Rick: Thank you. Now I hope the politicians in D.C. start working together for the good of the country.
Well, it was a surprise, although I harbor no ill-wishes towards the victor. He's gonna hafta EARN it though, this-time. I don't envy him his task.
As for politicians working together? Never happen, except for their OWN-good.
But it doesn't hurt to hope, agreed...
Thanks, and I have no problem at all holding the President to these acceptance speech statements.
"But despite all our differences, most of us share certain hopes for America's future. We want our kids to grow up in a country where they have access to the best schools and the best teachers."
"A country that lives up to its legacy as the global leader in technology and discovery and innovation, with all the good jobs and new businesses that follow."
"We want our children to live in an America that isn't burdened by debt, that isn't weakened by inequality, that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet."
"We want to pass on a country that's safe and respected and admired around the world, a nation that is defended by the strongest military on earth and the best troops this -- this world has ever known."
"You elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours. And in the coming weeks and months, I am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together."
"Reducing our deficit. Reforming our tax code. Fixing our immigration system. Freeing ourselves from foreign oil. We've got more work to do."
CSM, his actions will be judged, not his verbage. Take note.
"...he is (a) lame duck..."
Actually he is not. A "lame duck" is an incumbant politician who has been defeated, and is serving out the remainder of his term.
There is nearly always a time lag between an election and the time of assuming office. In the case of a president, the election occurs in November, the electors vote in December, and the transfer of office takes place in January.
However, the term does not always apply to a person whose replacement has been elected, sometimes it merely refers to a 'short timer', who has only a number of days, weeks, or months remaining in office.
He could have added:
That's why I intend to continue to throw money at schools and protect teachers unions while the kiddies keep getting dumber and dumber so they can vote the right way. :)
That's why I intend to cut the military troops, forces and weaponry while increasing civilian personel in planning and logistics.
He could have changed the last part to
..of both parties to meet the challenges so I can get my way."
"Reducing our deficit. Reforming our tax code. Fixing our immigration system. Freeing ourselves from foreign oil. We've got more work to do." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 9:16 AM
I won't hold my breath. He said as much in 2008 and had control of congress for 2 years. Same promises, just 4 years later. Empty rhetoric.
I hope he does something to cut the deficit. Today Harry Reed says the ceiling need to be raised to $20 Trillion.
Sounds like that clown Harry Reed is planning a spending party at the expense of our Grandchildren.
It ain't gonna slow down wheels. I do hope congress keeps the checkbook closed. When Obama and the Democrats say congress wont work with them they are talking about giving them free rein on spending without question. Bend over and get ready.
Regrets you are such a comfort. ;-)
Seems to me the election of high office depends on money, how much and how spent on campaigns, so I suggest making it how much money folks give to charity to get their candidates elected. All the money spent on electing a president would surely make a good dent in the lack of funds for some worthy cause.
Turtle tunnels for every community and just think of the tattoo removals that would pay for.
We were surprised to see this election happen. I agree with Doom and Gloom. Get ready folks.
-- Posted by scared of the future on Wed, Nov 7, 2012, at 7:17 PM
Oh for cryin' out loud...go back to bed and pull the covers up....the rest of us will continue on status quo, and happy too!
Life is what you make out of it. I am better off now than I was four years ago. Smile and the world smiles with you....weep and you must hang out with Doom and Gloom.
We can learn from re-examining history.
Who would have "thunk" it on elevtion night 1972 when Nixon clobbered McGovern what would ultimately happen? Who would have believed something called Watergate would destroy a presidency? It all seemed so unbelievab;e at the time.
Obama should take warning. History has a strange way of repeating itself. I hope it won't for the sake of the country.
Either Ryan or Rubio, yes. Christie, no.
"Why no Christie?"
His 400 Lb. Frame (estimated weight) does not look Presidential, for one thing. While appearance isn't everything, it's a big part of the campaign. He looks the part of a union boss, not a presidential candidate.
It's amazing to me how the Democrats are so quick to tell Republicans how they need to reshape their party.
