I think thats the worst partTurquoise wrote:
Granted, the general public isn't exactly that intelligent anyway
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Next President could have "the toughest job"
Pretty much... although it seems like the only thing that can be done is to position corporations and the government against each other. When they are fighting each other rather than colluding (like they do now), then the taxpayer generally benefits the most.
The competition is gonna happen in court, costing the tax payer money.Turquoise wrote:
Pretty much... although it seems like the only thing that can be done is to position corporations and the government against each other. When they are fighting each other rather than colluding (like they do now), then the taxpayer generally benefits the most.
FDR was a piece of shit? WTF!??!?!!HollisHurlbut wrote:
Because we're Team America: WORLD POLICE!Jepeto87 wrote:
Why does no one ever talk about domestic policy!!?
Seriously, though, I was going to slap Dilbert_X down on what the next president will need to face, since none of the things he listed (except Iraq) is either our business, or under our control.That's nothing new -- Obama always sounds like a piece of shit.teamorange wrote:
In Obamas speech after winning Iowa, he sounded like FDR
It costs us money either way, and collusion costs us far more. Alaska is a perfect example of this. Senators like Ted Stevens do everything possible to divert federal funds to private corporations that participate in government projects in their states. Court costs are far lower than the cost of building roads to nowhere.Commie Killer wrote:
The competition is gonna happen in court, costing the tax payer money.Turquoise wrote:
Pretty much... although it seems like the only thing that can be done is to position corporations and the government against each other. When they are fighting each other rather than colluding (like they do now), then the taxpayer generally benefits the most.
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-01-05 11:37:01)
Lobbyists are not necessarily bad as gunslinger said, but it is when they can lobby for subsidies successfully all the time. Why try being a better company by making a better and cheaper product to compete when you can have the gov cover your costs? If you leave out food for the birds, they are going to learn they don't need to find it themselves.
No to subsidies. I believe in free markets.
No to subsidies. I believe in free markets.
Last edited by Phrozenbot (2008-01-05 12:29:02)
I call BS on this claim. The Great Depression was a result of fiscal mismanagement by the Federal Reserve and trade barriers thrown up by Congress that made a bad situation even worse.Turquoise wrote:
Unlike a lot of people, my feelings on policy are dependent on the times. During the Great Depression, we NEEDED big government. The Stock Market Crash was largely the result of government letting big business do whatever it felt like.
The biggest war we've ever fought is what really got us out of the depression, bucko.Nowadays, times have changed, but I still respect FDR for successfully getting us out of the recession and through the biggest war we've ever fought.
Negative on both counts. Paul advocates freedom, not oppression.Turquoise wrote:
Obama is way better than your man, Paul. FDR was the greatest president we've ever had.
And I think FDR was, with the possible exception of Lincoln, the worst president we've ever had.
Yes. Read the Constitution, then read up on FDR's domestic initiatives.golgoj4 wrote:
FDR was a piece of shit? WTF!??!?!!
See if you can find how they jive with each other.
They don't.
The Fed Reserve is far from innocent in what caused the crash, but you can't really blame the government for the lending practices of private banks. It wasn't the government that let so many people buy stocks on margin.HollisHurlbut wrote:
I call BS on this claim. The Great Depression was a result of fiscal mismanagement by the Federal Reserve and trade barriers thrown up by Congress that made a bad situation even worse.Turquoise wrote:
Unlike a lot of people, my feelings on policy are dependent on the times. During the Great Depression, we NEEDED big government. The Stock Market Crash was largely the result of government letting big business do whatever it felt like.The biggest war we've ever fought is what really got us out of the depression, bucko.Nowadays, times have changed, but I still respect FDR for successfully getting us out of the recession and through the biggest war we've ever fought.
You're correct that the war machine helped get us out of the Great Depression, and FDR was a large part of why we were able to spend as much as we did on the machine. He was big government when it made sense to be that way. A far cry from Hoover, wouldn't you say?
Well, at least we can agree that Lincoln sucked.HollisHurlbut wrote:
Negative on both counts. Paul advocates freedom, not oppression.Turquoise wrote:
Obama is way better than your man, Paul. FDR was the greatest president we've ever had.
And I think FDR was, with the possible exception of Lincoln, the worst president we've ever had.
Obama advocates freedom as well, but in a more practical way....
