Canadians love Triumph.
YIKES! Now the flames are getting bad!
BTW anyone catch the guitarist from Triumph pawning his Gibson on that show 'Pawn Stars?' Classic scene, and it wasn't a 1960 like he thought but a 1974 ...
|
And it is amazing that Reagan, as a Republican, did what Obama said he would do, unite the country and run a bi-partisan government.
Reagan, the "Great Uniter". Obama, the "Great Golfer who has done a wonderful job of finishing Bush 43's job of dividing a nation".
From day one the Republicans were against Obama and there was nothing that he could have said or done to change that. Obama tried for weeks early on to bring the Republicans on board but they weren't playing. They are in full defensive mode, and have been since they lost the majority back in '06. Now they are playing the part of obstructionists. There will be no bipartisanship while the Republicans are the minority party.
Triumph LOL
Ahhhh. Triumph. Rush. Saga. The holy trinity.
I'm a Voivod fan, myself.
Besides, Obama is cherished by world leaders.
note: I am answering this under the assumption (from my interpretation of your posts...) that you believe it is a good thing.
I believe it is a moot point just as I believe it was a moot point when people complained that leaders not liking W was a problem for the United States. Leaders of foreign nations are not stupid. They go into negotiations looking to obtain what they believe is in their country's best interest. So, they will not be looking through rose colored glasses at Obama and they did not let their opinions of W keep them from making deals with the United States. They look at what is on the table and decide whether or not it is in their country's best interest to go along with it and it really has nothing to do with whether or not they like our president or dislike him.
Same thing for complaints that naming the "axis of evil" made it harder to make deals with those nations. Regardless of our naming which they used for their own intra-state politics, they would still come to the table when asked and would be no less or no more likely to come to ann agreement. The "naming" in no way changed what would be the deciding factor in negotiations: what the leaders to be in their country's (sometimes synonymous with their own) best interest.
With respect to Obama, I see a lot of things I do not like. However, I believe it is too soon to make a historical call when comparing to the other presidents.
I have seen considerable trash talk concerning Reagan but it is not being backed up with facts. It is just trash talk.
With Reagan's plusses we can look to the revitalization of the military cementing the power of the United states in the world. This was important to economically crippling the soviet Union. The support of the Afghanistan insurgency (later presidents did not support the aftermath...) led to the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Another key to the fall of the soviet Union. The speech at the Wall in berlin was awe and hope inspiring. When combined with the previous two it was instrumental in the fall of the wall and the reunification of germany into a powerful democracy without the tyranny experienced in east Berlin. Poland is now a powerful democracy in a much greater state and with far more freedom than it was during the cold war under Soviet control.
The home front? After the Carter years patriotism was at a low and ready to be reignited. Pride was restored in America (nomenclature) and people felt the nation was strong. We were pulled out of a recession and the economic foundation was created which was built upon up through the Clinton years.
And on and on...
I'm a Voivod fan, myself.There is a blast from the past.
Just released their last album a couple months back; the second one since Piggy's death.
|
|
Wasn't the former bass player from Metallica, Jason Newstead working with them?Just released their last album a couple months back; the second one since Piggy's death.I'm a Voivod fan, myself.There is a blast from the past.
not sure but he was with Flotsam and Jetsom before the gig with the big M.
not sure but he was with Flotsam and Jetsom before the gig with the big M.Wasn't the former bass player from Metallica, Jason Newstead working with them?Just released their last album a couple months back; the second one since Piggy's death.I'm a Voivod fan, myself.There is a blast from the past.
Last I heard he was working with Ozzy.
|
But...but...but. Canadians love him!
Where will Canadians go for quality health care when the US goes socialized medicine?
Canadians love Triumph. Triumph was a great band. Very talented and hard working. Had some cool songs.
Aw, jeez guy; throw me a bone here. I'm writing not speaking so I can't pronounce "home" with a Canadian accent. Don't mess with my artillery.
Newsted is still working with Voivod, but I believe they brought back Blacky for some of the final live shows.
|
not sure but he was with Flotsam and Jetsom before the gig with the big M.Wasn't the former bass player from Metallica, Jason Newstead working with them?Just released their last album a couple months back; the second one since Piggy's death.I'm a Voivod fan, myself.There is a blast from the past.
Yea, never got any of the Flotsam stuff. I was disapointed he never really clicked with the Metallica guys as long as he lasted with them (although the guy from Suicidal Tendencies seems a better fit now). I thought I read he produced and/or played on Voivods last album before he toured with Ozzy briefly.
