PDA

View Full Version : Once again, America disappoints dear leader.



LWW
10-29-2011, 04:58 AM
All proletariat members should proudly return to the beet fields and strive harder to fulfill dear leader's visions.

He could have been so much greater of a success had the nation he rules been more competent.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hang your head in shame, America, for you have once again failed to meet the expectations of President Obama.

Attending one of his incessant fundraisers in San Francisco yesterday, the President who led America into stagnancy and downgrade expressed his sorrow at how Americans have “lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge.”

Can you imagine what kind of paperwork snarls, environmental impact studies, and ruinous union demands would befall a project on the scale of the Golden Gate Bridge in modern California?

Barack Obama is wrong about a great many things, but this is the thing he’s most comprehensively and dangerously wrong about. America hasn’t “lost” its ambition and imagination. It suffers under plans devised by central planners who lack imagination, and it’s been sternly informed by the Obama Administration that its ambitions are reprehensible.

There are vast numbers of people out there brimming with creativity and drive. What they need most is to have the government’s boot taken off their necks. They need to know they can keep the fruits of their labors, and the rewards of entrepreneurial risk, without being accused of “greed.” They’re hungry for the pure information stream of a market without government interference, in which the true cost of products and resources is apparent to all. They want to reach mutually beneficial arrangements without Big Government micro-management. They need to be able to launch a business without having to blast through a dozen layers of bureaucracy.

Most of all, they need an environment of economic liberty in which the wisdom of a million individual choices is not over-ridden by raw political power. They need a way to escape from Barack Obama’s failed vision. You want to hear a list of companies with an expensive deficit of ambition and imagination? How about Solyndra, SunPower, and all the other “green jobs” failures?

But you’ll never hear Obama make even the slightest allowance that free citizens could succeed where government has failed, if only they were given more economic liberty. That would require the government to grow smaller… a concept that exists nowhere in Obama’s programming. The relentless growth of the State – more taxes, more spending, more regulation – is his unyielding conclusion. If his program hasn’t been running properly so far, there are only two possible bugs: either the State needs to be bigger, or the people need to be better.

Risk, reward, and intellectual adventure await on the high seas of free-market capitalism. They will not be found in the stagnant backwaters of imaginary markets created by rigid socialist ideology. Obama’s lowest points come when he goes past blaming his predecessors and political opponents, and floats the idea that he could have been a success, if only he’d been given a better country to govern.

This isn’t the first time he’s done it, and it won’t be the last. It’s not as if he can run for re-election on his record.</div></div>

WHAT A NATIONAL DISGRACE THIS IDJIT IS! (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47129)

Soflasnapper
10-29-2011, 11:18 AM
Wiki's article on the Golden Gate Bridge reports that the same impediments claimed to exist in today's world also existed and impeded the bridge project back then. Overcoming all of them took more than 10 years, prior to getting the project approved and started.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Strauss spent more than a decade drumming up support in Northern California.[14] The bridge faced opposition, including litigation, from many sources. The Department of War was concerned that the bridge would interfere with ship traffic; the navy feared that a ship collision or sabotage to the bridge could block the entrance to one of its main harbors. Unions demanded guarantees that local workers would be favored for construction jobs. Southern Pacific Railroad, one of the most powerful business interests in California, opposed the bridge as competition to its ferry fleet and filed a lawsuit against the project, leading to a mass boycott of the ferry service.[7] In May 1924, Colonel Herbert Deakyne held the second hearing on the Bridge on behalf of the Secretary of War in a request to use Federal land for construction. Deakyne, on behalf of the Secretary of War, approved the transfer of land needed for the bridge structure and leading roads to the "Bridging the Golden Gate Association" and both San Francisco County and Marin County, pending further bridge plans by Strauss.[15</div></div>

Gayle in MD
10-30-2011, 07:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wiki's article on the Golden Gate Bridge reports that the same impediments claimed to exist in today's world also existed and impeded the bridge project back then. Overcoming all of them took more than 10 years, prior to getting the project approved and started.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Strauss spent more than a decade drumming up support in Northern California.[14] The bridge faced opposition, including litigation, from many sources. The Department of War was concerned that the bridge would interfere with ship traffic; the navy feared that a ship collision or sabotage to the bridge could block the entrance to one of its main harbors. Unions demanded guarantees that local workers would be favored for construction jobs. Southern Pacific Railroad, one of the most powerful business interests in California, opposed the bridge as competition to its ferry fleet and filed a lawsuit against the project, leading to a mass boycott of the ferry service.[7] In May 1924, Colonel Herbert Deakyne held the second hearing on the Bridge on behalf of the Secretary of War in a request to use Federal land for construction. Deakyne, on behalf of the Secretary of War, approved the transfer of land needed for the bridge structure and leading roads to the "Bridging the Golden Gate Association" and both San Francisco County and Marin County, pending further bridge plans by Strauss.[15</div></div>

