The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: thundley4 on November 04, 2008, 09:54:40 AM
-
His new civilian police force?
(http://caraellison.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/obamachange.jpg)
-
Life will go on........the occupant of the White House has little effect on me or my family personally.......
We are masters of our own fate, and are blessed to live in a land where that is possible......
doc
-
Life will go on........the occupant of the White House has little effect on me or my family personally.......
We are masters of our own fate, and are blessed to live in a land where that is possible......
doc
there have been such things as presidents that fundamentally changed the social contract between those governed and those governing. FDR and johnson come to mind.
-
Life will go on........the occupant of the White House has little effect on me or my family personally.......
We are masters of our own fate, and are blessed to live in a land where that is possible......
doc
life will go on, yes, but I'm not so sure about how long the 2nd part of your statement will be true
-
life will go on, yes, but I'm not so sure about how long the 2nd part of your statement will be true
I think obama definitely has a plan, and won't hesitate to use the awesome power of the federal government to create and enforce his personal notion of "social justice", and eradicate those evil instances of inequality that a free market and a free society are open to permit.
-
there have been such things as presidents that fundamentally changed the social contract between those governed and those governing. FDR and johnson come to mind.
And the Republic survived both........let us not forget the backlash that occurred in 1994, and a substantial portion of LBJ's "change" has been fundementally reversed over the years.
doc
-
I think obama definitely has a plan, and won't hesitate to use the awesome power of the federal government to create and enforce his personal notion of "social justice", and eradicate those evil instances of inequality that a free market and a free society are open to permit.
To begin with-his civilian forces. There's never been a description of what he intends their function to be exactly. Will they enforce non-PC language? Will they post a list of permitted terms for public use?
(had to edit for spelling)
-
I think obama definitely has a plan, and won't hesitate to use the awesome power of the federal government to create and enforce his personal notion of "social justice", and eradicate those evil instances of inequality that a free market and a free society are open to permit.
All presidents have a "plan", but getting it accomplished is another thing altogether......I seem to recall that GWB had some great ideas about privatizing a small portion of Social Security, in order to preserve the program for the youngest of participants.....it was the "third rail" of American politics, and was a subject that no one dared to discuss........he tried, and failed, but that is the way of these things.
We are not in the midst of a depression with a president serving his fourth term anymore......some things have changed for the better in the "basic structure" of our government.
Assuming that the messiah IS elected, I would doubt that even a small portion of what he has proposed will ever see the light of day, once he is faced with the realities of the office........remember that he is the most underqualified politician to ever win (if he does), he therefore does not have a clue as to what he will be up against in order to implement his grandiose "plans".
I would predict that if he wins, one year into his tenure, the most disappointed of our citizens will be the far left that are his base.......
doc
-
Life will go on........the occupant of the White House has little effect on me or my family personally.......
We are masters of our own fate, and are blessed to live in a land where that is possible......
doc
TVDOC, I'm not as comfortable with a potential Obama win as you seem to be. There's too many things that he wants to do that will hurt this country and the people in it. We'll probably survive it, but it won't be pleasant. I look forward to rampant censorship, private arms will be seized, ammunition will become unobtainable and taxes on those who make more than $50K / yr will be abominable. I haven't even thoroughly contemplated the amount of reverse racism that will grow. You must remember, we will probably have a Democrat super-majority, too. With the Dems holding the reigns of power, Obama will be able to walk all over the Constitution and individual rights. Look at the damage that GWB has done already.
-
To begin with-his civilian forces. There's never been a description of what he intends their function to be exactly. Will they enforce non-PC language? Will they post a list of permitted terms for public use?
(had to edit for spelling)
I would suggest that he will have some problems with that pesky thing called the Constitution if he intends to implement his "civilian force" idea.......
doc
-
I would suggest that he will have some problems with that pesky thing called the Constitution if he intends to implement his "civilian force" idea.......
doc
You think that something as "trivial"(to him) as the Constitution is going to stop him ??
