Page 1 of 2

Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:15 pm
by Catfish
Lately Cheney has been publicly lamb basting the current administration, namely Vice President Biden for policys that he feels are all wrong. I believe he has had his day in court and look what happened to our country. If he was so right why didn't he fix it while he was in control? Many people believe that he was the dangerous one in the Bush administration. Government grants to his companies, allowing companies to run out of control, etc etc.. Does anyone else think he should realize his regime is over and give the current regime a chance. He is directly of the opinion that Obama-Biden are doing it all wrong. That is obvious that he doesn't agree because if he did he would have tried it this new way. While it's true that we all don't want to be taxed like we are beginning to get, but maybe just maybe that it is what this country needs to turn around. Let time tell. How could it get much worse?

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:22 pm
by Old Scout
It's my impression that he is giving them the same respect they gave him and Bush. Turnabout is fair play when you are talking politics. When have you ever seen one party admit that the other party is doing anything right.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:04 pm
by Catfish
Scout, very interesting, you may be right about that, I never thought of that. But it was my impression that Obama-Biden were vocally abusive "during" the campaign and not in Bush-Cheney's first month in office. I think toward the end of the Bush-Cheney regime everybody was talking about their failed policies. Hence the rapidly declining President approval rating went truly South.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:44 am
by neup99
How would you react if your replacement publicly, well globally, appologized for your actions an effectivly denounced your term of managment?

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 5:36 pm
by tooten
Perhaps it would be a better idea if Nancy Pelosi would clam up instead of lying about the briefings that she got from the folks at CIA. She's making all that noise to cover her butt with her radical left wing buddies. What a bag.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 6:33 pm
by Floyd Alvin
Pelosi is in China right now. Be nice if she would stay there.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 6:45 pm
by Floyd Alvin
The trouble is, there is no such thing as "the loyal opposition" any longer. It has become the "vicious, malicious, mean-spirited, lying, cheating, anything is fair to discredit them, opposition".

Both parties.

Some argue that politics has been that way forever. But back in 1700-1800’s when one politician attacked another with vicious lies it took days, weeks and even months for that message to be seen even by a few hundred or thousand people.

Today it is blasted across the face of the globe in mere minutes.

It’s sort of like wars. Never a good thing but not near as troublesome if they are fought with bow and arrow. Not that you can’t kill a whole lot of people that way, but it is not likely that you blow the planet to smithereens.

This constant attack, attack, attack is blowing our country to smithereens. And our enemies are sitting back and enjoying it and waiting for the right opportunity to run in and pick over the spoils.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 7:09 pm
by Old Scout
If this country ever falls, it won't be by invasion from a foreign power, but will be destroyed from within by our own political leaders.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 7:21 pm
by kmartell
Floyd Alvin wrote:
This constant attack, attack, attack is blowing our country to smithereens. And our enemies are sitting back and enjoying it and waiting for the right opportunity to run in and pick over the spoils.


You would THINK that the politicians would know this and would stop their bickering...but they just keep it up day after day after day after day. What in the world are they thinking that their constant mud slinging back and forth is accomplishing? They fit the perfect definition of insanity....doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Or are they even thinking that far ahead? I'm so fed up with ALL of them !!!

...and Pelosi...third in line...what a horrible scary joke on us all. I'm waiting for the TV lights to melt her face!!! :twisted:

****** I just saw Old Scout's post...ditto !!!

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 12:27 pm
by Nimble
Should Cheney Clam Up?

Most democrats would probably say no as they would like to keep the memory of the Bush/Cheney years alive in the minds of the people. Most republicans would probably say yes as keeping torture issue so closing tied to the repubican party will help continue the disintegration of the party.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 6:32 pm
by ski_lover
I certainly agree with Old Scout's comments. It's not the external that we should fear, it's the internal bickering and constant grasping for power that's killing us. Having said that I don't believe we should leave it to "fringe" elements to show us the light. We have to get a grip on not only our country but ourselves. If I took every radio kook or websites word as gospel I'd be headed for Jonestown myself.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 3:23 pm
by mystic
I'm sure the democrats would love to see Cheney's face and hear his voice into the next election cycle next year. It can only do them good.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:13 pm
by Floyd Alvin
mystic wrote:I'm sure the democrats would love to see Cheney's face and hear his voice into the next election cycle next year


And well into several election cycles after that.