It wasn't but two years ago Mr. Obama got a 'thumpin' in the polls by the very Republicans, including the T.E.A. Party candidates, that got a thumpin' this year. Did the Democrats regroom themselves in accordance with Republican advice?
If Mr. Obama is successful in improving the economy, cutting the deficit and (hopefully) reining in the debt, and moving us towards energy independence, then the Republicans may need to reshape themselves.
If, on the other hand, Mr. Obama does no better the second term than he has the first, the Republicans need only explain to the people why theirs is the better idea.
The squabbling does need to end, but that can happen if they can find a leader to rally around. For that, we need a candidate that can explain to the Republicans why he is the best choice for the whole party, and the whole nation. I've not seen one who can sell himself that way thus far, but they are out there.
The Republicans have the ideas, but not the salesman to sell them.
One might remember that President William Hoiward Taft was a "bit on the hefty side." So large he got stuck in the bathtub.
No, my objection to Christie is "the manner" in which he thanked Obama for coming to New Jersey for a photo-op. Christie should stay in New Jersy and attend to business there.
-- Posted by Me'Lange on Thu, Nov 8, 2012, at 8:17 AM
Wrong. Many tea partiers were re-elected.
"Wow Shapley, you are not yourself this morning! That was an un-thought-full and simple shallow comment. You have no clue "why" Christie is a over weight. He could have a health condition or be taking medication that dictates his size."
I didn't fault him for his size, I merely pointed out that it would work against him in a campaign. Are you suggesting that appearance is not a big part of politics?
Everything from the selection of ties and shirt colours to the decision to wear or not to wear a jacket is part of the process.
I think we should be free to discuss unpleasant truths here. Appearances matter. How many times have we heard that Mr. Obama 'looks presidential' or that Mr. Romney 'looked presidential'. The press today was commenting on how Mrs. Obama was the 'first lady of fashion'. One cannot ignore the shallow factor when selecting candidates.
That's not to say an ugly candidate, an overweight candidate, a balding candidate, or a disabled candidate cannot win. It merely means they have to compensate for what they lack in appearance with an overpowering sense of something else: intellect, competence, charisma, or whatever.
"Who are you assuming is a Democrat? I am an independent, but have voted Republican more often than Democrat."
I did not say you were. The Democrats are all over the press yesterday and today telling us how Republicans need to reshape themselves. Advice which, as I note, they did not heed themselves after the 'thumpin' they took two years ago.
I think it should be taken with a grain of salt.
"One might remember that President William Hoiward Taft was a "bit on the hefty side." So large he got stuck in the bathtub."
William Howard Taft wasn't elected in the era of television. Most who elected him never saw him.
"And how would his size impact his abilities to be a President?"
It wouldn't, unless it affected his health. Are you seriously going to pretend to be so naive as to suggest that it would not be used against him, overtly or covertly, in a campaign?
How many times have they referred to Rush Limbaugh's weight when talking about him? Does his weight impact his abilities as a radio commentator?
Reasoning I think you need to look again. You are not better off than you were 4 years ago.
"Simply wrong frame of mind in the 21st century (and hints of Hitler like mentality)."
Ah! The obligatory Hitler reference.
I can't believe you're denying it would be a factor. It was discussed back in October when he was considered a possible candidate, including jokes on David Letterman's show. Mr. Letterman has pretty much been a shill for Mr. Obama, so it is a hint of the tack the Democrat Party would take in a campaign were he the candidate.
"Late-night talk-show host David Letterman's list of ten "ways the country would be different if Chris Christie was President" last Tuesday were all based on weight and food, including that the Cabinet would have a Secretary of Cake and the U.S. would invade pancake chain IHOP rather than Iraq."
"The human body was just not built to handle an extra 100, 150 pounds," Schauer said.
"However, Schauer cautioned that not all obese patients are the same and genetics can play as big a role as body mass in whether someone suffers heart problems or other illnesses.
"While it may be more likely that someone of (Christie's) size has sleep apnea or may have certain joint issues, every person is different," agreed Dr Mitchell Roslin, chief of obesity surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York.
"People who have been active their whole life often mitigate against a lot of the risks. It's less likely to find fit fat people, but it's not impossible either. The largest patients I have are not diabetic," Roslin said.
