Full Version: Recession Ahead?
From: Dee (DEENA-ONLY) [#76]
25 Aug 2005
To: basehorawards [#74] 25 Aug 2005
I have and will always continue to believe that being president of anything, but most of all a country, is a thankless job. We all want something different from our leaders and when they don't respond to our particular wants we get frustrated. You will never convince me that George W. was the right man for these times however I was not a large Kerry fan either. I have felt for a long time that our system does not encourage the best and the brightest to aspire to be our leaders.
I have no problem with a moment of silence. I do have a problem with our government debating (note recent congressional hearings) the issue of evolution vs. creationism in text books.
I do have a problem with any president who says "God Bless America". I would like a president who doesn't bring God into the political arena, however, if he feels he must I would rather hear "God Bless the World"
Can we not agree to disagree here. I will never convince you to agree with my feelings nor will you ever convince me to agree with yours. There are plenty of facts to back up each of our beliefs. However, if we are honest with ourselves most of our political inclinations are based on feelings and a feeling belongs to the person who owns it and is not usually something we can argue with.
Dee
From: basehorawards [#77]
25 Aug 2005
To: Dee (DEENA-ONLY) [#76] 3 Sep 2005
I think that the amount of disagreement we have is actually pretty small.
I agree absolutely that our system of electing civil servants to the Congress and the Presidency have been so misused that it is difficult to get anyone to run. Where are the Washingtons, Jeffersons, Lincolns, Roosovelts of today? The fact is that in todays climate none of them could be elected today. (Washington wants to be King. Jefferson is not a good public speaker and is too introverted. Lincoln doesn't have any education and is a hick from nowhere. FDR is a cripple with ambitions of being president for life. Those are cruel things to say but that is what happens to people who run for office today.) Just wish I had the answer for how to straighten it out.
Regarding evolution vs. creationism I really do not want creationism taught in the classroom either because it is too vague of a concept. How will it be decided which version of creationism should be taught? Each culture (not even just each religion) has their own. I would like to see evolution taught with emphasis on the reality that it is a theory. A theory with a lot of support but a theory nevertheless. At one time it was common to believe that the earth was flat and that the sun went around the plane of the earth. It was really a theory but it fit the evidence available so it was taught as fact. Evolution today is taught as fact and not as theory. I once worked with a young man who was a literal believer in the Bible. When we discussed this topic I asked him what happened between the fingertips of God and the earth? I think evolution. But that is a theory and a belief and must be presented as such.
God Bless America. I guess on this one we are farthest apart. Too little time and the wrong place to discuss theology at the depth this could go.
I hope that your political inclinations are based on thought as well of feelings. I feel very strongly that some things ought to be one way but when I think about it I know that it can not always be that way. Feelings can get very complicated and you are absolutely correct that feelings belong to the person who has them. Making sure you are in control of those feelings rather than the other way around is very important. Too many people base their actions on how they feel at the moment. How many times have you asked yourself about someone "What was he thinking?" when in fact he was not thinking but acting on his feelings.
How about we agree to continue to look at things from different perspectives and agree to keep on sharing our perspectives. That is how we all grow.
From: gt350ed [#78]
25 Aug 2005
To: basehorawards [#75] 25 Aug 2005
James: I want to echo that I am so appreciative that you took the time to so eloquently state what so many of us feel.
The bottom line is, our President isn't perfect. But considering what he inherited AND what has transpired on his watch, there is NO DOUBT in my mind that he is the right man for the job at the right time. And there is NO one on the political horizon, of any party, that comes even close to what I expect from a leader that I am getting from this President.
Have all of his decisions been good ones? Absolutely not. I'm particularly bothered by his apparent stance on the illegal (Mexican) immigration issues facing this country; particularly southern border states, but virtually every state is now starting to feel the effects.
Nevertheless, this issue, as with so many issues, does not come down to just one man; whether he be the President or not. What some of the states are now starting to do on there own (declaring states of emergency), along with citizens themselves (Minutemen, State Border Police initiatives, etc.), is exactly the way things SHOULD work.
I could go on but I won't. It's just refreshing to see that the "majority" is still in the majority and the dependent-on-government liberals are at bay; although worthy of keeping an eye on.
