thepixiesrock Posted September 5, 2008 Posted September 5, 2008 What we needed was Mitt Romney. He would have fixed the econmy. Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdangerOne billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there.
Humodour Posted September 5, 2008 Posted September 5, 2008 If Obama wins you have no idea how terrible this country will become. Yes, that's generally what the knee-jerk conservatives foresee whenever the Democrats come along to clean up their mess. Meanwhile the rest of the world cheers.
Hurlshort Posted September 5, 2008 Posted September 5, 2008 If Obama wins you have no idea how terrible this country will become. I'm not a democrat or a republican, but I am a student of history, and this statement has no precedent. We've had some absolutely terrible presidents in our history, and nothing really horrible comes of it. That's the joy of the checks and balances system. The president isn't nearly as powerful as people think he is. It's also impossible to get a real read on a president until well after their terms. People blasted LBJ because of Vietnam when he was in office, but many historians now place him on a short list of the greatest presidents of all time. Lincoln and FDR forcibly seized power when they needed to. The worst case scenario is that Obama will be ineffective in the White House. And we've had plenty of presidents do that, yet our country still stands.
taks Posted September 5, 2008 Posted September 5, 2008 I'm not a democrat or a republican, but I am a student of history, and this statement has no precedent. We've had some absolutely terrible presidents in our history, and nothing really horrible comes of it. That's the joy of the checks and balances system. The president isn't nearly as powerful as people think he is. ultimately a bigger problem is one party controlling both the legislative and executive branches. bush didn't wield his veto pen once during republican control of congress, and i'm sure we'll see something similar with obama and democrat control of congress. that means spend, spend, spend, regardless of party affiliation. when there's a split, nothing gets done, which is often better than people are willing to believe. taks comrade taks... just because.
taks Posted September 5, 2008 Posted September 5, 2008 If Obama wins you have no idea how terrible this country will become. Yes, that's generally what the knee-jerk conservatives foresee whenever the Democrats come along to clean up their mess. Meanwhile the rest of the world cheers. interesting that you call them conservatives and democrats instead of either republicans and democrats or conservatives and liberals. hehe... if any politician, republican or democrat, ever were to clean up any mess, i'd cheer. the rest of the world can pound sand as far as i'm concerned because they have proven time and again that their opinions regarding the US are largely worthless. taks comrade taks... just because.
themadhatter114 Posted September 5, 2008 Posted September 5, 2008 If Obama wins you have no idea how terrible this country will become. I'm not a democrat or a republican, but I am a student of history, and this statement has no precedent. We've had some absolutely terrible presidents in our history, and nothing really horrible comes of it. That's the joy of the checks and balances system. The president isn't nearly as powerful as people think he is. I believe Obama is going to eviscerate the 2nd amendment. I believe Obama is going to mandate more money for the UN and that he's going to sign onto things like the IANSA treaty and the Kyoto treaty. Obama wants to expand government spending and increase government control of our lives more than ever, further tightening the federal government's grip on our public school system. Our history books will be filled with pro-UN propaganda. It's also impossible to get a real read on a president until well after their terms. People blasted LBJ because of Vietnam when he was in office, but many historians now place him on a short list of the greatest presidents of all time. Lincoln and FDR forcibly seized power when they needed to. How many historians place LBJ on a short list of greatest ever? What did LBJ accomplish besides expanding welfare and expanding the Vietnam War? The worst case scenario is that Obama will be ineffective in the White House. And we've had plenty of presidents do that, yet our country still stands. You do realize that the Democrats control the legislative branch, right? Would you say that Bush was 'ineffective' when he had a Republican legislature, or would you say that the executive and legislative branches seemed to give each other a blank check and horribly expand our debt? I love the 2nd Amendment. I hate the UN. I hate federal intrusion into public education. I do not want to see an Obama presidency with a democratic Congress.
Hurlshort Posted September 5, 2008 Posted September 5, 2008 (edited) How many historians place LBJ on a short list of greatest ever? What did LBJ accomplish besides expanding welfare and expanding the Vietnam War? 1964: Civil Rights Act of 1964 1964: Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 1964: Wilderness Act 1964: Nurse Training Act 1964: Food Stamp Act of 1964 1964: Economic Opportunity Act 1965: Higher Education Act of 1965 1965: Social Security Act of 1965 1965: Voting Rights Act 1965: Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 1967: Age Discrimination in Employment Act 1967: Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 1968: Bilingual Education Act 1968: Fair housing Those are biggies. Other than Lincoln, no president has been anywhere near as important to the civil rights movement. He also passed a Highway Beautification act, which makes my long drive to work much nicer. 1982 Murray-Blessing survey of 846 historians - They ranked him 10 back then, but his stock has risen over the years, so he'd probably be a bit higher. Edited September 5, 2008 by Hurlshot
taks Posted September 5, 2008 Posted September 5, 2008 You do realize that the Democrats control the legislative branch, right? Would you say that Bush was 'ineffective' when he had a Republican legislature, or would you say that the executive and legislative branches seemed to give each other a blank check and horribly expand our debt? yup. it matters not one whit when there is a party split between the branches, but once there is total control, spend, spend, spend. the only difference between republican spend, spend, spend and democrat spend, spend, spend is the former tends to cut taxes while the latter tends to raise taxes in one way or another. i'm not too concerned about government debt (as long as it is considerably lower than our GDP), so the former is what i would prefer if given only these two choices. the optimal solution would be to cut both spending and taxes, but that's a stretch to expect from any modern politician. taks comrade taks... just because.
taks Posted September 5, 2008 Posted September 5, 2008 From my extremely superficial and silly biased look at the situation in America in the last 15 years - it seems to me that the republicans hurt the economy and then the democrats come in and fix things, do something extremely stupid to loose the white house and the republicans come back to ruin the economy again. In that light don't you guys need Obama to come in, fix the economy? Then you can kick him out so a new republican can come in and ruin it all over again. wow, that's complete nonsense. our economy actually tends to benefit when one of two things (or both) happen: 1) taxes are cut and 2) there's a party split between congress and the white house. in the former, people simply spend more, which also coincidentally increases revenues (happened after both reagan and bush cuts, i can't understand why everyone refuses to acknowledge the facts!). the latter simply means the government doesn't spend us into oblivion. clinton had a split, bush did not for the first 6. that's the last 15 years. to make such a broad statement as you have, without delving deeper is truly superficial and silly biased. again i note, people seem to only read deep enough to find the facts that support their pre-conceived notions, then all else is ignored. taks comrade taks... just because.
Moatilliatta Posted September 5, 2008 Posted September 5, 2008 @ Taks Rosbjergs way of seeing things is quite typical of europeans. The funny thing is that we tend to stand to gain the most by a free trade republican but we tend to like the democrats nearly all of the time. This is probably because of how alien most of the republican party is to the way we do things and they scare us or something. I for example moved away from John Mccain when he choose Sarah Palin because such a person is incredibly alien to my concept of politics.
Meshugger Posted September 5, 2008 Posted September 5, 2008 (edited) If Obama wins you have no idea how terrible this country will become. Yes, that's generally what the knee-jerk conservatives foresee whenever the Democrats come along to clean up their mess. Meanwhile the rest of the world cheers. interesting that you call them conservatives and democrats instead of either republicans and democrats or conservatives and liberals. hehe... if any politician, republican or democrat, ever were to clean up any mess, i'd cheer. the rest of the world can pound sand as far as i'm concerned because they have proven time and again that their opinions regarding the US are largely worthless. taks Hahahahahahahaha I can't even remember any head of state in any democratic country that ever took responsibility and said: "Boy, did we f*** it up there". As we seen in the US, and in Europe with the EU for that matter(which i hate with a passion, but that's another thread), as time goes by, the politicians mess it all up, leaving the other party to fix it up by mandating more power from the people. Thomas Jefferson was right, to secure that the goverment was by the people for the people, a revolution is needed every now and then. And themadhatter114 is paranoid about Obama. Has the US policy against the U.N. really changed throughout the years, regardless on what rhethoric the current president had? It has been, and it will continue be a playground for the big boys (USA, Russia, China, France, Great Britain) on their game of chess of the world affairs. This is also known as Realpolitik. Edited September 5, 2008 by Meshugger "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy
Rosbjerg Posted September 5, 2008 Posted September 5, 2008 From my extremely superficial and silly biased look at the situation in America in the last 15 years - it seems to me that the republicans hurt the economy and then the democrats come in and fix things, do something extremely stupid to loose the white house and the republicans come back to ruin the economy again. In that light don't you guys need Obama to come in, fix the economy? Then you can kick him out so a new republican can come in and ruin it all over again. wow, that's complete nonsense. our economy actually tends to benefit when one of two things (or both) happen: 1) taxes are cut and 2) there's a party split between congress and the white house. in the former, people simply spend more, which also coincidentally increases revenues (happened after both reagan and bush cuts, i can't understand why everyone refuses to acknowledge the facts!). the latter simply means the government doesn't spend us into oblivion. clinton had a split, bush did not for the first 6. that's the last 15 years. to make such a broad statement as you have, without delving deeper is truly superficial and silly biased. again i note, people seem to only read deep enough to find the facts that support their pre-conceived notions, then all else is ignored. taks I did say it was silly and biased.. It was based on the fact that Clinton had to recover the economy after G. H. W. Bush and now, if Obama is elected, he'll have to recover it from G. W. Bush. Of course I recognize that Republicans can run the economy. It just seems to me that Republicans are better at rallying the public and getting the big things done and Democrats are better at keeping the house tidy. Both things are needed in a moderen household, which is why it seems like a good 2 party system. If the two can keep each other in check. Kinda like marriage, if one is too much in charge and the other can't get a say in - nothing useful gets done and spendings go through the roof. Fortune favors the bald.
