EPT2008 US Presidential Election - Page 42
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On March 09 2008 06:02 teamsolid wrote: Explain how Lincoln, FDR and JFK were elected in your cynical view of the world. I know you're just trolling though, especially considering you're not even from the US and this campaign has little tangible effect on you one way or another. I don't consider Lincoln, FDR, or JFK to be great men. edit2: spoilered for offtopic longness + Show Spoiler + Lincoln had the good fortune to preside over a civil war, and got assassinated while he was still basking in the glory of it. FDR had the good fortune to preside over a world war, and then died. JFK was president during an exciting showdown and got assassinated before he had a chance to show he was innately an ass. These men are remembered fondly for serving at the right time, and dying at the right time. Nobody looks at the American Civil War and seriously says that the agrarian South had a chance in hell to win it against the industrial might of the North. Lincoln rubber stamped the "Fuck Federalism, we're going to conquer us some vassal provinces." order and made a pretty speech when he punished the secessionists by abruptly dissolving certain of their property rights. (he didn't go into office with any intention of ending slavery; in fact, not ending slavery was one of his campaign promises) Why does nobody look at Lincoln and say, "Here is a president who failed to prevent civil war."? The Nazis were almost as self-destructive as they were destructive. With their radical war socialism, Hitler needed a steady stream of plunder to keep the Reich out of bankruptcy. The real disaster that killed them was running out of equivalently rich neighboring countries to invade. I'm not clear on what a great victory it was to soften them up so the Soviet machine could survive when they inevitably came into conflict. The parallels with Japan/China are almost eerie. The Americans could have comfortably sat this one out, rather than Making The World Safe For Communism! if certain persons *cough cough* hadn't conspired to provoke and lure the Nazi-like Japanese into throwing the first stone, to overcome the public's general inclination toward isolationism. And the world today might well be a better place. Anne Frankly, I think the vote-buying New Disaster lengthened and deepened the depression. As radio and movies began to supply the audiovisual circus that would the era of average American voter as serious thinking man, he was standing ready to hand out the bread. What did JFK achieve in the Cuban missile crisis? ICBMs didn't come too much later than that. Apollo was half saber rattling and half pork. It was a neat trick, good for dinner conversation, but it was insanely fucking expensive. Not so different in principle from Hitler's war socialism. Anyway, the Russians launched the space race, and all JFK did was say, "Hey, let's try to beat them at that. What? The Moon? Von Braun says we can do THAT? Make it so." He did make a pretty speech, though. I wonder who wrote it. These men found their excuses to set aside the principle of free individualism and harness up American industry for their own dubious projects, taking credit as if theirs were the hands that turned the wrenches, and not those that wielded the lash. And then they died covered in glory, ensuring that nobody would speak ill of them. We look by the river, and we see only the pyramids, not the thousands who would have lived happy lives as free men if not for the madness of pharaohs who wanted large gravestones. Edit: Wow... you haven't even seen Obama speak and you're going off pulling out all this shit about him. What a fucking douche. Listening to a politician speak is the most counterproductive approach to forming an accurate opinion of him. They are career manipulators. If you think listening to a speech tells you anything except how good they are at giving speeches, the electoral outcome would probably be improved by you not voting. | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On March 09 2008 07:37 teamsolid wrote: No, as in you don't know shit about him. If you aren't interested enough to even see him speak even once, you obviously wouldn't have done any real research into his background except hearing about conspiracy theories propagated by chain mails. No comment on your other cynical garbage. I wish you good luck in having Obama never get elected, or better yet, being elected, and then getting assassinated after weathering a national crisis he himself precipitated, so you can enjoy worshiping him as a hero forever, and cursing the world that never appreciated him as he deserved. edit: For those curious about why two Canadians are arguing about the American presidential primaries, you should know that Canada is a smallish and rather boring place, and our national sport is imagining what it would be like to be American and have an interesting place in the world. | ||
CTStalker
Canada9720 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On March 09 2008 08:18 CTStalker wrote: it seems like you'd rather be an american funchucks, but don't speak for the rest of us, even in jest :p Here we see the other national sport: feeling superior to Americans. :D + Show Spoiler + Their beer sucks! | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11554 Posts
| ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On March 09 2008 09:09 FragKrag wrote: If John McCain died, Ron Paul would be the Republican nominee. Scary times we live in. Scary times. ...and if he doesn't die, then John McCain will be the Republican nominee. Are you afraid yet? | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
I think he's intelligent enough to understand the tough decisions, diplomatic enough to push them through Congress and charismatic enough to convince the people that it must be done. Even if there are those who do not want to change, like the teachers' union, I think he will be able to not only isolate each of these elements one by one and unite everyone else against them, but also steal their traditional bases of support. Someone who can get most of Congress and the people behind him is really going to be able to get a lot of things done. A lot of Clinton's attacks are justified. He doesn't have a great deal of experience, he's not a "strong" leader. That's why his subordinates are going off and saying things they shouldn't. He's also not completely trustworthy - I think he knows that NAFTA is actually doing more good than harm, but he's cleverly saying "I support free trade in general, I just think we need to tweak NAFTA." But the fact that he's allowing her to attack him without fighting back as strongly as he could have just shows that he geuninely believes in his principles. He could have attacked Clinton before Texas and Ohio with a lot of venom and painted her as an incompetent dictator of her staff who is fighting blindly. He can, in fact, attack her now and paint her as a selfish bitch who is more determined to take him down than lift the party up. But he doesn't. He isn't attacking her using anything that John McCain could use during the general election. I think the Democratic Party sees that as well, and if the superdelegates are sensible, they will stop this before the situation gets worse and force Clinton to bow out. With the world leaning heavily on the United States, especially on economic issues, who becomes the next president is something everyone should be concerned about. I think Obama will make a fine president. | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On March 09 2008 09:28 Funchucks wrote: ...and if he doesn't die, then John McCain will be the Republican nominee. Are you afraid yet? I LOL'ed at this. But Funchucks, I still think you come off as a troll when you don't need to. You're way too absorbed into these issues (and you do seem to study them regularly) to always attack and criticize, without ever really bothering to put forth your own ideas or solutions. It's easy to tear everyone else down. For me, I'll take a former idealist who has had their principles blunted by the political realities and yet who keeps trying, over that idealist who's just become so bitter they've given even on the idea of progress and just snipe at everyone else. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On March 09 2008 12:02 The Storyteller wrote: I have no illusions about Obama being principled and completely honest. However, I think that he has a good balance of idealism, courage and cunning. I think he's intelligent enough to understand the tough decisions, diplomatic enough to push them through Congress and charismatic enough to convince the people that it must be done. Even if there are those who do not want to change, like the teachers' union, I think he will be able to not only isolate each of these elements one by one and unite everyone else against them, but also steal their traditional bases of support. Someone who can get most of Congress and the people behind him is really going to be able to get a lot of things done. I agree. This is one of the reasons why I get annoyed when people say "he just makes good speeches". When you are popular and convincing to the public it will translate into being able to act without being as hindered as he would normally be (mostly referring to congress). If Hillary were President it's quite possible that she would not be able to enact much of her health care plan. The other reasons it annoys me are a) he isn't *just* a good speaker, and b) a lot of times people's criteria for a good speech is good content, good ideas, so a good speech is rarely *just* a good speech by definition :o | ||
|
HonestTea
5007 Posts
See, there's a difference in the theoretical knowledge you have of these churches, and the actual experience of attending one. The way you put it, "special interests" and "race-oriented agenta" are indeed scary. So this is uncomfortable to you. It's uncomfrotable because it is unfamiliar. It is scary because you do not know. If you ever go to a black church, or a Korean church, or whatnot, you'll find that many are dedicated to serving their congregation and community. Immigrants have unique needs. Blacks have unique needs. Irish Catholics have unique needs. Jews have unique needs, which are served at synagogue. If your problem is with evangelical Christianity in general, or with religion in general, then maybe I can see where you're coming from. But to paint the Trinity UCC as some kind of sinister organization is entirely wrong and misinformed. Learn to recognize when your theoretical knowledge is not enough. And if I may ask, who, in your mind, was a good President of the US? Who, in your mind, was a good politician? And if you think Lincoln was the man who failed to prevent civil war... let me introduce you to Mr. James Buchanan. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1065/1371987297_70a8d452b2.jpg) | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