-
And the Republic survived both........let us not forget the backlash that occurred in 1994, and a substantial portion of LBJ's "change" has been fundementally reversed over the years.
doc
I understand your point, and genuinely appreciate your intent. but the republic only survives in a recognizable form until it finally fails to. and I haven't seen very much of anything in the liberal agenda that has ever been "reversed", unless it had an expiration clause built into it.
-
All presidents have a "plan", but getting it accomplished is another thing altogether......I seem to recall that GWB had some great ideas about privatizing a small portion of Social Security, in order to preserve the program for the youngest of participants.....it was the "third rail" of American politics, and was a subject that no one dared to discuss........he tried, and failed, but that is the way of these things.
We are not in the midst of a depression with a president serving his fourth term anymore......some things have changed for the better in the "basic structure" of our government.
Assuming that the messiah IS elected, I would doubt that even a small portion of what he has proposed will ever see the light of day, once he is faced with the realities of the office........remember that he is the most underqualified politician to ever win (if he does), he therefore does not have a clue as to what he will be up against in order to implement his grandiose "plans".
I would predict that if he wins, one year into his tenure, the most disappointed of our citizens will be the far left that are his base.......
doc
are you perhaps forgetting the likely makeup of the next congress? what's going to stop him? and the composition of the supreme court could be radically altered before the first anniversary of his election, so what is or isn't "constitutional" could completely change in the short term.
no, this election has plenty to cause extreme anxiety. although I do see how your last sentence could work out to be very true, and I even said so someplace around here.
-
TVDOC, I'm not as comfortable with a potential Obama win as you seem to be. There's too many things that he wants to do that will hurt this country and the people in it. We'll probably survive it, but it won't be pleasant. I look forward to rampant censorship, private arms will be seized, ammunition will become unobtainable and taxes on those who make more than $50K / yr will be abominable. I haven't even thoroughly contemplated the amount of reverse racism that will grow. You must remember, we will probably have a Democrat super-majority, too. With the Dems holding the reigns of power, Obama will be able to walk all over the Constitution and individual rights. Look at the damage that GWB has done already.
in all fairness, I don't think he's exactly comfortable. he's just saying that the united states can stand a lot of killing. but we have to acknowledge to potential perfect storm before us; an ultraliberal president, an ultraliberal congressional leadership, a filibuster proof majority on the senate, and a current "crisis" used as an excuse to force a statist agenda down our throats.
sooner or later, you have to worry about the fallacy of assumed concreteness.
-
FYI, I have 4 extra tickets for the Robbie Knievel event at the Charlotte Convention Center this week if anyone wants them.
He's going to try to jump 5,000 Obama supporters with a Cat D-9 bulldozer.
Should be a good time. Let me know if you want the tickets.
.
-
I understand your point, and genuinely appreciate your intent. but the republic only survives in a recognizable form until it finally fails to. and I haven't seen very much of anything in the liberal agenda that has ever been "reversed", unless it had an expiration clause built into it.
Well....to start with, the "Welfare Reform Act", that slick willie was finally forced to sign, after vetoing it twice, pretty much gutted LBJ's "Great Society". I will grant you, that much of what FDR set into motion has continued and expanded.....perhaps that course of action was the best for the country at the time, but a day of reconing will come for that also, in the not too distant future.
Don't get me wrong, and I direct this to Thor as well, I'm not comfortable with an Obama presidency at all, but I DO have a fundamental confidence in the American people to ultimately correct the direction of government......even if it takes a while. Will it be uncomfortable, most certainly, but the more "uncomfortable" an Obama administration makes the populace, the shorter that duration will be.......Jimmy Carter being the best historical example.......