Darth Jebus Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 From my extremely superficial and silly biased look at the situation in America in the last 15 years - it seems to me that the republicans hurt the economy and then the democrats come in and fix things, do something extremely stupid to loose the white house and the republicans come back to ruin the economy again. In that light don't you guys need Obama to come in, fix the economy? Then you can kick him out so a new republican can come in and ruin it all over again. wow, that's complete nonsense. our economy actually tends to benefit when one of two things (or both) happen: 1) taxes are cut and 2) there's a party split between congress and the white house. in the former, people simply spend more, which also coincidentally increases revenues (happened after both reagan and bush cuts, i can't understand why everyone refuses to acknowledge the facts!). the latter simply means the government doesn't spend us into oblivion. clinton had a split, bush did not for the first 6. that's the last 15 years. to make such a broad statement as you have, without delving deeper is truly superficial and silly biased. again i note, people seem to only read deep enough to find the facts that support their pre-conceived notions, then all else is ignored. taks You are aware that Reagan raised taxes six times after he cut them, right?
Darth Jebus Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 From my extremely superficial and silly biased look at the situation in America in the last 15 years - it seems to me that the republicans hurt the economy and then the democrats come in and fix things, do something extremely stupid to loose the white house and the republicans come back to ruin the economy again. In that light don't you guys need Obama to come in, fix the economy? Then you can kick him out so a new republican can come in and ruin it all over again. wow, that's complete nonsense. our economy actually tends to benefit when one of two things (or both) happen: 1) taxes are cut and 2) there's a party split between congress and the white house. in the former, people simply spend more, which also coincidentally increases revenues (happened after both reagan and bush cuts, i can't understand why everyone refuses to acknowledge the facts!). the latter simply means the government doesn't spend us into oblivion. clinton had a split, bush did not for the first 6. that's the last 15 years. to make such a broad statement as you have, without delving deeper is truly superficial and silly biased. again i note, people seem to only read deep enough to find the facts that support their pre-conceived notions, then all else is ignored. taks I did say it was silly and biased.. It was based on the fact that Clinton had to recover the economy after G. H. W. Bush and now, if Obama is elected, he'll have to recover it from G. W. Bush. Of course I recognize that Republicans can run the economy. It just seems to me that Republicans are better at rallying the public and getting the big things done and Democrats are better at keeping the house tidy. Both things are needed in a moderen household, which is why it seems like a good 2 party system. If the two can keep each other in check. Kinda like marriage, if one is too much in charge and the other can't get a say in - nothing useful gets done and spendings go through the roof. As I've said many times before (though I can't take credit for the saying itself) America always works best when there's gridlock in Washington. One party should have the White House, and the other should have the Congress. When party has everything, America falters. Right now, the Democrats have to be extremely careful because they are poised to receive the proverbial keys to the all-powerful kingdom. They already have congress and stand to gain a bigger majority in November, and Obama just might win. Which also means he'll be appointing maybe three Supreme Court justices to reshape the highest court in the land. If they haven't learned anything from the Republicans these last eight years, then they are in for a massive crash and burn a couple years after Obama takes office.
taks Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 You are aware that Reagan raised taxes six times after he cut them, right? immaterial to the point i was making. i wasn't a reagan fan, either, btw. he did damage to my livelihood while i was in college. taks comrade taks... just because.
themadhatter114 Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 If Obama wins you have no idea how terrible this country will become. Yes, that's generally what the knee-jerk conservatives foresee whenever the Democrats come along to clean up their mess. Meanwhile the rest of the world cheers. interesting that you call them conservatives and democrats instead of either republicans and democrats or conservatives and liberals. hehe... if any politician, republican or democrat, ever were to clean up any mess, i'd cheer. the rest of the world can pound sand as far as i'm concerned because they have proven time and again that their opinions regarding the US are largely worthless. taks Hahahahahahahaha I can't even remember any head of state in any democratic country that ever took responsibility and said: "Boy, did we f*** it up there". As we seen in the US, and in Europe with the EU for that matter(which i hate with a passion, but that's another thread), as time goes by, the politicians mess it all up, leaving the other party to fix it up by mandating more power from the people. Thomas Jefferson was right, to secure that the goverment was by the people for the people, a revolution is needed every now and then. And themadhatter114 is paranoid about Obama. Has the US policy against the U.N. really changed throughout the years, regardless on what rhethoric the current president had? It has been, and it will continue be a playground for the big boys (USA, Russia, China, France, Great Britain) on their game of chess of the world affairs. This is also known as Realpolitik. I don't really get your point about the UN. Yes, obviously we have a permanent seat on the Security Council. But stuff like IANSA and Kyoto are BS that the US needs to take a hard line on. I'd also like to stop giving money to the UN and kick them out of New York. Obama wants to legislate a greater financial commitment to UN projects, on top of all of his other plans to increase spending.
SteveThaiBinh Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 I don't really get your point about the UN. Yes, obviously we have a permanent seat on the Security Council. But stuff like IANSA and Kyoto are BS that the US needs to take a hard line on. I'd also like to stop giving money to the UN and kick them out of New York. Fine. But don't expect to get called 'leader of the free world', and kindly stop calling yourselves that. "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)
taks Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 It was based on the fact that Clinton had to recover the economy after G. H. W. Bush and now, if Obama is elected, he'll have to recover it from G. W. Bush. this is an even sillier and more biased statement. the president does not "recover the economy" in nearly any means other than tax manipulation. this is what i mean by "myopic view" of foreigners discussing american economic situations. the president has very little control over the economy. congress wields a much larger influence in this realm (even the president can only recommend tax cuts/raises, as they have to be voted in by congress). oh, and the ball was rolling long before clinton took office, and began to fall before bush was elected after clinton, so your point sort of misses the mark anyway. It just seems to me that Republicans are better at rallying the public and getting the big things done and Democrats are better at keeping the house tidy. Both things are needed in a modere household, which is why it seems like a good 2 party system. If the two can keep each other in check. oh my! neither of these statements is true in any meaningful way. both parties consist of politicians so the concepts of house tidying and successful large projects are beyond the capabilities of either. the bummer about our current means of "checks and balances" is that it is working incorrectly. the checks and balances were supposed to keep the separate branches in order, but in fact, it has been more beneficial to look at it as poliitical party control. tis a shame. taks comrade taks... just because.
taks Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 I don't really get your point about the UN. Yes, obviously we have a permanent seat on the Security Council. But stuff like IANSA and Kyoto are BS that the US needs to take a hard line on. I'd also like to stop giving money to the UN and kick them out of New York. Fine. But don't expect to get called 'leader of the free world', and kindly stop calling yourselves that. i am 100% behind that idea. tired of being the cops for the world. if we do nothing we are chastised, if we do something we are chastised. it is a lose-lose situation. let the angry brits take over again as far as i'm concerned. walsh, you up for some "leader of the free world" rhetoric? taks comrade taks... just because.
taks Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Hahahahahahahaha I can't even remember any head of state in any democratic country that ever took responsibility and said: "Boy, did we f*** it up there". As we seen in the US, and in Europe with the EU for that matter(which i hate with a passion, but that's another thread), as time goes by, the politicians mess it all up, leaving the other party to fix it up by mandating more power from the people. Thomas Jefferson was right, to secure that the goverment was by the people for the people, a revolution is needed every now and then. indeed. it is a slow and painful process. Has the US policy against the U.N. really changed throughout the years, regardless on what rhethoric the current president had? It has been, and it will continue be a playground for the big boys (USA, Russia, China, France, Great Britain) on their game of chess of the world affairs. This is also known as Realpolitik. the UN was designed by and for a socialist ideal. it is more than just big boys playing around with world affairs now. it has become its own behemoth bureaucracy that has no voter control. the UN is the only non-human entity i can honestly refer to as something evil. "the united nations. it's your world. we just want to own you." unisevil.com. taks comrade taks... just because.
