"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ...
<quoted text> Good Morning Peppy, Why do racists object to being called what they are?
Good day Lily. I know this is a hot button for you, but I see middle ground here. Clearly racism exists, I do not deny it and I do not condone it. Yet, we also have people applying racism to situations where it does not exist, a red herring so to speak. The argument goes both ways.
Either way I get your point. My point was that calling out Franklin Raines for mismanagement had absolutely nothing to do with race.
<quoted text> Who is in favor of tax reform? Companies who outsource jobs should have their products heavily taxed if they import them into the US. How can there be tax reform when the corporations employ lobbyists who work on creating more tax loopholes for the wealthy on a daily basis? As long as our elected officials must spend the majority of their time begging for money from corporate donors; and corporations can contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns; it will never happen.
Well maybe so. Keep in mind, I am one of those guys sending jobs overseas. It pains me to do so, but that is where my customers are moving their facilities. So I either follow or lose the business.
My only point is that it does not have to this way. Lobbyists be damned, if Congress had the balls, they could stem the flow of jobs leaving. In my lifetime, no politician has made a serious run at this problem.
<quoted text> Okay, here we go, Homer. Hold on to your britches. "Beloved, I pray that you may PROSEPER IN ALL THINGS and be in health, just as your soul prosper." "The Lord takes pleasure in the prosperity of his servant." "And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good." "Give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, they will pour into your lap. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return." "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." "You have not, because you ask not." We are to give what has been given to us. The promise in return is a prosperous and spiritually fulfilled life.
Sure, all good. It's when you go to far so...
"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Jesus would not be happy to see the desparity between the haves and the have nots.
<quoted text>That's great. However that in no way relates to this - "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24 All true Christians believe this.
It's all about context, Homer, something that always trips up some of you.
This was said right after a rich man asked Jesus what he must do to be saved. Jesus was testing him to see where his treasure was. When the rich man proved he valued his treasure here on earth more than in heaven, Jesus used him as an example of how difficult it would be for those who put earthly wealth ahead of spiritual wealth as being "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" which, by the way, was a different term back then than what we think of today.
<quoted text> You have a grossly distorted view of how private equity groups operate. Sounds mostly like liberal talking points. The key premise is to take companies in financial distress (losing money), then restructure to make the company healthy again (profitable) and then sell the business off. If not for intervention these companies are mostly doomed for failure. Bain did much more good than harm, but it is not a painless process.
Private equity is one thing; however,leveraged buyout is another, if a firm knowingly purchases a failing company and loads it with debt, fires all its employees, raids the pension funds, charges exhorbitant management fees, takes it public and then bankrupts it; well, who gets hurt? The banks, the suppliers, the employees. Bain walks away with a profit. Most of the time if a company is failing, the first thing that is looked at is the labor costs; however, it is usually the result of top heavy management costs. If you want to cut the fat, that's where you should start. The hundreds of VP's of departments that produce nothing.
Hey Homer, the scriptures have a lot to say about lying and theft too. "You shall not steal." "If a man steals an ox or a sheep...he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep." "Do not lie. Do not deceive one another." "Keep falsehood and lies far from me." Think of redistribution as stealing and covering up a terror attack as lying. If that helps put things into perspective....
Watch out! Lilybitch is writin' sumpin''bout eatin' shrimp. LOL
<quoted text>it will be like the exodus we've had in NY where for every taxpayer who leaves the state because of taxes, 2 nonpaying leeches move here. for every wealthy person who easily relocates to a tax friendly place, two entitlement seeking illegals will be grantd amnesty to ensure future Democratic voters dependent on government.
Your 1 room studio apartment must be getting pretty crowded.
<quoted text> It's all about context, Homer, something that always trips up some of you. This was said right after a rich man asked Jesus what he must do to be saved. Jesus was testing him to see where his treasure was. When the rich man proved he valued his treasure here on earth more than in heaven, Jesus used him as an example of how difficult it would be for those who put earthly wealth ahead of spiritual wealth as being "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" which, by the way, was a different term back then than what we think of today.
Bullcrap, the same applies today as it did 2,000 years ago. Quit defending the rich, I'm trying to eat my lunch.
Romney’s Bush 2.0 Foreign Policy and America’s International Reputation
Another story Bret Stephens tells his “wavering voter” is that U.S. favorability around the world will not decline under Romney:
No, America will not once again become the global pariah it supposedly was under George W. Bush if Mr. Romney is elected.
It’s possible that Romney won’t wreck U.S. favorability and relationships with other governments as badly as Bush did during his tenure, but that isn’t saying much. The early signs haven’t been promising. Between his taking gratuitous, ill-informed swipes at European allies and generally ignoring allied governments the rest of the time (except when he wants to use them as props for his campaign), it seems unlikely that there will be many foreign governments eager to work with a Romney administration. At the popular level, many Europeans reportedly have no idea who Romney is, and those that do know tend to dislike him.
A lot of this will ultimately depend on what a Romney administration does. If Romney starts any new wars, that would almost certainly damage relationships with many rising powers. Would Romney bring back torture, as some of his advisers have reportedly suggested? If so, that will strain relationships with allied governments, especially those that are coping with the legacy of Bush-era torture on their territory. European governments aren’t interested in a more antagonistic U.S.-Russian relationship, and an administration that is even more uncritically supportive of everything Israel does is bound to be more unpopular worldwide.
Someone might object that this doesn’t really matter, but this isn’t simply a matter of popularity. High U.S. unfavorability in the Bush era was largely a reaction to the substance of Bush’s policies and the manner in which he carried them out. If an administration has little interest in diplomatic engagement and has little use for multilateral cooperation, its relationships with other states will inevitably suffer. If it tends to dictate terms to other states, that arrogance breeds resentments and tensions that aren’t necessary. If an administration assumes that American and allied interests are identical, it will tend to commit the U.S. to positions that aren’t in America’s interest or drag allies into conflicts that have nothing to do with them. Many states are going to bristle if the U.S. defines its “leadership” role in an anachronistic way that doesn’t take account of the changed international political landscape, and Romney’s understanding of American “leadership” is rooted in just such an outdated view.
It isn’t written anywhere that a Republican administration has to behave this way, but it is how Romney has campaigned so far. He shows every sign that he thinks this is the sort of “leadership” that the world supposedly craves. If elected, he will be in for a very rude shock when he discovers that an added dollop of resolve doesn’t have the effect he expects. One can imagine a Republican administration that values diplomacy as an important tool, exercises restraint when responding to international crises, and tries to improve relations with traditionally difficult or antagonistic states, but it would be an administration with very different foreign policy views from the one Romney’s will almost certainly have. Indeed, it would be the opposite of the Bush “version 2.0″ foreign policy that Romney favors.