(07-25-2009 11:22 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Yea. We get rid of governmental "tyrants" and in their place we have big business "tyrants". Is that any better?

Yes.

Without the government tyrants proping them up the big business tyrants can't survive in the market place.

(07-26-2009 12:01 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 11:22 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Yea. We get rid of governmental "tyrants" and in their place we have big business "tyrants". Is that any better?

Yes.

Without the government tyrants proping them up the big business tyrants can't survive in the market place.

Or they become so powerful through deregulation and mergers that they become the government.

Business tyrants always face competition in the free market. Nobody, including a giant like Wal-Mart, is immune from failure. All it takes is one false move or one really gutsy competitor and you're in trouble. Just ask those at GM and Chrysler.

(07-26-2009 12:18 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Business tyrants always face competition in the free market. Nobody, including a giant like Wal-Mart, is immune from failure. All it takes is one false move or one really gutsy competitor and you're in trouble. Just ask those at GM and Chrysler.

Right. THat is why there were so many mergers and the biggest got bigger and stronger with fewer regulations under Bush.

I don't want the government to get involved in how Obama spends his vacation.

(07-26-2009 12:32 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-26-2009 12:18 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Business tyrants always face competition in the free market. Nobody, including a giant like Wal-Mart, is immune from failure. All it takes is one false move or one really gutsy competitor and you're in trouble. Just ask those at GM and Chrysler.

Right. THat is why there were so many mergers and the biggest got bigger and stronger with fewer regulations under Bush.

That's right, under the right conditions businesses grow. It's no secret and it's also no problem. Businesses are supposed to get big and then fade away. Sears is a prime example, they were a huge company with basically no competition at one point. They had the only catalouge at the time and you didn't actually have to step into the store to see what they had. But then Macy's started to do it followed by others and now you see that Sears was knocked off its high horse.

Believe me, aquisitions for growth won't hold you up forever. One day one of those companies will take on a bad aquisition that will lose them a bunch of money.

(07-25-2009 06:51 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 04:42 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Wait a minute. Didn't he just take an 18 month vacation where he visited 57 states, Europe and Africa???? I mean, it wasn't like he was at work or anything like that.

Anyway, most places I've worked you had to be on the job for a year before you got a vacation.

In the middle of a recession this sends a bad message to those of us who can't afford such luxury.

Isnt Bush the one who spent 487 days at Camp David and 490 days in Crawford? And everyone's precious Reagan spent 436 days on vacation. The double standard is amusing.

Are you Roberts Retarded Twin Bother or some other such kind of anomaly ????

It is just like I said about TARP and how WE would get stuck paying it back and I got fuggin slammed by all the TARPO Experts that "Oh Now We Won't" and by damnit, it is "Oh Yes We Are" as well as the Auto Industry, Credit Cards, Insurance, and the GREAT GREAT GREAT STIMULUS PACKAGE.

Keep on believing this Fools lies and one day he may send you a Teddy Bear or a Lolly Pop.

.

(07-25-2009 06:51 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 04:42 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Wait a minute. Didn't he just take an 18 month vacation where he visited 57 states, Europe and Africa???? I mean, it wasn't like he was at work or anything like that.

Anyway, most places I've worked you had to be on the job for a year before you got a vacation.

In the middle of a recession this sends a bad message to those of us who can't afford such luxury.

Isnt Bush the one who spent 487 days at Camp David and 490 days in Crawford? And everyone's precious Reagan spent 436 days on vacation. The double standard is amusing.

If you're going to call out double standard, then look at the beam in your own eye first. (BTW, that was the point. How f'n stupid do you have to be to miss it?)

(07-25-2009 09:35 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 09:28 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 09:02 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 08:32 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 08:04 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Forgive me. It's OK for Obama to go on vacation after just 6 months on the job. We can worry about the little things later, things like 2 wars, the recession, Iran and NK and their nukes, health care, cap and trade, his pal getting arrested, etc

This needs to be asked: Is Obama going on vacation because HE wants to, or does he need to get out of town while his teleprompters get fixed?

And the double standard is amusing - I believe you were one of the folks who bashed Bush over this.

You must be a blast at parties.

Yup. Republican parties.

Like this "Republican party"? (please note there is music and may not be suitable for work or younger viewers).

You are the guy in the red on the truck, right?

If this violates any copyrights please delete it but it does give the website address and who does the song.

I don't know who those mutants are but if you're looking to party with democrats Click Here

Now I know why you were afraid to respond to my Barney Frank post.

(07-26-2009 06:54 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 06:51 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 04:42 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Wait a minute. Didn't he just take an 18 month vacation where he visited 57 states, Europe and Africa???? I mean, it wasn't like he was at work or anything like that.

Anyway, most places I've worked you had to be on the job for a year before you got a vacation.

In the middle of a recession this sends a bad message to those of us who can't afford such luxury.

Isnt Bush the one who spent 487 days at Camp David and 490 days in Crawford? And everyone's precious Reagan spent 436 days on vacation. The double standard is amusing.

If you're going to call out double standard, then look at the beam in your own eye first. (BTW, that was the point. How f'n stupid do you have to be to miss it?)

It flew right over his head. And it was flying at about the level of a babe in diapers. Lying down. In a ditch.

(07-26-2009 12:38 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  I don't want the government to get involved in how Obama spends his vacation.

If Obama can dictate my health care then I sure as hell can speak up about his vacation and the tax money used by the SS and WH staff. Remember, he works for me.

