oh and you've already admitted regulation isn't intrinsically bad. So why list it as a negative? Do we have to have this discussion again? Or was I just convinced of this kind of stuff because it's what my teachers marketed to me? haha
That's not even a real issue though. Militant atheists sue at the first whiff of religion in the school system, and usually win.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Regulation compliance hurts small businesses much more than it does big business. It's a great way to destroy competition.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
oh and you've already admitted regulation isn't intrinsically bad. So why list it as a negative? Do we have to have this discussion again? Or was I just convinced of this kind of stuff because it's what my teachers marketed to me? haha
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
militant atheists
sue
lol
sue
lol
so make compliance more reasonable. what's your point?Jay wrote:
Regulation compliance hurts small businesses much more than it does big business. It's a great way to destroy competition.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
oh and you've already admitted regulation isn't intrinsically bad. So why list it as a negative? Do we have to have this discussion again? Or was I just convinced of this kind of stuff because it's what my teachers marketed to me? haha
Lol.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
so make compliance more reasonable. what's your point?Jay wrote:
Regulation compliance hurts small businesses much more than it does big business. It's a great way to destroy competition.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
oh and you've already admitted regulation isn't intrinsically bad. So why list it as a negative? Do we have to have this discussion again? Or was I just convinced of this kind of stuff because it's what my teachers marketed to me? haha
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I think we've all just gotten used to hearing the phrase "worst president in history" because of Bush. Who was, objectively, one of the worst in our history. What you're saying here is exactly what the Repubs were saying during the Bush years. They still avoid his name like it's Voldemort though, lol. Whereas the Dems are at least half-disillusioned, half-defensive about Obama.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
list something good about any president? Hindsight is 20/20. We have a greater ability to revise perception of past presidents. It's really really stupid to say the sitting president (or the last one, or the next one) is/was/will be the shittiest president without putting it into a greater context. You claim to be an analytical/stats guy - wouldn't the first step be to define the criteria to be judged on? Create some kind of metric if you are serious? Or is this another post you could just attach a too to confirm it's tongue in cheek?
Bush was in the middle. Franklin Pierce was the worst.
Worst since Nixon.
Except the question of Nixon being a bad president isn't really yes or no. People tend to focus on the Watergate scandal and won't look at anything else.Spearhead wrote:
Worst since Nixon.
Nixon was one if the best post WW2 presidents. Better than Reagan, 2 bushes, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, and Carter. I am not sure where Clinton fits in in all of this.
Not really. I've heard that a million times. Nixon's had quite a resurgence in recent years because of this kind of thinking. Even if Watergate had never happened he was still a horrible president. I'll say why later, although Jay could give you some good answers I'm sure.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Except the question of Nixon being a bad president isn't really yes or no. People tend to focus on the Watergate scandal and won't look at anything else.Spearhead wrote:
Worst since Nixon.
It's still not as simple as either side of the issue tries to make it out to be, and I've heard it approached a thousand times both in favor of his presidency and not. The bad is bad, but he did some good as well.Spearhead wrote:
Not really. I've heard that a million times. Nixon's had quite a resurgence in recent years because of this kind of thinking. Even if Watergate had never happened he was still a horrible president. I'll say why later, although Jay could give you some good answers I'm sure.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Except the question of Nixon being a bad president isn't really yes or no. People tend to focus on the Watergate scandal and won't look at anything else.Spearhead wrote:
Worst since Nixon.
Good luck with that. Their number one priority was to make Obama a one term President.Jay wrote:
What would happen if they did and it meant tax rates would triple because of the profligate spending under Obama? Who would win? Yeah, call his bluff and make him officially the worst president in history.AussieReaper wrote:
Wait, the GOP should offer to raise taxes?Jay wrote:
The Republicans should call Obama's bluff and offer to raise tax rates to a high enough level to balance the budget next year along with a rule to balance the budget every year going forward. There would be a revolt if people were actually asked to bear the real cost of the government and its spending practices. Do that, and you'll get real talks about budget cuts from the Democrats.
HAHAHAHA.
That's not going to happen.
That's failed so the next plan is to make him the worst President in history...?
Priorities.
Pretty much what to expectJay wrote:
Rah rah gold standard.
Price controls. Took us off the gold standard and instituted price controls which led to the hyperinflation of the 70s. He wiped out millions of peoples life savings. One of the worst presidents in history.Spearhead wrote:
Not really. I've heard that a million times. Nixon's had quite a resurgence in recent years because of this kind of thinking. Even if Watergate had never happened he was still a horrible president. I'll say why later, although Jay could give you some good answers I'm sure.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Except the question of Nixon being a bad president isn't really yes or no. People tend to focus on the Watergate scandal and won't look at anything else.Spearhead wrote:
Worst since Nixon.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I'm not a Republican. Didn't vote for Romney. In fact I hate both parties nearly equally, the Reps simply have the opportunity to squash Obama if they really want to.AussieReaper wrote:
Good luck with that. Their number one priority was to make Obama a one term President.Jay wrote:
What would happen if they did and it meant tax rates would triple because of the profligate spending under Obama? Who would win? Yeah, call his bluff and make him officially the worst president in history.AussieReaper wrote:
Wait, the GOP should offer to raise taxes?
HAHAHAHA.
That's not going to happen.
That's failed so the next plan is to make him the worst President in history...?
Priorities.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You don't have to worry anyway:AussieReaper wrote:
Good luck with that. Their number one priority was to make Obama a one term President.Jay wrote:
What would happen if they did and it meant tax rates would triple because of the profligate spending under Obama? Who would win? Yeah, call his bluff and make him officially the worst president in history.AussieReaper wrote:
Wait, the GOP should offer to raise taxes?
HAHAHAHA.
That's not going to happen.
That's failed so the next plan is to make him the worst President in history...?
Priorities.
http://www.freep.com/article/20121204/N … slap-face-Amash defeated Democrat Steve Pestka in the Nov. 6 election and begins his second term in Washington in January. But he won’t do so as a member of the Budget Committee, where he voted against budget proposals put forth by Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who was his party’s vice presidential nominee this year. Amash said the budgets didn’t go far enough.
“It’s not acceptable to have budgets that are unbalanced to the year 2040,” he said.
Amash also disagreed with what he described as an entrenched view among Republican leaders that defense spending is off limits for cuts. He believes that while the nation’s military must remain strong, that defense spending should be on the table for reductions and that it could serve as a way to find a bipartisan agreement with Democrats on spending cuts.
“I think they (Republican leaders) are willing to raise taxes to avoid any defense cuts,” said Amash. “I think they’re willing to take really bad deals to avoid any defense cuts.”
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
me: we've already agreed not all regulation is bad. so why list that as a negativeJay wrote:
Lol.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
so make compliance more reasonable. what's your point?Jay wrote:
Regulation compliance hurts small businesses much more than it does big business. It's a great way to destroy competition.
you: regulation compliance hurts small business. It's a great way to destroy competition
me: so make it more reasonable
you: lol
your statement didn't address my question - why you list regulation as a negative when we've previously agreed it isn't. you don't think regulation compliance can be more reasonable?
Or did Adam Smith tell you businesses will regulate themselves hahahaha
We've had this argument before. You know how it ended. The majority of regulations are written by lobbyists looking to empower their company or industry at the expense of others. Career bureaucrats and the lawyers that we elect don't have the working knowledge to generate any of that crap, and you should know that.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
me: we've already agreed not all regulation is bad. so why list that as a negativeJay wrote:
Lol.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
so make compliance more reasonable. what's your point?
you: regulation compliance hurts small business. It's a great way to destroy competition
me: so make it more reasonable
you: lol
your statement didn't address my question - why you list regulation as a negative when we've previously agreed it isn't. you don't think regulation compliance can be more reasonable?
Or did Adam Smith tell you businesses will regulate themselves hahahaha
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Not to mention, being elected on the premise of ending the war in Vietnam. Which was already lost. And proceeded to invade Cambodia and bombard the North with god knows how many bombs. I think they said it was more than all the bombs dropped in WW2 combined. He ended up extending the war for another 5 years. (seems kind of similar to Obama and Afghanistan now that I think about it)Jay wrote:
Price controls. Took us off the gold standard and instituted price controls which led to the hyperinflation of the 70s. He wiped out millions of peoples life savings. One of the worst presidents in history.Spearhead wrote:
Not really. I've heard that a million times. Nixon's had quite a resurgence in recent years because of this kind of thinking. Even if Watergate had never happened he was still a horrible president. I'll say why later, although Jay could give you some good answers I'm sure.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Except the question of Nixon being a bad president isn't really yes or no. People tend to focus on the Watergate scandal and won't look at anything else.
And the War on Drugs
And rah rah gold standard
Its barely more profligate than under Bush - who cut taxes, increased spending and started two wars -> increasing the deficit.Jay wrote:
What would happen if they did and it meant tax rates would triple because of the profligate spending under Obama? Who would win? Yeah, call his bluff and make him officially the worst president in history.AussieReaper wrote:
Wait, the GOP should offer to raise taxes?Jay wrote:
The Republicans should call Obama's bluff and offer to raise tax rates to a high enough level to balance the budget next year along with a rule to balance the budget every year going forward. There would be a revolt if people were actually asked to bear the real cost of the government and its spending practices. Do that, and you'll get real talks about budget cuts from the Democrats.
HAHAHAHA.
That's not going to happen.
If increasing taxes and cutting spending to attempt a balanced budget is your idea of "the worst president in history" then I don't know what to say.
Fuck Israel
You're forgetting, Jay dislikes both parties equally....
Sorry, Ayn Rand Utopia with no govt or taxes......
Fuck Israel
It's what divides the scum from the Übermensch.