packsaddle Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I think her point was that for thousands of years, perhaps even today in much of the world, women have not had the freedom to choose their role based on their own personal abilities and desires. I agree completely with Beavah's assessment of the Bush dynasty - Disastrous in a way that few seem to comprehend. We can argue about when the hole began and I could even extend one argument that it goes back to Nixon's decision to take us off the gold standard. It isn't really important because we had a chance to dig out of it as late as the Clinton administration. Bush did more damage than all the previous ones combined. I am fairly certain that true recovery will not happen in my lifetime. However, I disagree with those who have high hopes for Obama. He is not moving in a direction that will provide long-term prosperity for the country. Rather, he is being persuaded to continue the lie that is our current economic system and he's about to commit another wave of gargantuan theft from future generations as a desperate attempt to correct the previous gargantuan theft. It may feather our nests for a little while but it will have dire consequences eventually. To his defence, I doubt that anyone else could do better. My name is Jeremiah and I would like to congratulate all the Wall Street people who just got over $18 billion in bonuses for their exemplary performance in guiding our economic futures. I could not think of a more appropriate way to waste my taxes.(This message has been edited by packsaddle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I think that most who want Obama to fail are actually terrified he might succeed and pull us out of this tailspin. If he does that, he will put the final nail in the coffin of conservative ideology. Bush dug the grave, but Obama, if he succeeds will seal the fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2eagles Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Yep, things improved for women -- now a majority of them HAVE to work and do not have a choice of working or staying at home. The stupidity of the Politicians is the common rather that not - Oliver North told Al Gore in 1987 that one of the men he feared the most was Osama bin Laden. Clinton insisted Isreal let prisoners go even those who had blood on their hands. Wasn't that special, one of them Muhammed Atta flew a plane into tower one and a thank you. What a mess. So of makes you wonder if Tom Clancy's Executive order would be a good thing. I wonder if there should be limits on Congress like we have in the Presidency. What do you all think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I wonder if there should be limits on Congress like we have in the Presidency. What do you all think? Yah, I know one I'd like to see, eh? I think no law passed by congress should go into effect until it has been enforced for two years exclusively on congressmen, their families, and their business associates. Enforced vigorously. That includes puttin' 'em on regular folks medical care and 401k's. Second one is no dynasties. Members of da family out to first cousins aren't eligible for office. No Kennedy clan, Bush clan, Clinton clan, etc. Third is no gerrymandered districtin'. All it does is guarantee loudmouthed extremists have a higher chance of occupyin' lots of seats in the House, on both sides. Last one is no lobbyin' or featherbedding. Ever. If you serve in public office, yeh are permanently ineligible to ever work for a company that receives government money, or to lobby the government in any way. Same with your immediate family. Beavah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Lots of restraints on liberty Beavah, eh? Yah, I know one I'd like to see, eh? No "dynasties"? Shouldn't everyone be able to run and shouldn't I be able to vote for whoever I want? No gerrymandering? I sympathize with a bit. But I don't know how well an impartial panel would do over our elected representatives in drawing districts. At least legislatures are accountable. No lobbying? Why shouldn't a former public official be able to do whatever he wants? And their family? The government should just not worry about it. Voters can hold people responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Nah, TheScout, just additional checks on the power of government, eh? If yeh make government a lot smaller they're not needed, but with government consumin' 40% or more of GDP yeh need checks on the power and influence of government officials. They remain perfectly free to pursue private enterprise to their heart's content. Maybe that way they'll remember to protect private enterprise when they're in office . Beavah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheScout Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 I guess you can paint the slow erosion of liberty however you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now