much say on 
>> "anything".
> 
> Not really. Of course, it depends on the size of the corporation.
> 
> Stockholders elect the Board of Directors, who in turn hire the 
> officers, who in turn run the business and make the decisions.
> 
>> is no principles in most businesses that demand they "try" to find the 
>> right path, not just the most profitable one. 
> 
> For for-profit corporations, "profitable" is the "right path", by law.
> 
>> In short, Governments are made up of a "lot" of independent groups, 
>> all trying to get what they want, while businesses tend to all be one 
>> monolithic group, with a single goal. In the former, if one group 
>> drives over a cliff, only the people who attached themselves to that 
>> goal go over with them. 
> 
> I'll disagree. If a government goes over a cliff, they take everyone 
> with them. See, for example, Zimbabwe.
> 
Yes, but, you are using yet another example of a government that "is" 
basically monolithic. Most governments are made up of a small number of 
people in charge, with all the same opinions (or at least consistency in 
them), who, if things go bad, can't recover, because when they go bad it 
undermines "all of them". Its the sort of government that the 
Republicans in the US have been striving for, where nearly everyone in 
every branch is a Republican, all the justices are, the president is, 
and everyone under him is, etc. When everyone agrees, and they are 
wrong, well... the government is pretty much screwed, since there isn't 
anyone around that can say, "Uh... I think I know how to fix this, if 
you will listen 'this time'." Everyone just runs around trying to 
ineffectively put out the fire, by beating it to death with what ever 
idiot idea they started the fire with in the first place.

Governments where everyone has the same vision either work, because its 
a workable vision, or they eventually crash like a plane that lost all 
its engines. Same for companies. And, if someone takes over, who shifts 
that "universal" vision in a bad direction, you go from "it works" to 
"crash and burn" very quickly. You have to have, in stable governments, 
the ability for some people, who where *not* involve with the "current" 
scandal, to step in and fix things. Governments that function like 
businesses, with one single perspective, and all of that perspective 
focused only on themselves, can't recover from scandals, because pretty 
much everyone in them is either complicit with the problem, or isn't 
aware it existed, so has no plan to fix things already in place.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> You have to have, in stable governments, 
> the ability for some people, who where *not* involve with the "current" 
> scandal, to step in and fix things. 

Hence the constitution, separation of powers, limited enumerated powers, 
FOIA, etc.  Having a government that ignores *these* things is the problem.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> Also, women in France cry when the American Idol winner is announced. I
> wouldn't make too much of that.

http://sorethumbs.keenspot.com/d/20041108.html

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> You have to have, in stable governments, the ability for some people, 
>> who where *not* involve with the "current" scandal, to step in and fix 
>> things. 
> 
> Hence the constitution, separation of powers, limited enumerated powers, 
> FOIA, etc.  Having a government that ignores *these* things is the problem.
> 
True. But, its only "really" a problem if you also have a government 
which, like a company, can appoint someone to the top, or elect them, 
then "keep them there", forever. Imagine if companies had to re-elect 
CEOs ever 4 years, with a limit of 8 for any single leader... Would see 
a very different situation there, even "with" the same identical board 
members. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:

>>  Perhaps he noted that courting world opinion required the chronic 
>> habit of making unrewarded sacrifices and unreciprocated concessions.
> 
> Um when has America ever courted world opinion when there hasn't been 
> something in it for America?

Um why should we?

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 27-Jan-09 2:55, John VanSickle wrote:
> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> 
>>>  Perhaps he noted that courting world opinion required the chronic 
>>> habit of making unrewarded sacrifices and unreciprocated concessions.
>>
>> Um when has America ever courted world opinion when there hasn't been 
>> something in it for America?
> 
> Um why should we?

He might have phrased that like: "when has America ever courted world 
opinion when there hasn't been something in it for America just now?" 
with the obvious answer to your question: "because it would make the 
world safer and that will ultimately pay off to the US as well".

Post a reply to this message