Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » What is a conservative Democrat?

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: What is a conservative Democrat?
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scott (and you other pro-life, conservative Democrats), why are you a Democrat NOW? To which principles or platforms of the Democratic Party do you subscribe TODAY? Would you disagree that Dubya doesn't stand for most everything that JFK embodied back when? I personally see the Republican party today as the Democratic Party before LBJ.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A conservative democrat will soon be someone without a party given the choice of Nancy Pelosi. She will harangue and beat the representatives of conservate democrats into a liberal stance.

That aside, generally I have found conservative democrats to be closest to the FDR type of democrat. Pro union, pro govrnment control however social conservatives believing in familial traditions as an example.


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Depends on who you ask, I suppose. OSC is definetely the sort that Baldar is describing. Leiberman fits into that mold to some extent. Frost from Texas is another sort.

One of the problems of the Democratic party is that it combines, under one roof, people similar to myself who are communist or socialist in economic leaning with people like Leiberman who are pro-business, while also combining people like Pelosi who is very socially liberal, with people like Frost, who is not. There is a very broad front combined under one roof. I tend to view the DNP as being most sucessful when it has been progressive, such as FDR and JFK, and Lincoln, although at the time, the party was Republican rather then Democrat. (I've read a few interesting exrapolations that hypothesized that Lincoln would have been a conservative Marxist... not sure how much I believe that, but they were interesting).

Anyrate, the point is that I belive Pelose is better for the party then Frost, even if some of her stances aren't what I would consider ideal. She'll start moving the party back in the right direction, while Frost would simply have moved it more towards being a mild version of the GOP, which is exactly why I think the DNP is ineffective at the moment.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
timeskimo
Member
Member # 731

 - posted      Profile for timeskimo   Email timeskimo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On Lincoln being Marxist, I think Harry Turtledove did it best. Good books.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Time will tell...

There will be one major motivating factor in the DNC which will drive its policies — reclaiming its majority status. Every party has dissimilar pieces which make up the whole, and the Democrats have shown a great tendency to shift ideology in order to gain a bigger piece of the pie. During the GOP rout of 1994, hundreds and thousands of Democrats already elected to office all over the country changed parties and became Republican. The trend did not go the other way (except for Jeffords who was an Independent to begin with.)

The center of the two parties are right and left of one another, but the 2002 elections seem to prove the GOP's center is closer to the nation's center. In order to balance that, the DNC will slide more to the right. It's what they did before, and it's what they'll do again. This time they may notr call themselves neo-Democrats like the Clinton Dems did - but that is where they will be to position themselves to take back the House and Senate.

Oddly enough, Pelosi is better positioned to move the party right than a centrist leader like Ford, who is already where the party needs to be. Ford would need to convince others to join him and adopt a new paradigm. Pelosi would bring the party with her as she , herself, shifted. Being a spokesman for the Left makes it easy to move it.


Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
She won't lean towards center to save her life. She's a San Francisco Democrat who supports partial birth infanticide. Sorry folks -- I'm pro-choice by most standards, but butchering the kid on its birthday when it's halfway through the birth canal is not abortion, but infanticide, and even most Democrats agree with me on that. Ford would have made a strong leader, but should have known that slavery's party is not ready to put a black man into any sort of real power.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm pro-life by most standards, but I'd still balk at calling it a "birthday" when you're just dragging the baby out halfway to more easily finish chopping it up.

That's like calling a miscarriage a birthday, Pete.


Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Inducing labor is not "dragging", Tom. I have two sons that were taken cesarean at 7 and 7.5 months and are now healthy active boys, while the partial birth procedure is legally performed up to FULL TERM. Hence, my term Birthday is appropriate methinks. I wonder if any of the unhappy mothers have claimed their victims as tax deductions, since technically they were born. Probably still would not pay for the procedure, which has to be lucrative for those that perform it.

But I have been unfair to bash Democrats alone for the extremist that they are proposing to elect. Hell, the Republicans are so eager to see the Democrats so discredit themselves, that they elected TOM DELAY as house speaker. Obviously they are baiting Democrats to elect an extremist of their own. What a dark day for our country. Right after voters sent such a nakedly obvious message that we wanted MODERATION in government, with conservative bastions such as Utah electing moderate Democrats against conservative Republicans, and liberal bastions such as Maryland and Massachusetts electing moderate Republicans against extremist Democrats.

Both parties ignore the voters, and will pay the price.

[This message has been edited by Pete at Home (edited November 14, 2002).]


