Ummm... you realize Presidents aren't that powerful right? I'd say the President has almost no effect whatsoever on 3 of those things. The others context is extremely important.
Right. Presidents aren't powerful, but EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS 100% BUSH'S FAULT@@@@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, you guys are ridiculous. If you want to have a debate, fine, but the "my way is the only way to look at it" completely makes you sound hypocritical.
There's no point in fighting the mob. It's not like they give a shit if they look hypocritical when there's hundreds of them to a handful of us. They can't care less when the world pointed their fingers at one man for all of the mistakes we've made over the past decade. They're just as idiotic as the people they vociferously fight against, and it's sad really.
Ummm... you realize Presidents aren't that powerful right? I'd say the President has almost no effect whatsoever on 3 of those things. The others context is extremely important.
Right. Presidents aren't powerful, but EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS 100% BUSH'S FAULT@@@@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, you guys are ridiculous. If you want to have a debate, fine, but the "my way is the only way to look at it" completely makes you sound hypocritical.
Most of the things people blame Bush for are actually his fault (i.e. the war in Iraq, the tax cuts he pushed for, the national security strategy of 2002 and his general approach to foreign policy, etc.). Most of the things people blame Obama for are not his fault.
Time to lighten the mood a little bit in between. Here is ABC's Jimmy Kimmel at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner 2012 talking about Obama, Romney, the upcoming elections, and many other Washington things, for those who missed it.
President Obama also had a speech which may have been posted earlier (in spoiler below if not). Either way, it's good to see that these light hearted events with the occasional serious quip are possible despite all the differences, especially in an election year. I found it rather entertaining.
Ummm... you realize Presidents aren't that powerful right? I'd say the President has almost no effect whatsoever on 3 of those things. The others context is extremely important.
Right. Presidents aren't powerful, but EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS 100% BUSH'S FAULT@@@@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, you guys are ridiculous. If you want to have a debate, fine, but the "my way is the only way to look at it" completely makes you sound hypocritical.
I think there are too many people in this thread and you are confusing everyone and think we have all one monolithic opinion. I didn't say Presidents aren't powerful. I said they weren't THAT powerful. Presidents have little to no control over interest rates, gas prices or medium household income (significant impact on this certainly won't be felt during one term and it is tied to interest rates in a way). Also I never assigned blame to any President. As I said before you are confusing me for someone else. Economic-wise I think Bush isn't 100% to blame or even 50%, but he is certainly more at fault than Obama. As political theory goes I'm more of a historical institutionalist. The way the system is set up is more at fault here.
On April 30 2012 06:33 radiatoren wrote: By the way, saw one of the first republican anti-Obama videos. While I do not like the kindergarten mudthrowing from either side I did find it somewhat interesting. I am pretty sure that it is only the beginning of a far more dirty campaign, but as a stand-alone it is not that bad for Obama. At least the soundside seems very pro-Obama. What do they want with it is the question?
whoah buddy you messed up the link! all you have to do is grab it from the adress bar. That video doesn't look too bad for obama imo, I don't see how they think portraying obama as clueless about politics after that clown bush was president for 8 years will hit home.....
Just throwing this out there, during the elections of 2004 bush had;
5.5% unemployment rate 11 trillion federal deficit gas price roughly $2 nationwide 9.6% underemployment Medium household income at $44,339 (effective buying power of $53,843.37 today) Rate of inflation at 1.9%
Compared to Obama in march at
9% unemployment 15.7 trillion federal deficit gas price roughly $4 nationwide, going up to 5 Medium household income at roughly $51,000 20.3% underemployment rate of inflation at 2.9%
And if bush is the clueless one... where does that leave obama?
Please give the trend in gas prices and underemployment rate under Bush2004, and all stats given for these two at the end of the Clinton and Bush years. That should give at least some basis on which to compare the first term performance of Obama and Bush.
Can't compare properly with zero context, especially when start positions are different.
On April 30 2012 09:50 Proseat wrote: Time to lighten the mood a little bit in between. Here is ABC's Jimmy Kimmel at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner 2012 talking about Obama, Romney, the upcoming elections, and many other Washington things, for those who missed it.
President Obama also had a speech which may have been posted earlier (in spoiler below if not). Either way, it's good to see that these light hearted events with the occasional serious quip are possible despite all the differences. I found it rather entertaining.