Unlike four or five decades ago, the country is ideologically divided nearly right down the middle on a number of issues that are usually raised in any election cycle. This was not the case in 1939, nor was it the case during the Vietnam war, and LBJ's tenure......it will not take very much to tilt the electorate one way or the other on any given issue, and this condition has not been the case in this country for well over a century.
doc
-
are you perhaps forgetting the likely makeup of the next congress? what's going to stop him? and the composition of the supreme court could be radically altered before the first anniversary of his election, so what is or isn't "constitutional" could completely change in the short term.
no, this election has plenty to cause extreme anxiety. although I do see how your last sentence could work out to be very true, and I even said so someplace around here.
As I mentioned in a thread some time ago on the subject of the Supreme Court, the liberal justices are the ones that are tenaciously clinging to life (both actually, and on the court). Therefore a liberal president replacing a couple of uber-liberal justices with a couple more is unlikely to change the mix much in the short run....given two terms, perhaps, but if you look at the history of the SC, there have been MUCH more liberal courts (the Warren Court for example), and the Constitution has still emerged more or less intact. Further, challenges to legislation in the courts has to pass the circuits first, the most important (in this discussion) being the DC Circuit, which is relatively conservative. All of this "Change" is going to take a lot of time and effort to accomplish.
I just don't see an Obama administration running roughshod over the Constitution, and negating the Bill of Rights, as I said before, he is a naive neophyte, and has NO clue what it will take to make his "Change" happen.......have faith......
doc
-
Well....to start with, the "Welfare Reform Act", that slick willie was finally forced to sign, after vetoing it twice, pretty much gutted LBJ's "Great Society". I will grant you, that much of what FDR set into motion has continued and expanded.....perhaps that course of action was the best for the country at the time, but a day of reconing will come for that also, in the not too distant future.
Don't get me wrong, and I direct this to Thor as well, I'm not comfortable with an Obama presidency at all, but I DO have a fundamental confidence in the American people to ultimately correct the direction of government......even if it takes a while. Will it be uncomfortable, most certainly, but the more "uncomfortable" an Obama administration makes the populace, the shorter that duration will be.......Jimmy Carter being the best historical example.......
Unlike four or five decades ago, the country is ideologically divided nearly right down the middle on a number of issues that are usually raised in any election cycle. This was not the case in 1939, nor was it the case during the Vietnam war, and LBJ's tenure......it will not take very much to tilt the electorate one way or the other on any given issue, and this condition has not been the case in this country for well over a century.
doc
admitting that the new deal continues to expand while pointing out that parts of the great society may have been scaled back (and I even disagree with you about that) is almost conceding my point. one is a mountain, the other is a molehill. we don't know how "evenly split" the electorate is at the moment (that may change by tonight), although I would point out that an electorate that would choose the agenda that we could conceivably have coming as the solution to the problems (the real ones, not the perceived ones) that we have now would be well challenged to ever make the right choice.
-
I hear what you are saying Doc, but I am not optimistic about a future where all the elective branches of Government are in the hands of only one party, and by a substantial margin in both Congressional houses. There will be a large internal Democrat struggle for control between Congressional Dems who view themselves as the Kingmakers who put Obama in, and an attempt by Obama to defy them and prove himself to be his own man (an inexperienced and naive academic ditherer of a man, surrounded by 'Helpers' who owe much more to certain Congressmen and Senators than to him, in my opinion), but all the action will be simply conflicts over which Democrat interests to advance and how rapidly, not what is good for the country, and at the expense of rational economics in favor of unsustainable populist generosity and protectionism.
-
As I mentioned in a thread some time ago on the subject of the Supreme Court, the liberal justices are the ones that are tenaciously clinging to life (both actually, and on the court). Therefore a liberal president replacing a couple of uber-liberal justices with a couple more is unlikely to change the mix much in the short run....given two terms, perhaps, but if you look at the history of the SC, there have been MUCH more liberal courts (the Warren Court for example), and the Constitution has still emerged more or less intact. Further, challenges to legislation in the courts has to pass the circuits first, the most important (in this discussion) being the DC Circuit, which is relatively conservative. All of this "Change" is going to take a lot of time and effort to accomplish.