They are quite annoying aren't they?
They are quite annoying aren't they?
Ayep.
|
|
Besides, Obama is cherished by world leaders.This is not necessarily a point in his favor.
Nor is it necessarily true. Sarkozy thinks he's an ass, for one. Poland and the Czech Republic wont take his calls any more. Putin isn't impressed. Jintao thinks he's a lightweight and has no respect for him.
Let's see, that leaves Gordon Brown, who is irrelevant afaic, Hugo Chavez (wow, there's a winner) and that douche from Brazil.
Yeah.
I think they're just glad that Bush is gone. I wish that were a good thing, cuz I hated Bush, but it's not.
They don't love Obama. They're just glad they don't have to deal with Bush.
|
|
And it is amazing that Reagan, as a Republican, did what Obama said he would do, unite the country and run a bi-partisan government.
Reagan, the "Great Uniter". Obama, the "Great Golfer who has done a wonderful job of finishing Bush 43's job of dividing a nation".
From day one the Republicans were against Obama and there was nothing that he could have said or done to change that. Obama tried for weeks early on to bring the Republicans on board but they weren't playing. They are in full defensive mode, and have been since they lost the majority back in '06. Now they are playing the part of obstructionists. There will be no bipartisanship while the Republicans are the minority party.
If Obama saying "You can vote for all of my programs with absolutely no policy input" is your idea of trying to bring the Repubs on board, you are 100% correct. Otherwise, I have no idea wtf you're talking about.
I can't wait to see the Grand Strategy game in 2040 covering 1950 through 2020. "Hearts of Chinese Iron" I'm thinking. ^_^
+1! including the teachers union. plus GM wouldn't have had to be placed under government control BUT the united auto workers union refused to go along with the reorganization so the government HAD to step in. Unions were needed long ago but not anymore.Yeah, good old Reagan... proved that union busting NEVER went out of style.Too bad he didn't bust more of them.
As long as there are bosses, there will ALWAYS be need for unions.
As long as there are bosses, there will ALWAYS be need for unions.
Problem is, as long as there are countries where unions are illegal and labor is cheap (*cough* Middle Kingdom *cough*), union-produced goods will always lose.
Plus, once you remove any threat of dismissal for poor job performance, mediocrity soars. When mediocrity rules, quality plummets.
Unions served a good purpose. The pendulum was swung over to the owners way too much at the turn of the 20th century. However, unions became complacent and bloated, looking out for themselves without caring for the long-term viability of their companies. Management also was asleep at the switch during the good years, agreeing to nonsensical things like employment in perpetuity for union members.
Now the UAW owns big shares of GM and Chrysler. It will be interesting to see how this conflict of interest plays out in future years. My bet is a line of crappy-selling poorly-made cars. Thank God for my American-built Toyota.
If Obama saying "You can vote for all of my programs with absolutely no policy input" is your idea of trying to bring the Repubs on board, you are 100% correct. Otherwise, I have no idea wtf you're talking about.
But Derek! Elections have consequences! I mean, Republicans were supposed to just shut up and get on the Obama train, right? After all, opposing Obama just confused people. Those mean Republicans, blocking legislation with their evil superminority! Shame!
|
|
If Obama saying "You can vote for all of my programs with absolutely no policy input" is your idea of trying to bring the Repubs on board, you are 100% correct. Otherwise, I have no idea wtf you're talking about.And it is amazing that Reagan, as a Republican, did what Obama said he would do, unite the country and run a bi-partisan government.
Reagan, the "Great Uniter". Obama, the "Great Golfer who has done a wonderful job of finishing Bush 43's job of dividing a nation".
From day one the Republicans were against Obama and there was nothing that he could have said or done to change that. Obama tried for weeks early on to bring the Republicans on board but they weren't playing. They are in full defensive mode, and have been since they lost the majority back in '06. Now they are playing the part of obstructionists. There will be no bipartisanship while the Republicans are the minority party.
Yes, because George W was famed for taking opposing points of view into account and certainly didn't railroad things through. At all.
It amazes* me that people complain about what their opponent is doing when they did the exact same thing when they had the power. Equally it amazes* me that people will 180 turn on what they complained about when they get in power. The inversion is quite interesting. Under Bush lots of Republicans had an attitude of "criticising the President is treason and you traitors should get the **** out of this country", while the Democrats thought there was no higher form of patriotism than to resist such a "tyrannical force of evil". Now those positions seem to be reversed, for no other reason than their guy is/is not in power.
Yea, never got any of the Flotsam stuff. I was disapointed he never really clicked with the Metallica guys as long as he lasted with them (although the guy from Suicidal Tendencies seems a better fit now). I thought I read he produced and/or played on Voivods last album before he toured with Ozzy briefly.
As old school as it sounds, Doomsday for the Deceiver (the only album he appears on) is awesome! You can tell who's influence was all over their first album before he left to join the mighty M.
I thought that Ozzy gig was several years ago when they worked on that previous Voivod album. Another one (the final one) has since been released. Unless he did another stint with Ozzy I haven't read up on yet? Need to get crackin' on my Metal Hammer / Terrorizer / Decibel dead trees I've put off to the side for the moment...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As long as there are bosses, there will ALWAYS be need for unions.Problem is, as long as there are countries where unions are illegal and labor is cheap (*cough* Middle Kingdom *cough*), union-produced goods will always lose.
Plus, once you remove any threat of dismissal for poor job performance, mediocrity soars. When mediocrity rules, quality plummets.
Unions served a good purpose. The pendulum was swung over to the owners way too much at the turn of the 20th century. However, unions became complacent and bloated, looking out for themselves without caring for the long-term viability of their companies. Management also was asleep at the switch during the good years, agreeing to nonsensical things like employment in perpetuity for union members.
Now the UAW owns big shares of GM and Chrysler. It will be interesting to see how this conflict of interest plays out in future years. My bet is a line of crappy-selling poorly-made cars. Thank God for my American-built Toyota.
Just wanted to add here, Mother Jones (patron saint of unions, with balls of steel) said the two biggest threats to unions were corporate bosses and union leadership. After learning about the Teamsters/AFL CIO non-compete clauses, I have to agree.
And I miss my civic sometimes, but at least my Ford truck still runs fine.
Yes, because George W was famed for taking opposing points of view into account and certainly didn't railroad things through. At all.
It amazes* me that people complain about what their opponent is doing when they did the exact same thing when they had the power. Equally it amazes* me that people will 180 turn on what they complained about when they get in power. The inversion is quite interesting. Under Bush lots of Republicans had an attitude of "criticising the President is treason and you traitors should get the **** out of this country", while the Democrats thought there was no higher form of patriotism than to resist such a "tyrannical force of evil". Now those positions seem to be reversed, for no other reason than their guy is/is not in power.
I may lean to the left of center, but what you said right there is why I have and will remain a registered Independent.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If Obama saying "You can vote for all of my programs with absolutely no policy input" is your idea of trying to bring the Repubs on board, you are 100% correct. Otherwise, I have no idea wtf you're talking about.Yes, because George W was famed for taking opposing points of view into account and certainly didn't railroad things through. At all.
*Checks who wrote NCLB*
*Checks who Bush invited over for movies*
Yup, no bi-partisanship at all there...
I may lean to the left of center, but what you said right there is why I have and will remain a registered Independent.Yes, because George W was famed for taking opposing points of view into account and certainly didn't railroad things through. At all.
It amazes* me that people complain about what their opponent is doing when they did the exact same thing when they had the power. Equally it amazes* me that people will 180 turn on what they complained about when they get in power. The inversion is quite interesting. Under Bush lots of Republicans had an attitude of "criticising the President is treason and you traitors should get the **** out of this country", while the Democrats thought there was no higher form of patriotism than to resist such a "tyrannical force of evil". Now those positions seem to be reversed, for no other reason than their guy is/is not in power.
And I may lean right-of-center, but I will remain an Independent as well. Politics in America is beginning to resemble American Idol. I don't vote party platforms. And both parties have given up any semblance of bipartisanship, which, contrary to what they may think, doesn't mean: 'Shut up and vote for what I want.'
|
|
If Obama saying "You can vote for all of my programs with absolutely no policy input" is your idea of trying to bring the Repubs on board, you are 100% correct. Otherwise, I have no idea wtf you're talking about.Yes, because George W was famed for taking opposing points of view into account and certainly didn't railroad things through. At all.
*Checks who wrote NCLB*
*Checks who Bush invited over for movies*
Yup, no bi-partisanship at all there...