There are people in their late teens that voted for the first time. A very, very large number of them voted against Bush more so then they did for Obama. A lot of them never even bothered to find out what McCain stood for.

Bush was such a polarizing factor that many of these young votes will vote against any and all Republicans for the next 60 years.

However, the perceived over whelming landslide, as lopsided as it was, was not near as drastic as the reports keep making them out to be.

The popular vote was Obama: 66,700,243 votes – 52.7% and McCain: 58,227,836 – 46.0% . A 6.7% margin of victory.

Of course the electoral collage tally distorts the outcome even further.

Recently we hear that only 26% of the people polled admit to being a Republican. That hardly comes to any surprise to any of us that has a lot of experience in polling. As an example, right after Bill Clinton wad caught with Monica you couldn't find anyone that voted for him.

All that said, the two things that have done the most damage to the Republican Party are not Bush and Cheney. They are gay-rights and abortion.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:23 pm
by Kerry Tobin
Obama's chances at re-election will depend entirely on how our economy looks by the next election. If things are getting better, he'll win by a landslide. If either we, or the government are struggling, he's toast...

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:10 am
by neup99
Floyd Alvin wrote:There are people in their late teens that voted for the first time.

I should hope so. Apparently they weren't voting for Chicago mayor. :lol: :wink:

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:04 am
by Floyd Alvin
Neup99, I like your line: "There are two parties in politics: Republicans and Democrats. Republicans have bad ideas, Democrats have no ideas." - Lewis Black

It reminds me of a guy I once knew that was the City Manager of one city and served on the City Council of another. As the City Manager, he was extremely liberal and did all the things that come with being one. As a City Council member he was very conservative.

When he was asked one time how he explained how he could be so different in his two jobs. He replied by saying that it was simple. As a City Manager he took direction, and as a City Councilman he gave direction.

Then he went of to say that he would find it extremely difficult to live in a world that was created entirely by conservatives, but he would find it impossible to live in a world created entirely by liberals, unless of course we can get humans on the endangered species list.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:16 am
by Floyd Alvin
Kerry Tobin wrote:Obama's chances at re-election will depend entirely on how our economy looks by the next election. If things are getting better, he'll win by a landslide. If either we, or the government are struggling, he's toast...


I agree with you for the most part but Obama has one very strong and unique advantage that no other first term president has had, considering the state of the economy when he took over. And he is playing that advantage like the very smart politician he is. He is sort of in a win/win situation.

If his policies fail he merely says that the problems Bush/Cheney caused were much worse then anyone could have imagined. You can see that being played out already to some degree.

If his policies succeed well then he may deserve to be reelected.

This is why Rush Limbaugh said he hoped his policies fail. That and he sees his policies furthering Socialism.

Now I am by no means a Limbaugh Dittohead but on the Socialism issues I do agree with him. I am not yet ready to embrace it.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:50 pm
by Kerry Tobin
I really don't think the Bush argument will hold up much longer. You're already beginning to see it as Obama's economy (it became his when he bought the auto industry, banking industry, etc.

One of the night show hosts recently joked that Obama was declared auto executive of the year by Car & Driver...

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:49 pm
by sagan
Bush pretty much socialized the banks and the Auto industry was on life support by the time the last 2008 quarter results came in. True Obama gave them CPR instead of letting them die.

If socialism gave us equitable and affordable and accessible health care people wouldn't care. If socialism gave us retirement funds that would not be looted by financial bandits, people wouldn't care. Maybe this is what the republicans need to offer if they want to survive.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:45 am
by Kerry Tobin
People will care, the ones paying for it will. They'll also care when in the not-to-distant future we simply can't afford to pay for any of it anymore.

