palin's party, she will look better on my tv day after day after day etc... people will come to work in better moods from seeing a hot chick on the news vs the usual old nasty creepy people. Overseas kings will be sucking up to her...which is good for buissiness.
She is manufacturing's only hope. (I can't wait to hang up the presidential calander, ill put it right next to the hooters calander)
ah, so your taxes are too low, and you need help determining your future.
Well, do now worry, do not fret, the One will solve all the problems of the world, once he ascends to the throne. After all, are not his accomplishments there for everyone to see?
tschus pyotr
-- pyotr filipivich "I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender whether they served zombies he said, ?Sure, what'll you have?'" from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries
PF:
My intention wasn't to elicit insults, sarcasm, or campaign speeches, we've had more than enough of those in the political threads. My intention was to just take a survey.
Which party do you think will be better for the prosperity of machining and machine shops?
[ ] Obama [ ] McCain
that could be until a real problem comes up ( like 911 did ) then you might find yourself wishing you had voted democrat
I don't buy this. While enough votes for a third party candidate might put the worse Republocrat in office, votes for third parties show up. Right now, there's not enough to make the Republocrats take notice. But trust me, when the outsiders start gaining enough ground to win elections, the big two will take notice. Might get ugly, but then, isn't it ugly already?
I see where you are coming from, but as long as everyone keeps acting on that premise, -nothing- will change. It just may be that this nation will have to take it in the shorts for a decade or two while a new power balance emerges. And it might be decades before that happens. But it will never happen as long as third parties are marginalized.
Jon
Sarah was an excellent pick for the charisma challenged McCain.
I've read that McCain is an admirer of Teddy Roosevelt. If he and Palin shake things up and do half of what TR did I'd be a happy camper.
Obama reminds me a lot of a Black Preacher in his delivery and cadence. Nothing wrong with that, just interesting to note. Have you also noticed him droppin his g?
Camille Paglia has a provocative article:
Bob, I routinely vote for a third party candidate for Pres. in California. Outside of Reagan CA. always goes Dem. for the President.
My hope is to send the Rep a message. I encourage my liberal friends to vote Peace and Freedom, Green, whatever.
The intent is to shake the system up.
Course I'm a child of the 60's.....but I don't have enough hair for a ponytail.
Best, Steve
------------- An oxymoron. Try which candidate will be *LESS* harmful to the prosperity of machining and machine shops, and even this construction is problematical. What you gain in possibly reduced taxes and other regulations you loose through "free trade."
There is a rapidly increasing [perception of] the probability of a *SERIOUS* US economic implosion/melt-down and/or medium scale shooting wars in several locations, all of which happen to be in oil producing locations.
The failure of either candidate or party to even mention the conservatorship of Freddie and Fannie shows again how they are simply branches of the same toxic tree. Who are the candidates calling for the reimplementation of Glass-Steagal? [see Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (P.L. 106-102)
Most likely this contracting, even imploding economy, will be very bad for the majority of machine shops, indeed all manufacturing, but some, especially those shops that have retained the traditional repair and reverse engineering skills will make out OK, not get rich but survive. These will not be the larger shops with high overheads [and payments], but the smaller, older shops. Automotive and automotive related will continue to take it in the shorts, and most will go down the tubes, along with the big three when they file chapter 11 [reorganization, aka "shoving the pensions off on the taxpayers, and defaulting on the other debts], and then on into chapter 7 [liquidation].
Well, one has to play the game to get the job. I'm hoping he and Sarah will live up to their hype about being mavericks. Hell, I'd like to see a sitting president actually use the line item veto. Both have gone against their party at times, and that's something positive. So often, failure to stay to the far fringes is a death sentence....
Hadn't noticed anything like that, but I sure have noticed he stutters and stumbles around a lot lately. Like he has trouble composing in real time, exactly what he wants to say. Not saying that's bad, I'd rather wrestle alligators than speak before an audience. But I remember him being a lot smoother some time back.
That was a good article! I give a lot more credence to people that can take shots at both sides of the aisle.
Jon
Exactly!
I was a tad late to be a genuine hippie, but I tried. By my junior year my hair was nearly to my waist. Musta used up my allowance... I finally accepted my fate and now sport a boot camp buzz cut.
Jon
that could be until a real problem comes up ( like 911 did ) then you might find yourself wishing you had voted democrat
shit, the world knows better to do that shit again with republicans in office. 2 country's erased off the map. Countless others invaded by the white man. The whole world sharing intelligence.
My guess is the people who want to do harm to America are waiting for the lame duck democrats to take over.
Truth is I dont care. I just dont want new taxes...new programs...new handouts. that stuff never goes away, and it's real bad for American manufacturing. makes it a harder to compete everytime they pile on a new law, regulation, or tax...to pay for all the government handouts they will be so proud to pass out.
Machismo or masculine. There aren't many masculine males left in the US. I class the US as an effeminate society.
Does the Pres. have the line item veto? I know Reagan wanted that option, but I'm not sure that it was ever implemented, or passed?