I just don't see an Obama administration running roughshod over the Constitution, and negating the Bill of Rights, as I said before, he is a naive neophyte, and has NO clue what it will take to make his "Change" happen.......have faith......
doc
no one knows what is going to happen on the SCOTUS during the next four years. again, you perceive a loophole, and I perceive a great danger in turning over the SCOTUS and the confirmation process to barack obama and harry reid. and you seem to be completely forgetting the abnormally large number of vacancies that exist on the federal bench because the PMS congress has refused to vote on bush's nominees.
-
I hear what you are saying Doc, but I am not optimistic about a future where all the elective branches of Government are in the hands of only one party, and by a substantial margin in both Congressional houses. There will be a large internal Democrat struggle for control between Congressional Dems who view themselves as the Kingmakers who put Obama in, and an attempt by Obama to defy them and prove himself to be his own man (an inexperienced and naive academic ditherer of a man, surrounded by 'Helpers' who owe much more to certain Congressmen and Senators than to him, in my opinion), but all the action will be simply conflicts over which Democrat interests to advance and how rapidly, not what is good for the country, and at the expense of rational economics in favor of unsustainable populist generosity and protectionism.
I completely agree. there would be something of a power struggle between congress and the executive to see who has the upper hand in driving the agenda, but it would inevitably be an ultraliberal agenda. thus, the problem.
-
admitting that the new deal continues to expand while pointing out that parts of the great society may have been scaled back (and I even disagree with you about that) is almost conceding my point. one is a mountain, the other is a molehill. we don't know how "evenly split" the electorate is at the moment (that may change by tonight), although I would point out that an electorate that would choose the agenda that we could conceivably have coming as the solution to the problems (the real ones, not the perceived ones) that we have now would be well challenged to ever make the right choice.
My point was that the New Deal may have been the right thing for the country at that point.....not that its continued expansion is a good thing, and the fact that it is nearing the point where it will force the politians to make some very difficult decisions on its future, or bankrupt the country, is also a good thing.
As far as how "evenly split" the electorate is......regardless of who wins tonight, I doubt that it will be by a popular vote landslide......I would be very surprised if the difference in the popular vote between the two candidates will be more than 4 or 5 points..........hell, even Bob Dole, as bad a candidate as he was, didn't lose by a "landslide"......
doc
-
I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion, by the way. :-) :thumbs:
-
My point was that the New Deal may have been the right thing for the country at that point.....not that its continued expansion is a good thing, and the fact that it is nearing the point where it will force the politians to make some very difficult decisions on its future, or bankrupt the country, is also a good thing.
As far as how "evenly split" the electorate is......regardless of who wins tonight, I doubt that it will be by a popular vote landslide......I would be very surprised if the difference in the popular vote between the two candidates will be more than 4 or 5 points..........hell, even Bob Dole, as bad a candidate as he was, didn't lose by a "landslide"......
doc
that is a totally different discussion. there is no way we will get that one covered and still squeeze in anything about the election today. :wink: :-)
and bob dole didn't get blown out because it was a three way race. split ross perot's 9% of the popular vote up evenly, and you're looking at something like 55-45 clinton. that's about where landslides start.
-
I hear what you are saying Doc, but I am not optimistic about a future where all the elective branches of Government are in the hands of only one party, and by a substantial margin in both Congressional houses. .
Nor am I optimistic about it.....I fear loss of the filibuster in the Senate much, much more than I fear an Obama presidency.......
I'm simply attempting to play the devil's advocate here a little, and allow the light of history to shine on the situation........I'm not saying that this is a good thing, only that it has happened before, and the Republic has survived.....
doc
-
that is a totally different discussion. there is no way we will get that one covered and still squeeze in anything about the election today. :wink: :-)
and bob dole didn't get blown out because it was a three way race. split ross perot's 9% of the popular vote up evenly, and you're looking at something like 55-45 clinton. that's about where landslides start.
