Game Fishing Forum banner

1 - 20 of 60 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,566 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hillary and Bill are now discussing a joint ticket with Obama.

Do you think that they are getting desperate because it looks like Hillary will fail in her bid to win the nomination for the Democratic Party.
 
G

·
It sure sounds like it to me. She's almost sounding presumptious. I think it's funny that Senator Obama basically said "No Thanks".

Hey Sir John,

Have you been to the town of Winchester? I spent about 10 days over there on a work assignment. What a cool town with so much history. Went through the cathedral.....WOW!!! And saw King Arthurs round table. Very interesting. That thing weighed over a ton and made of oak. :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,566 Posts
Discussion Starter #3

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,957 Posts
It is my hope that Obama does secure the nomination. He will be easy to defeat because his platform is vacant minded. You cannot win the Presidency with empty promises and platitudes.

Hillary, on the other hand, might represent a tougher row to hoe in November.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
[quote=" You cannot win the Presidency with empty promises and platitudes.

.[/quote]

Have you paid any attention to presidential politics in the past 50 years? Empty promises are their stock in trade. George Bush "I am not interested in nation building" “I will eliminate the deficit in five years" yada yada yada
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,059 Posts
"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

"Read my lips, no new taxes."

"It's time for a change."

The voter has fallen for it before. Don't be too shocked if they fall for it again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
Bonzo said:
You cannot win the Presidency with empty promises and platitudes.
Wanna bet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,957 Posts
Thanks Wham Bam, DanS and SalmonMan! Tup:

At least we now know what you value in a candidate. wink:

May you be blessed with great quantities of empty promises and platitudes. :lol:

Me?
I'll be voting for a candidate that I believe might actually accomplish something beneficial for us and our fellow citizens. :mrgreen:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,566 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Me?
I'll be voting for a candidate that I believe might actually accomplish something beneficial for us and our fellow citizens

:lol: I just wonder how many of the Right are backing your views, especially after the flaming McCain has received on this site.

As I have mentioned before you and the rest of the Right will toe the party line whether you like the guy or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,456 Posts
As I have mentioned before you and the rest of the Right will toe the party line whether you like the guy or not.
Of course they will, because the dems aren't giving them anything CLOSE to a responsibile or acceptable choice. I can understand why you and the lefties would fall for the "hope and change" garbage Sir John, but don't expect those with conservative ideals are going to fall for any of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,118 Posts
sir john said:
I just wonder how many of the Right are backing your views, especially after the flaming McCain has received on this site.
We appreciate the 90% of the issues agreed upon by our nominee and are unafraid to expose the 10% of the issues to which we disagree. Tup:
 
G

·
From Bonzo:[/quote]Me?
I'll be voting for a candidate that I believe might actually accomplish something beneficial for us and our fellow citizens. :mrgreen:[/quote]

So you're saying you're voting for Obama. Good for you Tup: You have finally came to your senses wink: Way to go dude!! clap:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,685 Posts
IBC,

Obama has pledged to go after big corps and their profits for taxes. Its hard to imagine a company with more tax incentives than Boeing. If he makes it much harder for boeing to compete what do you think that will mean for this region? Weyerhauesr is another with many tax incentives and tarriff protections.
 
G

·
Theking said:
IBC,

Obama has pledged to go after big corps and their profits for taxes. Its hard to imagine a company with more tax incentives than Boeing. If he makes it much harder for boeing to compete what do you think that will mean for this region? Weyerhauesr is another with many tax incentives and tarriff protections.
Boeing has been downsizing for many, many years. Take a look at the Renton plant as one example. But they didn't down size Renton because of tax breaks. Take a look at the Auburn Plant. They got rid of one of our core competencies in the huge autoclaves they used to have. Sent them overseas. That wasn't because of tax breaks. Many of the Auburn buildings don't even have anything in them. If I'm not wrong they sold some of the Auburn property to Safeway. Take a look a Boeing Wichita....oops! I meant Spirit Aero Systems (used to be Wichita) they didn't get rid of that part of the company because of tax breaks. And part of the story here was to bring everything they could back to the 10-50 building complex in Renton that housed the 757, tie a big bow around it and send it to Wichita. Shortly there after it was sold to Spirit. Take a look at Boeing of Spokane....oops! dang it, I did it again. I meant to say Spirit again. They didn't sell this part of the company to Spirit because of tax breaks. And Plant II, that got down sized when Boeing Headquarters was still here.

Part of my point on the above mentioned was the Boeing company had this stuff in the works many years before tax breaks for Boeing became an issue. It seems Boeing didn't start asking for tax breaks until the 787 was being discussed. They had no problem building the 707, 727, 737 (still) 747(still), 757, 767(still, but soon will be shut down), 777(still) and the new 787. The Boeing comapny is getting a whole lot smaller. And it's not because they want more tax breaks. Even if Washington was to give them every single tax break the company asked for, it's not going to keep the company from downsizing more. We'll have to wait and see what 2016 has in store for the Boeing company. This was and is one of Phil Condits visions for the future Boeing company. It was established (i think back in the 90's) and the company has been heading for this vision ever since. The Boeing Company's current CEO Jim McKnerney hasn't changed it.

So I don't think Obama is going to have much impact on what the Boeing Company's future business is going to look like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,685 Posts
Be careful a kid up in Everett talked his friends into burying his head in the sand and is now in critical conditon. I hear it's contagious. Tup:
 
G

·
Theking said:
Be careful a kid up in Everett talked his friends into burying his head in the sand and is now in critical conditon. I hear it's contagious. Tup:
ooooKkkkkkk???? conf: :roll: And your point is??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,566 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
IBC you sure put out a good case.

The same sort of thing happened to me. THe company I worked for was 90% owned by the gov and my pension was a gov pension scheme. The gov decided to sell off the company, it was sold to a Brazilian company and then re-sold to a company owned by the French gov. When it was sold off to the French they took onboard my pension. The French decided to shut down my plant as they had just built a new one in France. I was able to take a lump sum plus pension. Hell I have not looked back since leaving there.

Companies decide what is good for them, not goverments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,685 Posts
"ooooKkkkkkk???? And your point is??"

There is a difference when a company streamlines to remain competitive vs being forced to by increased cost of doing business by the govt. The left is convinced that corps are raping the people and are all for geting some back via taxes or loss of incentives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,566 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
If companies do not make a profit, they shut down, not good for the workforce.

If they do make a profit but do not invest in new machinery/modern ideas then in time they go downhill and have to shut. Not good for the workforce.

If companies make vast profits and only think of the shareholders then this is also bad for the workforce as they will soon be discouraged.

A good company is one that looks after its workforce as well as its shareholders.

We sure are getting a long way from the original posting.
 
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
Top