From: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#79]
25 Aug 2005
To: gt350ed [#78] 25 Aug 2005
You said
He won't close the border because of the Mexican and Cuban backlash that would occur; if he did this in his first term, Kerry would have won since he would have lost FL and possibly Texas.
The bigger problem is that with all his blustering about homeland security and terrorism, the sieve that we call the Mexican border is allowing a hell of a lot more than just Mexicans. We will not have anything close to security until someone has the guts to tighten the borders up.
Just my opinion
Dave
From: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#80]
25 Aug 2005
To: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#79] 25 Aug 2005
I have to agree with you both on this topic......It's my biggest issue with the current administration. I agree that the vote was very likely the main reason that he was soft on immigration issues. I am happy to see the states starting to deal with it, but I think there needs to be much more focus on it.
Brian
From: Cindy (CINDYM) [#81]
25 Aug 2005
To: RALLYGUY (RALLYGUY1) [#80] 25 Aug 2005
I'll just put my two cents in here and say that as a relatively new citizen of the United States, there is a way to enter the country legally. Yes, it takes time, effort and some money, but if you want something bad enough, you work for it and make it happen.
Here in Oregon we have many illegal aliens and it makes me irritated to see them collecting welfare, food stamps, health care - all on my hard earned tax dollars, while citizens go without. We even had a weekend last month where they gave out those ID cards - well, here in Oregon you can get a drivers license with the ID card, and once they have the Drivers License it is all good from there on the benefit train.
From someone who did it the legal way, this is beyond belief, and I can't understand how this is allowed to continue. Our borders are like sieves.
I have no problem with aliens immigrating, just do it legally.
Cindy M
From: basehorawards [#82]
25 Aug 2005
To: gt350ed [#78] 25 Aug 2005
Ed,
I have to agree with you on the border issue. It is frustrating to see the inaction on this issue. If he does not want to anger the Latino vote why not have members of the administration sit down with the leaders of that community and figure out how to set up a guest worker program that works. Then set it up at border crossings and let them come in and work for periods of time legally. We know who is coming in. They are not dying in the desert and they are legal. Give them the dignity they deserve. Don't make them sneak in like thieves.
Then seal the border tighter than the chinese do theirs. That will keep out the true bad guys (or at least make it harder for them to get in.)
This seems like such a winner for which ever party does it why hasn't it been done?
From: gt350ed [#83]
25 Aug 2005
To: UCONN Dave & Lynn too (DANDL48) [#79] 25 Aug 2005
Oh, I know WHY he is taking the position that he is, I just don't like it. In my heart, I believe that what is beginning to happen by state officials and citizen's groups is what the administration wants to happen. Like you say, if he was rigid on immigration (illegal) he might have lost the election. With enough independent public pressure, he'll be able to say to the Vincente Foxs' of the world, "hey, what can I say, the nation is up in arms about this". That's politics. You cannot be a world changer if you run for President and lose. I understand that.
Nevertheless, illegal immigration is a huge problem; particularly in California, Arizona and New Mexico. But they don't stay in those states long. The migrate north and east. It truly IS effecting every state, with the possible exception of Hawaii and Alaska.
And, of course you are absolutely correct that coupled with this open border situation is an even greater collapse of our national security.
I'm convinced that, for many, nothing will really get done until a nuclear bomb is set off on our own soil.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#84]
25 Aug 2005
To: ALL
I mean, c'mon! Where else can you get this kind of entertainment?
Where!? :P
From: UncleSteve [#85]
25 Aug 2005
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#84] 25 Aug 2005
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#86]
25 Aug 2005
To: UncleSteve [#85] 26 Aug 2005
EDITED: 25 Aug 2005 by DGL
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#87]
25 Aug 2005
To: UncleSteve [#85] 26 Aug 2005
Uncle Steve, finally got you! The Senate is part of Congress. I guess you meant the Senate and the House.
From: gt350ed [#88]
25 Aug 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#87] 26 Aug 2005
Hey, just cause youse in Philly don't give you da right to know evr frickin thing bout our 4 fathers and how dey got started.
Dey was all abuncha frick'n long hairs....like youse.
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#89]
26 Aug 2005
To: gt350ed [#88] 26 Aug 2005
Thank you, proud to be included in that illustrious group.