Pop Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 (edited) Here's an interesting tidbit making the rounds of papers and blogs - Anne Kilkenny, a citizen of Wasilla, Alaska sent out this email critiquing Sarah Palin's career to curious friends, and it's since leaked and become a relatively big story. Also in more amusing news, turns out Palin has a history of being criticized for wasteful earmarks by an anti-pork activist by the name of... what's his name... mumbly joe?... oh yeah, Senator John McCain. Taylor Griffin, a McCain campaign spokesman, said that when Palin became mayor in 1996, "she faced a system that was broken. Small towns like Wasilla in Alaska depended on earmarks to take care of basic needs. . . . That was something that Gov. Palin was alarmed about and was one of the formative experiences that led her toward the reform-oriented stance that she has taken as her career has progressed." Palin, he said, was "disgusted" that small towns like hers were dependent on earmarks. Public records paint a different picture: Wasilla had received few if any earmarks before Palin became mayor. She actively sought federal funds -- a campaign that began to pay off only after she hired a lobbyist with close ties to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who long controlled federal spending as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He made funneling money to Alaska his hallmark. Steven Silver was a former chief of staff for Stevens. After he was hired, Wasilla obtained funding for several projects in 2002, including an additional $600,000 in transportation funding. I think "disgusted" is the word of the day! Edited September 6, 2008 by Pop Join me, and we shall make Production Beards a reality!
Hildegard Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 John McCain and his supporters keep talking about his imprisonment and torture in North Vietnam. Can someone please explain to me how does that fact make him more competent to be president?
Humodour Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 John McCain and his supporters keep talking about his imprisonment and torture in North Vietnam. Can someone please explain to me how does that fact make him more competent to be president? According to one of the soldiers who was tortured in 'Nam with him, it doesn't. He claims McCain is very unpredictable, has a horrible temper and is unsuited to running a country. The guy's running an ad campaign on TV about it, to boot.
SteveThaiBinh Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Here's an interesting tidbit making the rounds of papers and blogs - Anne Kilkenny, a citizen of Wasilla, Alaska sent out this email critiquing Sarah Palin's career to curious friends, and it's since leaked and become a relatively big story. That was a really interesting read, thank you. I appreciate that this is local politics and she has her own axe to grind, so to speak, but a good, critical, local view nonetheless. I don't think there's anything there that makes her worse than most politicians or particularly unfit to govern, so it's been interesting to read some of the knee-jerk reactions from pro-Republicans on the internet, basically dismissing everything she has to say outright because they know more about Sarah Palin from one speech than this woman ever could. John McCain and his supporters keep talking about his imprisonment and torture in North Vietnam. Can someone please explain to me how does that fact make him more competent to be president? According to one of the soldiers who was tortured in 'Nam with him, it doesn't. He claims McCain is very unpredictable, has a horrible temper and is unsuited to running a country. The guy's running an ad campaign on TV about it, to boot. Sounds a bit like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth again, doesn't it? "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)
Humodour Posted September 6, 2008 Posted September 6, 2008 Here's an interesting tidbit making the rounds of papers and blogs - Anne Kilkenny, a citizen of Wasilla, Alaska sent out this email critiquing Sarah Palin's career to curious friends, and it's since leaked and become a relatively big story. That was a really interesting read, thank you. I appreciate that this is local politics and she has her own axe to grind, so to speak, but a good, critical, local view nonetheless. I don't think there's anything there that makes her worse than most politicians or particularly unfit to govern, so it's been interesting to read some of the knee-jerk reactions from pro-Republicans on the internet, basically dismissing everything she has to say outright because they know more about Sarah Palin from one speech than this woman ever could. John McCain and his supporters keep talking about his imprisonment and torture in North Vietnam. Can someone please explain to me how does that fact make him more competent to be president? According to one of the soldiers who was tortured in 'Nam with him, it doesn't. He claims McCain is very unpredictable, has a horrible temper and is unsuited to running a country. The guy's running an ad campaign on TV about it, to boot. Sounds a bit like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth again, doesn't it? Perhaps. But this POW raises valid concerns - being a POW doesn't make you fit to lead (so why harp on about it), and McCain is horribly stubborn, and does have a horrible temper. You want somebody like that in charge of your foreign policy? From what I hear, that anti-Kerry ad was not grounded in truth so much as bashing his credentials merely because he was a Democrat.
Recommended Posts