Posted on 07/17/2011 1:52:01 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Hi Hoot, Sorry for the late reply on this.
“Norm you are correct, but we have had two presidents lately that couldn’t pass even a low security background check.”
Exactly why we need them. This is gonna get wordy as is my wont, but hang in there:
Part of this goes to exactly why they should be required - to ensure another Clinton cant sell high grade Sat-Tech to China or Obama to fund Muzzie terror groups.
If the Repubs mandate ‘per the rules’ a bkg check in their own party and the Dems do not, that is a huge coup in PR for the Repubs. But most importantly, the PEOPLE will be far less likely to vote for a person that cannot.
Imagine the scenario where the BKG is in place - say 2016 and the Dems run an Obama like figure as the candidate. He refuses or fails the check. That’s pretty hard to spin when the other party ALL has checked candidates.
BUT!!!
If we were to get power in the House Senate (H/S), we can set ALL H/S rules, Party and Electorial as it relates to the H/S, that in order for ANY candidate to be backed by H/S members, they must pass the check. Again, no LAW required as the H/S has the total Constitutional authority to make it’s rules any way they see fit... and there are many cases of/with precedence to back up them doing so.
So Even if the Dems wer to run another Obama, the H/S CANNOT back him without the check per the rules. If they did, they could be LEGALLY thrown from office. What chance would that candidate have in a general?
None.
As I said/hinted at earlier, Palin CAN force the issue and bring it to the people. AKA “So you want to elect people with a clean record? Or Do you want the Dems to get more people in power like those that wrecked the economy and nearly the country in just 2 years?
THEN just spam the records of the Rangels and Geitners and the Pedo-loving ‘school safety Czar” and stick it in the Dem’s face every single time they cry “BLACKLIST!!”
Again, note that this does not require SP to claim or use powers not held by the president, nor any “LAW” to be passed. All of it is 100% legal and doable by H/S rules and common authority and ability.
In the end it comes down to guts and huevos. SP has both. The Repubs can go along and become the party they are supposed to be or the holdouts can be tossed with the Dem/Libs onto the ash heap of history.
And again, no “dictator” or “coup” needed. This is all by the book stuff and the Dem/Libs/Rinos cannot do a damn thing about it. Go along and fix the problem, or be publically shown as PART OF the problem. They will quickly fall in line.
Lastly, to the point that plenty of good people have screwed up, paid the price and are now good citizens. Absolutely true. I know many. But there are plenty who never have as well. It still comes down to my original premise.
“Do we want people that cannot pass a simple FBI background check sitting in the largest seats of power on the planet...especially when we can elect people who can?
I patiently wait for the AMC in my area to show this movie. I have a feeling they will be sold out every night in my area.
Don’t think that Sarah is not running. I think that Bristol let the cat out of the bag and told what Sarah said, was to be kept on the boat. I think she is quietly setting up her communications network and is testing out its circuits. Her campaign needs to be quick to react to the enemy’s media hits which will be wide spread and stinking with lies.
Spot on!
Basic Sun Tzu - Art of War. That is EXACTLY what she’s doing. But in the face of reality, some still drool out “She ain’t running/She can’t win” all over the keyboard and I suppose it makes them feel good.
None of the PDS brigade bothered to notice that the Iowa setup is being played out quietly in states across America. Their media buddies didn’t report on it so it must not be happening I suppose.
Those of us paying attention have been watching it unfold for sometime now, sit back and laugh at the ‘experts’ here on FR.
What was that Ronaldus Magnus said about those types? Oh yea...”They know so much that just isn’t so.”
Would instantly support Palin of she ran. Absent her, first choice among viable candidates, Perry. Absent him, first choice among announced, Bachmann.
Romney is a non-starter. He loses Iowa, doesn't score a knockout in NH, loses SC. Loses $ input, is dead after SC.
VP, Rubio, because among things, he locks election with Hispanic vote.
Would instantly support Palin if she ran. Absent her, first choice among viable candidates, Perry. Absent him, first choice among announced, Bachmann.
Romney is a non-starter. He loses Iowa, doesn't score a knockout in NH, loses SC. Loses $ input, is dead after SC.
VP, Rubio, because among things, he locks election with Hispanic vote.
We are so fortunate to have Sarah with a BA in Journalism to give her an unique advantage in the media war—the Sun Tzu—she will fight. What is even more to her advantage is that she has been sharpening her skills much longer than the other candidates. What would throw a Michelle Bachmann off her game, would be quickly dealt with by Sarah. A candidate cannot afford a campaign setback with bad press. It destroys fund raising and it demoralizes the volunteers on the grassroots. Sarah is light years ahead of the other candidates in this regard.
Sarah already knows the workings of a national campaign. She has already done the apprentice thing. She is now ready to sit in the captain’s chair.
Absolutely. That experience in journalism of hers in invaluable. Not so much the journalism degree itself, but knowing the inside of a newsroom and how they think. I was in the biz for a number of years in both print (mostly) and net. They are pretty much are the dens of iniquity that people think they are. It’s all about sales, advertizing and keeping the media outlet’s ‘friends’ serviced. Truth really plays a minor role and very much depends on whose ‘truth’ the Ed wants covered. And how. MSNBC/NYT and their ilk prove this daily.
As you said, she knows that environment and what/how the attacks will come. Plus, she has friends at Fox and others ‘behind the scenes’ that will feed her the same way the Dems have their ‘sources’ in the industry.
