So. First black President of the United States. Promised to get us out of debt. Promised to keep the country safe. Promised to....get his children a puppy?
At least we know he kept one of his promises so far.
Personally, I don't like the guy. I think he's going to screw the country over. He's a socialist, and if he gets his way, we'll likely see some kind of income redistribution (and the end of capitalism as we know it).
Also, the "stimulus package" gave him something like 7 trillion dollars (correct me if I'm wrong, might've been 1 trillion). To begin with, most of it won't be spent until 2011. To top it off, it's full of things that are entirely unrelated to the economy. There's numerous bills wrapped up into it that wouldn't have been passed unless they were put into something that the country desperately needed (like a stimulus package). These are things that coincide with the personal agendas of people who helped Obama get into office (big campaign contributors).
What's worse, he's "promoting" Republican Senators to places within his administration, so that they can be replaced by Democratic Senators. Because of this, the Democrats almost have complete control over congress.
In my opinion? Obama+Democratic controlled congress = "oh ****, son"
So. What are your opinions on America's new President?
Well, living in Michigan (oh yes, let me tell you the crap I've had to deal with), I personally feel that we need the money to bail our sorry asses out of debt, but I feel that getting us out of debt by putting us more in debt is just... not going to work.
I have only noticed an increase in lost jobs lately. So no, I don't support him. However, I think he's more of a Democratic "puppet" rather than an actual leader. Just because he can preach doesn't make him a pastor; just because he can say crap outta his mouth doesn't mean he can lead a country. My father hasn't lost his job yet at Visteon, but a few months ago 40% of his sector was laid off. At least Visteon knows how to manage money.
This "newer" deal isn't what's going to bring us out of the financial crisis, because to be honest, the New Deal wasn't brought us out of the great depression.
I feel that the only companies that are taking this whole thing seriously are those in the auto industry. Seriously. What bank was it again that had their asses bailed out and that had a concert party with Sheryl Crow like a month ago? Let the banks fall, have solely a federal bank and try as hard as possible to allow the auto industry to at least stay afloat. Why congress wants to be a complete b**** to an industry employing millions of people rather than the people who screwed with our money in the first place is beyond me.
And I wish people would stop wearing Obama's face on their chests. Ugh. Just because he's black does not make him the second comming of Moses.
Quote from: Charon on 17, March, 2009, 10:18:00 AMWell, living in Michigan (oh yes, let me tell you the crap I've had to deal with), I personally feel that we need the money to bail our sorry asses out of debt, but I feel that getting us out of debt by putting us more in debt is just... not going to work.
I have only noticed an increase in lost jobs lately. So no, I don't support him. However, I think he's more of a Democratic "puppet" rather than an actual leader. Just because he can preach doesn't make him a pastor; just because he can say crap outta his mouth doesn't mean he can lead a country. My father hasn't lost his job yet at Visteon, but a few months ago 40% of his sector was laid off. At least Visteon knows how to manage money.
This "newer" deal isn't what's going to bring us out of the financial crisis, because to be honest, the New Deal wasn't brought us out of the great depression.
I feel that the only companies that are taking this whole thing seriously are those in the auto industry. Seriously. What bank was it again that had their asses bailed out and that had a concert party with Sheryl Crow like a month ago? Let the banks fall, have solely a federal bank and try as hard as possible to allow the auto industry to at least stay afloat. Why congress wants to be a complete b**** to an industry employing millions of people rather than the people who screwed with our money in the first place is beyond me.
And I wish people would stop wearing Obama's face on their chests. Ugh. Just because he's black does not make him the second comming of Moses.
Oh goodness, don't get me started on Granholm. I, too, am a Michigan-dweller, and she's botched the economy in every single way. Maybe I'm a bit biased (I'm a Libertarian), but I think she's failed miserably in her economic policy. I agree with her on nearly everything else, sure; but I absolutely cannot stand what she's done with our economy over the past... seven years now?
As for Obama, I like the guy, but not to the fanatical extent that most of the people that voted for him seemed to. I say seemed because when your expectations for someone are that high, you're setting them up for failure. He hasn't botched anything so far (except his cabinet positions, in my opinion; he's put Microsoft and RIAA lackeys into positions of power, a disaster waiting to happen), so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. If his economic plan is anything like Granholm's plan, however, I'm packing up and moving north. I hear Canada's nice this time of year.
