Thoughts on Thoughts

[woofer]

Hi Jimmy, I reread you post later on and thought that I might have misunderstood what you were saying. LOL I did then. Anyway, your visit was a pleasant surprise, a little sarcastic or not.

[jimmy$teel]

Hey Woofer, I found you in the New Board section on the Ihub home page. My post was a little sarcastic but I think there is a little truth in the fact and as far as election concerns. Scary!

[woofer]

Well, I wasn't being completely honest. I will vote for Obama if he runs against McCain and he'd probably do an OK job heading our town council.

[woofer]

Hi jimmysteel! How on earth did you find me, and who are you? LOL
I kind of agree with you, which is why, if you noticed my comment at the end, I said it's something to think about. I didn't say if I agreed with everything or anything for that matter. You picked out one of the 'best' things to disagree with.

The quote from the article:
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and iresponsibility. ========================================================
Your comment on that quote:
"I am not so sure about that statement."
====================================
Well, the guy could find it inconceivable which would be true for him, but for both of us, the idea isn't so inconceivable because that's what we've got. It's amusing almost to me, although I should be angry, that one of the three top runners, McCain, Clinton, and Obama will soon head our government. How on earth can this happen? I'm not sure that I would want any of the three to run our local town council. LOL In fact, I'm positive I wouldn't want McCain heading it. He'd be encouraging wars on our streets to clean up the riffraff because the teenagers are scary.
=====================================
I never heard the quote by Warren Buffett but it's a great one:

You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are right.

[jimmy$teel]

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and iresponsibility. ================================================================I am not so sure about that statement.

[woofer]

Posted by: Susie924
In reply to: None
Date:4/25/2008 11:34:07 PM
Post #of 97756

I received this from a very smart IHUB poster. I believe many of this "special class of persons" are right here on IHUB!

"There exists in society a very special class of persons that I have always referred to as the Believers. These are folks who have chosen to accept a certain religion, philosophy, theory, idea or notion and cling to that belief regardless of any evidence that might, for anyone else, bring it into doubt. They are the ones who encourage and support the fanatics and the frauds of any given age. No amount of evidence, no matter how strong, will bring them any enlightenment. They are the sheep who beg to be fleeced and butchered, and who will battle fiercely to preserve their right to be victimized."
-- James Randi
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=28813869
============================
True, and nothing more to add.
EDIT: There is something more to add. Some of these fanatics are the victimizers, not the sheep.

[woofer]

The 545 People Responsible For All of America's Woes

Isn't It Rich
Sunday, March 30, 2008
http://thisisrich.blogspot.com/2008/03/545-people-responsible-for-all-of.html
This piece is making the rounds and I received it today from a friend of mine. It supposedly is an opinion piece written by Charley Reese when he was still a columnist at the Orlando Sentinel (he retired in 2001.) I was unable to find this on his archives page or check it out on Snopes. I don't really doubt that Reese wrote this; it sounds just like him, but I wasn't able to find it at any official looking site (no offense to the site whereupon I found this.) Still, this is a compelling piece written when Tip O'Neill was Speaker of the House and Reagan was president. It couldn't be more true today and I reprint it in its entirety as it was sent to me:


THE 545 PEOPLE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL
OF AMERICA'S WOES


BY CHARLEY REESE

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.

No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.

A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY

Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.

O'Neill is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.

REPLACE SCOUNDRELS

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon, it's because they want them in Lebanon.

There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

(This article was taken from the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper)

This is a great piece to keep in mind when Big Govt blames Big Oil for high energy prices, or anyone else in the "once free market" for things gone awry. Pretty much, we can blame the lame politicians on everything going crazy.

But then, who are the lame-brains voting them into office? Yikes, that one's gonna make a mark!

Thanks for this piece, Charley Reese, wherever you are!

posted by rich glasgow at 12:01 AM
============================

My thought is that it's worth thinking about. Thank you, janetcanada. You sent it at the perfect time.

[woofer]

Posted by: bleutigredancing
In reply to: wall_rus who wrote msg# 8642
Date:10/16/2007 1:27:46 PM
Post #of 8992

Wall-rus,

Good points. I generally agree with you about Eagles' comments, and like your analogy. I'll add a couple of comments.