Yup, she’s ready for the big chair. All the crying from her detractors on FR will not change the fact that barring some unforseen disaster, she will get it.
I was a journalism student at the University of Washington, but left to get a degree in English Lit at a smaller private college.
Good move. The EL degree has a purpose and is useful. One Ed I worked with told every new J-School hire “Forget everything they taught you. This is how “I” do things.” There are many like that.
Plus the starting pay isn’t too great in most areas.
Look at the history of Goldman Sachs--they were heavily involved in the margin trading that in the end caused the 1929 stock market crash--a crash made worse because bank assets were affected by that crash, resulting in thousands of bank failures all over the USA. And the same company got heavily involved in a lot of the new-style investments like derivatives, hedge funds, and credit default swaps, which made the company a lot of money but to the literal expense of everything else in the US economy, as we've seen from how well Goldman Sachs managed to survive the 2008 stock market crash.
One of FDR's few smart moves was to sign the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act--an act that provided a lot of stability to banks because bank assets were "firewalled" from the ups and downs of the stock market. And it was this "firewall" that literally protected the US economy from the 1987 stock market crash (because bank assets were not affected) and protected the economy from the effects of the 1997-1999 Asian financial crisis.
Look at what happened after Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999: banks got heavily into the investment business. So while from 2000 to 2006 they made a LOT of profit, once the housing bubble burst, these banks started to lose money at a huge rate, and when the stock market finally crashed in September 2008 many banks failed just like what happened after the 1929 stock market crash.
As such, this is why I want those controls I mentioned earlier in place. This protects bank assets, very important because too many people's life savings are stored in those bank assets, and we all read from history what happened during the spate of bank failures before Glass-Steagall was signed into law.
The problems ( there were far more than just buying on low to no margins )that caused the Crash of '29 were somewhat covered, after the fact ( much,much after ) by regulations. OTOH, If Joe Kennedy Sr. and his cartel hadn't been shorting the market, as J.P. Morgan and his buddies ( whom Hoover had asked to help out), that CRASH would have recovered ( as it initially did! )and stayed recovered. Instead, Joe kept pounding it down and as a result of that, FDR made him the first head of the SEC, because FDR figured that such a crook and blaggard would know all of the "tricks/corruption" that needed tending to.
You've fallen into the MSM trap of calling everything "WALL STREET" and blackening the eyes of firms and contracts that had/have nothing whatsoever to do with the mess of '08.
I probablly know the history of Goldman-Sachs better than you do. I know that I understand "the Street" and markets better than you do and as I said earlier, you are wrong, vis-a-vis your pledge by a candidate.
There have been many BUBBLES, CRASHES, PAINICS, RECESSIONS, and yes, DEPRESSIONS, not to mention MORTGAGE/BANK COLLAPSES during the entire history of this nation. There was a time when very few people actually bought stock. There was a time, that almost nobody, outside of an extremely low number traded commodities, and more recently, there was a time when even fewer people traded options and futures.
I would more or less agree with you, re bringing back the full force of Glass-Stegall. As to the rest of what you have proposed, I am completely against it, for very good reasons, one of which I have stated, quite clearly, farther up on the thread.
I know that lots of people want Rubio as someone's VEEP, but he has repeatedly said that he isn't interested. We'll just have to see what happens.
Romney,like his father, will never be president!
Wow!! I read almost everything anyone writes about Sarah and this is the first time I’ve seen her compared to Churchill. I must say it is an apt comparison. I remember his strength when the rest of his countrymen were ready to roll ove and die. Sarah has the same qualities.
I will vote for her... Again!
Please, boor is the best nicest thing I could think of.
You are ZOTTED. Your posts will not be seen by me nor replied to in the future. I don’t waste time with people like you.
"Boor" is also a badly chosen word on your part and if the others you thought about calling me were a no go ( gutter language ), then I suggest that you go buy yourself a good dictionary and/or thesaurus; you truly need both books.
And nobody reading your posts to this thread believes that Governor Palin is your first choice, should she throw her hat into the ring.
Not a coward at all, dude.
In fact, try this on for size:
Note to any interested FReepers, please take a look atMindBender26's full profile, not just the part I excerpted to set him up for an ad hominem snark.
...then tell me what part of his homepage screams "genuine conservative Palin fan."
(Yeah, I read your posts downthread from the post that this is in reply to. Why didn't you lead off by saying you would support Sarah if she happened to win the GOP nomination? And if you're comfortable voting for her in such circumstances, as indicated in Post #186, why the strange reluctance to help bring it about?)
And for someone whose signup date is listed as 1999, and who claims to have been on FR before that, you show a strange misunderstanding of the word "ZOTTED" in Post #197.
Cheers! Cheers!
I would support Governor Palin as my number one choice, if she runs. Right now, she has not announced her intention to run. I am a maxed-out donor to SarahPAC, because I know that the candidates she supports, as she does, are important at all levels.
Likewise, I understand that if she chose to run, it would be a very difficult battle for her, because of the undeserved negatives she carries. She understands that the most important thing is beating Obama, and she follows the Reagan Rule: “Nominate the most conservative candidate in the primary, who can win the general.”
That said, I expect her to not run, but follow her own dictate and support the most conservative candidate who can win the general.
Because you are obviously either not a student of American presidential election history, or are just a far-left DU disruptor trying to mess with real conservatives by espousing so-called far-right positions, knowing they are BS, you will be Zotted and not seen on my replies in the future.
Why? You are rude, crass, obviously a lower-class person, and simply not worth my time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.