"Christie's weight would be far more treatable than if John McCain had a recurrence of his melanoma," Roslin said, referring to the losing Republican candidate in the last presidential election.
"Should he get or have medical problems from his obesity that become difficult for him to carry on his daily activities there are some great options for him that are much more easily treatable than a lot of other conditions," said Roslin, citing bariatric surgery and gastric bypass procedures.
"Christie, who suffers from asthma, was rushed to the hospital in July with breathing problems. Should he run for president in 2012, there will surely be demands for his health records as there were for McCain in 2008.
"Doctors said Christie's asthma could well be related to his weight, though they also noted that presidents tend to have the best health care available.
"A spokesman for Christie did not return calls seeking comment about the weight debate.
"Past presidents, such as Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, suffered from serious physical ailments that were largely kept from the public to keep them from seeming frail.
"Other than staying away from horizontal stripes, it's a whole lot harder to hide obesity in a life spent in front of television cameras. Christie, who has admitted to struggling with his weight and overeating for years, will inevitably have to deal with the issue.
"It's as relevant to the political campaign as Obama's smoking was. I would hope that Christie's obesity is no more or less of an issue," Roslin said."
"Shapley, I have never mentioned Limbaugh, let alone his weight."
I didn't say you had.
The man who wrote that book is now a United States Senator, elected by the Democratic Party.
"Why do you assume the rest of the USA is shallow and would hold his weight against him?"
I don't assume anything about 'the rest of the USA'. I recognize that his weight will be an issue, because it was brought up when he first was considered as a candidate. I am not so naive as to think it will not be a factor to some.
"And don't forget, a very large percentage of american's are overweight -- and it would be hypocritical to hold weight as a determining factor, if the voter was overweight."
And American's are above being hypocritical?
"Regarding Hitler referance, who else has devalued and eliminated a human based on their "appearance"?"
I've neither devalued nor eliminated him. I merely pointed out an unpleasant fact. I've cited references to support my conclusion. That may people are 'shallow' is well known. That the Democrats have fought to ensure the right of the 'shallow vote' is also well known.
How many people do you think voted for Mr. Obama because he was black? To vote based on appearances may be shallow, but to deny that many, many voters do so is naive.
"But honestly, until you mentioned it, it had not even crossed my mind as a potential factor."
That's why I'm here. To point out sometimes-unpleasant facts. :)
And how would his size impact his abilities to be a President?
-- Posted by Me'Lange on Thu, Nov 8, 2012, at 8:45 AM
I am so far behind this morning that this might be redundant, as I have not yet read everything on this thread.
But so far as his size impacting his abilities.... it won't. But the shallow minded voters of this country, and especially women voters, place a lot of importance on physical appearance. Goes back as far as Kennedy and Nixon in 1960 if I remember correctly. The televised debates, something new for the times, showed Nixon who would not wear makeup, sweating profusely under the lights. Kennedy 'out prettied' him and won the election. I have not heard anyone dispute that improved Kennedy's likeability with the voters.
"And he is a Romney clone,.."
I disagree. I think Mr. Romney tried to be a Ryan clone to get the Conservatives behind him. His political record before was more moderate, with such things as 'Romneycare'.
I like Mr. Rubio, and I like Mr. Ryan. I was not a big fan of Mr. Romney, but I saw him as the lesser of two evils.
I've not developed a liking for Mr. Christie. Yes, he was able to win over the people of New Jersey to get the governorship, so there may be more to his likability than I'm seeing, but I can't fathom what it is. He seems likable, and competent, but not inordinately so. Perhaps I am 'shallow' and my view of him is shaded by his appearance, though my best recollection is that I developed that disliking before seeing what he looked like. I think, perhaps, his tone struck a memory in me of a New Jersian I served in the Navy with, and with whom I had disagreements. I do not know, I only know that I have not been comfortable with him since he first considered running for the presidency.
He does have a good record of cracking down on political corruption in New Jersey as a prosecutor.