The fallacy in that thinking is that Perot's vote came from disgruntled voters from both parties, which if you look at what actually happened the conservatives were exactly where virtually all of his votes came from......If Perot had not run in 1991, GHWB would have won a second term.....
doc
-
The fallacy in that thinking is that Perot's vote came from disgruntled voters from both parties, which if you look at what actually happened the conservatives were exactly where virtually all of his votes came from......If Perot had not run in 1991, GHWB would have won a second term.....
doc
that's because GWHB was a much better candidate in 92 than bob dole was in 96. I was talking about 96.
-
that's because GWHB was a much better candidate in 92 than bob dole was in 96. I was talking about 96.
GHWB lost for three reasons.......first was reversing on his tax increase promise, second was the "perception" amoung the voters that he was more focused on international affairs than he was on domestic issues, and third Perot........hell, twelve months before the election he had 92% approval ratings coming out of the first gulf war.......
Whether you are talking about 19% of the vote in '92, or 9% of the vote in '96.......it all came out of the republican's hide........
I agree with you on Bob Dole though.........I put him in the same category as John McCain......
doc
-
GHWB lost for three reasons.......first was reversing on his tax increase promise, second was the "perception" amoung the voters that he was more focused on international affairs than he was on domestic issues, and third Perot........hell, twelve months before the election he had 92% approval ratings coming out of the first gulf war.......
Whether you are talking about 19% of the vote in '92, or 9% of the vote in '96.......it all came out of the republican's hide........
I agree with you on Bob Dole though.........I put him in the same category as John McCain......
doc
and the fact that the MSM managed to convince a large portion of the electorate that we were on the verge of a depression . . .
-
and the fact that the MSM managed to convince a large portion of the electorate that we were on the verge of a depression . . .
Just like they have been doing for the past six months.......some things never change, and I reluctantly think that the MSM is one of those things.....
doc
-
Just like they have been doing for the past six months.......some things never change, and I reluctantly think that the MSM is one of those things.....
doc
I was going to mention that in 92 the MSM was doing a smaller version of what they are doing this year. a major difference between then and now, to suddenly revert back to our original point, is that the Clenis was all about himself, and retaining power (probably because he could bag more chicks that way).
he never had a vision, never got out in front of the public (beyond universal health care, and that was apparently his wife's idea), and governed by opinion poll during both of his terms in office. BHO looks like a man with a vision, and little hesitation to implement it.
but I think we are coming full circle at this point.
-
I was going to mention that in 92 the MSM was doing a smaller version of what they are doing this year. a major difference between then and now, to suddenly revert back to our original point, is that the Clenis was all about himself, and retaining power (probably because he could bag more chicks that way).
he never had a vision, never got out in front of the public (beyond universal health care, and that was apparently his wife's idea), and governed by opinion poll during both of his terms in office. BHO looks like a man with a vision, and little hesitation to implement it.
but I think we are coming full circle at this point.
Clinton, I think started out with a vision, which was "political correctness", and his war on gun owners (and to a lesser degree smokers), but overall, I agree that he was fundamentally a populist, whereas Obama is a zealot..........
I just don't see a congressional bloodbath not happening again, as it did in 1994 when Clinton over-reached.........
doc
-
Clinton, I think started out with a vision, which was "political correctness", and his war on gun owners (and to a lesser degree smokers), but overall, I agree that he was fundamentally a populist, whereas Obama is a zealot..........
I just don't see a congressional bloodbath not happening again, as it did in 1994 when Clinton over-reached.........
doc
I don't think that the Clenis had a vision that actually cohered in any strategic sense; it was more an arrangement of vaguely liberal, but (as you said) more often than not populist impulses. it just didn't ever make a "big picture". not to mention that he was a buffoon on a massive scale.