Oh, and the bailouts. Don't get me started; it's ridiculous that there were no restrictions on how the money was spent. Not that long ago, GM got a bailout, and the higher-ups wasted all of it on themselves. Guess what's happening again? It's not just the auto industry this time, either; everybody that's been "bailed out" is wasting the money. I always thought I'd be a crappy politician; I couldn't possibly be smart enough to create the laws that run the country. Then I see these idiots running around ignoring historical precedent (and recent history, at that) and it makes me consider the benefits of being a dictator.
EDIT:
I blame the mistakes regarding the economy more on congress at the moment. That's not to say that Obama can't make it worse (though I don't see how), but congress decided how to spend the money.
What's this I hear about Emperor Palpatine? You'd better be careful about what you say, or you may find some stormtroopers at your door. After all, his next goal seems to be the removal of the right to free speech for anyone that doesn't agree with him.
Anywho, Our American Palpatine seems to be only helping the job market in the ways of government jobs. Woo hoo, great. What about people like me, whom have been only out in the job market for two or three years? My generation? Well, apparently his policy on us is a wallet. We are there to steal from so he can feel better about himself. Does he not understand what we're capable of, as people? I mean, it's only a matter of time before we snap, an when that happens, you'll either get outright rebellion, or Generational Wrath. He has no idea the consequences of his own actions.
It's that way as a whole with the generation of our parents. Individually, they may vary, but collectively, they are corrupt and irresponsible. "I'm busy, Leene, go watch TV or something." "I'm busy, Leene, go play your video games." "Not right now, Leene, mommy's busy." "I don't have time for you right now, Leene." "I'm too busy for you."
Really? And yet you're so shocked and horrified at those games you got us with out looking to see what they were... Like GTA. Honestly, you're going to bash it for raising us improperly? Aren't YOU supposed to raise us? Let's not forget that it's YOUR generation that took over from the last one and corrupted the hell out of both Business and Government alike. And now your pride and joy, the embodiment of the essence of your generation, Our American Palpatine - President Obama - is giving us the shaft just so he can TRY (and FAIL) to make your life feel a little better.
Do you think we're just going to sit here and TAKE IT? Oh no... we're not. They have NO CLUE what the consequences of their actions are.
Twocows? You live in Michigan too? First Granholm, then Kilpatrick, then (for some) Obama... Us Michiganders sure love our Democrats XD
Hmm... I think that the automotice industry is the most conservative and reasonable with their money, even though the higher-ups are throwing it down the drain...
I think Obama's problem isn't that he has bad intentions (no president really ever goes into office and thinks, "Muahahaha I'm gonna screw up the economy even worse lolololol") but he's such a n00b that he has no clue what the hell he's doing. Seriously, most of the crap he did for the country involves in all that campaigning, what, two years before the election?
I honestly haven't seen that much of a "change" since he's been in office from when Bush was in his position. Funny how that was his favourite word a few months ago...
But still, I think what annoys me more than the man himself is the fact that his followers treat him as the second coming of Moses/Jesus/[insert religious figure here]. Honestly, he's not that great. He's done jack s*** for us in the long run, so stop treating him as if he has. Ugh.
I see the problem as twofold:
First, he's a freaking pushover. And the Democratic party saw this from the onset.
Second, the democratic party has an agenda that they're trying to push, and are using his pushover nature to get it through.
I mean, look at this... he's puting out this so-called 'outrage' over legally binding contracts that give bonuses, when it's the GOVERNMENT that encouraged these bonuses in the first place! The GOVERNMENT has caused all of these problems, and the companies simply were complying with the government. And now? They're claiming outrage over a few million, when that bank is dishing out dough by the BILLIONS to other banks overseas... they spent more money on other countries than their own!
Something not right here... something is seriously wrong. Obama is just the face of the problem... I swear, it's like the Manchurian Candidate... and he doesn't even know it...
Quote from: Role on 17, March, 2009, 05:24:00 PMSecond, the democratic party has an agenda that they're trying to push, and are using his pushover nature to get it through.
Something not right here... something is seriously wrong. Obama is just the face of the problem... I swear, it's like the Manchurian Candidate... and he doesn't even know it...