Obama tried, Republicans didn't want to deal. It is all moot now because the Blue Dogs have screwed it all up anyway.
NCLB: What a winner that bill was. This bipartisanship is more an example on how Democrats have no backbone than Bush being a "uniter."
NCLB: What a winner that bill was. This bipartisanship is more an example on how Democrats have no backbone than Bush being a "uniter."
And this is why bipartisanship is dead. Because anyone who attempts it is lambasted as a 'spineless wimp' for trying to work with the other side on something.
Or, to show you, let me take your sentence and rearrrange it as a fervent Republican might say:
The Stimulus: What a winner that bill was. This bipartisanship is more an example on how Republicans have no backbone than Obama being a "uniter."
...And yes, I know only three 'Pubs voted for it. That's about as much 'bipartisanship' I can find right now ...
|
|
Not spineless for working with the other side. Spineless for not working to get the things the bill needed to actually work. NCLB was a big failure. Spineless for never getting anything done when they gain a majority. It happened after '06 with their promises on ending the war, then caving. Then again this year with the promises of health care reform and then widdling out all of the things that would have made the bill effective.
The Stimulus: What a winner that bill was. This bipartisanship is more an example on how Republicans have no backbone than Obama being a "uniter."
...And yes, I know only three 'Pubs voted for it. That's about as much 'bipartisanship' I can find right now .
You got me there, but I still see this more as obstructionist and less Obama being partisan.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My problem with the stimulus is that a) it was/is a pork stuffed monstrosity and that many of the institutions should have been allowed to fail. Suck in the short term, suck less in the long term. and b) The oversight needed was/is impossible.
That holds true for the Tarp as well.
And I may lean right-of-center, but I will remain an Independent as well. Politics in America is beginning to resemble American Idol. I don't vote party platforms. And both parties have given up any semblance of bipartisanship, which, contrary to what they may think, doesn't mean: 'Shut up and vote for what I want.'
Well said. My thoughts exactly. I have been a Happily Registered Independent since I could vote (about 23 years, now!) and will always be that way. I'm a fervent believer that there are at a minimum 535 F**k-wits on Capitol Hill that need to find new careers. I keep doing my part to ensure this happens in my lifetime so my kids won't have to deal with this crap.
While my leaning left side agrees with you for the most part, I've been holding back on discussing that part of the issue because it would put me in a bias as the company I work for did receive TARP and I just consider myself lucky to remain gainfully employed. Despite the fact that we did not receive a raise, our 401k employer contributions slashed, our pensions recalculated, and our insurance premiums hiked.
Maybe I failed my will save there...
|
|
The stimulus doesn't bother me, in fact it helped me buy a house. Besides, Bush II did the same thing back in '01 but on a smaller scale.
Tarp is worse IMO, and not just because it originated from Bush and his staff. The democrats disappointed me by running with it and I agree that those institutions should have been allowed to fail.
Carter was the prime example of this. He had character and would not comprimise on this for anyone. As such he was a crappy deal maker. Clinton well he was smart and savy and would gladly drop one deal in favor of a more lucrative one. He wasn't perfect but for the most part he got the job done. Problem was, he couldnt care elss for the military and that was always whom he messed with to get what ever else it was he wanted. Reagan was a motivator and could get peopel for the most part to agree with him and get things done. He got people on both sides of the fence to well, like him. Obama has not been in office long enough to actually say he is or is not any othe these things. I hate it when peopel don't give the man a chance. I don't agree with a lot he has done and some he says he will do. I am respectfull enough of the position to give the man the chance he deserves to fix all the things the last administration fowled up. I just wish he would get the idea he has won the presidency and stop campaigning long enough to use the power he has been given.While both had great charisma and were able to draw those they dealt with towards their personal vision, there was a HUGE difference in their individual character.In terms of personal character, Jimmy Carter was supposedly a saint. But he was a LOUSY president, who fouled up just about everything he attempted. Clinton somehow managed to keep sight of Bush Sr's "pay as you go" philosophy long enough to balance the budget. These examples, and others, tell me that (counterintuitively) personal character does not make a good president. Indeed, it might even be an impediment.
