[Winstonm]

In his new book, Lee Iacocca seems to have hit his "Network" moment.

Quote

Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can’t even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, “Stay the course.”
Stay the course? You’ve got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I’ll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

He goes on to further say …
someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don’t need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we’re fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That’s not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I’ve had enough. How about you? I’ll go a step further. You can’t call yourself a patriot if you’re not outraged. This is a fight I’m ready and willing to have.

He seems to be "mad as hell and not willing to take it anymore". Any seconds to that motion?

[PassedOut]

Yes, he is right and this must be stopped. No matter what it takes to stop it.

[pclayton]

I've always liked Iacocca. "Talking Straight" was excellent.

[luke warm]

what exactly does he want to do about it aside from throwing the bums out? it isn't as if there haven't been plenty of opportunities to throw 'em out... did he happen to mention the illegal immigrant problem (and the reason behind it, the no-borders union of north america)?

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Apr 20 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

what exactly does he want to do about it aside from throwing the bums out? it isn't as if there haven't been plenty of opportunities to throw 'em out... did he happen to mention the illegal immigrant problem (and the reason behind it, the no-borders union of north america)?

It seems he believes his first step should be to raise public awareneness ("someone has to speak up") and then raise public outrage ("You can’t call yourself a patriot if you’re not outraged. This is a fight I’m ready and willing to have.")

It is usually best to frame the problem in order to find solutions. In this case, the first answer seems to be the answer to this old conundrum: when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

[Al_U_Card]

It's really easy.

Money is the root of all evil. That's why so many people root for it.

Seriously, want to fix society? Okay, start by taking back control of OUR money from the rich bankers (accountable to owners and shareholders) and give it back to the government (US as in the United States or you and me, as you wish.)

Money supply causes inflation? Bullshit! Lack of value for money causes inflation.

Say the government "prints" 100 billion and uses it to pay workers to rebuild the city of New Orleans. Well, we then have a lot of hard working people with some money in their pockets, some value (the refurbished city of N.O.) and that extra money in circulation. (Used to buy new shoes and vacations and well maybe even stimulate the economy into innovating a competitive rivalry with China....who knows?)

OR Have the government BORROW money from the federal Reserve, at interest, to do something about N.O. but now we have a DEBT and we have the interest amount (now and in the future) to pay from the ACTUAL value of the lesser improvements to N.O.

So, you choose. A bunch of rich fat cats that we owe money to for something of lesser value, or a bunch of hard working citizens with something of value to show for their labors?

Lee was right. He doesn't need the tax cut......because he is rich and therefore hardly pays taxes and those that he does pay are offset by the money that he gets "back" from his investments in banks from their lending to the peeps.

Wake up!

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 20 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 20 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

what exactly does he want to do about it aside from throwing the bums out? it isn't as if there haven't been plenty of opportunities to throw 'em out... did he happen to mention the illegal immigrant problem (and the reason behind it, the no-borders union of north america)?

It seems he believes his first step should be to raise public awareneness ("someone has to speak up") and then raise public outrage ("You can’t call yourself a patriot if you’re not outraged. This is a fight I’m ready and willing to have.")

It is usually best to frame the problem in order to find solutions. In this case, the first answer seems to be the answer to this old conundrum: when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

IT does seem wierd that on single issue polls, the war, economy, fill in the blank, they all favor the Democratics by huge margins. Sometimes the margins are 75 or 85%.

But then they vote for McCain then 43% and the Democrats 46% and undecided the rest....

Where is the outrage? It almost seems as if many want to vote in people whose positions they hate?

Maybe as someone suggested in another thread the elections are rigged somehow.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Apr 20 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 20 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 20 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

what exactly does he want to do about it aside from throwing the bums out? it isn't as if there haven't been plenty of opportunities to throw 'em out... did he happen to mention the illegal immigrant problem (and the reason behind it, the no-borders union of north america)?

It seems he believes his first step should be to raise public awareneness ("someone has to speak up") and then raise public outrage ("You can’t call yourself a patriot if you’re not outraged. This is a fight I’m ready and willing to have.")

It is usually best to frame the problem in order to find solutions. In this case, the first answer seems to be the answer to this old conundrum: when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

IT does seem wierd that on single issue polls, the war, economy, fill in the blank, they all favor the Democratics by huge margins. Sometimes the margins are 75 or 85%.

But then they vote for McCain then 43% and the Democrats 46% and undecided the rest....

Where is the outrage? It almost seems as if many want to vote in people whose positions they hate?

Maybe as someone suggested in another thread the elections are rigged somehow.

It's good point, Mike. I wonder if the polls don't reflect principles voters agree with, but when it comes to actual candidates they see little seperation between them.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 20 2008, 04:05 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 20 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 20 2008, 02:48 PM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 20 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

what exactly does he want to do about it aside from throwing the bums out? it isn't as if there haven't been plenty of opportunities to throw 'em out... did he happen to mention the illegal immigrant problem (and the reason behind it, the no-borders union of north america)?