BHO strikes me as much more intelligent, and infinitely more serious about what he intends to do with the reins of power should he get his hands on them.
-
Clinton, I think started out with a vision, which was "political correctness", and his war on gun owners (and to a lesser degree smokers), but overall, I agree that he was fundamentally a populist, whereas Obama is a zealot..........
I just don't see a congressional bloodbath not happening again, as it did in 1994 when Clinton over-reached.........doc
In this respect I think you are correct. I also think that Obama, if he wins, will be the Dims perfect puppet prez. If he wins, he's in for a big surprise.
-
Clinton, I think started out with a vision, which was "political correctness", and his war on gun owners (and to a lesser degree smokers), but overall, I agree that he was fundamentally a populist, whereas Obama is a zealot..........
I just don't see a congressional bloodbath not happening again, as it did in 1994 when Clinton over-reached.........
doc
and the takeover in 1994 was at least as much about the contract with america and the behind the scenes organization that was at work. yes, clinton overreached, but newt gingrich also did a terrific job on theose midterm elections.
-
I don't think that the Clenis had a vision that actually cohered in any strategic sense; it was more an arrangement of vaguely liberal, but (as you said) more often than not populist impulses. it just didn't ever make a "big picture". not to mention that he was a buffoon on a massive scale.
BHO strikes me as much more intelligent, and infinitely more serious about what he intends to do with the reins of power should he get his hands on them.
Agreed, and something that you touched on up thread that bears some additional discussion.....
I think that the great tragedy in the past three or four decades is the condition of the American media.......the founders gave the media tremendous latitude and protections in the Constitution in order for them to serve as a moderating and educational source for an enlightened electorate......sadly this is no longer the case......the media has become cheerleaders for a particular ideology, and as such place the Republic at great risk with the freedoms and protections that they enjoy. The founders must be spinning in their graves........
This single factor in the present election cycle has been the most disturbing for me......I suppose that is the price that I pay for being old enough to remember when it was not this way..........
doc
-
and the takeover in 1994 was at least as much about the contract with america and the behind the scenes organization that was at work. yes, clinton overreached, but newt gingrich also did a terrific job on theose midterm elections.
Which is exactly what I'm counting on happening again if necessary.....and as I mentioned in another thread, we need to be developing and encouraging the advance in the party of more "Newt Gingrich's", and the style of vision and leadership that was a part of that event.
doc
-
FYI, I have 4 extra tickets for the Robbie Knievel event at the Charlotte Convention Center this week if anyone wants them.
He's going to try to jump 5,000 Obama supporters with a Cat D-9 bulldozer.
Should be a good time. Let me know if you want the tickets.
.
:rotf: Rather messy, but hilarious!
This was somewhat overlooked in the rather serious discussion on the thread thus far....
H5 for creativity.
-
Which is exactly what I'm counting on happening again if necessary.....and as I mentioned in another thread, we need to be developing and encouraging the advance in the party of more "Newt Gingrich's", and the style of vision and leadership that was a part of that event.
doc
I am beginning to wonder if anything has ever happened in your view that has not happened before. :-)
-
I would suggest that he will have some problems with that pesky thing called the Constitution if he intends to implement his "civilian force" idea.......
doc
some of the left, the more outspoken ones, seem to think they can change the Constitution at will.. or at least they believe they have the authority to change it.
and with Reid and Pelosi making the evil trifecta... we really should be watching him closely.
I wont be anywhere near happy about an Obama win, but like i've been saying.. it may be what half of this country needs to experience in order to educate them on where we do NOT want to go as a country. But it will no doubt be painful..
-
Just like they have been doing for the past six months.......some things never change, and I reluctantly think that the MSM is one of those things.....
doc
i think on that note, the public is vastly more aware today how one sided the media is. but we arent passively allowing it any longer.
magazines, newspapers and the big three tv stations are all suffering from a lack of viewers. although, the media seems to be wrapping those issues all up in our 'bad economy'.. the public still knows the score on this one; they arent trusting the media any longer and I think Obama will have 300 million pairs of eyes on him and he wont get away with much that the public wont notice.