Don't get me wrong by that post. I do not fault him for applauding Mr. Obama's help during the hurricane and after. I think he showed more aplomb by doing so than many other politicians who are quick to condemn and silent in praise. I assume his assessment was honest and have no problems with his saying so.
If Mr. Obama did good work, then he should be recognized for it. Apparently, Mr. Christie thinks he did.
Me'Lange, I can understand why you would think a man that proposes the liberty the founders laid out for us to be as nut job.
The progressive movement has taken it's toll and although Ron Paul sounds over the top on several issues, most notable foriegn policy, he is representive of the true nature of the republic as founded.
Our great country has been compremised to the point we can't go back to where we began but I think we could at least pay homage to the foundation that inspired such a great nation.
When the people give in to be controlled by the government instead of controlling the government as intended, be ready to obey the tyrants we have created.
Don't know if you all need another voice here, but I was a little surprised myself at all of the weight related comments about Gov Christie many months ago when he was considering a run for the presidency. I thought, "are we REALLY that shallow?". But we as a nation really are! Sad truth! Maybe the next 4 years will take us to school about the dangers of judging a man by his appearance.
Ron Paul has some very good ideas, but his presentation of them is lacking. I don't agree with him on all issues, and have not found myself one of his more ardent supporters, but I disapprove of the idea that he is 'wacko' for proposing that our constitutional government be operated in accordance with the constitution that created it.
Me'Lange's understanding of them is a prime example of that.
"To suggest ending the IRS, taxation,..." The IRS serves, in essence, as a sort of 'tax police'. As such, it is an affront to the idea of liberty. Mr. Paul does not, so far as I know, propose 'ending taxation', but reforming the means of taxation in accordance with the constitutional precepts.
The income tax is a prime example of how the government uses the tax code as an affront to liberty. We, free citizens though we supposedly be, are required to keep an accounting of our finances and the submit a summary of that accounting to the government annually, so they can tax us. They punish us for using our monies in ways they don't want us to use it by imposing higher taxes. They 'reward us' for using our monies in manners of which they approve, though the 'reward' is merely to take less of our money if they like the way we use it.
Because a share of our earnings are taken by the government directly, it can be said that, for whatever percentage of our time is proportionate to our tax liability, we are forced to work for the government. That is entiredly contrary to the idea of liberty.
"...the federal government,..."
I'm not aware that he has ever proposed abolishing the federal government.
Social Security, as it exists, is opposed by many conservatives. It exists under the presumption that the government knows better than you how to invest a portion of your income towards your future. It also operates as a Ponzi Scheme, forbidden by law from being executed by anyone except the government.
In one sense, the government does not produce paper money, since the Federal Reserve is a quasi-independent entity, and it is their paper money, not the government's, that we use. In that sense, individual banks uses to issue paper money, whose valuation was based on the coinage produced by the government (as the Constitution mandates).
Checques served as paper money in the absense of actual paper currency, written as they are to cover debts without the inconvenience of actually carrying large sums of cash, whether paper or coin. Paper money is, in essence, a blank checgue drawn against the central bank of the Federal Reserve.
The idea that paper money controlled by a central bank is intended to stabilize the currency more than would be the case of bills issued by individual banks. That is to say, the individual banks' solvency determined the stability of the currency, and that could cause a $10 bill issued by one bank to be less stable than a $10 bill issued by another, even though they are both worth $10.
When I was in Hong Kong 30 years ago, the Hong Kong Dollar bills were issued by individual banks, if I recall correctly. Their economy did not seem to suffer because of it.
"I thought, "are we REALLY that shallow?"
I think it no more or less shallow to consider a vote based on their appearance, keeping in mind that they will represent the image of America to the world, than it is to consider a vote based on their race or creed. Mr. Romney's Mormon faith was made an issue, as was Mr. Obama's Muslim paternity.
Nor do I really find it any more shallow than considering a vote based on sound-bites and misleading advertising. Yet, that is how most of America votes, is it not?
"Why would anyone want our country to live in the past? to move backwards? We live in a global enviroment, to remain competitive, we must move forward, not backwards."