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find it very interesting that two extreme conservatives think that the DNP needs to move RIGHT in order to be sucessful...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find it amusing that a democratic party that thought itself in the center of US politics, wakes up on election day, unelected and then assumes it must go "further left" to win.
Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Considering it HAS won when its been left... this seems to be a reasonable assumption. You're argument is based on the fact the GOP has won when the DNP has been towards the right. So you are, as far as I can tell, arguing that the DNP should move right so that it resembles the party that just won.

The DNP has, essentially, been moving towards the center since 1988, when Dukakis lost the presidential election. Since that time, the party has continuously lost seats in the house and senate. The only victory was Clinton winning the presidential election, and that IS a big win, but I'd rather have a legislative branch that is democratic and a GOP president then vice versa.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev, look at your history. The dem's were trounced when they were on the left with no hope of winning a presidency. A moderate dem president came into power and attempted to move the country further left to his party's core and what happened? The dem's were trounced again. As some of my black friends used to say, the only republican they ever voted for was Clinton. He tried moving his party further right and the dem's were making progress, they have gotten to the 50/50 level with their moderate stance. And continued to make gains by moving right. What happened recently is due to a lack of message not necessarily position, the dem's have made gains while moving to the right and have been devestated everytime they move to the left.

California suffers from the same problem, only with reverse parties. I suggest you review your political history a bit Ev, your not even remotely accurate.


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dem's new leadership and who likes it that way or, whats wrong with this picture?
Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Considering it HAS won when its been left...[sic]

In San Francisco, perhaps. But let's look at the national names of Democratic winners:

Kennedy. Johnson. Carter. Clinton. Which of the above do you seriously want us to believe was a bonna fide leftist? The anti-communist champion of American superiority, the one who started the Viet Nam war, the Christian crusader, or the master of triangulation who boasts of ending "welfare as we know it?"

You misconstrue national politics and history as perversely as you misconstrue my position on same-sex unions and adoption.

Do you seriously want us to believe that you consider Democractic winners Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, & Clinton to have been to the LEFT of Democratic losers McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore?

I don't think so, Paul. In fact, Democrats have always done better when they moved credibly towards the center. (Don't skip my word "credible"; Gore's centrist pretensions -- e.g. decrying Hollywood filth while taking favors from them and Hugh Hefner -- failed the credibility test.)

[This message has been edited by Pete at Home (edited November 14, 2002).]


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant Morgan
Member
Member # 194

 - posted      Profile for Grant Morgan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, there's the Pete we all remember. I was wondering who this new diplomat was . . .
Posts: 136 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everard misrepresented my positions on the Paul Wellstone thread after I have corrected him on this exact issue at least four times. My reaction may not have been excusable, but it certainly was predictable. I am civil enough until I come under this sort of malicious fire. I have never seen you being treated as Ev is treating me, so I don't think you are in a position to make smug remarks about my responses.

[This message has been edited by Pete at Home (edited November 14, 2002) in order to remove his erroneous conclusion that Everard's "extreme conservative" statement was a reference to him. The same-sex union misrepresentation, unfortunately, remains unresolved.]

[This message has been edited by Pete at Home (edited November 14, 2002).]


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puretext
Member
Member # 823

 - posted      Profile for Puretext   Email Puretext   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But... it's fun to make fycking comments about Pete. You're one of the biggest characters on this forum.

KB


Posts: 921 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
True; I guess I must be too fun to provoke for even self-describe pacifists to resist pushing my well-known buttons, even if they have to be dishonest to do so.

Back to the argument though, does anyone actually disagree that:

Dukakis & Mondale were to the left of Kennedy and Carter?

That Gore was left of [Mr.] Clinton?

If you disagree, please present your arguments. If you do agree, then what possible justification can there be to Everard's wishful claim that Democrats only win elections when they veer left away from center?

JFK and FDR won not from leftist ideology, but from confronting real problems faced by the country.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete-
Remember your jumping to conclusions problem? You're doing it again. I was referring to Baldar and lambert.

Furthermore, I am talking about the PARTY has done, not who it has elected as presidents.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, if it's any help to you — I agree with your observation. Ev may be a bit confused because of the tagalong essence of Hillary Clinton. Her Quixotic ambitions were very left of center, and many people in her party accepted her as a co-President. There is also the distinction between social liberals and conservatives and fiscal liberals and conservatives. For instance (although it may not seem to be defined this way in most people's mind) the partial-birth abortion bills most people support are actually liberal - because the true conservative position is that government does not have the right to even get into a debate on it - it is outside its Constitutional directives, and is more rightfully either in the hands of the individuals and doctors involved or with their State government.