Thus, lies the reason WHY Obama was chosen XD
I think that Obama isn't the one in the wrong here. I think its the thing underneath that is screwing everything up.
Quote from: Charon on 17, March, 2009, 06:04:00 PMQuote from: Role on 17, March, 2009, 05:24:00 PMSecond, the democratic party has an agenda that they're trying to push, and are using his pushover nature to get it through.
Something not right here... something is seriously wrong. Obama is just the face of the problem... I swear, it's like the Manchurian Candidate... and he doesn't even know it...
Thus, lies the reason WHY Obama was chosen XD
I think that Obama isn't the one in the wrong here. I think its the thing underneath that is screwing everything up.
It usually is; most governments are corrupt. My favorite moment in history was when Teddy Roosevelt became President, because it's exactly the opposite of what the corrupt politicians wanted. They "promoted" TR out of his influential position into a place where he couldn't do anything (Vice President), but then the President died, and all the corrupt politicians got screwed over. If only that happened more often.
Congressional term limits for the win. The biggest problem is corruption, but when they come in as freshmen they've usually not been corrupted yet. Logically speaking, if we limit the Senate to a single term, and the House to two non-consecutive terms, our government would start recovering REALLY quickly just from that.
The next step is to split up the Republican and Democratic parties, changing us from two-party to four-party. You'd have Far (Extremist) Left, Moderate (Reasonable) Left, Moderate (Reasonable) Right, and Far (Extremist) Right. Hell, the Moderate Left have already given themselves a party name (Blue Dogs)!
Quote from: Role on 18, March, 2009, 06:14:00 PMCongressional term limits for the win. The biggest problem is corruption, but when they come in as freshmen they've usually not been corrupted yet. Logically speaking, if we limit the Senate to a single term, and the House to two non-consecutive terms, our government would start recovering REALLY quickly just from that.
The next step is to split up the Republican and Democratic parties, changing us from two-party to four-party. You'd have Far (Extremist) Left, Moderate (Reasonable) Left, Moderate (Reasonable) Right, and Far (Extremist) Right. Hell, the Moderate Left have already given themselves a party name (Blue Dogs)!
Either that or one party for each spectrum of the political compass (http://politicalcompass.org). You'd have the Republicans, the Democrats, the Libertarians (me, yay), and a fourth party that's essentially liberal in its economic policy and conservative in its social policy. Think Stalin, but less extreme.
Quote from: Toasty on 17, March, 2009, 03:22:00 AMSo. First black President of the United States. Promised to get us out of debt. Promised to keep the country safe. Promised to....get his children a puppy?
At least we know he kept one of his promises so far.
Personally, I don't like the guy. I think he's going to screw the country over. He's a socialist, and if he gets his way, we'll likely see some kind of income redistribution (and the end of capitalism as we know it).
Also, the "stimulus package" gave him something like 7 trillion dollars (correct me if I'm wrong, might've been 1 trillion). To begin with, most of it won't be spent until 2011. To top it off, it's full of things that are entirely unrelated to the economy. There's numerous bills wrapped up into it that wouldn't have been passed unless they were put into something that the country desperately needed (like a stimulus package). These are things that coincide with the personal agendas of people who helped Obama get into office (big campaign contributors).
What's worse, he's "promoting" Republican Senators to places within his administration, so that they can be replaced by Democratic Senators. Because of this, the Democrats almost have complete control over congress.
In my opinion? Obama+Democratic controlled congress = "oh ****, son"
So. What are your opinions on America's new President?
Well regarding that debt thing, that cannot be fixed overnight. The Stimulus bill may have not been the brightest idea, but everybody in Congress are out of ideas when it comes to the economy. Some places like South Carolina needs it, but you are right, it is putting us in more debt (which ain't good. just look at Russia X_X). It's like they say, "Rome wasn't built in a day"
My main reason for being a Libertarian is the trend that's been happening in Michigan for the past decade, and that seems to be extending into national politics. It seems that whenever a Republican is in office, our civil liberties get violated, but whenever a Democrat is in office, our economy turns to shambles. Granted, this time the economy got bad before the Democrat got in office. Technically, however, the Democrats had control of congress when it started to turn bad, and I do have to admit that the cause appears to be policies the Democrats enacted (namely, lending homes to people that couldn't pay back the mortgages, known as sub-prime lending). I believe that the Libertarian party could solve a lot of the economic problems, but without the hit on our civil liberties.
