[GlassPipe]

Originally Posted by ergohead

Didn't Bill Clinton once say, something to the effect, that the constitution is a quaint document that has outlived it's usefulness?

As much as I really like that dumb hick, it does sound like something he'd say.

[Bluefly]

Yes, that dumb hick Rhodes Scholar from Oxford with an IQ of 160.

Clinton's brilliance lies in his ability to convince people he's just like them.

I never heard that quote attributed to him, though. I thought that came from someone in the Bush administration. I may be mistaken.

[Dwatted Wabbit]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

Yes, that dumb hick Rhodes Scholar from Oxford with an IQ of 160.

Clinton's brilliance lies in his ability to convince people he's just like them.

I never heard that quote attributed to him, though. I thought that came from someone in the Bush administration. I may be mistaken.

Rhodes Scholar Road Schmolar. Those appear to be, like degrees from Harvard or Yale, awarded to the politically connected as much as to the intellectually deserving. Don't forget, everyone's current favorite whipping boy has a BA from Yale and an MBA from Haavahd.

And IQ is not the end-all. Ethics, judgement, and integrity, which are badly wanting in Bill, are IMO far more important in management.

It was GW who said the constushin is just a piece of paper, circa 2005, and that he was the boss and things were going to be done his way.
Then came the 2006 elections...

I would say both the above fellaz under discussion are excellent arguments for another constitutional amendment, limiting the president to one four-year term.

Congressman Paul would probably support such an amendment.

(My personal opinion is that anyone [with a few exceptions, like RP] who really wants to be president should be immediately disqualified from the office.)



BTW, this discussion probably belongs more in the politics dept. than in MI.

[Bluefly]

Well, whatever. I'm not sure what some kid from working class Arkansas did to have enough connections to fake his way into Oxford and the Rhodes at that young age. Just because one president rode coattails of family connections doesn't mean all of them did or that degrees from top universities mean nothing because there's some legacies that get in without merit.

You can insult Clinton all you want, disagree with him, and dismiss his achievements so that we all feel better about ourselves. He still ran the most effective government in modern history and even his harshest critics do not deny he is incredibly intelligent.

Anyway, that's an irrelevant tangent.

I actually think terms should be expanded to 6 year. We're already into a constant cycle of campaigning. Think how little governing Bush did in 2004 so he could campaign and probably how little Obama will do leading up to 2012.

[hartland4hr]

See, I'm totally into the rLOVEution and Paul might be the only reason why I, and many of my college-age friends haven't given up on the nation.

However, government intervention created this beast, and before we can apply the great methods suggested by Dr. Paul, government intervention has to kill it.

Economically, it would seem incorrect to believe that less economic regulation would be good, given what has happened with so many companies as of late, but you have to remember that the precursor of deregulation in the last ten, fifteen years (read: mortgage industry), was exactly what the Austrians saw coming: meltdown.

[Dwatted Wabbit]

RE: "working class kid from the sticks." Google Clinton mentor and read it and weep. Start with J. Wm. Fullbright.

Government orders from on high, in the grand progressive tradition of "nonjudgementalism" and equal outcomes for nonequal investors, meant that under threat of civil rights or other government pressure or prosecution, banks were forced to lend to bad credit risks.

There is a reason lending institutions have standards and use judgement. Bad credit risks usually have earned their rep, and they often get in over their heads.
When banks are forced to lend to bad credit risks by an overbearing government, guess what, the loans will go south no matter how good or wishful the intentions were.

It was not deregulation that created this mess, it is the "progressive" idea that everyone everywhere is equal in all ways. So someone with a credit score of 500 and annual income of $25,000 is just as deserving of a $300,000 house as someone with 710 and a $125,000 income.

And the guy driving a UPS truck should be allowed to do heart surgery or act as a trial lawyer because, after all, he is as good a person as any doctor or lawyer.

This is the same sort of irrational thought that has led to no-score ball games for kids so no one will feel bad. It is what has led to passing kids who can't read so they won't feel bad about failing. It is what is behind the moron who thinks changing the "F" grade to "H" is somehow going to improve education.

This feelgood is what happened, and it is why "progressive" policies almost always lead to less freedom, more hamhanded government control, and a permanently depressed economy. Otherwise the old Soviet Union and Cuba would be the planet's wealthiest economies.

