It does explain a lot
Politics, Politics, Politics
- Thread starter falcondfw69
- Start date
I agree, there is no hard fast rule for success in life. Sometimes the drive and discipline come from the classroom, sometimes it comes from the playing field. Academic success is important but sports can play a roll. I have known several athletes in high school and college that this nerd helped with their classes so they could remain eligible to play the sport(s) they loved. Most teenagers are energy dynamos. They need to be active doing something. Sports are a great outlet to burn that energy. Left to their own devices they often do things that aren't beneficial to themselves. Probably the biggest benefit for the player is the sense of belonging. Children and adolescents are very prone to peer pressure. Teems and their coaches can and do function as a support group of sorts. There are expectations, and generally things that can have a negative impact like ******* use aren't accepted in the team.
From a practical standpoint in the real world job market most college grads have better chance of landing a job if they have played sports. Why? Because they are team players
[QUOTE="MacNfries, post: 668617, member: 11 didn't give up on anything, falcond ... my ******* and I have been at the ACC tournament the past 3 days. Didn't get in until 1 AM this morning. I actually have a family life that many here obviously don't. Regardless, I have no intent on getting back into this political back&forth BS. If you folks want to act like gerbils on a spin wheel, that's your business, I'm here to enjoy b2w, and it doesn't include this crap.
And please, someone tell Torp (since he doesn't seem to know) that he's been on my ignore since before Christmas, and he knows why. I just happen to see his "12 yo comment" before entering my pw; I could care less what the guy has to say, so he can save his ink on me.
Which team are you a fan of, or did you go just go because you like ACC hoops?[/QUOTE]
I said 14 YO not 12, I see you still have a problem with the facts. I know I am on his ignore list but I just wanted to get the facts correct.
Very well said
I said 14 YO not 12, I see you still have a problem with the facts. I know I am on his ignore list but I just wanted to get the facts correct.[/QUOTE]
Torp, he is a liberal. You want to get the facts correct? Take a look at his examples - BHO, Hillary, etc. Do you seriously think you will get facts from him or get him to acknowledge anything other than the liberal doctrine?
I like Mac. I really do. But that is one of the things that frustrates me most. He is a smart guy (I don't think anyone on here thinks he is stupid), but he refuses to use logic and reason to deduce and come to a proper scientific conclusion. As do many liberals. They think with the heart (which takes leaps of faith and feeling over logic and reason), instead of the brain.
Quit patronizing me, falcond ... ok? You, as much as anyone, discouraged me from continuing this pointless conversation on this thread at post 647; if you won't even look at the charts substantiating my points of the discussion, and you question every news media source but Fox News, there's really no point in our having discussions. You're every bit as closed minded as I could ever be about using logic & reason. So please quit jerking my chain, ok?
For one thing, I'm not a diehard liberal as you keep claiming I am. I actually believe in a government that will operate under a "balanced budget", but we have 2 parties with different philosophies as to what a national budget should include, and what it should be, and won't sit down to establish one. Funny, however, as much as Republicans talk about shrinking government, its grown under them as much as under Democrats. It's "trickle down' or nothing with those guys.
I posted that cartoon, above, as a point of humor, but I notice that simply keyed Torp to toss out more insults at me. Then he uses "not knowing his place" racial BS as my reason for putting his sorry ass on ignore ... he knows why I put him on ignore. Not only did I ask him to quit addressing me, personally, with his comments, I even said "please" or I'd have to put him on ignore ... Torp said he didn't care if I put him on ignore; he'd do what he wanted to do ... so, not only is Torp disrespectful, he's a friking liar as well. Go back and look at the comments ...
So, Torp, you go right ahead and make your childish, smart ass comments ... but you're no better than I at tossing out insults.
'Nuff said ...
For one thing, I'm not a diehard liberal as you keep claiming I am. I actually believe in a government that will operate under a "balanced budget", but we have 2 parties with different philosophies as to what a national budget should include, and what it should be, and won't sit down to establish one. Funny, however, as much as Republicans talk about shrinking government, its grown under them as much as under Democrats. It's "trickle down' or nothing with those guys.
I posted that cartoon, above, as a point of humor, but I notice that simply keyed Torp to toss out more insults at me. Then he uses "not knowing his place" racial BS as my reason for putting his sorry ass on ignore ... he knows why I put him on ignore. Not only did I ask him to quit addressing me, personally, with his comments, I even said "please" or I'd have to put him on ignore ... Torp said he didn't care if I put him on ignore; he'd do what he wanted to do ... so, not only is Torp disrespectful, he's a friking liar as well. Go back and look at the comments ...
So, Torp, you go right ahead and make your childish, smart ass comments ... but you're no better than I at tossing out insults.
'Nuff said ...
I am not patronizing and I really do like you. I enjoy the debates we have had and the intelligence we have shared. I just don't want people to sell you short. They may disagree with you, as I do on many aspects, but debate with intelligent opposition = learning.
Torp, he is a liberal. You want to get the facts correct? Take a look at his examples - BHO, Hillary, etc. Do you seriously think you will get facts from him or get him to acknowledge anything other than the liberal doctrine?
I like Mac. I really do. But that is one of the things that frustrates me most. He is a smart guy (I don't think anyone on here thinks he is stupid), but he refuses to use logic and reason to deduce and come to a proper scientific conclusion. As do many liberals. They think with the heart (which takes leaps of faith and feeling over logic and reason), instead of the brain.[/QUOTE]
It isn't just a liberal mentality. If you go to the opposite end of the spectrum the tea partiers are really no different. They have their dogma and to Hell with anybody that disagrees. Extreme liberals and conservatives are both so locked into their respective dogma
Torp, he is a liberal. You want to get the facts correct? Take a look at his examples - BHO, Hillary, etc. Do you seriously think you will get facts from him or get him to acknowledge anything other than the liberal doctrine?
I like Mac. I really do. But that is one of the things that frustrates me most. He is a smart guy (I don't think anyone on here thinks he is stupid), but he refuses to use logic and reason to deduce and come to a proper scientific conclusion. As do many liberals. They think with the heart (which takes leaps of faith and feeling over logic and reason), instead of the brain.[/QUOTE]
Mac attitude isn't restricted to liberals, I see the same thing from the far right Tea Party people. Neither end seems to be particularly interested in examining the facts. They just cherry pick what they hear or find that supports their view. I used to like Mac he was/is a funny guy and I value humor highly. However I started noticing that the is a lot of anger in him. He doesn't deal with people that don't agree with him very well. And he doesn't really seem to have any wish to thoroughly understand an issue.
I can go with that. It is a pretty good bet that you aren't inviting me to dinner and you are not on my list of people I will play golf with. It seems that you feel that a conversation you don't agree with is pointless. I tend to see those as a chance to learn. I wonder why you seem to have so much anger. You are far quicker than I to throw profanity. As to mentioning you in a post you are no different than anyone else here. If I feel it is relevant I will mention you, bm_from_southjersey, falcondfw69, or anyone else that I think might be relevant to what I am writing. A couple of things often seem to get over looked in today's society. The world doesn't have to conform to your desires and wishes. And you make yourself happy.
Final thought. I probably do pick on you bit, but it is fun. You get fired up at minor things, it's kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.
I guess I would need to see some type of serious data to back that up. Sports programs probably do more to keep ******* off ******* and out of gangs that any of the antidrug/antigang programs. A lot of ******* now days unfortunately grow up in single parent family's and the parent works, often more than one job. The sports program functions as an anchor that can keep those youth centered and out of trouble. There are some lousy coaches out there but the vast majority are dedicated and work well beyond what they are paid to do.