</div></div>

ONCE AGAIN, LWW POSTS ANOTHER IRRATIONAL LIE!

LWW
10-30-2011, 03:50 PM
What a troll you truly are.

Why didn't you post a link?

Were you worried someone would discover your cherry picking of data?

Why did you leave the following out?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Golden Gate Bridge and Highway District, authorized by an act of the California Legislature, was incorporated <span style='font-size: 14pt'>in 1928</span> as the official entity to design, construct, and finance the Golden Gate Bridge.[11] However, after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the District was unable to raise the construction funds, so it lobbied for a $30 million bond measure. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">Two years from authorization to bond approval.</span></span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>The bonds were approved in November 1930</span>,[13] by votes in the counties affected by the bridge.[23] The construction budget at the time of approval was $27 million. However, the District was unable to sell the bonds <span style='font-size: 11pt'>until 1932, when Amadeo Giannini, the founder of San Francisco–based Bank of America, agreed on behalf of his bank to buy the entire issue in order to help the local economy.</span>[7] <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">OOOOH! Paid for by the EEEVILLL banks.</span></span>

Construction

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Construction began on January 5, 1933.</span>[7] <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">One year from bond sale to ground breaking.</span></span> The project cost more than $35 million.[24] The Golden Gate Bridge construction project was carried out by the McClintic-Marshall Construction Co., founded by Howard H. McClintic and Charles D. Marshall, both of Lehigh University.[citation needed]

Strauss remained head of the project, overseeing day-to-day construction and making some groundbreaking contributions. A graduate of the University of Cincinnati, he placed a brick from his alma mater's demolished McMicken Hall in the south anchorage before the concrete was poured. He innovated the use of movable safety netting beneath the construction site, which saved the lives of many otherwise-unprotected steelworkers. Of eleven men killed from falls during construction, ten were killed (when the bridge was near completion) when the net failed under the stress of a scaffold that had fallen.[25] Nineteen others who were saved by the net over the course of construction became proud members of the (informal) Half Way to Hell Club.[26]
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The project was finished by April 1937, $1.3 million under budget.</span> <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3333FF">Four years from groundbreaking to completion ... during the depression ... with 3/4 of a century older technology and not a CAD/CAM program involved anywhere ... and 3.7% under budget.</span></span></div></div>

Nine years start to finish.

It's a shame you refuse to discuss things honestly.

What's more of a shame is that charlotte will blindly believe your Barbara Streisand.

Soflasnapper
10-31-2011, 10:51 AM
From my post:

Wiki's article on the Golden Gate Bridge reports...

So I didn't provide a link because I cited my source, which is familiar to all and easily found. I didn't cite the entire piece, because a) that's bad form, and b) my point was made by what I cited.

Sure, ONCE IT GOT STARTED, it was efficiently accomplished and finished. Not my point. It took over 10 years TO GET STARTED, and precisely for the kinds of interferences you say prevent such things currently, including labor union opposition.

For an example of how quickly things can be built TODAY, in NEW YORK, with its heavily unionized and over-regulated environment, consider this:

Construction of the new 7 World Trade Center began in 2002 and was completed in 2006. It is 52 stories tall [per Wiki] which is taller than the original 47 story building destroyed on 9/11/01.

And btw, BOA did not 'pay' for the project-- it bought out the bond issue, which is to say, it LOANED the money for the project, at interest.

LWW
10-31-2011, 12:19 PM
By that definition it took 1,000,000+ years to get to the Moon.

Grow up.

Soflasnapper
10-31-2011, 02:16 PM
Grow up, advises the man with cartoons as his signature? LOL!

Clearly enough, if an idea for development caused litigation, it has begun its process.

And why isn't WTC 7's timely rebuilding completion the evidence that you are mistaken? (I noticed you ducked comment on that point.)