Anyone who thinks a "rescue" using untold amounts of money we don't have, sent off to every Goldman-Sachs buddy in the universe with no conditions, no supervision, no tracking, and no predictable outcome is going to somehow save our economy...I have a few thousand bridges I'd like to sell you. First on the list is the bridge to nowhere.

As for the congressional hearings regarding the auto companies, listening to hippocrites who take bribes for a living and call them lobbyist "contributions," who cannot even oversee a Capital expansion project that went $350 million over an initial budget of $300 million, and was four years late, and then Mr. Kingfish of the Senate makes a crack about how bad citizens and taxpayers happen to smell when massed together in the summer...if you honestly think these folks can run an auto company, a banking system, or an ant farm, I suggest you head immediately to a 12-step meeting, because whatever you're on is not working.

It is proven time and again that the more government gets into areas where they have no expertise, the more they foul the nest. Just because control freaks get to run more things does not mean they can do the job better.
Our education system, locally-controlled until the 1950s, now turns out BA graduates who have fund of knowledge, logical thinking skills, math skills, and reading comprehension or writing expression skills inferior to the high school grads of 1950.

[MI-IRISH]

Originally Posted by Dwatted Wabbit

RE: "working class kid from the sticks." Google Clinton mentor and read it and weep. Start with J. Wm. Fullbright.

Government orders from on high, in the grand progressive tradition of "nonjudgementalism" and equal outcomes for nonequal investors, meant that under threat of civil rights or other government pressure or prosecution, banks were forced to lend to bad credit risks.

There is a reason lending institutions have standards and use judgement. Bad credit risks usually have earned their rep, and they often get in over their heads.
When banks are forced to lend to bad credit risks by an overbearing government, guess what, the loans will go south no matter how good or wishful the intentions were.

It was not deregulation that created this mess, it is the "progressive" idea that everyone everywhere is equal in all ways. So someone with a credit score of 500 and annual income of $25,000 is just as deserving of a $300,000 house as someone with 710 and a $125,000 income.

And the guy driving a UPS truck should be allowed to do heart surgery or act as a trial lawyer because, after all, he is as good a person as any doctor or lawyer.

This is the same sort of irrational thought that has led to no-score ball games for kids so no one will feel bad. It is what has led to passing kids who can't read so they won't feel bad about failing. It is what is behind the moron who thinks changing the "F" grade to "H" is somehow going to improve education.

This feelgood is what happened, and it is why "progressive" policies almost always lead to less freedom, more hamhanded government control, and a permanently depressed economy. Otherwise the old Soviet Union and Cuba would be the planet's wealthiest economies.

Anyone who thinks a "rescue" using untold amounts of money we don't have, sent off to every Goldman-Sachs buddy in the universe with no conditions, no supervision, no tracking, and no predictable outcome is going to somehow save our economy...I have a few thousand bridges I'd like to sell you. First on the list is the bridge to nowhere.

As for the congressional hearings regarding the auto companies, listening to hippocrites who take bribes for a living and call them lobbyist "contributions," who cannot even oversee a Capital expansion project that went $350 million over an initial budget of $300 million, and was four years late, and then Mr. Kingfish of the Senate makes a crack about how bad citizens and taxpayers happen to smell when massed together in the summer...if you honestly think these folks can run an auto company, a banking system, or an ant farm, I suggest you head immediately to a 12-step meeting, because whatever you're on is not working.

It is proven time and again that the more government gets into areas where they have no expertise, the more they foul the nest. Just because control freaks get to run more things does not mean they can do the job better.
Our education system, locally-controlled until the 1950s, now turns out BA graduates who have fund of knowledge, logical thinking skills, math skills, and reading comprehension or writing expression skills inferior to the high school grads of 1950.

maybe it's just me,but the rhetoric in washington was,if we don't bail out wall street,main street will fail,i think main street would have been fine,try local conglomerates would have failed to people using local businesses,instead of crispy cream,they would go to sweetwater's,instead of wallymart,they would have been more reliant on harding's or meijer's.
What a shame that would be,eh?

[topshop]

Originally Posted by MI-IRISH

maybe it's just me,but the rhetoric in washington was,if we don't bail out wall street,main street will fail,i think main street would have been fine,try local conglomerates would have failed to people using local businesses,instead of crispy cream,they would go to sweetwater's,instead of wallymart,they would have been more reliant on harding's or meijer's.
What a shame that would be,eh?

Very well put! I agree.