Best, Steve
The dems energy policy, global warming fantasies and 'solutions' would kill business. NEA (democrat insterest group) has sure ruined education. Dumb employees are expensive.
Then there is card check union organizing where thugs can force a union in w/o a secret ballot to further raise the cost of manufacturing.
Of course the tort lawyers will get all some many new ways to sue those that make money (produce).
I'm not thrilled with Mc Cain though I believe he isn't an empty suit like his opponent. Palin being on heartbeat away gives me some level of comfort, her being able to harangue him for bad ideas heartens me even more.
Afer all, neither party will really deal with the pressing problems since that would p*ss off voters. At least one won't waste as much weath and might actually have a few solutions.
Wes
No, it isnt constitutional.
No, President Clinton never got to use it as far as I can remember. The supreme court ruled that the power of the purse belongs to Congress, likely the House. I'd have been fine letting WJC having it if his successors has it also.
The supreme's were likely correct in their ruling. Now if they would only rule a military action was not legal if Congress didn't declare war. The last time we did this right was WWII. I believe we won that one. Results in subsequent conflicts has been a bit spotty.
Wes
Romney was destined to win the R ballot in the primary in my state (Michigan). Left me free to vote for Ron to send a message to the party. I really enjoyed that vote.
Come November, I'll vote strategicly, Sarah will make it easier to stomach.
Wes
GD:
This Camille seems very taken with listening to herself talk, but she did say something I thought was candid/insightful:
======================================================================== "...the vacuum was filled with a hallucinatory hurricane in the leftist blogosphere, which unleashed a grotesquely lurid series of allegations, fantasies, half-truths and outright lies about Palin. What a tacky low in American politics -- which has already caused a backlash that could damage Obama's campaign. When liberals come off as childish, raving loonies, the right wing gains." ========================================================================
The recent poll number shifts from Ob to Mc tend to bear this out.
Jon Anderson wrote:
John:
Constitutionality seems like such a vague term these days.
Jon:
=============================================================================
The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 enacted a line-item veto for the Federal Government of the United States, but its effect was brief due to judicial review. Public Law (P.L.) 104-130 [1] was introduced by Senator Bob Dole on 4 January 1995, cosponsored by Senator John McCain and 28 other senators. Related House Bills included H.R. 147, H.R. 391, H.R. 2,H.R. 27 and H.R. 3136. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on April 9, 1996 and was immediately challenged in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by a group of six senators, first among whom was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), where it was declared unconstitutional by District Judge Harry Jackson, a Reagan appointee, on April 10, 1997. The case was subsequently remanded by the Supreme Court of the United States with instructions to dismiss on the grounds that the senators had not suffered sufficient injury to press charges under Article III of the United States Constitution (i.e., the senators lacked standing). The case, Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), was handed down on June 26, 1997, and did not include a judgement on the constitutional grounds of the law. It was used against one provision of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and two provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 before being challenged again in two separate cases; one by the City of New York, two hospital associations, one hospital, and two health care unions; the other by a farmers' cooperative from Idaho and an individual member of the cooperative. Senators Byrd, Moynihan, Levin, and Hatfield again opposed the law, this time through Amicus curiæ briefs. Judge Thomas Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia combined the cases and declared the law unconstitutional on February 12, 1998. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25,
1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York. Justices Breyer, Scalia, and O'Connor dissented. =============================================================================
I think every President wishes for the ability to selectively edit spending legistlation. Some have proposed legistlative action but our constitution is specific on this and vitrually every legal scholar would tell you that until a constitutional ammendment is passed, the President can either veto or sign a bill. He can't tinker with it by taking the stuff he likes and tossing what he doesn't. This makes good sense.
He talks about using his veto in every appearance. What he says is that he'll veto any bill with an earmark. That's good campaign rhetoric but not practical, something he knows. What he ought to just do is be honest. There really are times when an earmark makes sense. Unfortunately, the process is seriously overused and abused so we end up with Congresscritters using the appropriations process to send money home by the boat load to take care of their States if they are Senators or congressional districts if they are in the lower house. The real problem isn't the amounts involved, which in the grand scale of the budget process are trivial. The problem is that, for instance, Sarah Palin and the lobbying firm she hires as Mayor of Wallisa were able to get a ton of Federal money poured on them without having to go through the public process. She engaged in the same practice as Governor. In fact, when she was campaigning for the Governors job she made a big deal of the federal money she'd gotten appropriated as Mayor for Wallisa and offered it as proof of her intentions to do the same as Governor.
This sort of thing ( earmarks ) corrupts the electoral process and that's why it should be either severely curtailed or ended. You have a hard time running against an opponent that promises to put money in the voters pockets directly or by federally funding jobs or something that's desired like a park or waterway. THAT is what McCain has consistently fought against his entire career and you have to wonder how Palin, pork barreler extraordinaire, and McCain ever got together except in the most cynical way. They are polar opposites on the one issue John S. McCain has built his career on.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.