-
we don't know how "evenly split" the electorate is at the moment (that may change by tonight), although I would point out that an electorate that would choose the agenda that we could conceivably have coming as the solution to the problems (the real ones, not the perceived ones) that we have now would be well challenged to ever make the right choice.
I'd submit that the solution that the electorate was sold differs greatly from the solution that will be put into place. When Obama starts backtracking on some of his campaign promises (tax cuts for 95%, the cutoff for increased taxes, etc), and actually delivers on some others (the bloodbath in Iraq post-withdrawl, civilian defense corps, etc), the honeymoon will be over.
Yeah, we're still stuck with the most liberal president ever, but we've got the internet, talk radio (for the moment), and a few good publications. The liberal media have taken one in the neck, and once the public realizes the depth of the "bait and switch", they might be a bit upset with what remains of the MSM.
Then again, this has been a year to confound the most learned prognosticator...
-
This ****ing asshole has already won. There is nowhere for me to go. I have no ****ing clue as to what I will do, other than wish I die in my sleep.
I ****ing hate each and every single **** that voted for this ****ing asshole. And don't tell me to be graceful in defeat or tell me to just move on. I am ****ing pissed off and I ****ing hate this country right now. It's full of ****ing stupid worthless ****ing retards.
Anyone who votes for Obama is a ****ing retard. He is not my ****ing president. He never will be.
**** OBAMA. :bird: I am officially ashamed to be black.
-
You know if Obama wins, they are going to get a lot of disappointments. I imagine DU will actually get much to a point that it may implode big time.
-
You know if Obama wins, they are going to get a lot of disappointments. I imagine DU will actually get much to a point that it may implode big time.
Prediction #1: A major 9/11 level attack on the USA inside of 90 days after the new fuhrer takes office.
Prediction #2: 25% Unemployment between now and when the new fuhrer takes office
Prediction #3: double-digit inflation in the first 90 days of the new fuhrer's term.
You heard it here first.
And if you employ people, you are CRAZY to keep that up, since the fuhrer will force you to keep them as your dependents (with no tax advantages), with fuhrer-directed benefits forever.
If I was an employer, I would be outsourcing tomorrow.
-
Prediction #1: A major 9/11 level attack on the USA inside of 90 days after the new fuhrer takes office.
Prediction #2: 25% Unemployment between now and when the new fuhrer takes office
Prediction #3: double-digit inflation in the first 90 days of the new fuhrer's term.
You heard it here first.
And if you employ people, you are CRAZY to keep that up, since the fuhrer will force you to keep them as your dependents (with no tax advantages), with fuhrer-directed benefits forever.
If I was an employer, I would be outsourcing tomorrow.
You know I have a real bad feeling there will be a bad terrorist attack in America during Obama's term. I hope I am wrong of course. Also, usually after a presidential election year, there is a major disaster/event the following year. I think there will be a major hurricane stronger than Wilma and larger than Gilbert that will hit a major population area and will make Katrina look minor, likely on the Eastern Seaboard.
1985-Eight tropical cyclones making landfall on America. 3 Tropical Storms (Henri and Isabel) and 5 Hurricanes (Bob, Danny, Elena, Gloria, Juan, and Kate).
1989-Tiananmen Square Massacre
1993-World Trade Center Bombing and Midwest Flood'
1997-El Nino, Series of terrorist attacks in Egypt and Algeria
2001-9/11 Terrorist Attack
2005-Hurricane Katrina/Rita/Wilma
2009-?