1. Knowing that inequality will continue to exist, I think a good question for each of us to ask is, "To what extent can inequality exist, and we still live in a just society"? Few American economists dispute the continued polarization of wealth in our country (and to those who want to jump on to me about being someone who supports "redistribtion" of wealth...it won't fly..and I'll just call you a Trent Lott wanna be, lol). Of course, this is based on the assumption that most of us believe in equality and justice.

In an essay several years ago, Paul Samuelson, acknowledged the growing inequality. But, he noted that it's not as bad as one would think. Too many of us ignore the value of grocery coupons (give me a break..generic brands are still cheaper), rebates, free products tied to new credit cards, continued lower prices on technology items (well, yes, but in two years most are dinosaurs), frequent flyer miles, and well, that's about it. That such a statement was published says more about how Newsweek views its readership than it says about a growing inequality.

2. Many of us believe that we and those we love will always be favored "wolves," or if not favored wolves, that at least we are wolves, and therefore, the leaders interests and ours will always be the same. Just because we believe we share the same qualities, values and beliefs as the leader of the pack, doesn't mean that our interests are the same. We just think they are. I'd like to suggest that if the leader of the pack allows favored wolves to prey on the sheep, and the less-favored to clean up the scraps, and we see that as just the natural/normalized way things are, (afterall, they are deserving because they had the strength to work up to that position), we should also realize that the leader of the pack will not hesitate to paint our brown coats white, bob our tails, and file our teeth, so as to justify treating us like sheep.

bleutigre
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=23729516
---------------------------
I miss bleutigredancing's posts on the VMC board.

[woofer]

Posted by: kashasha
In reply to: hap0206 who wrote msg# 326480
Date:4/15/2008 9:54:22 PM
Post #of 328286

Here's where our thinking diverges. First of all, I am not a Democrat. I am an Independent or unaffiliated voter as that status is called in this state. I switch hit as a voter. My tendency is to choose more moderate candidates.

Have you kept abreast of all the 9/11 developments or did you swallow the story that was cast your way without ever looking back, analyzing proof, etc.? Bush, IMO, does not have his head on straight, but rather up his ass. While that dolt sat there with the goat book, his minions sporting the gray matter were busy. As much of a history aficionado as you are, you ought to do a little studying about the history of 9/11 and its aftermath.

"My Dems" in Congress are not my dems at all. Yep, I voted for one of them - Heath Shuler - but I wished all of them luck countrywide. They have been a huge disappointment. The very chicken-chested bastards who talked so big when they were the minority about all the corruption they were going to investigate were limp wrists when they got into power.

Instead of sitting there scared to death ABOUT OUR SECURITY why don't you consider the fact that we have caused - directly or indirectly - thousands and thousands of deaths of innocent people in Iraq. Why don't you think about all of our own who have given their lives for that fiasco that came about as a result of intentionally perverted evidence, mismanagement and terrible planning?

Get with it hap. Just do a little reading on other than one of those brainwashed far right-winged boards.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=28525354
------------------------
I could read kashasha's posts all day long........if she posted all day long.

[woofer]

Posted by: nwsun
In reply to: None
Date:4/24/2008 10:34:58 AM
Post #of 328280

obama and clinton have two choices for future debates.. they can either tell the moderator to ask a legitimate question about what their plans are for turning this country around or they can fall for the gotcha tactics we saw on the abc debate last week... i would love to see either one of them stand on principle .thats an ethical fight i would love to see... and so would the majority of americans who are tired of this corporate media and the fake news and stories they put out about the war and our economy.. obama and clinton need to begin the process of taking back the media for the people...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=28756672
-----------------------------
nwsun is one smart lady. She's exactly right. Both Obama and Clinton should insist on fielding legitimate questions instead of wasting their time on doing what the media wants them to do, which is to look like fools. It reminds me of the problems I had on the 9/11 board when I was moderator. The people who defend the government's story would come on the board and call all of us loonies, nutcases, and other assorted derogatory terms instead of addressing the facts. Not that they wouldn't occasionally address a fact or two, but most times it was more about group character assassination. It's an underhanded tactic which distracted from real debate.