For the record, if I was forced between living in a country with a crappy economy and a country with no civil liberties, I'd choose the former; big brother governments scare the daylights out of me, and censorship policies make me absolutely furious. At least the government won't end up killing me if it's just the economy that's bad, though I may end up mooching off taxpayer money in that situation.
Well, you know, Michigan is almost like a forecast state for the rest of the union's condition...
Quote from: Charon on 19, March, 2009, 11:34:00 AMWell, you know, Michigan is almost like a forecast state for the rest of the union's condition...
...only worse. We were in the bottom 10 states economically last year, and I can't imagine it's gotten any better. The only good thing I can say is that we weren't really hit as hard because our economy was already in the toilet. At least in Illinois, the politicians are just corrupt. Here, they're complete idiots.
Quote from: twocows on 19, March, 2009, 02:29:00 PM...only worse. We were in the bottom 10 states economically last year, and I can't imagine it's gotten any better. The only good thing I can say is that we weren't really hit as hard because our economy was already in the toilet. At least in Illinois, the politicians are just corrupt. Here, they're complete idiots.
At least the county where I live is capable of managing money. Seriously, almost the entire state is reeking of debt. It's like there's only 3 people who know how to manage money around this place.
I can only hope someone impeaches Granholm before things go to Hell (lol pun).
Maybe we can get Jim Cramer to NO THAT WOULD BE SUICIDE ON OUR STATE'S PART
Quote from: Charon on 19, March, 2009, 06:20:00 PMAt least the county where I live is capable of managing money. Seriously, almost the entire state is reeking of debt. It's like there's only 3 people who know how to manage money around this place.
I can only hope someone impeaches Granholm before things go to Hell (lol pun).
Maybe we can get Jim Cramer to NO THAT WOULD BE SUICIDE ON OUR STATE'S PART
But his show's called "Mad Money!" It has "mad" in the name, so you know it's more "hip" than those other money shows. "On the Money?" That's extreme... extreme-ly lame! More like "Carmen WRONG Ulrich," am I right or am I right? "Moneyline?" Lou Dobbs couldn't finance his way out of a sub-prime mortgage! He probably only has ONE private jet! LAME!
Seriously, though, taking financial advice from people on TV is always a bad idea. I have found one strategy that seems to work, though. Here's what I do. I take whatever it is Jim Cramer says to do with my money, and then I do the complete opposite. Hasn't steered me wrong yet.
Granholm will be out of office in another year or so, I believe, and I don't think she can mess things up any farther by then. I can't remember, what's below a quagmire again? That's what we're in.
All I have to say... is that is the best financial advice ever.
And on the topic of Granholm, I honestly think she should just move to Tasmania or something after she is out, because I don't think ANYONE from Michigan wants to see her face ever again.
There's only one guy I've agreed with on TV almost 100% - and that's Glenn Beck. O'Reily's pretty good, and though Hannity is a bit too far right, he does make a few good points. But Glenn's the only one who's firmly nailed the problem on the head - as a nation, we've forgotten our values and principles. What are nation was founded upon. We've forgotten, not just our government, but we the people have forgotten, just how important integrity is.
Ah, Glenn Beck. The guy that reminds me of my old German teacher... (not that that's bad or anything).
I feel you can't trust anyone these days. I can't even trust my own sister with money.
In a day of age in which everyone's either full of crap or out to get your money, who is there to trust?
I haven't noticed too much of a difference here in Michigan, but that's because we've been getting screwed by Granholm the past some odd years. Our jobs left with her inauguration.
The biggest thing that's been hit are my investments. I had a little invested in the stock market, and obviously that went downhill; almost all of it was invested in QQQQ (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=QQQQ&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=), so you can see for yourself how that's done since the recession. QQQQ isn't doing as badly as some other stuff, though. I believe people that invested heavily in the US economy probably lost the most. Also, I'd imagine loans have gotten crappier due to the sub-prime mortgage thing, though I haven't taken one out, so I'm not certain.
Not only that, but inflation has been pretty bad too. Mom said she had trouble paying through college, and we make quite a bit of money in our household, so that's saying something.