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and an Honest politician all need to cross a river. Unfortunately the rickety foot bridge will only support one at a time. Who goes first? Nobody! This is no Santa Claus, this is no Easter Bunny and there are no Honest Politician. (Well there might be a few)
Well, I understand the sentiment with the last two posts. But, I believe there is more of a difference in the Repubs and the Dems now than any time since the 1920's. The principal reason it seems like there is no difference is for two related reasons. First, we are about a 50-50 split in the electorate on hot button, social issues. Politicians generally reflect the sentiment of their constituents.
In addition, with one party controlling the Presidency, and the other controlling even one, between the Senate and House, nothing gets done. Which may be a good thing. Secondly, so many Congressional districts have been gerrymandered that there are few up for grabs, subject to be determined by independent, swing voters. The main challenge comes in the Primary. This makes the Reps shift to the right and the Dems shift to the left, especially in the House Races. So, we wind up with a Congress that has no incentive to cut deals and compromise with the other side.
But if you do not think there is not a philosophical difference, think what an unfettered President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi would do, versus a conservative President, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. And that is not even considering foreign affairs.
Sure, there still are and always be dishonest politicians. But in the age of social media, when we know when a politician farts before nightfall, I cannot believe the graft and corruption is anywhere close to what it used to be. For most of our history, you had to be dishonest to get rich in public office. Now, you stay there awhile, you'll have so many legal opportunities, you couldn't leave office poor if you tried.
Term limits. A great idea that will never happen. The problem, in my opinion, more than corruption, is that politicians, as well as the rest of us, have difficulty doing what they think is the right thing without regard to whether they might be voted out of office, lose a leadership position, etc. When a lobbyist will contribute big bucks to your campaign, politicians convince themselves that the lobbyist is right. It is not always corruption. More often, it is a lot of self deception, or at least the inability to remove one's personal welfare and make an informed independent decision.
Judges read the Constitution and the law, and then interpret it often through their own bias-we cannot get away from it. It always irritates me when a judge says he or she can be impartial, and refuses to recuse him or herself, when based on appearances they should.
Co-sign
The political process has been polarizing since the late 60's to early 70's. There isn't even an effort to hide their support of the special interests. They don't really care what bills they pass as long as special interests are happy. When ACA was in congress Nancy Pelosi made the comment that "We need to pass this bill to find out what is in it" (Quote may not be exact) I figured the next day or so she would come back with some type of retraction, or qualification. But she stood by her statement. The most far reaching, potentially most expensive bill in the history of this country and she didn't feel it was necessary to know what it said. More telling was there wasn't any serious opposition to the statement from either side of the aisle.
There was the Office of Technical Assessment that existed from 1972 to 1995. The department was non partisan or at least was supposed to be. There was some criticism of it around 1980. The purpose of the department was to inform Congress of what the implication of laws they created would have on technology. The idea was to help congress make intelligent, informed decisions. The department was eliminated 1995 because it was determined to be a waste of tax payer dollars. At the time of the elimination they had an annual budget 22 million (that is with an "m" not a "b" or a"tr") and employed around 143 people. So now Congress simply passes legislation to accommodate who has the biggest checkbook.
I spent most of my life working in the corporate environment. I was treated well and I made a lot of money. The CEO saw only one color, and it was green. I really think he would have sent his mom to whore house if it would have improved the bottom line. The one per centers don't think or act like most people. Their religion is green and they worship fervently. Warren Buffet stills lives in a little house he bought many years ago for I believe around 30 to 35K. Money and power go hand in hand. Houses or cars are just things. The real power is with the checkbook
Next election I am voting for anyone that isn't Democrat or Republican. Both parties are sold out to the big dollar people. The Republicans have a bit more resources but the Democrats are better organized so as far as I am concerned it is a wash. I think a third party would have a decent chance if they came out of left field and caught the Republicans and Democrats by surprise AND if that had an articulate charismatic leader. There is certainly more than enough ammunition for a third party run
Torp, I enjoy reading your stuff. We agree to a great extent. George Will [April 1 column, Wash Post] says there are four branches of the Republican Party. I am in one of the four, somewhat conservative. I stay aggravated with the Repubs on many things. But a third party vote is a waste and even if a third party candidate somehow was elected, unless there was a very extreme national emergency, such as aliens have landed and are threatening us with extinction, lol, or we faced a knockout of our electrical grid, perhaps by North Korea, or we suffered a Cormac MacArthy-type apocalyptic event-short of that, neither the Repubs or Dems would work with a third party President. If he was charismatic enough to overcome it, the new President would probably become a dictator. That might be good for the short run, but never works in the long run.
Ross Perot had a good chance in '92, until he thought strangers were running through his back yard, decided to not run, then changed his mind, etc. I have argued something with a couple of poly sci profs who give my theory no credence, but I still feel I am right. Those poly sci profs and pollsters say that Perot ultimately had no deciding effect on the 1992 election, because the exit polls showed that he took votes away almost equally from the Dems and the Repubs. But, I knew Reagan type Dems, that were essentially satisfied with Bush-his running of the first Gulf War, not blaming him for the recession, etc. But Perot was so articulate in critizing Bush, especially with his one liners, that they became upset with Bush and initially were going to vote for Perot. But Perot seemed just a little too unbalanced. So, they held their nose and voted for Clinton. Without a Perot, I believe Bush would have easily gotten a second term.
In my opinion, most people are either very unhappy with the direction President Obama is taking the country: with his foreign policy, his gutless walkaway from the Simpson-Bowles recommendations, philosophy of nominating Supreme Court and other judges, Obamacare, the Bergdahl affair, the Justice Department's decision not to prosecute the IRS' Lois Lerner, the heavy handed EPA and environmental regulations, the obvious decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for violating federal law-3 0r 4 different ways with her server as Secretary of State, the gutting of the the welfare reforms instituted by Clinton and the Repubs by a great widening of those who qualify for SSI,and I could list a dozen more.
Or someone looks at the above and thinks in almost every instance, President Obama has been correct and the evil Repubs are ruining the nation.
Either way, most informed people have to feel strongly one way or another. Unless they are just cheerleaders, rooting for a color-red [Repub] or blue [Dem].
There is no in between. Which seems what a third party would give us. Just because something is a special interest does not always mean it is wrong. I am thankful for some specific special interests, but I digress.
However, neither party will do a damn thing about our federal debt and our growing entitlements. Robert Samuelson, economist writer for the Washington Post, writes periodically about this, including a column about a week ago. Katherine Rampell, also of the Post, wrote about the graying-browning of America recently. Both columns are archived at the Post.
Social security and other entitlements are squeezing all other spending. It is ironic that the Dems refuse to mess with the Social Security formulas, but this growing entitlement will squeeze spending for the truly needy. But the Repubs are not much better. Old people vote [graying], and as the younger people become increasing minority [browning], the older people may become less and less enthusiastic about social spending on the young.
Ross Perot had a good chance in '92, until he thought strangers were running through his back yard, decided to not run, then changed his mind, etc. I have argued something with a couple of poly sci profs who give my theory no credence, but I still feel I am right. Those poly sci profs and pollsters say that Perot ultimately had no deciding effect on the 1992 election, because the exit polls showed that he took votes away almost equally from the Dems and the Repubs. But, I knew Reagan type Dems, that were essentially satisfied with Bush-his running of the first Gulf War, not blaming him for the recession, etc. But Perot was so articulate in critizing Bush, especially with his one liners, that they became upset with Bush and initially were going to vote for Perot. But Perot seemed just a little too unbalanced. So, they held their nose and voted for Clinton. Without a Perot, I believe Bush would have easily gotten a second term.
In my opinion, most people are either very unhappy with the direction President Obama is taking the country: with his foreign policy, his gutless walkaway from the Simpson-Bowles recommendations, philosophy of nominating Supreme Court and other judges, Obamacare, the Bergdahl affair, the Justice Department's decision not to prosecute the IRS' Lois Lerner, the heavy handed EPA and environmental regulations, the obvious decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for violating federal law-3 0r 4 different ways with her server as Secretary of State, the gutting of the the welfare reforms instituted by Clinton and the Repubs by a great widening of those who qualify for SSI,and I could list a dozen more.