I think Pelosi is extremely leftist - however coming out of Baltimore's Little Italy made her forever a machine democrat and I think she will say exasperatingly liberal statements while allowing the party, itself, to slide right.

She will attack Conservatives and bait them into a strong anti-Left stance - then usurp the moderate center every time she can. Her acceptance of the middle ground in light of her soapbox oratory will make her look like a statesman to the Democrats who've been without any heros for far too long.

[This message has been edited by WmLambert (edited November 14, 2002).]


Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paul, thank you for correcting my erroneous conclusion that your "extreme conservative" statement was a reference to me. Your same-sex union misrepresentation, unfortunately, remains unresolved, and I find it difficult to attribute that statement of yours to anything other than dishonesty and malice.

WmLambert, I was greatly intrigued by Pelosi's statement today that she was "good friends" with Tom DeLay. Is this a case of right and left meeting at the extremes? I guess friendship across political lines is a good thing -- Ginsburg and Scalia are buddies, and hell, my wife is a Democrat There is after all something incestuous about only hanging out with people that share your ideology. But still, the image of these two party "whips" chumming it up strikes me as more than a little kinky.

[This message has been edited by Pete at Home (edited November 14, 2002).]


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pete- Remember your jumping to conclusions problem? You're doing it again. I was referring to Baldar and lambert.

Furthermore, I am talking about the PARTY has done, not who it has elected as presidents.


Two things
1-Your view of political history is still skewed and without merit.

2-God forbid a president be elected reflecting the core values of his party.


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Note also that when I bash Republicans (e.g. on pot, flag-burning, or the election of extremist Tom DeLay), that they take it in stride and do not respond with personal attacks or misrepresentations.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete-
I responded in the Paul Wellstone thread. That was a much longer post. So sorry it took me time to write it.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks!
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It may indeed be that being a "team player" means more to Pelosi than sticking uncompromisingly to every extreme position she has taken in the past. She voted recently against the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, but I heard her today characterize that vote as a vote by herself as "a San Francisco liberal," while in her new role as leader of the party, she would be obliged to think of the larger views of the whole party, and she affirmed that she would support the president in dealing with Iraq.

There is a lot that could be said about this. You could criticize her for lack of moral integrity (strength of conviction), but if what she really believes in is party loyalty, having been raised as a "machine democrat," as the daughter of a past mayor of Baltimore, then she is living by what she really believes in.

I suspect that she really highlights the inherent weakness of the Democratic party, that it would elect such a leader for itself. At core, Democrats are secularists who refuse to be religious about anything. The closest they come to being religious is to be anti-religious.

But pragmatism is rudderless and cannot take you very far without the guidence of some real, deeply held convictions. Philosophical preferences are not the same thing as convictions.

Most Americans, and most Republicans, seem to have convictions, not just preferences.

As long as the Democratic Party continues to follow its divergence from mainstream American thinking in regard to convictions vs. preferences, it will continue further into decline.

If things go much further the way they are, we will have essentially a one-party system. We are not far from that now.


Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As long as the Democratic Party continues to follow its divergence from mainstream American thinking in regard to convictions vs. preferences, it will continue further into decline."

This is, oddly enough, exactly my point. The democratic party is following in the wake of the republican party, without actually having a point of its own. If things continue as they are, with the democrats drifting towards the GOP, we WILL have a one party system. The party has drifted away from its core values, which are further to the left then the party is today.

One example of this, that I think indicates the problems, are the two party positions on health care reform. Where the liberal party (and here I am not referring to classical liberalism) should be trying to get health care out to everyone, the DNP is talking about "affordable health care." This does not really amount to a war cry, whereas the plan several years ago... "universal health care" carries some weight to it. Its something people can rally behind. Granted, there are devils in the details. But its an idea that, if pressed on firmly, would garner a large degree of support.

One of the lessons the dnp can take from bush is the idea of speaking clearly about one's beliefs, in a firm manner. Another is to set goals, and pursue them. Right now, the party has no goals.

