Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Newt is a fruit

Suddenly I feel the idea of a new children's book coalescing in my mind grapes. I can see the illustrations already.

Newt CANNOT get the nomination, but he is ABSOLUTELY chief of staff material.

Ahtman wrote:

Newt is a fruit

Suddenly I feel the idea of a new children's book coalescing in my mind grapes. I can see the illustrations already.

I don't know if Newt is grape material. He seems a little tangy. Whats a tangy fruit? Orange? Pomegranate (Now there's one, it sounds slightly professorial too).

halonachos wrote:
We need Zombie Theodore Roosevelt.

I can confidently say that zombie TR would produce this....



...response in Congress. Followed closely by....

Theodore Roosevelt wrote:"Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth."

Smart man too. I think that politicians now and days should have a band around their wrists labeled "WWTRD?", it may increase the amount of fist fights in Congress but it would mean that they're presenting things that are damned well worth fighting for. In the new Congress whoever can KO the Speaker of the House get's their bill passed.

halonachos wrote:

Theodore Roosevelt wrote:"Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth."

*cough*socialism*cough*

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Theodore Roosevelt wrote:"Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth."

*cough*socialism*cough*

You call it socialism, I call it Teddyism... now only if there were an orkmoticon with a pair of dashing sunglasses.

I wouldn't clump it with socialism as a whole though, while socialism seeks to make industry work for the people they seek it by putting industry under the control of the people and making them publicly owned. Teddy wanted privately owned corporations that didn't screw people over with things such as trusts or monopolies.

halonachos wrote:
You call it socialism, I call it Teddyism... now only if there were an orkmoticon with a pair of dashing sunglasses.

And the language game begins anew.

halonachos wrote:
I wouldn't clump it with socialism as a whole though, while socialism seeks to make industry work for the people they seek it by putting industry under the control of the people and making them publicly owned. Teddy wanted privately owned corporations that didn't screw people over with things such as trusts or monopolies.

Yeah, because monopoly controls are not state controls on industry.

dogma wrote:Yeah, because monopoly controls are not state controls on industry.

State controls vs state owned, leave it at that.

Socialism isn't necessarily about state ownership.

dogma wrote:Socialism isn't necessarily about state ownership.

Are you trying to imply that Socialism and Communism aren't the same thing?

Socialism's key cornerstone is social ownership, which is separated into state ownership, common ownership, public ownership, self-management(workers choose production methods vs an owner choosing production methods), etc.

Its typically characterized with social ownership so that's what I'll stick with.

Ahtman wrote:
Are you trying to imply that Socialism and Communism aren't the same thing?

Of course not, that would be Unamerican.

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
Are you trying to imply that Socialism and Communism aren't the same thing?

Of course not, that would be Unamerican.

Socialism and Communism are evil, we don't have socialism in america. Those schools there, those aren't socialist, its capitalism. We won them in a poker match.

halonachos wrote:Socialism's key cornerstone is social ownership, which is separated into state ownership, common ownership, public ownership, self-management(workers choose production methods vs an owner choosing production methods), etc.

Its typically characterized with social ownership so that's what I'll stick with.

I see that, when paraphrasing Wikipedia, you decided to leave out the bit about cooperative management. I suppose that makes sense, it would injure your argument if left in.

Cooperative management, no. Worker co-ops have workers as owners of the business that they work for and retail co-ops have businesses as owners instead of individuals. There was a worker's co-op in India that was advocated by a communist.

To me a co-op is a form of self-management.

halonachos wrote:Cooperative management, no. Worker co-ops have workers as owners of the business that they work for and retail co-ops have businesses as owners instead of individuals. There was a worker's co-op in India that was advocated by a communist.

To me a co-op is a form of self-management.

Which is also socialism.

Will you two agree or disagree or something. I forgot to take my meds this morning till now.....so have a itchy shooting finger...and I just brought a new assualt rifle...

halonachos wrote:

Theodore Roosevelt wrote:"Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth."

Smart man too. I think that politicians now and days should have a band around their wrists labeled "WWTRD?", it may increase the amount of fist fights in Congress but it would mean that they're presenting things that are damned well worth fighting for. In the new Congress whoever can KO the Speaker of the House get's their bill passed.

That's a great quote but I feel like we might be interpreting it differently.

The way I see it, Teddy would rather tweak and shape industry like a sheepdog with a flock than exert any real control over it, but isn't against regulation in the slightest.

Jihadin wrote:Will you two agree or disagree or something. I forgot to take my meds this morning till now.....so have a itchy shooting finger...and I just brought a new assualt rifle...

Oo..now we're talking. What did Santa bring early?

So, I guess everyone forgot how Newt was a disgrace to his party when he spoke out against the Ryan Plan?

Clearly, this is the NOT MITT camp coalescing around whoever is NOT MITT again. Kind of like what happened with Caine, Perry, and Bachman.

<Yawn>

Will you silly voters just give it up. The party elites have all ready annointed Mitt. Stop thinking you have a choice.

Newt Gingrich, being taken seriously as the next president. Truly, nothing I could type here would illustrate the absurdity of that situation more than the concept itself.

Enjoy 4 more years of socialist kenyan secret muslim teleprompter, conservatives!