Or someone looks at the above and thinks in almost every instance, President Obama has been correct and the evil Repubs are ruining the nation.
Either way, most informed people have to feel strongly one way or another. Unless they are just cheerleaders, rooting for a color-red [Repub] or blue [Dem].
There is no in between. Which seems what a third party would give us. Just because something is a special interest does not always mean it is wrong. I am thankful for some specific special interests, but I digress.
However, neither party will do a damn thing about our federal debt and our growing entitlements. Robert Samuelson, economist writer for the Washington Post, writes periodically about this, including a column about a week ago. Katherine Rampell, also of the Post, wrote about the graying-browning of America recently. Both columns are archived at the Post.
Social security and other entitlements are squeezing all other spending. It is ironic that the Dems refuse to mess with the Social Security formulas, but this growing entitlement will squeeze spending for the truly needy. But the Repubs are not much better. Old people vote [graying], and as the younger people become increasing minority [browning], the older people may become less and less enthusiastic about social spending on the young.
2016 should be interesting. If the Republicans were a cohesive ******* they would likely be a shoo in. But as you mention the party is split 4 ways and it is unlikely that they will patch things up in a year, they will try but the polarization that has been worsening for 50 years will prevent it.
Obama came to office prepared to be king not president. Some of his unilateral decisions will show him to be a great president if they work.
They started putting bandaids on ACA as soon as it went into effect. One thing I am very curious about is to what degree individual medical records were compromised by the ACA website. The first step to hacking a system is to break it and the website went online broken. However it may take years to accurately assess the damage.
What happens in Iran is going to be interesting. If the treaty holds and Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons then President Obama is a genius and his foreign policy approach is vindicated. However one of the intelligence services I subscribe to feels they will have a nuclear weapon within a year. Building a pure fission device up to about 1 megaton is really pretty simple. The big problem is acquiring the fissionable material to make the bomb. Apparently the treaty allows them to possess Plutonium. That is very bad. The Hiroshima bomb was around 15 kilotons and the Nagasaki bomb was around 20 kilotons. So being able to build a low tech bomb up to just under a kiloton is a very bad thing.
There were a number of things that you mentioned that are issues such as prosecutions he didn't order, the Bergdahl affair and a host of other things. Deficits are projected to start rising next year and are projected to continue to increase until around 2020 and then things are going to hit critical mass. Doesn't make any difference who is sitting in the big chair. ACA relied heavily on subsidized premiums to fly and in the next few years the money simply isn't going to be there to do it. ACA was never all that comprehensive in the first place. President Obama hung out a big carrot in the form of subsidizing the state programs. The states were expected to clean any mess left by ACA and the financial carrot that was initially offered was/is substantial. However as I have said earlier deficits are expected to start to rise next year and in very short order there isn't going to be the money to continue subsidizing at current levels.
One of the biggest disappointment for me was the state of race relations and plight of many black Americans. Racial tensions in this country are the worst I have seen in 30 or more years. Black unemployment still runs twice the rate it does for white Americans.
Ross Perot really had a decent shot at the White House. At least he did until he started with the conspiracy stuff which might or might not have been true, but he came off as a flake.
A good part of our Federal debt is rather interesting because it doesn't come from the Federal Government per se. A lot of out debt is from the money borrowed by the Federal Reserve for the QE program. Initially the the Fed just ran the printing presses and printed more money. The problem with that is you can have serious increases in inflation or even run away inflation by flooding the economy with cash. However borrowing too much money can dry up the supply and interest rates go up. High inflation in a recessionary economy can cause a lot of problems. The other thing is if the money supply dries up interest rates go up which can stifle a recovery. The balancing act is a pretty fine line. Personally I think they shouldn't have gotten involved. I have done well with QE, it has pushed the stock marker well above where it would be expected in today's economy. The problem is when QE ends the market will likely suffer a major correction. I expect to have my retirement else where by then. Of course people that were relying or savings got screwed because inflation, even at the current low rate exceeds the interest rate paid often by a factor of two or more.
As to a third party. In many ways the mood of the country is a lot like it was in the 1960's with Black Americans. When MLK came along Black Americans had reached a boiling point. He was at the right time and place. If he had arrived in 1900 or even 1930 or 1940 I doubt he would have been anymore than a minor footnote in history. I really think that a majority of people have come to see the Federal Government for what it is. So with a good leader I think a third party is viable.
Obama came to office prepared to be king not president. Some of his unilateral decisions will show him to be a great president if they work.
They started putting bandaids on ACA as soon as it went into effect. One thing I am very curious about is to what degree individual medical records were compromised by the ACA website. The first step to hacking a system is to break it and the website went online broken. However it may take years to accurately assess the damage.
What happens in Iran is going to be interesting. If the treaty holds and Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons then President Obama is a genius and his foreign policy approach is vindicated. However one of the intelligence services I subscribe to feels they will have a nuclear weapon within a year. Building a pure fission device up to about 1 megaton is really pretty simple. The big problem is acquiring the fissionable material to make the bomb. Apparently the treaty allows them to possess Plutonium. That is very bad. The Hiroshima bomb was around 15 kilotons and the Nagasaki bomb was around 20 kilotons. So being able to build a low tech bomb up to just under a kiloton is a very bad thing.
There were a number of things that you mentioned that are issues such as prosecutions he didn't order, the Bergdahl affair and a host of other things. Deficits are projected to start rising next year and are projected to continue to increase until around 2020 and then things are going to hit critical mass. Doesn't make any difference who is sitting in the big chair. ACA relied heavily on subsidized premiums to fly and in the next few years the money simply isn't going to be there to do it. ACA was never all that comprehensive in the first place. President Obama hung out a big carrot in the form of subsidizing the state programs. The states were expected to clean any mess left by ACA and the financial carrot that was initially offered was/is substantial. However as I have said earlier deficits are expected to start to rise next year and in very short order there isn't going to be the money to continue subsidizing at current levels.
One of the biggest disappointment for me was the state of race relations and plight of many black Americans. Racial tensions in this country are the worst I have seen in 30 or more years. Black unemployment still runs twice the rate it does for white Americans.
Ross Perot really had a decent shot at the White House. At least he did until he started with the conspiracy stuff which might or might not have been true, but he came off as a flake.
A good part of our Federal debt is rather interesting because it doesn't come from the Federal Government per se. A lot of out debt is from the money borrowed by the Federal Reserve for the QE program. Initially the the Fed just ran the printing presses and printed more money. The problem with that is you can have serious increases in inflation or even run away inflation by flooding the economy with cash. However borrowing too much money can dry up the supply and interest rates go up. High inflation in a recessionary economy can cause a lot of problems. The other thing is if the money supply dries up interest rates go up which can stifle a recovery. The balancing act is a pretty fine line. Personally I think they shouldn't have gotten involved. I have done well with QE, it has pushed the stock marker well above where it would be expected in today's economy. The problem is when QE ends the market will likely suffer a major correction. I expect to have my retirement else where by then. Of course people that were relying or savings got screwed because inflation, even at the current low rate exceeds the interest rate paid often by a factor of two or more.
As to a third party. In many ways the mood of the country is a lot like it was in the 1960's with Black Americans. When MLK came along Black Americans had reached a boiling point. He was at the right time and place. If he had arrived in 1900 or even 1930 or 1940 I doubt he would have been anymore than a minor footnote in history. I really think that a majority of people have come to see the Federal Government for what it is. So with a good leader I think a third party is viable.
Last edited:
You gotta have some laughter in life. I would hope there is more to me than just being a fuck service.
