Obama dropped a whack of lead he had in the polls. But it wasn't him,
Just how dirty do things get down there?
I don't like the guy much, but compared to Bush-Light, I think I'd
rather have Obama as my neighbour than McCain.
My roots are conservative, but considering the giant clusterfuck we
have enjoyed, I'm not so sure we want to go this way.
Man, my head's exploding. Based on many of your earlier comments, I
had you pegged on the liberal side. I must not have seen all your
I'm not particularly thrilled with any of the candidates but I would
like an antidote to Bush. This era feels like Reagan redux. We've
replaced replaced junk bonds with subprime mortgages, Michael Milken
with Angelo Mozilo. The savings and loan bail out will soon be
replaced with a mortgage buy out. In both cases, a few cronies got
rich and the public paid the price. Disaster could have been avoided
with regulatory enforcement.
Unfortunately, it takes a fiasco to remind people why we regulate
markets in the first place. Regulatory agencies were better funded in
the 1990s and we experienced a sustained period of prosperity. That
doesn't serve well for those who argue they deter growth. If nothing
else, Reagan was better than Bush in one regard. On the eve of the
1990 recession, income was high. Only a few reaped the benefits of
stellar turn of the century productivity gains. Now we face a 2008
recession with 1999 paychecks....
From a Canadian perspective, I'd say
that Rob is right of centre by a fairly
wide margin. From a US POV, he's still
right but not as far.
It's interesting how those two above
statements are almost at odds with each
I live in the Northeast and to many of my friends I'm not left enough.
(If you say *anything* positive in this political climate, you're
considered a Bushie) But Southerners will see my defense of
regulation and call me a commie. Until they find out I'm pretty much
godless, then they'll want to lynch me or something. To both I say,
Along those same lines, something from Molly Ivins, I think: When a
Republican president visits a factory of for instance a furniture
producer, he thanks the president or owner of the company for supplying
our country with the fine funiture the company produces. When a
Democratic president visits the same factory, he thanks the employees.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter. (Winston Churchill)
On Mar 20, 11:37 am, email@example.comNoOnSePsAtMar.org (Larry W) wrote:
Yes, close to true. But when an independent visits that factory, he/
she thanks both the owners and workers for the furniture, for without
both, there would be no furniture.
And this is a little feature that the goddamned idiots in both parties
have forgotten. Owners are essential. Workers are essential. Some sort
of sensible and at least semi-polite relationship between the two is
also essential. Politicians who work to widen the natural split
created by money need to have their tongues ripped out.
If I was around you now I would buy you a beer and cigar. How could
that have been said better.
I am sick of all this crap generated by politicians that pretend to,
but don't care about us at all. All of them and their armchair army
of expert talking heads can bite my ass.
It constantly floors me to see that so many morons still believe there
are huge differences between the parties and what they ACTUALLY do.
Key word: Actually - NOT "promise" to do.
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:06:55 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Oh, there's a difference. It's which special interest groups they pander
to in order to get their votes :-).
I still say we draw names from registered voters as per a jury pool, 3 for
each office, and let them campaign for one month with free space/time
in/on newspapers/radio and TV. Once elected, you'd serve one term and
them be free of the obligation to serve again for some number of years.
Who knows? If the political parties keep on the way they're going, the
idea might just catch on :-).
100% agreed - but you missed the flip side:
Politicians who think they have *any* role in the employer/employee
relationship need to ... well, what you said.
Employment (other than government employment) is a private matter.
Short of fraud, force, or threat, there ought be no government
involvement at all, certainly not by the Feds.
Having been both a boss and a worker bee in my career, my observation
is that doing either job well is difficult, but the challenges are
different. Employees tend to think of the boss as useless driftwood.
When I have seen promising employees grumping about the "idiots in
management", I try to find opportunities for them to lead a project
or group. It tends to radically improve their context and appreciation
for how hard the job of "boss" really is.
Despite what you see in the slurpy media, most bosses - at least the
successful ones - actually do have a pretty fair appreciation of their
people. Most of them were once individual contributors themselves.
The media tends to resort to the "The Man" kind of characterizations,
because precious few people in media (or government for that matter)
have ever had to make payroll, listen to the personal woes of their
reports, handle interpersonal strife, coach people to be their best,
maintain profitability, do the endless paperwork, and all that goes
It's been said before, but bears repeating:
Children are Dependent
Adolescents are fiercly Independent
Mature adults are Interdependent
Sadly, in this culture that values feelings above facts, we have
a depressing number of nominal adults whose behavior is stuck in
childhood or adolescence.
P.S. The most valuable lessons I ever learned about leadership
came not from a book, a class, or even a great boss. They
came from *lousy* bosses who demonstrated vividly just what
NOT to do. I've been really fortunate in not having many
of them, but the ones I did have were walking encyclopedias
of leadership malfunction. It is also interesting to me
that the same people who rail about stupid bosses, overpaid
CEOs, and dishonest corporations, are often the exact same
ones who think nothing of padding an expense report, stealing
assets from work, goofing off instead of finding ways to be
useful, and generally acting like spoiled children. Go figure.
P.P.S I have also been incredibly lucky to have had uniformly superb
folks reporting to me when I've been the boss. Good leaders
understand that this is a gift - your people give you permission
to lead and you must be a steward of that gift.
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
Ross Hebeisen wrote:
now lets carry on in the middle east blowing the
Maybe because it is the right thing to do.....there is no gain or personal
advantage for the U.S. but defending a people who have been long abused,
murdered and exploited that now simply want to be left alone, it is indeed
the moral or correct thing to do. Land wise they occupy a small speck of
what was a desert waste land, they have a democracy and they have a million
Arabs that actually vote in contrast to the despots and dictators that
occupy the surrounding countries. Not a hard concept to grasp for any
freedom loving person.....Rod
Very nice, succinct vehement statement from Ms Ivins, it helps her promote
her class-envy, class-warfare world view and makes a nice, terse vingette.
Of course the problem is that it's wrong. Please provide a cite where this
is the case. Take a look at when Bush (or frankly any politician of either
side) visits a factory: he may thank the CEO or other executive for
inviting him (after all, that's most likely where the invitation
originated), but he will then go on to praise the workers of the business
for the "fine products they produce and how they are showing how America
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
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.