Heck, even Microsoft is now stating if some of the proposed tax raises go through they are simply going to ship thousands of jobs out of the country. Many of the recent changes and proposals will also wipe out small businesses.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:53 am
by ski_lover
Microsoft would ship jobs overseas?? I don't mean to sound jaded but wake up and smell whatever, MS already has a substantial presence in India, over 5,500 employees, been there, saw it along with my companies (Intel) facilities. It's another excuse to off shore additional jobs. BTW while Intel is closing facilities in the US and laying people off (called redeployment within Intel) they are building a new $3B fab in Dalian, China. It's all about the bottom line and satisfying "the Street."
Yea, health care is going to be tough, millions of vets are using the "socialized" system today with not so great results but it is getting better. I can't seem to wrap my pea brain around the idea of the entire country using that style of care and at what cost to the taxpayers so I agree with you there Kerry.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:07 am
by Floyd Alvin
Oh, you are absolutely right sagan. That’s the problem; people will accept all the freebies the government is willing to hand out. Paying for them is the problem.

The government has pretty much mismanaged almost every single monetary program they have or ever did have. So why all of sudden should we start thinking that they have learned the error of their ways and will do the right thing?

As for the Bush bailouts, which I never agreed with staring back with the original Bear Stearns bail out, they were government-backed loans. Still not good, but not out right corporate takeovers like the GM and Chrysler deals.

Back to the government freebies, you should read:

The Downfall of Democracy
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from
the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for
the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose
fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

-Alexander Tyler 1747-1813
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgxm7rqm_20dpsck7dp

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:25 am
by Floyd Alvin
Kerry & ski_lover points out what will become and even greater problem.

Americans think we have already seen an exodus of jobs out of this country. Wait until all these new and more to come taxes hit. Small business will disappear in grand fashion. Heck, they already are.

Larger businesses like Microsoft & Intel as Kerry & ski_lover mentioned, can do just fine in the global marketplace no matter when they are headquartered.

The oil companies will follow Halliburton to tax havens like Dubi.

We lost the yearly taxes on $2.3 Billion to the US Treasury just on that move alone. That does not count the jobs that were shipped to Dubi and the taxes those employees were paying. Very highly paid employees too I may add.

It is said the every new dollar in new commerce creates $7 in spin off business as that money changes hands. So the effect of Halliburton was actually the loss of taxes on $16 billion. Figuring the average tax bracket of 35% that would be a loss of $5.6 billion to the US Treasury. That does not count state, local taxes such as property and sales tax revenues.

As the man once said, a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money.

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:35 pm
by Kerry Tobin
As of April 21, Microsoft employed 95,029 people, of which 56,552 are employed in the US. Want to see another 30,000 jobs leave the US?

Also notice that even the US Chamber of Commerce is against this proposal.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ah5YH8sw_VzI

Also, while the new COBRA laws are nice for employees, don't you think a business that has to lay people off because they don't have money might have a bit of a problem paying for a significant portion of their healthcare until whenever the government gets around to reimbursing them???

http://www.smsmallbiz.com/benefits/Keeping_Up_With_the_New_COBRA.html

Re: Should Cheney Clam Up ?

Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:45 pm
by Kerry Tobin
Floyd is actually hitting on one of the problems Wisconsin is going to be facing soon.

Since Doyle thinks it's only fair to make ALL state employees take furlough the state is actually going to LOSE money. Confused? A number of "state" employees at UW-Madison (and other schools) are actually payed by federal grants and private donations. Doyle plans to force those employees to take furlough too. So, the state actually loses the income taxes that would be paid by those employees (I believe the number of these types of workers is in the thousands).

Additionally, Doyle intends to prevent all state employees from filing for unemployment. If you work in the private sector and are placed on furlough you are allowed to collect unemployment for that time. Apparently the state doesn't believe those rules apply to them. Expect to see some very expensive lawsuits on that one...

Finally, I've seen calculations that this will cost the average lab on campus about 100 hours of work per year, placing our research that much further behind (remember that in many cases the research leads to new jobs as discoveries are made). Throw in the fact that UW employees are paid below their peers in both the public and private sector and I would expect to see many more of the most talented researchers leave the UW System in the next few years (the leading expert in stem cell research in the world just announced he's leaving Madison).