Ok going to refer to an old Star Trek episode here, where Kirk gets split into two sides one aggressive one thoughtful. The peaceful side was a fine man, good and honest fair and just, easy to like as well. But he could not lead, he could not make the tough calls. Carter suffered from this very problem. A good man without the ability to make the tough calls because of how good and pure he was. As a man he has my upmost respect, he pours his heart into everything and always tries to help anyone in need. As a president or any leader of a nation one must at times do hard things, hurt people, bring pain to others. It isn't pretty and it isn't easy to make the call when to do it, but that call needs to be made from time to time, Carter simply could not do it. Not because he wasn't a good man, but because he simply didn't have that hard edge that every great leader needs. Carter could also not compromise he was zelous in his beliefs and that too is a weakness for a leader, sometimes.
Anyway Obama is new, but so far has shown little of the mettle you expect from a great leader. Time will yet tell, but some signs are there. Accepting the peace prize to me counts against him, setting arbitary deadlines for bills counts against him, not keeping his election promises counts against him, but time will tell us more. By the end of next year we will have a better view of him as a president. By then likely he will no longer have complete control of the government and will have to try a little bipartisianship which so far he has not needed. At this moment I would say he has allowed or created a greater split between the parties then has ever existed under Bush, when he needs to get real support from the opposition we will see if he can be a uniter or not. Reagan needed to be, and rose to the challenge, so far Obama has not needed to be. Many "great" leaders are not great until they are pressed to be, they don't just start shining out of no where they rise to meet a challenge and overcome it, some have looked rather poor until they met a challenge so might it be with Obama, prehaps he will surprise us and rise when called on.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well said. My thoughts exactly. I have been a Happily Registered Independent since I could vote (about 23 years, now!) and will always be that way. I'm a fervent believer that there are at a minimum 535 F**k-wits on Capitol Hill that need to find new careers. I keep doing my part to ensure this happens in my lifetime so my kids won't have to deal with this crap.
Funny that. Though I'm a conservative/libertarian on the political axis, I am still a registered Democrat. I have a vain hope of trying to pull the party out of the far left funk it's in.
|
What is intersting is he is held in such high regard for "freeing the slaves" when he had NO intention of doing so when elected (in fact, it seems the opposite was true).
Revisionist history at it's worst. This tragic level of southern anti-lincoln propaganda sprouted from a 2002 book by Thomas J. DiLorenzo entitled The Real Lincoln. He derives this conclusion from a purposefully cut segment of a letter he wrote to Horace Greeley in 1862.
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it"
Oh my gosh! That sounds horrible! Lincoln must've secretly hated slaves and loved slavery! EVIL Linocoln loved slavery and sold poison milk to school children!
Oh wait... there's more...
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
Oh, this statement was about saving the union, and not about slavery at all! Well, this still doesn't settle the point. I guess you could take it either way, really...
What? There's even MORE to this letter?
"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."
There is no way that DiLorenzo missed this point. this was a heinous act of voluntary, malicious character assassination and has worked to destroy the image of the Great Emancipator.
|
|
Just as there was no bipartisanship when the Democrats were the minority party. I recently was watching C-SPAN and heard the Democrats talking abgout the Republicans being the "Party of No." They complained that the Republicans had filibustered legislation 39 times during this session of Congress. Perhaps they have forgotten 2004 when the Democrats filibustered Republican legislation a record 219 times in a 43 week session. Furthermore Republicans would have likely been more willing to negotiate and work with Obama if he hadn't called them to the White House to a "meeting" four days after the innaguration and when they tried to talk to him about concerns they had with the stimulis package he told them "I won," and to shut up.And it is amazing that Reagan, as a Republican, did what Obama said he would do, unite the country and run a bi-partisan government.
Reagan, the "Great Uniter". Obama, the "Great Golfer who has done a wonderful job of finishing Bush 43's job of dividing a nation".
From day one the Republicans were against Obama and there was nothing that he could have said or done to change that. Obama tried for weeks early on to bring the Republicans on board but they weren't playing. They are in full defensive mode, and have been since they lost the majority back in '06. Now they are playing the part of obstructionists. There will be no bipartisanship while the Republicans are the minority party.
President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.
The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said.
The rest of the story This doesn't sound like trying to bring Republicans on-board, it sounds like telling Republicans to sit on the plane with their hands on their knees. What you have demonstrated with your argument is a truth I long ago learned. The only bi-partisanship that some people will accept is Republicans putting aside their principles and voting with Democrats.
Edit: It should also be noted that if the Democrats could get their own house in order, they wouldn't need Republicans onboard. In truth they just want"bi-partisan support" so they can drag Republicans down with them.
I think the older we get, the more rose hued our bifocals become.