I'm probably being a huge downer, but I personally cannot stand it when the media gets cozy with powerful people they are supposed to hold accountable so this event puts me in a bad mood. Sure joking is fine and all, but this event has become so much more than just that and I don't like it. I'm probably reading too much into to it though.
Ummm... you realize Presidents aren't that powerful right? I'd say the President has almost no effect whatsoever on 3 of those things. The others context is extremely important.
Right. Presidents aren't powerful, but EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS 100% BUSH'S FAULT@@@@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, you guys are ridiculous. If you want to have a debate, fine, but the "my way is the only way to look at it" completely makes you sound hypocritical.
I think there are too many people in this thread and you are confusing everyone and think we have all one monolithic opinion. I didn't say Presidents aren't powerful. I said they weren't THAT powerful. Presidents have little to no control over interest rates, gas prices or medium household income (significant impact on this certainly won't be felt during one term and it is tied to interest rates in a way). Also I never assigned blame to any President. As I said before you are confusing me for someone else. Economic-wise I think Bush isn't 100% to blame or even 50%, but he is certainly more at fault than Obama. As political theory goes I'm more of a historical institutionalist. The way the system is set up is more at fault here.
It is a hard line to prove Bush was anything but the worst president in US history, I think that is the issue, let's put aside all of the illegal wars on "terror" and the dehumanization of the entire Muslim population for a moment. The economic destruction that unfolded because of Bush's administration, is the key to the entire "we hate bush" outlook, but it is not entirely Bush's fault now is it?
Since Reagan, the once prosperous land of the free, has turned into a giant deregulated fuck up. People have been posting, "Well obama is now 15TRILLION IN DEBT" and "9% unemployment"...
Let's first start by accounting for unemployment, I'll jot very real reasons which have been echo'd by educated indivudals on the issue, any of these reasons can simply be googled to find proof on them.
-Increase in technology, this implies the "hard working" American's are on the out and machines that do it more efficently and faster are on the in
-Health, a very well known Tedx speaks about direct correlation between the chemically altered foods that are "only" allowed in the states, and the drastic statistical anomaly for why Americans are literally the most diseased on earth.
-Healthcare again, it is no shock that America employees the most un-regulated corporately ran medical industry in the entire world, and what has it shown for it? Profit, and disease. For such a heavily paid industry, it actually has yet to have a positive impact statistically compared to other countries, in fact "many" other countries. http://prospect.org/article/ten-reasons-why-american-health-care-so-bad <--- more opiniated, but it is to the best of my knowledge all rather true.
(lets pause to realize all of this de-regulation and technology increase has up until 2008 sharply been on the rise, and while technology is amazing, it isn't going anywhere, but de-regulation has been slowly on the decline, which is good)
-Outsourcing of jobs, almost every major company outsources to areas such as Taiwan (look at the back of your shirt) and other under-developed countries to produce its product. America has allowed such outsourcing, because it improves corporate profit margins on nearly "slave" labour. (yes paying a few dollars a month is fairly close to slave labour)
That is a short summary of a few major issues.
The DEBT!
Interest works, so that you go farther into the debt the more money you owe. If you are a student, you may be in debt for 40 years if not careful about your investment, with countries? It can become a much grander tale, and the only possible way to remove a 9trillion dollar deficit is to pump trillions into it, and if you recall the republican plan was a MUCH MORE expensive one, costing trillions more, and placing the money where it need not be.
So in closing, you can say that Obama is awful, and he VERY WELL MAY BE, but between Mitt Richmand, I mean Romney and Obama... There is NO, I repeat, NO contest... You are voting for Obama, or an intellectual fallacy... Who somehow got into politics.
Best quote? "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love."
Ummm... you realize Presidents aren't that powerful right? I'd say the President has almost no effect whatsoever on 3 of those things. The others context is extremely important.
Right. Presidents aren't powerful, but EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS 100% BUSH'S FAULT@@@@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, you guys are ridiculous. If you want to have a debate, fine, but the "my way is the only way to look at it" completely makes you sound hypocritical.
I think there are too many people in this thread and you are confusing everyone and think we have all one monolithic opinion. I didn't say Presidents aren't powerful. I said they weren't THAT powerful. Presidents have little to no control over interest rates, gas prices or medium household income (significant impact on this certainly won't be felt during one term and it is tied to interest rates in a way). Also I never assigned blame to any President. As I said before you are confusing me for someone else. Economic-wise I think Bush isn't 100% to blame or even 50%, but he is certainly more at fault than Obama. As political theory goes I'm more of a historical institutionalist. The way the system is set up is more at fault here.
It is a hard line to prove Bush was anything but the worst president in US history, I think that is the issue, let's put aside all of the illegal wars on "terror" and the dehumanization of the entire Muslim population for a moment. The economic destruction that unfolded because of Bush's administration, is the key to the entire "we hate bush" outlook, but it is not entirely Bush's fault now is it?
Since Reagan, the once prosperous land of the free, has turned into a giant deregulated fuck up. People have been posting, "Well obama is now 15TRILLION IN DEBT" and "9% unemployment"...
Let's first start by accounting for unemployment, I'll jot very real reasons which have been echo'd by educated indivudals on the issue, any of these reasons can simply be googled to find proof on them.
-Increase in technology, this implies the "hard working" American's are on the out and machines that do it more efficently and faster are on the in
-Health, a very well known Tedx speaks about direct correlation between the chemically altered foods that are "only" allowed in the states, and the drastic statistical anomaly for why Americans are literally the most diseased on earth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixyrCNVVGA
-Healthcare again, it is no shock that America employees the most un-regulated corporately ran medical industry in the entire world, and what has it shown for it? Profit, and disease. For such a heavily paid industry, it actually has yet to have a positive impact statistically compared to other countries, in fact "many" other countries. http://prospect.org/article/ten-reasons-why-american-health-care-so-bad <--- more opiniated, but it is to the best of my knowledge all rather true.
(lets pause to realize all of this de-regulation and technology increase has up until 2008 sharply been on the rise, and while technology is amazing, it isn't going anywhere, but de-regulation has been slowly on the decline, which is good)
-Outsourcing of jobs, almost every major company outsources to areas such as Taiwan (look at the back of your shirt) and other under-developed countries to produce its product. America has allowed such outsourcing, because it improves corporate profit margins on nearly "slave" labour. (yes paying a few dollars a month is fairly close to slave labour)
That is a short summary of a few major issues.
The DEBT!
Interest works, so that you go farther into the debt the more money you owe. If you are a student, you may be in debt for 40 years if not careful about your investment, with countries? It can become a much grander tale, and the only possible way to remove a 9trillion dollar deficit is to pump trillions into it, and if you recall the republican plan was a MUCH MORE expensive one, costing trillions more, and placing the money where it need not be.
So in closing, you can say that Obama is awful, and he VERY WELL MAY BE, but between Mitt Richmand, I mean Romney and Obama... There is NO, I repeat, NO contest... You are voting for Obama, or an intellectual fallacy... Who somehow got into politics.
Best quote? "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love."
Yeah^ vote for him
This is good. Both Democrats and Republicans think I'm on the opposite side. Funnily I think Bush II was one of the worst presidents in history AND think he wasn't more than 50% responsible for the economic crisis. That "deregulation fuckup" was helped mainly by Republican Congress of the 90s and Clinton. I'll say it again I'm a historical institutionalist. Sure individuals are to blame, but the systems they work in most of the time are the main problem. This is the case for both healthcare and the economy IMO. I'm definitely not voting for Romney, but I'm not sold on Obama yet. Obama is horrible on my most important issue: civil liberties. I'm going to have to weigh everything, but right now I probably won't vote for Obama. I'm not the type that has to vote for President if I don't find a candidate I like. I always vote locally though.
Ummm... you realize Presidents aren't that powerful right? I'd say the President has almost no effect whatsoever on 3 of those things. The others context is extremely important.
Right. Presidents aren't powerful, but EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS 100% BUSH'S FAULT@@@@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, you guys are ridiculous. If you want to have a debate, fine, but the "my way is the only way to look at it" completely makes you sound hypocritical.
I think there are too many people in this thread and you are confusing everyone and think we have all one monolithic opinion. I didn't say Presidents aren't powerful. I said they weren't THAT powerful. Presidents have little to no control over interest rates, gas prices or medium household income (significant impact on this certainly won't be felt during one term and it is tied to interest rates in a way). Also I never assigned blame to any President. As I said before you are confusing me for someone else. Economic-wise I think Bush isn't 100% to blame or even 50%, but he is certainly more at fault than Obama. As political theory goes I'm more of a historical institutionalist. The way the system is set up is more at fault here.
It is a hard line to prove Bush was anything but the worst president in US history, I think that is the issue, let's put aside all of the illegal wars on "terror" and the dehumanization of the entire Muslim population for a moment. The economic destruction that unfolded because of Bush's administration, is the key to the entire "we hate bush" outlook, but it is not entirely Bush's fault now is it?
Since Reagan, the once prosperous land of the free, has turned into a giant deregulated fuck up. People have been posting, "Well obama is now 15TRILLION IN DEBT" and "9% unemployment"...
Let's first start by accounting for unemployment, I'll jot very real reasons which have been echo'd by educated indivudals on the issue, any of these reasons can simply be googled to find proof on them.
-Increase in technology, this implies the "hard working" American's are on the out and machines that do it more efficently and faster are on the in
-Health, a very well known Tedx speaks about direct correlation between the chemically altered foods that are "only" allowed in the states, and the drastic statistical anomaly for why Americans are literally the most diseased on earth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixyrCNVVGA
-Healthcare again, it is no shock that America employees the most un-regulated corporately ran medical industry in the entire world, and what has it shown for it? Profit, and disease. For such a heavily paid industry, it actually has yet to have a positive impact statistically compared to other countries, in fact "many" other countries. http://prospect.org/article/ten-reasons-why-american-health-care-so-bad <--- more opiniated, but it is to the best of my knowledge all rather true.
(lets pause to realize all of this de-regulation and technology increase has up until 2008 sharply been on the rise, and while technology is amazing, it isn't going anywhere, but de-regulation has been slowly on the decline, which is good)
-Outsourcing of jobs, almost every major company outsources to areas such as Taiwan (look at the back of your shirt) and other under-developed countries to produce its product. America has allowed such outsourcing, because it improves corporate profit margins on nearly "slave" labour. (yes paying a few dollars a month is fairly close to slave labour)
That is a short summary of a few major issues.
The DEBT!
Interest works, so that you go farther into the debt the more money you owe. If you are a student, you may be in debt for 40 years if not careful about your investment, with countries? It can become a much grander tale, and the only possible way to remove a 9trillion dollar deficit is to pump trillions into it, and if you recall the republican plan was a MUCH MORE expensive one, costing trillions more, and placing the money where it need not be.
So in closing, you can say that Obama is awful, and he VERY WELL MAY BE, but between Mitt Richmand, I mean Romney and Obama... There is NO, I repeat, NO contest... You are voting for Obama, or an intellectual fallacy... Who somehow got into politics.
Best quote? "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love."
Yeah^ vote for him
This is good. Both Democrats and Republicans think I'm on the opposite side. Funnily I think Bush II was one of the worst presidents in history AND think he wasn't more than 50% responsible for the economic crisis. That "deregulation fuckup" was helped mainly by Republican Congress of the 90s and Clinton. I'll say it again I'm a historical institutionalist. Sure individuals are to blame, but the systems they work in most of the time are the main problem. This is the case for both healthcare and the economy IMO. I'm definitely not voting for Romney, but I'm not sold on Obama yet. Obama is horrible on my most important issue: civil liberties. I'm going to have to weigh everything, but right now I probably won't vote for Obama. I'm not the type that has to vote for President if I don't find a candidate I like. I always vote locally though.
I was not replying to your comment, I can understand your perspective. I actually do disagree with you now though, proof of presidental power outweighing past presidents are on the EXTREME rise, the bombings of libya without congressional approval, and the passing of completely unconstitutional laws are at the forstay, also the Persidents of the past 30 years have been using the power they have in the UN to impose on ANY peace in the middle east by blocking any attempts through veto power.
So, yes it is true, techincally presidents have very little power when compared to the congress, but in the present? Not quite the same.
Also, I am not political. It is my opinion that each politcal party is just a corporate puppet, and you'd be hardpressed to deny it.
So you are admitting that Obama may be "awful," but you still argue that he is better than Romney, who has not been president yet but has been tremendously successful as an executive? As I have said repeatedly, I'd take a plywood board over Obama at this point.
Talk all you want about how badly history is going to view Bush, I guarantee you that Obama is going viewed even worse. He is destined for Jimmy Carter-like treatment.
Ummm... you realize Presidents aren't that powerful right? I'd say the President has almost no effect whatsoever on 3 of those things. The others context is extremely important.
Right. Presidents aren't powerful, but EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS 100% BUSH'S FAULT@@@@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, you guys are ridiculous. If you want to have a debate, fine, but the "my way is the only way to look at it" completely makes you sound hypocritical.
I think there are too many people in this thread and you are confusing everyone and think we have all one monolithic opinion. I didn't say Presidents aren't powerful. I said they weren't THAT powerful. Presidents have little to no control over interest rates, gas prices or medium household income (significant impact on this certainly won't be felt during one term and it is tied to interest rates in a way). Also I never assigned blame to any President. As I said before you are confusing me for someone else. Economic-wise I think Bush isn't 100% to blame or even 50%, but he is certainly more at fault than Obama. As political theory goes I'm more of a historical institutionalist. The way the system is set up is more at fault here.
It is a hard line to prove Bush was anything but the worst president in US history, I think that is the issue, let's put aside all of the illegal wars on "terror" and the dehumanization of the entire Muslim population for a moment. The economic destruction that unfolded because of Bush's administration, is the key to the entire "we hate bush" outlook, but it is not entirely Bush's fault now is it?
Since Reagan, the once prosperous land of the free, has turned into a giant deregulated fuck up. People have been posting, "Well obama is now 15TRILLION IN DEBT" and "9% unemployment"...
Let's first start by accounting for unemployment, I'll jot very real reasons which have been echo'd by educated indivudals on the issue, any of these reasons can simply be googled to find proof on them.
-Increase in technology, this implies the "hard working" American's are on the out and machines that do it more efficently and faster are on the in
-Health, a very well known Tedx speaks about direct correlation between the chemically altered foods that are "only" allowed in the states, and the drastic statistical anomaly for why Americans are literally the most diseased on earth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixyrCNVVGA
-Healthcare again, it is no shock that America employees the most un-regulated corporately ran medical industry in the entire world, and what has it shown for it? Profit, and disease. For such a heavily paid industry, it actually has yet to have a positive impact statistically compared to other countries, in fact "many" other countries. http://prospect.org/article/ten-reasons-why-american-health-care-so-bad <--- more opiniated, but it is to the best of my knowledge all rather true.
(lets pause to realize all of this de-regulation and technology increase has up until 2008 sharply been on the rise, and while technology is amazing, it isn't going anywhere, but de-regulation has been slowly on the decline, which is good)
-Outsourcing of jobs, almost every major company outsources to areas such as Taiwan (look at the back of your shirt) and other under-developed countries to produce its product. America has allowed such outsourcing, because it improves corporate profit margins on nearly "slave" labour. (yes paying a few dollars a month is fairly close to slave labour)
That is a short summary of a few major issues.
The DEBT!
Interest works, so that you go farther into the debt the more money you owe. If you are a student, you may be in debt for 40 years if not careful about your investment, with countries? It can become a much grander tale, and the only possible way to remove a 9trillion dollar deficit is to pump trillions into it, and if you recall the republican plan was a MUCH MORE expensive one, costing trillions more, and placing the money where it need not be.
So in closing, you can say that Obama is awful, and he VERY WELL MAY BE, but between Mitt Richmand, I mean Romney and Obama... There is NO, I repeat, NO contest... You are voting for Obama, or an intellectual fallacy... Who somehow got into politics.
Best quote? "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love."
Yeah^ vote for him
This is good. Both Democrats and Republicans think I'm on the opposite side. Funnily I think Bush II was one of the worst presidents in history AND think he wasn't more than 50% responsible for the economic crisis. That "deregulation fuckup" was helped mainly by Republican Congress of the 90s and Clinton. I'll say it again I'm a historical institutionalist. Sure individuals are to blame, but the systems they work in most of the time are the main problem. This is the case for both healthcare and the economy IMO. I'm definitely not voting for Romney, but I'm not sold on Obama yet. Obama is horrible on my most important issue: civil liberties. I'm going to have to weigh everything, but right now I probably won't vote for Obama. I'm not the type that has to vote for President if I don't find a candidate I like. I always vote locally though.
I was not replying to your comment, I can understand your perspective. I actually do disagree with you now though, proof of presidental power outweighing past presidents are on the EXTREME rise, the bombings of libya without congressional approval, and the passing of completely unconstitutional laws are at the forstay, also the Persidents of the past 30 years have been using the power they have in the UN to impose on ANY peace in the middle east by blocking any attempts through veto power.
So, yes it is true, techincally presidents have very little power when compared to the congress, but in the present? Not quite the same.
Also, I am not political. It is my opinion that each politcal party is just a corporate puppet, and you'd be hardpressed to deny it.
Oh... you quoted me so I thought you were sorry.
No you are right the power of the President is getting stronger (another reason I dislike Obama), but they still can't influence the economy as much as others seemed to be pointing out.
I think corporate puppet is a little much, but they are confined within the institutions that have been created to help corporations and haven't been trying to break free of them seriously.
On April 30 2012 10:45 xDaunt wrote: So you are admitting that Obama may be "awful," but you still argue that he is better than Romney, who has not been president yet but has been tremendously successful as an executive? As I have said repeatedly, I'd take a plywood board over Obama at this point.
Talk all you want about how badly history is going to view Bush, I guarantee you that Obama is going viewed even worse. He is destined for Jimmy Carter-like treatment.
Well, by your logic, corporations are extremely effective... Perhaps they can run America better then presidents?
Well, simply put, you are wrong... Being an "executive" is about capitalistic accomplishments of placing yourself above everyone else, and it is documented through any company. Companies sell out citizens for profit everyday, from medical treatment to outsourcing jobs for cheaper labor... So by your logic, I think I'd want Wal-mart (who takes out life insurance on its employees without informing its workers of it, and profits from there death) then a president.
Bad logic, is bad.
To elaborate, Romney was "successful" on other peoples shoulders... It's not like he went all Pursuit of Happyness and used his intelligence, he was born into money, and moved from there...
On April 30 2012 10:46 Celadan wrote: You think voting will change ANYTHING!!!??? GOD, you are stupid -_-
User was warned for this post
Personally, no... Voting is about who had the capita to enter elections and who had the lobbyists backing them... Politics is rather broken. But, this discussion is on the election, so posting this is pointless.
Don't this thread need a new op since the op (poster) is now banned? There will be significant events in the future that will need to be included in the op.
Also, why does the wikipedia link come before their official campaign link.
On April 30 2012 10:45 xDaunt wrote: So you are admitting that Obama may be "awful," but you still argue that he is better than Romney, who has not been president yet but has been tremendously successful as an executive? As I have said repeatedly, I'd take a plywood board over Obama at this point.
Talk all you want about how badly history is going to view Bush, I guarantee you that Obama is going viewed even worse. He is destined for Jimmy Carter-like treatment.
Well, by your logic, corporations are extremely effective... Perhaps they can run America better then presidents?
Well, simply put, you are wrong... Being an "executive" is about capitalistic accomplishments of placing yourself above everyone else, and it is documented through any company. Companies sell out citizens for profit everyday, from medical treatment to outsourcing jobs for cheaper labor... So by your logic, I think I'd want Wal-mart (who takes out life insurance on its employees without informing its workers of it, and profits from there death) then a president.
Bad logic, is bad.
To elaborate, Romney was "successful" on other peoples shoulders... It's not like he went all Pursuit of Happyness and used his intelligence, he was born into money, and moved from there...
On April 30 2012 10:46 Celadan wrote: You think voting will change ANYTHING!!!??? GOD, you are stupid -_-
User was warned for this post
Personally, no... Voting is about who had the capita to enter elections and who had the lobbyists backing them... Politics is rather broken. But, this discussion is on the election, so posting this is pointless.
You're forgetting the part where Romney was the executive (re: governor) of Massachusetts.
Also, if you think that being an "executive" is merely about "placing yourself above everyone else," then you truly are clueless about how the world and business works.
On April 30 2012 10:45 xDaunt wrote: So you are admitting that Obama may be "awful," but you still argue that he is better than Romney, who has not been president yet but has been tremendously successful as an executive? As I have said repeatedly, I'd take a plywood board over Obama at this point.
Talk all you want about how badly history is going to view Bush, I guarantee you that Obama is going viewed even worse. He is destined for Jimmy Carter-like treatment.
Well, by your logic, corporations are extremely effective... Perhaps they can run America better then presidents?
Well, simply put, you are wrong... Being an "executive" is about capitalistic accomplishments of placing yourself above everyone else, and it is documented through any company. Companies sell out citizens for profit everyday, from medical treatment to outsourcing jobs for cheaper labor... So by your logic, I think I'd want Wal-mart (who takes out life insurance on its employees without informing its workers of it, and profits from there death) then a president.
Bad logic, is bad.
To elaborate, Romney was "successful" on other peoples shoulders... It's not like he went all Pursuit of Happyness and used his intelligence, he was born into money, and moved from there...
On April 30 2012 10:46 Celadan wrote: You think voting will change ANYTHING!!!??? GOD, you are stupid -_-
User was warned for this post
Personally, no... Voting is about who had the capita to enter elections and who had the lobbyists backing them... Politics is rather broken. But, this discussion is on the election, so posting this is pointless.
You're forgetting the part where Romney was the executive (re: governor) of Massachusetts.
Also, if you think that being an "executive" is merely about "placing yourself above everyone else," then you truly are clueless about how the world and business works.
Sorry can I get this straight, you are saying that executives and businesses do not place capital gain and profits above everyone else?
On April 30 2012 06:33 radiatoren wrote: By the way, saw one of the first republican anti-Obama videos. While I do not like the kindergarten mudthrowing from either side I did find it somewhat interesting. I am pretty sure that it is only the beginning of a far more dirty campaign, but as a stand-alone it is not that bad for Obama. At least the soundside seems very pro-Obama. What do they want with it is the question?
whoah buddy you messed up the link! all you have to do is grab it from the adress bar. That video doesn't look too bad for obama imo, I don't see how they think portraying obama as clueless about politics after that clown bush was president for 8 years will hit home.....
Just throwing this out there, during the elections of 2004 bush had;
5.5% unemployment rate 11 trillion federal deficit gas price roughly $2 nationwide 9.6% underemployment Medium household income at $44,339 (effective buying power of $53,843.37 today) Rate of inflation at 1.9%
Compared to Obama in march at
9% unemployment 15.7 trillion federal deficit gas price roughly $4 nationwide, going up to 5 Medium household income at roughly $51,000 20.3% underemployment rate of inflation at 2.9%
And if bush is the clueless one... where does that leave obama?
Bush stayed in power until 2008, how about throwing around stats that aren't the ONLY ones you could dig up to make obama look worse than bush. Besides even if bush's policies was good for the american economy(which they weren't) he still would have made epic fail president award for his foreign policy.
On April 30 2012 10:45 xDaunt wrote: So you are admitting that Obama may be "awful," but you still argue that he is better than Romney, who has not been president yet but has been tremendously successful as an executive? As I have said repeatedly, I'd take a plywood board over Obama at this point.
Talk all you want about how badly history is going to view Bush, I guarantee you that Obama is going viewed even worse. He is destined for Jimmy Carter-like treatment.
Well, by your logic, corporations are extremely effective... Perhaps they can run America better then presidents?
Well, simply put, you are wrong... Being an "executive" is about capitalistic accomplishments of placing yourself above everyone else, and it is documented through any company. Companies sell out citizens for profit everyday, from medical treatment to outsourcing jobs for cheaper labor... So by your logic, I think I'd want Wal-mart (who takes out life insurance on its employees without informing its workers of it, and profits from there death) then a president.
Bad logic, is bad.
To elaborate, Romney was "successful" on other peoples shoulders... It's not like he went all Pursuit of Happyness and used his intelligence, he was born into money, and moved from there...
On April 30 2012 10:46 Celadan wrote: You think voting will change ANYTHING!!!??? GOD, you are stupid -_-
User was warned for this post
Personally, no... Voting is about who had the capita to enter elections and who had the lobbyists backing them... Politics is rather broken. But, this discussion is on the election, so posting this is pointless.
You're forgetting the part where Romney was the executive (re: governor) of Massachusetts.
Also, if you think that being an "executive" is merely about "placing yourself above everyone else," then you truly are clueless about how the world and business works.
Sorry can I get this straight, you are saying that executives and businesses do not place capital gain and profits above everyone else?
Bain Capital made their money buying inefficient corps and selling them off. In other words, Romney specialized in destroying inefficient companies by finding ways to better use their resources. I think that he looked for profits is a no-brainer. I think what Daunt is saying is that he has experience making decisions and has proved to be VERY good at it.
He was a successful Governor of an extremely Democratic state. This is also called an Executive. And I think that's what Daunt was actually referring to. Not a business executive.
EPT