Who says these things 'move us backwards'? We can keep paper currency without having the government produce it. We can have security without a government-run Ponzi scheme. We can raise revenue without forcing the people to structure their lives around a complex tax code. We can do all of these things without 'moving backward'.
But you are forgetting one thing. The constitution was created to e adapted and evolved. Ouf fore fathers did not want a static document. To look back 200 years we should do it exactly like they did is not what they wanted. Heck, even they couldn't agree on what government should look like and be.
Agree. I am pretty sure that social security will not be around when I retire. I am suprised more people my age don't invest in retirement.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 8:18 AM
But you are forgetting why we federalized currency in the first place. The system was a mess. Counterfeiting nearly went out of business overnight.
How would you like to be in the vending business and know that you have to replace all your machines and they must read a 1,000 different bills. Who sets the perameters?
Would banks then sell cash? What would they charge for a bill?
I would need to see how this would work before I say its the way to go.
One constant in this life is "change". Nothing stands still, thus change is an unavoidable factor of life. -- Posted by Me'Lange on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 4:33 AM
Who was making Nazi references here the other day? I'm sure the Nazi's thought this exact same thing Me'Lange...
"Counterfeiting nearly went out of business overnight."
Apparently, you haven't been paying attention. We keep changing the design of our bills because of counterfeiting.
The government used to require that all paper monies it printed be backed by Gold. That changed in the early 20th century, with more monies printed than Gold that supported it. FDR's response was the confiscation of and forbidding of private ownership of Gold, making the redeeming value of paper monies moot.
Nixon took us off the Gold standard, though even that move was meaningless, as the money had not been backed entirely by Gold for decades.
"How would you like to be in the vending business and know that you have to replace all your machines and they must read a 1,000 different bills. Who sets the perameters?"
As I've said, Hong Kong didn't have a problem with it. They had regulations on the size, shape, and other parameters of the bills, while permitting them to be printed by the banks. Those that do not comply would be valid within banks that chose to accept them (as checques are today), but not backed by the government with regard to their value in coinage.
As I noted, the government does not issue the paper currency today, the Federal Reserve (a bank) does that.
"Would banks then sell cash? What would they charge for a bill?"
Do they not sell cash today? Isn't that what we call a 'loan', the selling of cash? The would charge the going interest rate for a bill, as they do today.
I would point out that various private mints sell coinage for prices inconsistent with their face value. People by Gold Coins with face values of $5, $10, or $20 for prices tens to hundreds of times their face value. This is true even for government-issued coins. Why does the 'selling of cash' bother you?
This guy makes about as much sense as anything else I have heard lately.
I do not know if Ron Paul could have acheived this . America didn't turn it's power over to the World in one day , it would take a while to get it back .
-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 9:01 AM
I am no longer convinced the people of this country want it back.
"The constitution was created to e adapted and evolved. Ouf fore fathers did not want a static document."
It was designed to be amended and altered, not ignored or re-interpreted.
Yes, they wanted a static document, which is why they wrote it in ink on parchment. If they wanted a dynamic one, they would have written it in pencil or chalk. They provided an amendment process to add changes, and the convention process to re-write it. But they did not provide for portions of it to be ignored because they were considered 'quaint' or because 'times have changed'.
That is the nature of laws, they are written so they can be enforced as written. When there is ambiguity, we have courts to decide the parameters thereof. It should not be the purpose of the courts to decide when laws outlive their usefullness and should be ignored - that is the role of legislators. Nor should legislators in a constitutional republic pass laws which are at odds with the Constitution that empowers them.
It's working. -- Posted by Spaniard on Fri, Nov 9, 2012, at 9:46 AM
It sure is! With "sequestration" your president will get "castrated" when the bills he signed cut 1/2 Trillion from the military, 1/2 Trillion from the entitlements and raises taxes on everyone 1/2 Trillion.
The idea that we must move backward a couple of centuries to become what we once were as a country is ludicrous. That is nothing more than a liberal rant to discourage us from making sensible change.
We need to move back to the days of being financially stable, not into debt up to our ears.
The idea of I want it and I want it NOW...... should be turned around into you can have it when you can pay for it.... and not one minute before!
Posting a comment requires free registration: