> Yew talken 'bout Goz 'nd mike 'nd thet feller who lives over in New York
> City's southern burbs?

> CC

>By doing nothing. SNL did a skit on this and it really hit home. He
>has not delivered on one campaign promise to date and the Dems will
>really be toast next year as Obama cannot get a health care bill in
>'09.

>Last nights results seemed to me to be b/c the base that elected Obama
>did not turn out in great numbers and he lost a lot of the
>independents.

>Jim

>> On Nov 4, 6:38 am, "mike" <into.action.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  How does a president get to be a lame duck so quickly?

>> By doing nothing. SNL did a skit on this and it really hit home. He
>> has not delivered on one campaign promise to date and the Dems will
>> really be toast next year as Obama cannot get a health care bill in
>> '09.

>> Last nights results seemed to me to be b/c the base that elected Obama
>> did not turn out in great numbers and he lost a lot of the
>> independents.

>> Jim

> Obama's victory last year was all about being part of "the historical
> moment" and nothing about issues.  Now people have seen he's completely
> incompetent and are sick of how he's ruining our great nation at home
> and bad-mouthing us abroad.

>> On Nov 4, 6:38 am, "mike" <into.action.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  How does a president get to be a lame duck so quickly?

>> By doing nothing. SNL did a skit on this and it really hit home. He
>> has not delivered on one campaign promise to date and the Dems will
>> really be toast next year as Obama cannot get a health care bill in
>> '09.

>> Last nights results seemed to me to be b/c the base that elected Obama
>> did not turn out in great numbers and he lost a lot of the
>> independents.

>> Jim

> Obama's victory last year was all about being part of "the historical
> moment" and nothing about issues.

>>> On Nov 4, 6:38 am, "mike" <into.action.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  How does a president get to be a lame duck so quickly?

>>> By doing nothing. SNL did a skit on this and it really hit home. He
>>> has not delivered on one campaign promise to date and the Dems will
>>> really be toast next year as Obama cannot get a health care bill in
>>> '09.

>>> Last nights results seemed to me to be b/c the base that elected Obama
>>> did not turn out in great numbers and he lost a lot of the
>>> independents.

>>> Jim

>> Obama's victory last year was all about being part of "the historical
>> moment" and nothing about issues.  Now people have seen he's completely
>> incompetent and are sick of how he's ruining our great nation at home
>> and bad-mouthing us abroad.

> "Haven't you noticed, it's easier to find fault with someone else rather
> than open yourself up to examination."

> "He hasn't progressed to the level of pointing fingers at others like
> you have yet."

> What's the moral here, Mikey?  Do as you say but not as you do?

>>> On Nov 4, 6:38 am, "mike" <into.action.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  How does a president get to be a lame duck so quickly?

>>> By doing nothing. SNL did a skit on this and it really hit home. He
>>> has not delivered on one campaign promise to date and the Dems will
>>> really be toast next year as Obama cannot get a health care bill in
>>> '09.

>>> Last nights results seemed to me to be b/c the base that elected Obama
>>> did not turn out in great numbers and he lost a lot of the
>>> independents.

>>> Jim

>> Obama's victory last year was all about being part of "the historical
>> moment" and nothing about issues.

> Given that you clearly didn't vote for him, where do you get the hubris
> to state definitively the internal motives for the people that did?

> Arrogant to the extreme.

> Obama's victory last year was all about being part of "the historical
> moment" and nothing about issues.  Now people have seen he's completely
> incompetent and are sick of how he's ruining our great nation at home
> and bad-mouthing us abroad.

>> Obama's victory last year was all about being part of "the historical
>> moment" and nothing about issues.  Now people have seen he's completely
>> incompetent and are sick of how he's ruining our great nation at home
>> and bad-mouthing us abroad.

> There is not much left of our so called great nation for him to ruin...We,
> yes us, the public are to blame...We've destroyed our manufacturing base in
> this country...We've done that out of greed & demands for higher short term
> gains on our investments in stocks & the quest for $8.00 men's jeans at Wal
> Mart...We have outsourced almost every form of manufacturing that was ever
> done in this country to cheaper labor markets...Until we stop cutting our
> own throats & blaming this or that political party we are screwed.

> Until we finally realize that the cheapest price is not always the best
> deal, nothing will change.

>>>> On Nov 4, 6:38 am, "mike" <into.action.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>  How does a president get to be a lame duck so quickly?

>>>> By doing nothing. SNL did a skit on this and it really hit home. He
>>>> has not delivered on one campaign promise to date and the Dems will
>>>> really be toast next year as Obama cannot get a health care bill in
>>>> '09.

>>>> Last nights results seemed to me to be b/c the base that elected
>>>> Obama
>>>> did not turn out in great numbers and he lost a lot of the
>>>> independents.

>>>> Jim

>>> Obama's victory last year was all about being part of "the
>>> historical
>>> moment" and nothing about issues.

>> Given that you clearly didn't vote for him, where do you get the
>> hubris to state definitively the internal motives for the people that
>> did?

>> Arrogant to the extreme.

> Now Tara, remember, when it comes to "issues" there really weren't
> any. The "Decider" was doing a wonderful job and McCain figured to
> continue with the same policies.  Simple logic should tell you that
> the election was only about a historical moment.

> If you doubt this is true, just take a look at the throngs of people
> that were fighting over a chance to hear Bush in his new job as a
> motivational speaker.

>  It's about market control and while Walmart has probably closed down
> more small businesses (and small towns) they do have formidable
> competitors (Costco, Target, etc) who also buy cheap labor products from
> outside the US.  I don't know of a way in the theory that I was taught
> that you can alter that much without government rewriting some of the
> ground rules and /or going into protection mode which would do nothing
> but cause a producer's costs to go up and everyone understands that a
> business has to pass it's costs along to its buyers or go out of
> business.  Even huge tax breaks for these huge corporations doesn't seem
> to have done much but improve the bottom line not reduce pricing.  But
> if you were running a company and you had a choice between paying
> yourself a few million dollars more or reducing prices of your
> customer....  The consolidation of businesses into larger and larger
> enterprises means that your usual 'market forces' of competition and the
> benefit of competition grows less and less.  And the idea that the
> customer is king is fading fast because businesses have been allowed to
> go Darwinian to the point where markets can be cornered.  Medical and
> financial markets come to mind as well as energy.  What can the 'common
> man', the middle and lower classes do about it?  Nada.

> Obama, will have tot give in to corporatism (which is the kind of
> economy we have now) and oddly enough, a lot of people seem not to care
> that government has become a middle man existing only to enable
> corporatism to flourish at the expense of......well, you know who,
> right?  A sharply divided electorate almost insures that the
> corporations (who could care fucking less about whether you retire with
> any money or not) continue in their ascendency to more power.  Hell,
> soon there will be corporations which sell mercenaries to wage
> wars........or is that now?  ( : )  Oh.  We will have 10% (or more)
> unemployment for a long time because it means that wages can fall, more
> costs can be transferred to the units left working.  So who would you
> rather look to for leadership and direction: corprations or government?
> If you think that large corporations are efficient, non wasteful
> economic production units, then you may be in for a surprise.  They've
> already invented the ultimate stalling frustration, IVR.  You get to
> 'talk' to a machine'

> Americans have a peculiar habit of thinking that things can change
> without any regard for historical aspects.

> Obama got elected on the "hope" that he could change the direction of
> America and American politics but people forget that the substance of
> hope is faith and the faith of most Americans seems to be melting away
> like winter snows.

> I'm a hawk but I'm also a realist and the U.S. can do nothing but
> bleed in Afghanistan. The NATO countries are not committed to do what
> is necessary and so the U.S. is in the midst of what really is a civil
> war without the means or will to totally suppress one side.

> Get out now! Admit it was a mistake, cut the losses and let India and
> Russia deal with Pakistan which is what will eventually happen.

> While I think you make a sterling point about the risks associated
> with 'free markets' (meaning no tariffs or application of US consumer
> protection laws, price is a function of market.  Except.  Except when
> price fixing by monopolists or oliogopolists control enough market to
> deter entry.  While manufacturing is important, it no longer is the
> heart of our economy.   We have evolved to a more service (healthcare,
> IT and other technologies, education,financial ) economy and don't
> make nearly the amount of widgets we used to.  This is an evolution
> that few understand in terms of its stability or voality.  Health care
> is now a major part of our economy and while it has many suppliers, it
> is controlled by two insurance companies, by and large.  You can see
> what a few oil companies can do in terms of price and apparently the
> same thing happens in healthcare. The central clearing house, the AMA
> for doctors, essentially set doctors fees although there is no formal
> mechanism here.  The price of gasoline, despite the 'competition'
> seems to rise and fall in concert, doesn't it?  OPEC?  Not so much
> anymore (although at one time they did set the price for a barrel of
> oil but that's hardly what close to what refining and distribution
> amount to.  My theory is that when big, no giant players play in a
> limited field, they will control it.  That's what their management
> gets paid to do.  And immigration has always provided us with cheap
> labor, but if that's not enough, then you go lto where cheap labor is.
> But a service economy is not about cheap labor, is it?