It seems he believes his first step should be to raise public awareneness ("someone has to speak up") and then raise public outrage ("You can’t call yourself a patriot if you’re not outraged. This is a fight I’m ready and willing to have.")

It is usually best to frame the problem in order to find solutions. In this case, the first answer seems to be the answer to this old conundrum: when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

IT does seem wierd that on single issue polls, the war, economy, fill in the blank, they all favor the Democratics by huge margins. Sometimes the margins are 75 or 85%.

But then they vote for McCain then 43% and the Democrats 46% and undecided the rest....

Where is the outrage? It almost seems as if many want to vote in people whose positions they hate?

Maybe as someone suggested in another thread the elections are rigged somehow.

It's good point, Mike. I wonder if the polls don't reflect principles voters agree with, but when it comes to actual candidates they see little seperation between them.

Well it seems there are huge differences between "standard" Democratic positions on the war, wiretapping, economy, taxes, abortion, judges, unions, redistribution of wealth, pollution, global warming, gays in the military, gay marriage, vouchers for education, you fill in the blank and the "standard" Republican position.

How many of these things do Obama and McCain agree on?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Well it seems there are huge differences between "standard" Democratic positions on the war, economy, taxes, abortion, judges, unions, redistribution of wealth, pollution, global warming, vouchers for education, you fill in the blank and the "standard" Republican position.

That would be the priciples I mentioned.
But when it comes to chosing among A) McCain, B) Clinton, or C) Obama, it is viewed as: A) More of the same, B) More of the same -but for the children, and C) More of the same but a smooth talker.

[Al_U_Card]

A voice in the wilderness whose time will soon be over, sadly.

Were that there were more like him.

http://ca.youtube.co...0E&feature=user

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on Apr 20 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

Quote

Well it seems there are huge differences between "standard" Democratic positions on the war, economy, taxes, abortion, judges, unions, redistribution of wealth, pollution, global warming, vouchers for education, you fill in the blank and the "standard" Republican position.

That would be the priciples I mentioned.
But when it comes to chosing among A) McCain, Clinton, or C) Obama, it is viewed as: A) More of the same, More of the same -but for the children, and C) More of the same but a smooth talker.

I have never understood this "they are all the same" argument. Thomas Dewey was not the same as Harry Truman, Richard Nixon was not the same as Jack Kennedy, and Barack Obama is not the same as John McCain. I recall that after Lyndon Johnson was elected people would ask him if he got his Viet Nam plans from reading old Goldwater speeches but it was a joke, not a serious question. John Adams was not the same as Thomas Jefferson.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on Apr 20 2008, 09:52 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 20 2008, 04:15 PM, said:

Quote

Well it seems there are huge differences between "standard" Democratic positions on the war, economy, taxes, abortion, judges, unions, redistribution of wealth, pollution, global warming, vouchers for education, you fill in the blank and the "standard" Republican position.

That would be the priciples I mentioned.
But when it comes to chosing among A) McCain, Clinton, or C) Obama, it is viewed as: A) More of the same, More of the same -but for the children, and C) More of the same but a smooth talker.

I have never understood this "they are all the same" argument. Thomas Dewey was not the same as Harry Truman, Richard Nixon was not the same as Jack Kennedy, and Barack Obama is not the same as John McCain. I recall that after Lyndon Johnson was elected people would ask him if he got his Viet Nam plans from reading old Goldwater speeches but it was a joke, not a serious question. John Adams was not the same as Thomas Jefferson.

An oversimplification, but referring to the notion that a politician's only job is to get elected - the more things change the more they stay the same.

[jtfanclub]

pclayton, on Apr 20 2008, 12:44 PM, said:

I've always liked Iacocca. "Talking Straight" was excellent.

I second that.

I also like that the government was willing to give Chrysler a loan, with collateral and interest, during its dark days. I don't have a problem with that. If the Feds had loaned money to Bear Stearns, I could have handled that. Loaning money to somebody else to take over Bear Stearns? Um, no.

First thing we have to do is make executives accountable. No deal made for executive salary is binding- if he's fired, the board can choose to not pay him another dime. This is because the board is a fluid organization, and the board should not be allowed to force future boards into spending millions for a failed executive. The Home Depot golden parachute was ridiculous.

I'd get rid of all tax deductions except the one per person and dump the AMT, or make the *only* tax the AMT, which ends up being the same thing. And I'd increase the transparency of earmarks. But in general, all you can really do is elected good people and pray they remain good. When you come right down to it, what else is there?

[Al_U_Card]

They pass a review (plebescite) at the end of their term(s) upon which their pension (or length of prison term) is based. I would suggest a REALLY lucrative deal if they did well and well, much less if not.