-
You know I have a real bad feeling there will be a bad terrorist attack in America during Obama's term. I hope I am wrong of course. Also, usually after a presidential election year, there is a major disaster/event the following year. I think there will be a major hurricane stronger than Wilma and larger than Gilbert that will hit a major population area and will make Katrina look minor, likely on the Eastern Seaboard.
1985-Eight tropical cyclones making landfall on America. 3 Tropical Storms (Henri and Isabel) and 5 Hurricanes (Bob, Danny, Elena, Gloria, Juan, and Kate).
1989-Tiananmen Square Massacre
1993-World Trade Center Bombing and Midwest Flood'
1997-El Nino, Series of terrorist attacks in Egypt and Algeria
2001-9/11 Terrorist Attack
2005-Hurricane Katrina/Rita/Wilma
2009-?
The difference is that climate-based attacks are based on the competition between the gore-o-tron and the rove-ometer. The terrorst attacks are based on the perception our enemies have of us and their understanding there is no softer marshmallow than our new fuhrer. Hell, if I was our enemy I would attack us day 2 after the new fuhrer took the oath of office, feeling (accurately) that he would sit and extend his hand out saying "I am sure you didn't mean to wipe out Chicago."
We are officially a nation of idiots.
-
Prediction #1: A major 9/11 level attack on the USA inside of 90 days after the new fuhrer takes office.
Prediction #2: 25% Unemployment between now and when the new fuhrer takes office
Prediction #3: double-digit inflation in the first 90 days of the new fuhrer's term.
You heard it here first.
And if you employ people, you are CRAZY to keep that up, since the fuhrer will force you to keep them as your dependents (with no tax advantages), with fuhrer-directed benefits forever.
If I was an employer, I would be outsourcing tomorrow.
I think you are 'way too tight on the time frame, but the substance is correct. 1 thru 3 will all probably happen (well, probably 15-16% on the unemployment, doubt it'd get over 20, and they'll redefine "unemployment" to hide the true number anyway) but it'll all occur in the 6 months to 2 year timeframe. 100% correct on the outsourcing, but you left out the word "Offshore" since otherwise you're just buying into the same cost structure indirectly as a second-order effect instead of directly as a first-order one.
-
I think you are 'way too tight on the time frame, but the substance is correct. 1 thru 3 will all probably happen (well, probably 15-16% on the unemployment, doubt it'd get over 20, and they'll redefine "unemployment" to hide the true number anyway) but it'll all occur in the 6 months to 2 year timeframe. 100% correct on the outsourcing, but you left out the word "Offshore" since otherwise you're just buying into the same cost structure indirectly as a second-order effect instead of directly as a first-order one.
Hang on to your savings and hide your guns and bullets. When the fuhrer gets that National Black Panther Domestic Army thing going, their first target will be guns.
-
You know I have a real bad feeling there will be a bad terrorist attack in America during Obama's term. I hope I am wrong of course. Also, usually after a presidential election year, there is a major disaster/event the following year. I think there will be a major hurricane stronger than Wilma and larger than Gilbert that will hit a major population area and will make Katrina look minor, likely on the Eastern Seaboard.
1985-Eight tropical cyclones making landfall on America. 3 Tropical Storms (Henri and Isabel) and 5 Hurricanes (Bob, Danny, Elena, Gloria, Juan, and Kate).
1989-Tiananmen Square Massacre
1993-World Trade Center Bombing and Midwest Flood'
1997-El Nino, Series of terrorist attacks in Egypt and Algeria
2001-9/11 Terrorist Attack
2005-Hurricane Katrina/Rita/Wilma
2009-?
well, the stock market is dropping this morning and there are stories all over the place of small businesses shutting their doors before the huge tax upticks start taking affect.
the big surge in unemployment last month was partly because of people letting employees go before the storm gets worse under Barry's 'leadership'..
-
unemployment stats have been "filtered" for a long while. After folks drop off of the unemployment insurance roles, they drop off the complete unemployment roles. It's been a bullshit figure since the Clinton regime, if not longer.