Everett Dirksen, who (probably) originated the sentiment, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it runs into real money."
Senator Dirksen was a great American who ranks only a notch below Ronald Reagan, and a notch above Bob Taft and even Ike, and miles above GHWB.
For those of us (old f*rts) who came of age in the 50s and 60s, it was a privelege to have the likes of Dirksen (and Byrd and Smith, from my state) on one side, and the likes of JFK on the other -- different views, but a strong love of America, and a bedrock committment to it, from each side.
Just listen to Senator Dirksen and JFK and compare to what we hear now.
President Bush is, of course, faced with an impossibly difficult situation, and all of our prayers are with him, but I hope that he remembers Senator Dirksen in the back of his mind.
Clarification re Byrds:
From my state, it was Harry Sr and Jr, the best senators ever, NOT the embarrassment Bobby from West (by God!, and from those of us from Va, thank god! -- that was our hidden purpose of the Civl War, to get rid of West Virginia, it worked!) Va.
Although when you drive through the state of WVa and see how outside (NY, Conn, NJ) interests have raped the beautiful mountain land, one can almost admire Bobby for bringing some of the $ back to the state, sometimes pork barrel $ may be justified.
But can you imagine what the establishment media would do to a republican who based his career on his membership in the KKK?
<With the $10 dividend the corresponding stock drop was easy to calculate. As to the FNT spin any thoughts or opinions?>
Yes, I've been wondering about this question too. Are there investors on this board who may have some experience/thoughts on the matter?
Red......I am glad you are such a good sport. I really didn't mean anything personal about it, but it was just too funny to pass up. To show that I am as good of a sport, I have posted a picture of my girlfriend on my profile. Taken at last years NASCAR rally. Yee Hawww!
Perhaps. But there is much that they could do that they do not do. The first commandment of Christ was that by their works - ye shall know them. My experience with the majority has been that two hours on Sunday and forgiveness constitutes Christianity. Religion, for many, has become a convenience - not a commitment. Few people in the churches I knew spent any time at all with the needy in their communities. Further, most money put in the plate did not go to help those who needed it, but to support pastors, build buildings, and take care of those within the church - as opposed to outside it. I do not, by the way condemn Christians. But there is more than a little hypocricy with practice, as opposed to Christ. When I say read the New Testament, I do so because Christ, whatever he was, was not a capitalist. He was not judgemental. He did not believe that those who pursued wealth or ambition were going to make it into heaven. He was the son of a carpenter who consorted with working class people. He knew fishermen and prostitutes. It is the meek who will inherit the earth. It is the rich who cannot make it through the eye of that needle. It's not merely secularism we're talking about here. Secularism evolved over time, just as complacency within the church contributed to secularism. One fed and continues to feed the other. Entire segments of the Christian community were missing in action on segregation. There are many Christians who do walk the walk, but there are many more who do not. The doctrine of Christ is and was revolutionary - which is why it makes many Christians in capitalistic societies uncomfortable.
After all, do you know any Christians lately that have sold all that they have and given it to the poor?
Christ was the one who gave us redemption - not the old Testament. In turn, he did not give people a free pass into heaven. They had responsibilities. And two hours in church on Sunday was not what he talked about.
As far as abortion, I did not in the initial post imply that Christians could not have opinions. I simply laid it out the way it was, and observed how it will be if Roe v. Wade is over-turned.
I don't think Christians ignore it at all. The Secularists are largely responsible for cultural decay, (i.e. increased obsession with sex, promiscuity, lack of commitment, laziness, NO ownership of responsibility).
They've NEVER expected the state to take care of it. Where did you get that from? The "state" is secular, and the increased reliance on it has been secular in origin. The state has had to step in because of the overwhelming cultural decline, caused by the very same people who want more state! All these vague stats you throw around have ironically grown with the simultaneous growth of secularist views permeating the cultural fabric. And not all of them, in fact I'd argue MOST, are not simple "mistakes," or "forced" situations, but the ramifications of an unraveling Godless culture (and I write that with the caveat that I'm a pro-choice Agnostic).
If you're anti-Christian or anti religion, fine, then show some morality without it. Why can�t secularists show some responsibility to society with the lifestyle they choose? The last 50 years in the U.S. for example has been a great opportunity for the anti-religious to prove their moral ground. How have they done? Pardon my language but PISS POOR. IMO, human societies have proven to have not done well without pious structure guiding them, and it is not Christianity's fault that rampant secularism has gotten to the point of overwhelming the church's ability to help all they truly wish to help.
Your demand that Christianity be the #1 solution provider (because they own the deeply held view), is unfair, very unrealistic, and almost immaturely idealistic to the point of being a left-wing university learned clich�d that goes something like this: "Hey man, if they're going hold such a strong view, then they need to take care of all the unwanted babies man." I think there was a time when Christianity could take care of most problems its morality teaches, but that was in an older world when most people practiced the gospel as best they could, in addition to preaching it. That time is now gone, but that doesn't invalidate a set of core beliefs or make it hypocritical.
The less said on the first topic the better.
As to the second topic. Any thoughts on the effect on the FNF stock price when the spin out of 17.5% of FNT occurs? With the $10 dividend the corresponding stock drop was easy to calculate. As to the FNT spin any thoughts or opinions?
"It just goes to show, reBUBlicans cover up, LIBERALS let it all out for everyone to see!!!!"
Am I the only one who thinks that some things are better not let out for everyone to see (like 1/2 chewed food, sausage making and most of those folks' bodies)?
At the risk of actually posting something about FNF stock... Nice run-up the last few days. IMHO, there's about another $3 - $4 short term left in FNF as is. When (or if) the various spin-offs and whatnot happen that number will go much higher.
Redlac: The last two paragraphs of your missive that starts, "Perhaps you need to read ..." should be a must-read for all those who think that their job is completed if only they can wipe out abortion. So many wind up creating a situation -- philosophically -- where a life begins at conception and basically ends with the birth of a child. There is a short-sighted thinking that the child will be just fine, despite programs that are routinely slashed or eliminated that could help a poor mother turn an economic and lifestyle disaster into a workable situation. (We're not talking here about women who produce an assembly line of babies.)
In other words, those clamoring most for the child to be born are those making decisions right now that make that birth financially untenable, as well as making it more difficult for the mother ever to overcome her mistake/mistakes. Adoptions are an alternative for some, but realistically what woman in that situation is going to want to punish her body for nine months only to give the child away? Some will; most won't.