It's not a stretch compare the next President's job that of an elementary school janitor.
Palestine - Stop giving Israel $6bn a year and give the Palestinians a viable state and the ME might not be such a mess, the price of oil might come down a smidgen, and the US won't have to take on IranHollishurlbut wrote:
Seriously, though, I was going to slap Dilbert_X down on what the next president will need to face, since none of the things he listed (except Iraq) is either our business, or under our control.
Pakistan - They have 'nucular' weapons and could go Islamic fundamentalist tomorrow. AQ with access to A-bombs? Enjoy...
Increasing influence of Russia and China - Why do you think your economy is in the toilet? Who do you think is going to be buying up the middle eastern oil over the next 20 yrs?
It may not all be under direct US control but your future President is going to have to face/deal with it either way.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Why did Lincoln suck?
I think someone needs to just kill bush. all problems solved. The world will start to like the US again, especially if its the US that kills him.
Now that's just plain stupid. Killing one president wouldn't solve any problems.dankassasin42o wrote:
I think someone needs to just kill bush. all problems solved. The world will start to like the US again, especially if its the US that kills him.
What you need is a president willing to step up to the plate, prepared to get his fingers dirty but likeable, so that he can improve the US image. (or she, for that matter)
The middle east is a mess, and unless you want to change to alternate fuel/energy sources, get to work on it! Palestine + Pakistan are definitely problems of the USA as much as anyone's, and so are China and Russia.
To whomever comes next: Enjoy cleaning up after Bush...
-konfusion
Say hello to the FBI in a couple of hours.dankassasin42o wrote:
I think someone needs to just kill bush. all problems solved. The world will start to like the US again, especially if its the US that kills him.
This is why Lincoln sucked!
he was a saint!
he was a saint!
Not a good idea, because then we have Cheney...dankassasin42o wrote:
I think someone needs to just kill bush. all problems solved. The world will start to like the US again, especially if its the US that kills him.
Saying any President "could have the 'toughest job'" is about as earth-shattering of a revelation as saying "if you have cancer you may have to see a doctor". There's a reason they all turn gray in the job.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
This is a worse time than usual though, US going towards recession, oil price at a reocrd high, Russia and China heading towards dominance.
Lets hope the US gets a President with a brain this time.
What I think is the larger problem is every President only has a 4 year horizon.
You can bet the Chinese have 5,10,20,50 year plans.
Lets hope the US gets a President with a brain this time.
What I think is the larger problem is every President only has a 4 year horizon.
You can bet the Chinese have 5,10,20,50 year plans.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Sounds remarkably like 20 or so years ago. Not really any better or worse than any other time.
Presidents do have goals they wish to meet during their term(s) but they also realize that many changes take much longer than they have in office. They are not nearly as imbecilic as you seem to think.
Presidents do have goals they wish to meet during their term(s) but they also realize that many changes take much longer than they have in office. They are not nearly as imbecilic as you seem to think.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Toughest like World War 2 administrator or toughest like a firebase sergeant in Vietnam?kylef wrote:
As I was reading the Financial Times in Starbucks this morning, I couldn't help but scurry over the array of Presidential writings in the paper. Financial Times claims that "this president (newcomer) will have the toughest job" - no matter who it is, they have one hell of a situation to rectify. With over 365 days left of Bush's presidential career, a lot can still change:
- Iraq situation could still go either way;
- Saudi territory and oil under crisis;
- Potential economy blow.
.. is just a few things that this person will have to deal with. How do you think this President will hold up? This will definitely be one of the toughest Presidencies (admittedly...I'm sure they are all pretty crazy). It'll sure be interesting to see the first thing this new President does, but there's still a year of Bush's term to go and the Iraq situation is still pretty sketchy (despite record low numbers of US deaths in December...although there was another suicide bomber killing 28 people in Baghdad)
Aside from what Judge Napolitano said in the posted video, there's the issue of secession as a right in the first place. Before Lincoln, the Union was held together by mutual consent, with both an individual State and the Union as a whole believing they benefitted from that State's being part of the Union. After Lincoln, the Union changed from being held together by consent to being held together by the federal government's position of "stay or we'll F***ING KILL YOU."nukchebi0 wrote:
Why did Lincoln suck?
It was Lincoln who changed us from a Union to an Empire.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Next President could have "the toughest job"