In a March 7 front-page article, The New York Times reported that Obama "bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors" and quoted an Obama spokesman saying that the presidential hopeful "did not know that he had invested in either company until fall 2005, when he learned of it and decided to sell the stocks." The spokesman added that Obama "sold [the stocks] at a net loss of $13,000." The article also noted that "[t]here is no evidence that any of his actions ended up benefiting either company during the roughly eight months that he owned the stocks" Compare to: On October 11, 1978, while Bill Clinton was attorney general of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton opened a futures account with a broker named Robert L. "Red" Bone. She traded the account under the guidance of James Blair. Blair was then an attorney working as outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., a large Arkansas food chicken-processing firm. Bone had formerly worked for Tyson Foods. She put $1,000 into the account and apparently gave Blair authority to manage it. Over the next year, profits from the account were just under $100,000. These results are quite remarkable. Two-thirds of her trades showed a profit by the end of the day she made them and 80 percent were ultimately profitable. Many of her trades took place at or near the best prices of the day. Only four explanations can account for these remarkable results. Blair may have been an exceptional good trader. Hillary Clinton may have been exceptionally lucky. Blair may have been front-running other orders. Or Blair may have arranged to have a broker fraudulently assign trades to benefit Clinton's account. Many people familiar with these markets think that the first two explanations are exceedingly unlikely. Well-informed traders rarely trade with such remarkable success and consistency. Although no evidence of fraudulent trade assignment has ever surfaced, this explanation seems most likely to many people. Here is a simple example of how a dishonest broker could achieve this objective: Execute buy and sell orders in the same contract. The contract price will eventually go up or go down. If it goes up, assign the profitable buy trades to the favored account and assign the losing sell trades to an account owned by the benefactor. If the price falls, assign the profitable sell trades to the favored account and assign the losing buy trades to the benefactor's account. Many of Clinton's political enemies believe that the scheme was designed to surreptitiously transfer an illegal bribe or gratuity to Clinton in exchange for a political favor or for political influence. They believe that Don Tyson--a major political supporter of Clinton--was the benefactor. Fraudulent trade assignment is difficult in electronic trading systems. Such systems typically require brokers to enter client account numbers when submitting orders. And hillary has kept that money | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
![[image loading]](http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8664/pcohbm3.jpg) | ||
Arrian
United States889 Posts
Cut carbon 80%? Shall I make grunting noises and begin hunting deer in northern Wisconsin, then? Fair trade laws and higher taxes? You can't tax your way out of a recession, no way no how. And that's just the surface. I'm not saying anything for Hillary (or even McCain, for that matter) either. | ||
|
Skye_MyO
Singapore107 Posts
----- War McWar wants to stay forever, and blow trillions of taxpayer dollars. Obama is slightly better here, saying 16 months is the best case scenario. And knowing how useless the democratically controlled congress is, we can expect a couple more good years in the sunny middle east. I know how you'll respond, we can't leave until things have settled, but here's something cool, they attack us because we're over there. ----- Economy McWar - how are you going to cut spending with your wonderful war raging on? Oh i know, print more money. But doesn't that inflate the currency and wipe out the savings of people who have saved, especially the middle class? Obama - If you win the election, you'll preside over a very bad recession. Some of your policies are okay (make working pay tax credit), but how do you intend to tackle the falling dollar? how do you "double federal funding for basic research", "provide assistance to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient vehicles", etc etc the real question is how do you intend to expand federal funding when you have no money? Oh yeah, get Bernanke to print more money! PROBLEM SOLVED! ----- On the whole, Obama > McCain. But lets be frank, you're gonna get shortchanged on the whole "Change" rhetoric. Things will stay the same, folks. | ||
|
Skye_MyO
Singapore107 Posts
On March 09 2008 12:25 HonestTea wrote: And if I may ask, who, in your mind, was a good President of the US? Who, in your mind, was a good politician? Thomas Jefferson. | ||
| ||