Let him stay on vacation until his term ends. That's roughly 184 weeks, or $9.2 million at $50k/week. That's a whole lot less than he'll cost us if he goes back to work.

(07-26-2009 06:54 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 06:51 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 04:42 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Wait a minute. Didn't he just take an 18 month vacation where he visited 57 states, Europe and Africa???? I mean, it wasn't like he was at work or anything like that.

Anyway, most places I've worked you had to be on the job for a year before you got a vacation.

In the middle of a recession this sends a bad message to those of us who can't afford such luxury.

Isnt Bush the one who spent 487 days at Camp David and 490 days in Crawford? And everyone's precious Reagan spent 436 days on vacation. The double standard is amusing.

If you're going to call out double standard, then look at the beam in your own eye first. (BTW, that was the point. How f'n stupid do you have to be to miss it?)

So what you are saying is you had no problems with Bush and Raygun being on vacation so many days but if it is Obama(or a Democrat in general) it is wrong and he should not take vacations.

(07-26-2009 12:24 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-26-2009 12:38 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  I don't want the government to get involved in how Obama spends his vacation.

If Obama can dictate my health care then I sure as hell can speak up about his vacation and the tax money used by the SS and WH staff. Remember, he works for me.

Well, if there weren't so many racists(you) out there and so many psychotic people(Trippy) out there, he wouldn't need nearly as many SS with him thus cut down on the costs. Of course, as pointed out, there are too many people who would like to remove him from office.

(07-26-2009 12:55 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-26-2009 06:54 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 06:51 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 04:42 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Wait a minute. Didn't he just take an 18 month vacation where he visited 57 states, Europe and Africa???? I mean, it wasn't like he was at work or anything like that.

Anyway, most places I've worked you had to be on the job for a year before you got a vacation.

In the middle of a recession this sends a bad message to those of us who can't afford such luxury.

Isnt Bush the one who spent 487 days at Camp David and 490 days in Crawford? And everyone's precious Reagan spent 436 days on vacation. The double standard is amusing.

If you're going to call out double standard, then look at the beam in your own eye first. (BTW, that was the point. How f'n stupid do you have to be to miss it?)

So what you are saying is you had no problems with Bush and Raygun being on vacation so many days but if it is Obama(or a Democrat in general) it is wrong and he should not take vacations.

Join niuhuskie84. Just flying right over your heads. To quote the Dr., "How f'n stupid do you have to be to miss it?"

(07-25-2009 11:22 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 10:21 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 06:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 04:42 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Wait a minute. Didn't he just take an 18 month vacation where he visited 57 states, Europe and Africa???? I mean, it wasn't like he was at work or anything like that.

Anyway, most places I've worked you had to be on the job for a year before you got a vacation.

In the middle of a recession this sends a bad message to those of us who can't afford such luxury.

As far as I'm concerned, he can take the next 42 months off, and congress can take the next 18 months off. I can't imagine that we wouldn't be better off if they did.

yep....The less these tyrants do....the freer we get!!!

Yea. We get rid of governmental "tyrants" and in their place we have big business "tyrants". Is that any better?

The difference is the use of force. You have no obligation to do trade with any business. You have no "choice" when it comes to the the government and it's monopoly on the use of force.

(07-26-2009 12:32 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-26-2009 12:18 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Business tyrants always face competition in the free market. Nobody, including a giant like Wal-Mart, is immune from failure. All it takes is one false move or one really gutsy competitor and you're in trouble. Just ask those at GM and Chrysler.

Right. THat is why there were so many mergers and the biggest got bigger and stronger with fewer regulations under Bush.

Fear. It has overtaken America. If it isn't the terrorists its the free market. Everybody has a boogyman I suppose.

(07-26-2009 12:55 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-26-2009 06:54 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 06:51 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 04:42 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Wait a minute. Didn't he just take an 18 month vacation where he visited 57 states, Europe and Africa???? I mean, it wasn't like he was at work or anything like that.

Anyway, most places I've worked you had to be on the job for a year before you got a vacation.

In the middle of a recession this sends a bad message to those of us who can't afford such luxury.

Isnt Bush the one who spent 487 days at Camp David and 490 days in Crawford? And everyone's precious Reagan spent 436 days on vacation. The double standard is amusing.

If you're going to call out double standard, then look at the beam in your own eye first. (BTW, that was the point. How f'n stupid do you have to be to miss it?)

So what you are saying is you had no problems with Bush and Raygun being on vacation so many days but if it is Obama(or a Democrat in general) it is wrong and he should not take vacations.

Bush and Reagan went on vacations to their own homes/ranches, on their own property that was large enough to house the security and staff. They had what looked like prefab double wide trailers up at Crawford for housing, and a more permanent communications building.

Obama is incurring an unncessary public debt to house the staff and SS. Let him stay at Camp David, where is already the necessary housing.

You think he is going to Martha’s Vineyard to stay indoors and read his HealthCare Bill. This will be much more expensive than Bush cutting down a fer Mesquite trees at Crawford. Michelle Obama uses more than $20k for a afternoon snack.

(07-25-2009 06:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-25-2009 04:42 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Wait a minute. Didn't he just take an 18 month vacation where he visited 57 states, Europe and Africa???? I mean, it wasn't like he was at work or anything like that.

Anyway, most places I've worked you had to be on the job for a year before you got a vacation.

In the middle of a recession this sends a bad message to those of us who can't afford such luxury.

As far as I'm concerned, he can take the next 42 months off, and congress can take the next 18 months off. I can't imagine that we wouldn't be better off if they did.

:chuckle: