QuickTopic logo Create New TopicNew Topic My TopicsMy Topics News
Skip to Messages


Early Retirement

^     All messages            54791-54806 of 54806  54775-54790 >>
Boss BasherPerson was signed in when posted
02:43 AM ET (US)
/m54802 And, my nickel prediction: It will be Mittens again for the GOP, in 2016.
Boss BasherPerson was signed in when posted
02:43 AM ET (US)
/m54802 I believe Hillary has reason to worry, yes. When I first saw Bernie testing the waters, I thought: (Nice gesture...maybe he can make a Demonstration, to move Hillary to the Left). But in the weeks since, I have come to believe that Bernie is not only dead serious...the people seem to be taking him seriously! He's been touring Red State Iowa and (as you've said) is "Packing Them In". A far cry from what I would have expected in the Heartland States. Let's see what happens. I have no clue how Bernie would function in other arenas of the Presidency...dealing with foreign leaders, primarily...he's "Door #3" so to speak. But no worries. When it comes to Defense of our nation, the President may be Commander In Chief, but our military leaders already know what to do, in 100,000 scenarios. Hardly any need for a modern U.S. President to tell them what to do. All the President need do is say: "Get 'em", like to an attack dog.

I know, many of you are aghast at the prospect of a Democratic Socialist President. I urge you not to worry. He's not Emperor, nor is Obama, nor would Hillary be. No one is going to allow that these days. I think Bernie would be a SPLENDID PUSHBACK against the Corporates who want to sell out all American workers - who want to steal the Post Office and Privatize it (destroying you all), and who want to import Chinese-processed chicken to the U.S., without any disclosure on the packages. Bernie will fight all that as vigorously as possible, and his WPA - style Infrastructure rebuild ideas could create millions of DECENT-PAYING jobs, the work of which badly needs to be done, anyway.

Yes, Hillary has every reason to worry, and I'm glad of it.
Will MunnyPerson was signed in when posted
09:57 PM ET (US)
/m54803: they made a business decision because of declining testosterone. One cringing cafe'-owner worm in Vermont almost broke a leg taking down a "Je Suis Bacon" billboard because one of three Somali welfare slouches in the whole state complained. The now-deceased Mayor of Boston, who could barely speak a coherent sentence, bombastically and moronically tried to ban Chik Fil-A from the city (!!!) because the CEO voiced a personal opinion about gay marriage. When people form reactionary opinions over some junk they saw on t.v. yesterday, they are exercising cowardice, that's all. Two weeks ago most Americans probably couldn't even identify the Confederate flag, since a majority can't find Canada on a map. Just silly.
egarkPerson was signed in when posted
08:54 PM ET (US)
Will Munny /m54801 - they made a business decision because of the probably of declining ratings. Capitalism at its finest. Did Walmart know it was an ISIS cake? No, therefore a bad comparison.
Reality checkPerson was signed in when posted
08:45 PM ET (US)
 Bernie is packing them in! Should Hillary be worried?

Will MunnyPerson was signed in when posted
08:02 PM ET (US)
/m54800: They indeed did "need" to because they were afraid of the knee-jerk stupidity this country is now awash in. Where were all of you a few weeks ago on The Stars and Bars? Nowhere. What nonsense. Interesting that Walmart made a cake with an ISIS flag but refused to make one with that flag! I wonder if they are "celebrating" LGBT, since ISIS is tossing queers off 10-story buildings. Iran hangs them. As the guy said long ago, "boob bait for the Bubbas".
egarkPerson was signed in when posted
06:14 PM ET (US)
konoctiguy /m54799 - "we" did not pull The Dukes of Hazzard, TV Land did. And they did not "need" to, they chose to. I guess they exercised their rights of free speech!

What bank?
konoctiguyPerson was signed in when posted
06:06 PM ET (US)
It is sad the nation has forgotten free speech as a foundation in this country. If the gov't can't hit someone for saying something controversial and PI then the corporations, civic organizations, mayors of big cities, governors of states, owner organizations of teams, network TV and radio networks will ruin their lives. This is very wrong and I am sick of the social engineering. My wife went to bank atm today and the screen greeted her with "We celebrate LGBT!!!" She even has the social engineers in her face while taking out a $20 bill.
We need to back off... give everybody room and respect other's opinions... and stop selling PC.

P.S. Do we really need to pull the "Dukes of Hazzard" because of the Confederate flag? Maybe from the State Capitol but a TV show?
Edited 07-02-2015 06:10 PM
Carry OnPerson was signed in when posted
04:25 PM ET (US)
Some people feel concerned about the commercialism of the press. They note that great newspapers are great business enterprises earning large profits and controlled by men of wealth. So they fear that in such control the press may tend to support the private interests of those who own the papers, rather than the general interest of the whole people. It seems to me, however, that the real test is not whether the newspapers are controlled by men of wealth, but whether they are sincerely trying to serve the public interests. There will be little occasion for worry about who owns a newspaper, so long as its attitudes on public questions are such as to promote the general welfare. A press which is actuated by the purpose of genuine usefulness to the public interest can never be too strong financially, so long as its strength is used for the support of popular government.