However, this point is exactly why the party needs to move left (and no, Clinton was not a leftist president. The perception he was towards the left is a good argument against the leftist media). The rightist position is staked out, and the center is basically a weak position. There ARE no convictions there, really, at least in american politics. And yet, thats where the DNP is at the moment. The DNP could very effectively stake out a position on the left, thats not TOO far left, by simply remembering what its core values are. Economy managed from the bottom up in the form of job creation and economic security for blue collar workers, and social health and education for everyone.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And again Ev you don't seem to be reading the posts otherwise you know that is exactly the opposite case. Historically and accurately the dem's have lost with liberal leaders. They lost big time in the early 90's under Clinton until Clinton began pulling the party back to the center. Then after a 55 seat loss, the dem's have made incremental gains each year in both houses until they were within striking distance of the Senate by being centrist and showing themselves not to be left leaning liberals but centrists. You really need to look at the history of the house and senate of the past fifteen years before you make such wrong statements Ev. You site a great deal of opinion but no fact, here are some facts to chew upon:

quote:
In 1998, Democrats became the first party controlling the White House to gain seats in Congress during the sixth year of a president's term since 1822.

quote:
In the 2000 elections, Democrats netted 4 additional Senate seats, one additional House seat

Both staements from the DNC website

Now for some more facts:

100 to the 103rd congress

dems

55
55
56
57

rep
45
45
44
43

Then on the 104th congress when we had left leaning ideas (socialized medicine behind closed doors) and the contract with America

dems dropped to 48 seats
rep rose to 52

then from 105-107 congress
dems
45
45
50

rep
55
55
50

Jeffords jumped ship.

Now in the house of reps

100 to 103 Congress

dems
258
260
267
258

rep
177
175
167
176

Then again we get to the socialized medicine and what not, the liberal issues with liberals running all over the place and we get the contract with America and suddenly

dems drop to 204
rep rise to 230

Clinton realized the problem and moves the party centrist
dems
207
211
212

a slow but continuous erosion of republican seats in the house

rep
226
223
221

(one or two odd numbered independents).

Information was gleaned from Composition of Congress 1855 to 2001

So while you have some opinions, you can see that a centrist dominated democratic party pulls in more seats and power, leftist agenda bites the dust and dies. I refer you again to the political cartoon above. You need to review you political history.

The dnp lost because they are off message, undiscipline and relatively disorganized.

quote:
Economy managed from the bottom up in the form of job creation and economic security for blue collar workers, and social health and education for everyone.

Now thats a load of horse apples. A democrat in DC never met a federal mandate he didn't like. Bottom up, only if its to kiss a politicians ass. Dems have a mandate from the top down. Libertarians are the ones that go local more than anyone else. Man, what a bunch of manure.


Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Other than a little defensive horn-tooting which I do not begrudge her, Pelosi held her own quite well in the two interviews that I saw her conduct. She may well make a good DNP leader in spite of my earlier misgivings. She bugs the hell out of my wife (who is a Democrat), but I was quite impressed by her strength, ease, and ability to explicitely dissociate between her service as a representative of San Francisco, and of the national Democratic party. If anyone could pull of such a schizophrenic task with grace and aplomb, it would be her. I give her even odds.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm going to get back to you on this baldar, but I'd just like to note that "bottom up" does NOT mean local level to federal level the way I meant it. "Bottom up" here refers to the idea of direct job creation for blue collar workers, rather then tax breaks for CEO's. Working from the base of the economic pyramid (the bottom), ie, the blue collar workers who provide the bulk of the labor, to the pinacle of the pyramid (the top), ie the major multinational corporations' executives.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, I can see your interpetation is different from mine, but job creation for the sake of jobs does not work from a federal mandate level.
Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd say the new deal worked fairly well in terms of getting people out working.

Obviously, there has to be something to put people to work ON. This requires, at some level, a transition of some sort in the way the economy functions. Laying rail doesn't do any good at this point in time, so mandating 100,000 jobs laying rail would be useless. However, mandating 100,000 jobs on nuclear plant construction or solar panel construction out in nevada or some such place MIGHT do a lot of good in many different ways.


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
P.S. I already wrote my ridiculously long, 2 hours to write, post for the night. Another one at some other point on this thread.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Baldar
Member
Member # 669

 - posted      Profile for Baldar   Email Baldar   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The New Deal was not that great a deal, actually it was the war that pushed us to full employment. So your view is not entirely accurate and raking leaves in the woods does not increase productivity.
Posts: 3834 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
maniacal_engineer
Member
Member # 116

 - posted      Profile for maniacal_engineer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
managing the economy from the bottom up sounds pretty libertarian to me. Yhe indicvidual laborers get to decide where they work based on wages and without interference from unions. Individual consumers get to decide what they will and will not buy based on price and quality. 200+million individuals, all parallel multiprocessing on how to optimize economic exchange sounds pretty good to me. Now all we gotta do is let the employees of all of these multiprocessors (ie the CEO's and corporations that make things and employ people) keep enough money to implement the decisions made by this bottom up management team.
GREAT IDEA EV!

Posts: 962 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1