From Senator Tom Coburn on the lizard that is Newt:

Senator Tom Coburn: "I am not inclined to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich having served under him for four years and experienced personally his leadership. There are all types of leaders, leaders that instill confidence, leaders that are somewhat abrupt and brisk, leaders that have one standard for the people they are leading and a different standard for themselves. I just found his leadership lacking..."

Easy E wrote:Will you silly voters just give it up. The party elites have all ready annointed Mitt. Stop thinking you have a choice.

I don't think it's the party elites, it's just that the pool of candidates for both sides consists of people who are just finishing their second term as governors, have completed their second term as governors within the last couple of election cycles, or are sitting senators from prominent states. That means for any primary, there's a field of maybe two dozen people for each side that could potentially run. Remove the politically damaged, people with little appeal outside their homestates, the deeply crazy, and people incapable of shifting from state focus to national and international focus, and on average you're left with maybe three or four plausible candidates.

Which is fine, except as you'd know from playing Warhammer, you roll a batch of dice and sometimes you get a whole lot of 6s, and sometimes you get one, or maybe none. This time around the Republicans rolled up one viable candidate in Mitt Romney, which is admittedly better than the zero viable candidates the Democrats managed in 2004, with the only problem than most Republicans don't like the man.

And so we've enjoyed a series of very unelectable people being thrown the not-Romney votes, as each pointed out they weren't Romney, with each failing terribly once the spotlight fell on all the parts of their candidacy that weren't the fact they aren't Mitt Romney.

The way I see it, Teddy would rather tweak and shape industry like a sheepdog with a flock than exert any real control over it, but isn't against regulation in the slightest.

I tend to think his actions provide a somewhat different prospective, I'm sure Standard Oil and Northern Securities didn't feel "tweaked."
What it says to me is that Teddy accepted that corporations had to exist and be tolerated, but his actions tell us he was more than willing to crush the unscrupulous.

Nope, still throwing in my vote for Zombie Andrew Jackson. Sure he had his faults, and really who doesnt, but mainly, he crushed the Fed, like it should be, and brought the countries debt to zero. ZERO! We owed no one, and the Fed was put in its place, unlike today where it pretty much runs everything weather we like it or not. He too was shot in a duel, but he LET the guy shoot him, only to walk up to him, and shoot him dead for it. He crushed the British in the Battle of New Orleans (no offense meant guys) He was a self taught, self made man, that took no ones bs. We need a Pres like that, hence why my vote for the man

KingCracker wrote:Nope, still throwing in my vote for Zombie Andrew Jackson. Sure he had his faults, and really who doesnt, but mainly, he crushed the Fed, like it should be, and brought the countries debt to zero. ZERO! We owed no one, and the Fed was put in its place, unlike today where it pretty much runs everything weather we like it or not. He too was shot in a duel, but he LET the guy shoot him, only to walk up to him, and shoot him dead for it. He crushed the British in the Battle of New Orleans (no offense meant guys) He was a self taught, self made man, that took no ones bs. We need a Pres like that, hence why my vote for the man

Zombie Jackson with Zombie Roosevelt as VP?

KingCracker wrote:Nope, still throwing in my vote for Zombie Andrew Jackson. Sure he had his faults, and really who doesnt, but mainly, he crushed the Fed, like it should be, and brought the countries debt to zero. ZERO! We owed no one, and the Fed was put in its place, unlike today where it pretty much runs everything weather we like it or not. He too was shot in a duel, but he LET the guy shoot him, only to walk up to him, and shoot him dead for it. He crushed the British in the Battle of New Orleans (no offense meant guys) He was a self taught, self made man, that took no ones bs. We need a Pres like that, hence why my vote for the man

hah..we just need robot Nixon for pres. thats the real way to go, though Jackson is quite the contender there

Frazzled wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Nope, still throwing in my vote for Zombie Andrew Jackson. Sure he had his faults, and really who doesnt, but mainly, he crushed the Fed, like it should be, and brought the countries debt to zero. ZERO! We owed no one, and the Fed was put in its place, unlike today where it pretty much runs everything weather we like it or not. He too was shot in a duel, but he LET the guy shoot him, only to walk up to him, and shoot him dead for it. He crushed the British in the Battle of New Orleans (no offense meant guys) He was a self taught, self made man, that took no ones bs. We need a Pres like that, hence why my vote for the man

Zombie Jackson with Zombie Roosevelt as VP?

YES!
You sir, are cooking with fire


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Huffy wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Nope, still throwing in my vote for Zombie Andrew Jackson. Sure he had his faults, and really who doesnt, but mainly, he crushed the Fed, like it should be, and brought the countries debt to zero. ZERO! We owed no one, and the Fed was put in its place, unlike today where it pretty much runs everything weather we like it or not. He too was shot in a duel, but he LET the guy shoot him, only to walk up to him, and shoot him dead for it. He crushed the British in the Battle of New Orleans (no offense meant guys) He was a self taught, self made man, that took no ones bs. We need a Pres like that, hence why my vote for the man

hah..we just need robot Nixon for pres. thats the real way to go, though Jackson is quite the contender there

feth Nixon. That guy is shady, and I dont like shady people. And his voice annoys me

Robot Nixon would easily win the Earthican election though!!