There does not seem to be cause for alarm in the dual relationship of the press to the public, whereby it is on one side a purveyor of information and opinion and on the other side a purely business enterprise. Rather, it is probable that a press which maintains an intimate touch with the business currents of the nation, is likely to be more reliable than it would be if it were a stranger to these influences. After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of opinion that the great majority of people will always find these are moving impulses of our life. The opposite view was oracularly and poetically set forth in those lines of Goldsmith which everybody repeats, but few really believe:

    Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
    Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.

Excellent poetry, but not a good working philosophy. Goldsmith would have been right, if, in fact, the accumulation of wealth meant the decay of men. It is rare indeed that the men who are accumulating wealth decay. It is only when they cease production, when accumulation stops, that an irreparable decay begins. Wealth is the product of industry, ambition, character and untiring effort. In all experience, the accumulation of wealth means the multiplication of schools, the increase of knowledge, the dissemination of intelligence, the encouragement of science, the broadening of outlook, the expansion of liberties, the widening of culture. Of course, the accumulation of wealth can not be justified as the chief end of existence. But we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well nigh every desirable achievement. So long as wealth is made the means and not the end, we need not greatly fear it. And there never was a time when wealth was so generally regarded as a means, or so little regarded as an end, as today. Just a little time ago we read in your newspapers that two leaders of American business, whose efforts at accumulation had been most astonishingly successful, had given fifty or sixty million dollars as endowments to educational works. That was real news. It was characteristic of our American experience with men of large resources. They use their power to serve, not themselves and their own families, but the public. I feel sure that the coming generations, which will benefit by those endowments, will not be easily convinced that they have suffered greatly because of these particular accumulations of wealth.
Carry OnPerson was signed in when posted
04:17 PM ET (US)
May 6, 2014, 12:06 PM
Clinton groups’ big business ties could complicate a 2016 Hillary bid

The Liberal Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-groups...a-2016-hillary-bid/

Let's cut to the chase and just tell the truth: The Clinton's have a vast history of taking money from Big Business. And only a fool believes those contributors of millions of dollars don't expect the Clinton's to reward them with policy decisions if elected.
The "Common Man" knows this practice is, well, COMMON to all politicians.
Anyone that posts "If Republicans win then Big Business Will Rule Over You" is a hypocrite.

Quick Quiz!

What President declared "The Business of the American People is.... BUSINESS?

Hint: "CC." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=24180

Think of an America after every Fortune 500 Company went bankrupt. (See....GREECE).
drbPerson was signed in when posted
02:30 PM ET (US)
suppose your or my name could be on that list if they still had a contribution cap at something the average joe could afford
Carry OnPerson was signed in when posted
12:20 PM ET (US)
Clinton top contributors:

Citigroup Inc
Goldman Sachs
DLA Piper
JPMorgan Chase & Co
EMILY's List
Morgan Stanley
Time Warner
Skadden, Arps et al
Lehman Brothers
Cablevision Systems
University of California
Kirkland & Ellis
Squire Patton Boggs
21st Century Fox
National Amusements Inc
Ernst & Young
Merrill Lynch
Credit Suisse Group
Corning Inc
Greenberg Traurig LLP
postalvetPerson was signed in when posted
10:04 AM ET (US)
think donald trump.
Boss BasherPerson was signed in when posted
01:26 AM ET (US)
/m54789 One thing I guarantee you: With no Govt. or LESS Govt., you WILL be dealing with "Overbearing Business" (Corporate Rule). I'd much rather at least have VOTE, in what happens. Allowing Business to run everything is flat stupid - a Setup to sell out our children and grandchildren, and the bigger question SHOULD be: WHY would anyone want that? WHY would anyone want to deal with overbearing Corporations instead of a Government? Doesn't make sense. A Robber Baron calls the shots. Can you compete with that? Who ever could? Only GOVERNMENT. Remember Teddy Roosevelt? (and please, no Trumpeting about him being a Republican. Yes he was, but the GOP of his time viewed him as a Traitor and the worst of the worst. Refused to nominate him for a second term. But he had the last laugh, God bless his soul). TR was a bit to the Left of John Kennedy. And his was not a Small Government...it was quite Overbearing really, but ON THE SIDE of the American citizen. Huge difference, from what we face today.
Terry StrongPerson was signed in when posted
10:40 PM ET (US)
Now we have X-Stew calling a US Marine gutless. .very disappointing but not out of character for X-Stew.
Reality checkPerson was signed in when posted
10:33 PM ET (US)
/m54790 That's a 90 MPH fast ball down the heart of the plate. As a baseball official, I love those: Obamacare; You can keep your insurance if you want it. You can keep your Doctor if you want it.
^     All messages            54791-54806 of 54806  54775-54790 >>

Print | RSS Views: 0 (Unique: -1 ) / Subscribers: 68 | What's this?