>   It's about market control and while Walmart has probably closed down
> more small businesses (and small towns) they do have formidable
> competitors (Costco, Target, etc) who also buy cheap labor products
> from outside the US.  I don't know of a way in the theory that I was
> taught that you can alter that much without government rewriting some
> of the ground rules and /or going into protection mode which would do
> nothing but cause a producer's costs to go up and everyone understands
> that a business has to pass it's costs along to its buyers or go out
> of business.  Even huge tax breaks for these huge corporations doesn't
> seem to have done much but improve the bottom line not reduce pricing.
>  But if you were running a company and you had a choice between paying
> yourself a few million dollars more or reducing prices of your
> customer....  The consolidation of businesses into larger and larger
> enterprises means that your usual 'market forces' of competition and
> the benefit of competition grows less and less.  And the idea that the
> customer is king is fading fast because businesses have been allowed
> to go Darwinian to the point where markets can be cornered.  Medical
> and financial markets come to mind as well as energy.  What can the
> 'common man', the middle and lower classes do about it?  Nada.

> Obama, will have tot give in to corporatism (which is the kind of
> economy we have now) and oddly enough, a lot of people seem not to
> care that government has become a middle man existing only to enable
> corporatism to flourish at the expense of......well, you know who,
> right?  A sharply divided electorate almost insures that the
> corporations (who could care fucking less about whether you retire
> with any money or not) continue in their ascendency to more power.
> Hell, soon there will be corporations which sell mercenaries to wage
> wars........or is that now?  ( : )  Oh.  We will have 10% (or more)
> unemployment for a long time because it means that wages can fall,
> more costs can be transferred to the units left working.  So who would
> you rather look to for leadership and direction: corprations or
> government?
>  If you think that large corporations are efficient, non wasteful
> economic production units, then you may be in for a surprise.  They've
> already invented the ultimate stalling frustration, IVR.  You get to
> 'talk' to a machine'

> Gary

> "F.H." <connectut...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:7r6dnQNg67eaN2zXnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Tara Green wrote:
>>> mike wrote:
>>>> jimbo wrote:

>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:38 am, "mike" <into.action.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>  How does a president get to be a lame duck so quickly?

>>>>> By doing nothing. SNL did a skit on this and it really hit home. He
>>>>> has not delivered on one campaign promise to date and the Dems will
>>>>> really be toast next year as Obama cannot get a health care bill in
>>>>> '09.

>>>>> Last nights results seemed to me to be b/c the base that elected Obama
>>>>> did not turn out in great numbers and he lost a lot of the
>>>>> independents.

>>>>> Jim

>>>> Obama's victory last year was all about being part of "the historical
>>>> moment" and nothing about issues.

>>> Given that you clearly didn't vote for him, where do you get the hubris
>>> to state definitively the internal motives for the people that did?

>>> Arrogant to the extreme.

>> Now Tara, remember, when it comes to "issues" there really weren't any.
>> The "Decider" was doing a wonderful job and McCain figured to continue
>> with the same policies.  Simple logic should tell you that the election
>> was only about a historical moment.

>> If you doubt this is true, just take a look at the throngs of people that
>> were fighting over a chance to hear Bush in his new job as a motivational
>> speaker.

> Heh! And where were the throngs of people who voted for Obama just a year
> ago for this current election?

> RonG

>>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:38 am, "mike" <into.action.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>  How does a president get to be a lame duck so quickly?

>>>>>> By doing nothing. SNL did a skit on this and it really hit home. He
>>>>>> has not delivered on one campaign promise to date and the Dems will
>>>>>> really be toast next year as Obama cannot get a health care bill in
>>>>>> '09.

>>>>>> Last nights results seemed to me to be b/c the base that elected Obama
>>>>>> did not turn out in great numbers and he lost a lot of the
>>>>>> independents.

>>>>>> Jim
>>>>> Obama's victory last year was all about being part of "the historical
>>>>> moment" and nothing about issues.
>>>> Given that you clearly didn't vote for him, where do you get the hubris
>>>> to state definitively the internal motives for the people that did?

>>>> Arrogant to the extreme.
>>> Now Tara, remember, when it comes to "issues" there really weren't any.
>>> The "Decider" was doing a wonderful job and McCain figured to continue
>>> with the same policies.  Simple logic should tell you that the election
>>> was only about a historical moment.

>>> If you doubt this is true, just take a look at the throngs of people that
>>> were fighting over a chance to hear Bush in his new job as a motivational
>>> speaker.

>> Heh! And where were the throngs of people who voted for Obama just a year
>> ago for this current election?

>> RonG

> Maybe we should do a recount!

> Americans have a peculiar habit of thinking that things can change
> without any regard for historical aspects.
> Obama got elected on the "hope" that he could change the direction of
> America and American politics but people forget that the substance of
> hope is faith and the faith of most Americans seems to be melting away
> like winter snows.

> http://tinyurl.com/yfno4kt

>> http://tinyurl.com/yfno4kt

> The link doesn't work but what will force the U.S. out is a massive
> loss of life like in Lebanon or a sharp but swift defeat like Somalia.
> These wars against terrorists are dirty and the West will not fight
> and defeat the enemy with dirty, brutal tactics.