All: If you have been listening to the news lately, I am not the only one afraid that a recession is on the way. I saw it six months ago, but recently posted. Now some of the experts are starting to see the signs. Make no mistake, we are on the front lines of seeing what is happening in the economy. The normal retail customer, as opposed to the corporate customer, reacts first so we see it first. Spendable income goes down, we see it first.
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#90]
26 Aug 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#89] 26 Aug 2005
Harvey,
What is your crystal ball saying about degree and duration?
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#91]
26 Aug 2005
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#90] 26 Aug 2005
Personally I think that all has to do with oil prices at the moment. I only get a feel of today and the very near future, (few weeks maybe). It all depends if conditions change and if the government can do anything about the conditions that are the root cause.
Bush did work out an increased oil production deal with Opec, but for 2009. A bit too late for what I see.
The only good that may come out of this is better alternative sources of energy. Wind and water are the best, non polluting and absorbing energy from the environment so when it is used we are back to whee we began. No net gain in energy to the environment. (Solar will do the same.)
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#92]
26 Aug 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#91] 26 Aug 2005
I saw something years ago on proposed underwater turbines, powered by the ocean currents. They were supposed to be huge but slow, so no fish would be hurt. And out of sight for no "not in my back yard". And give consistent power due to the nature of the currents. I wonder what happened?
When I was in college I had a summer job one year at GE Nuclear, with the ALMR project. (Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor) It used sodium in the core instead of water for higher efficiencies. The system was designed with safety as the top priority. Its amazing how inherently safe the design was. Another advantage, it could be powered by the "spent" fuel cells from the existing nuclear infrastructure. I suspect it was canned because it could function as a breeder reactor. (It could be set up to make its own fuel, while generating electricity.)
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#93]
26 Aug 2005
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#92] 26 Aug 2005
There are different types of 'breeder reactors'. I remember the info on liquid sodium transfer reactors, but that seemed to disappear fast for some reason.
A liquid sodium leak would be devastating, it would burn furiously on contact with air. Also liquid metals tend to dissolve other metals into it. I always wondered how they overcame that problem, maybe it was only a short term solution, (pun).
I also always wondered why spent fuel was not just mixed with the dirt of the uranium quarries as new uranium was mined. It would return only about the same radioactive amounts that were removed originally giving a basically null effect on the environment.
From: trophyman (MIKEBERGER) [#94]
26 Aug 2005
To: Cindy (CINDYM) [#81] 30 Aug 2005
You are right on with this. My grandparents came here from Germany during WI and also HAD TO LEARN English.
Now we are not only giving them everything BUT ALSO are required to provide them EVERYTHING in their language.
The grocery and fast food industry has become a foreign country to us when we try to communicate there. Just my 2 cents but it upsets me that my ancestors made the effort to do it legal.
A friend just got laid off from a job that he had for nearly 10 years, trying to get ANY assistance was all a TOTAL JOKE and RUN AROUND, but yet the illegals get the RED CARPET rolled out.
Mike
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#95]
26 Aug 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#93] 28 Aug 2005
Interesting idea of returning the radioactive waste to its source. I see no reason why they couldn't be worked out, but some issues might be transport, and distribution/disbursement. Its a lot more concentrated then when it was first removed. Then there is a trickier issue, if it was originally in stone and is returned to the dirt, will rain leach/wash it out.
I was in the controls group so I don't know the details of liquid metal. They did have a leak detection system. It used a series of sensitive microphones. A signal processor would look for common signals. (The same "noise" at multiple locations is really a signal too weak to detect at just one. The location can then be determined by looking at the time shift and triangulating.) - The whole project seemed to have more politics then engineering. Though its amazing what the engineers were doing with the little money that trickled down.
Another group was working on a liquid lithium unit for a space reactor. I heard that was canned because of space reactors coming out of Russia; they weren't all that safe or long lasting, but they were cheap enough to be considered disposable.
Like everyone else I don't want a power plant in my back yard. But given the choice I'd choose the liquid sodium system they were working on over one that burns fossil fuels. - Maybe someone will design a man-made photosynthesis process for separating oxygen and hydrogen, to power fuel cells. Or an efficient long lasting solar cell.
Show messages: 1-15 16-35 36-55 56-75 76-95 96-115 116-122