Agreed. Investment is good. When investment is done by the government,
however, weatlth, initative, and progress are destroyed. Government cannot,
and must not, be the driving engine behind progress.
Here's just one example: The current drive for ethanol - mandated by the
government - drives up the cost of food, harms the environment, and does not
address the underlying causes for the "ethanol solution."
Insisting that ethanol is the panacea today is very much like a novelist
proposed regarding soy beans some fifty years ago.
Hah, what are taxes and tax exemptions for if not stimulating or
punishing specific finaicial decisions, especially concerning investment?
I agree. It is part protectionism (Brazil makes ethanol cheaper than the
US), and the laws of unintended consequences. The legislation was made
to enhance the income of corn producers. While corn has many good
qualities, one of the worst (and most unheralded) is that it depletes the
soil of nutrients. In fact, rotating corn and legumes is almost
necessary, unless you really want to support the fertilizer chemists.
Sorry, I think a word is missing. Did you mean "like what a novelist"?
Even then I don't get it without more specifics. I do remember that soy
and soybeans are supposed to a panacea.
Right. My mistake.
The novel was "Atlas Shrugged," and it was the insistence of the government
that all resources be placed at the call of the soybean industry. Steel
production was diverted to build combines to harvest the beans. Virtually
all rail traffice was diverted to haul the billions of tons of soybeans to
processing centers. And so on. The government marched with a single vision
to the glory of soybeans, soybeans which would free us all from want and
deprivation and usher in a new age of plenty that we could not imagine.
The beans rotted while parked in the rail cars.
Did the words come out of her mouth, or not? Why would you cut her slack
you'd deny to someone from the other party, aside from the obvious reason?
Picking Palin was a brilliant tactical move as it reversed McCain's
declining fortunes for a time. But strategically it became painfully
obvious why they kept her away from the press as much as they could, she was
as qualified to be VP as she is to be an NFL linebacker. Eventually I think
enough people (those not hopelessly partisan) realized that, and it cost
McCain votes in the endgame. It sure persuaded me, I was undecided until it
became clear how screamingly unsuitable she was, and with McCain's age and
health concerns there was no way I wanted her the proverbial heartbeat away
from the Oval Office.
She has more executive experience than Abraham Lincoln did when he became
President too, or JFK for that matter. Would you suggest that she would
make a better potential President than either of them on that basis?
If you figure "community organizer" is the portion of Obama's life that is
the most important when assessing whether he's qualified to be President,
then why not evaluate Palin's qualifications to be Vice President on what
she was doing at an equivalent point in her career--sports reporter.
So, what exactly are we supposed to judge Obama's experience by? If not
his days as a community organizer, then the days he spent working with Bill
Ayers and the Anneburg challenge? That's probably not your most prudent
course of action. His time as a constitutional lecturer? In which, during
an NPR interview he made the statement bemoaning the fact that the
Constitution does not address "redistributive" justice? His time as an
Illinois legislator where his most notable accomplishments were supporting
infanticide and multiple gun control bills including opposing one that
absolved homeowners protecting their own lives with a firearm? Or was it
his 140 days in the Senate before he started running for President? Can you
point to any significant bills that he sponsored or pushed through the
Senate during his 140 days there?
What exactly are The One's accomplishments that made him the leading
candidate from the Democrat party?
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Sure. You should have picked different examples.
JFK accomplished two things: One good, staring down the Ruskies regarding
missles in Cuba, and one bad, the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Not one of his
legislative proposals passed during his tenure. Not one.
Lincoln was directly responsible for the deaths of 600,000 Americans. But,
since cotton accounted for 80% of America's trade at the time, it was
imperative to keep the bucks flowing to the overall country. Like all
Republicans, it is claimed, Lincoln cared more for business than the common
Good point. I think, however, it's more prudent to compare the job each had
that had the most responsibility, respect, and ability to get things done.
Obama was a community organizer, then went downhill. Palin was a reporter,
then went up (which is about the only direction you can move if you're a
I tended slightly towards Obama early on, while my wife leaned to
McCain. My primary worry in either case wasn't experience: in
executive roles, both candidates lacked that, but that's not unusual,
nor, in my experience, is it particularly a problem.
When Palin popped up on-screen, I scratched my head. Eveyrone thought
she was "hot," whatever that means, but nowhere was there a sign of
anyone claiming her to be suitable for the office she wanted. I
listened to her a couple of times, and read a few of her responses,
and need no more head scratching. She's a JAY. Just Another Yuppie.
But with tinges of Valley Girl airhead.
My wife listened to Palin a few times, and started tilting towards my
side of the column. We both ended up voting for Obama. Part of the
influence was simple. Added to my problems dealing with the fact that
McCain has a temper on a par with mine was his age.
McCain is a couple years older than I am, and his health marginally
the same. That was worrisome with a totally unqualified and unthinking
replacement in the wings. Jack Kemp was almost certainly in better
general health than either one of us, and he died of a fast growing
cancer a day or so ago, at 73.
Combine iffy health, age and a rotten temper not always controlled,
and there are problems. I often regret blowing my stack, but it's on a
person-to-person basis, usually causing no permanent damage (beyond a
couple of broken noses). That is not a box to check on a Presidential
qualification list, though.
While I don't really like some of the things Obama is planning to do
or has done, the transparency of his administration, and his openness
about almost everything in his background, have me staying in the
current two-thirds of U.S. citizens who generally approve of the job
Whether or not he is going to be successful is an unfinished story.
The guy has been in office a little over three months, trying to
correct, or at least improve, a situation that was many years in
building, yet people have stuck him with handles that are as asinine
as the ones stuck on "Ape" Lincoln shortly before and after he took
office. I realize that people such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter
are in it for the money and will say, and do, almost anything to
fatten their investment portfolios, but it is truly disheartening to
see the rancor they express become as widespread as it has among
people one would expect to have at least slightly better sense. I did
read somewhere yesterday that only 22% of Americans today classify
themselves as Republicans, which means that the noisy rancor comes
from a relatively tiny percentage, with a desire to scream about their
losses. I also note around here people are finally taking down the
McCain-Palin-Goode signs. I figure it's time for the next campaign to
I may not support all of President Obama's actions, and reserve the
right to bitch, whine, moan and whimper about thos individual actions,
in the meantime, I'm going to remain with the majority in supporting
his overall aims.
Unlike Limbaugh, I do NOT hope Obama fails.
Harvard Law specializing in international relations, professor of
constitutional law, state and federal Senator and so on. IMO he had less
experience than I would have liked, but the "community organizer" crap is,
well, crap. It's like the left claiming Bush was unqualified to be
President because he was just a former baseball team owner.
Us radical centrists are having a hell of a time. We got to enjoy the
left-wingnuts ranting about Bush for eight years (although truth be told at
least he provided good reason to rant) and now the right-wingnuts (while
still ignoring their party's abuses) foaming at the mouth over Obama being a
raving socialist who intends to destroy America and sign over the deed to
the UN blah blah blah. Whatever happened to common sense, is it really the
endangered species it appears to be?
Unfortunately, yes. It has been so for at least 4 years. I was told so by
our very nice environmental management worker (who unfortunately has
"Han, common sense is a misnomer, it is not very common."
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.