All I have to say is this - no matter what you think about GM, if you want it to fall, you want the rest of the economy to fall as well. Think about it. Millions of workers are employed by GM, so if it falls, the impact on our society as a whole would be devestating. Werewolves in congress would be the least of our problems.
Is the recession that bad? really like i hear all the time that the UK is in recession and even Ireland were im from is ment to be hit, however to me there is no difference, but i do see whats going on, the rich people cant handle the situation and the worse of people like myself arnt even being effected... I gotta laugh
all i can say is for us we've been through a killer famine, this "Recession" is nothing
Recession alone is easily recoverable if the government LEAVES IT THE HELL ALONE. But they never learn. What's worse? Not only do we have a recession, congress just ordered the spending of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS - which will most likely lead to not just inflation, but in this economic climate, HYPERINFLATION. If we don't stand up as people and strongarm OUR government into changing how they do things, we're screwed.
Ah. That's why most of the people I know are saving money for moving! Just in case, you know, a certain someone screws up the USA more than it already is.
Quote from: Role on 26, March, 2009, 01:20:00 PMRecession alone is easily recoverable if the government LEAVES IT THE HELL ALONE. But they never learn. What's worse? Not only do we have a recession, congress just ordered the spending of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS - which will most likely lead to not just inflation, but in this economic climate, HYPERINFLATION. If we don't stand up as people and strongarm OUR government into changing how they do things, we're screwed.
Our government has free use of the latest military technology in quelling an uprising. They can use whatever weapons they want, whenever they want. They have F16s, real-time imaging of everything that's currently happening via satellite, and they can both brute force their way through a rebellion and stealth in to kill any leader figures.
I have a shotgun and a pistol.
Who's going to win in a confrontation?
My point is, the government's grown too strong to overthrow. The Whiskey Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion) proved that over 200 years ago. We can protest them all we want, but they can bash our heads in and we can't do anything about it except raise a complaint with the same government we're fighting against.
It's unfortunate that in this modern age, the people lack the ability to remove a government from power if they are dissatisfied with their rule. Governments are supposed to exist to serve their people, not to subdue them. While the end of slavery was unarguably a good thing, the North's victory in the Civil War proved that no state has the right to disobey the federal government, regardless of how corrupt or unsatisfactory their rule. In other words, we're stuck with whatever decisions the federal government makes; if we don't like those decisions, we can either peacefully resist or leave. The government hasn't listened to peaceful resistance in half a century. Where does that leave us?
Oh, yes, because we all know that they respond to the threat of being voted out of office with sheer brute force.
You'd be surprised how well the words "You're Fired" can work, you know. We DO live in a republic, you know.
The one thing that I cannot fathom, is why the checks and balance system has not been utilized in this administration yet
Quote from: zach on 28, March, 2009, 03:48:00 AMThe one thing that I cannot fathom, is why the checks and balance system has not been utilized in this administration yet
That's because there are only 3 parts to it, and there are two main political parties. Doesn't fit in very well. Both parties will do whatever it takes to make their word get out, so checks and balances are pretty worthless unless a third party gets either Congress, the president or the judicial branch.
An example:
Let's say Congress is Democratic and the Supreme Court and President are Republicas. Congress passes a bill that's against the Republican ideals. The President vetoes it. Congress gets a two thirds majority, and it seems that the democrats have won... BUT the Supreme Court can rule (even by using faulty logic, as what they say goes) that it was unconstitutional for the bill to be passed. Therefore, Checks and Balances fails, and the Republicans get their way.
Now that the Democrats are in the majority with the checks and balances, so therefore they get the easy ride. It's selfish, but there's not much we can do about it.
Also, has anyone noticed that similar financial collapses have happened about every 25 years or so? The Great Depression (1929), in the Kennedy era, the Reagan era and now? And every time the government pumped money into the economy. Did it work? NO. So will it work now? NO. Guess why Hoover didn't get reelected and FDR got the ticket, hmm?
Quote from: Role on 27, March, 2009, 08:55:00 PMOh, yes, because we all know that they respond to the threat of being voted out of office with sheer brute force.
You'd be surprised how well the words "You're Fired" can work, you know.
No no no, Hoover spent money in the economy, so did Reagan and JFK. What he did was he gave money to the cooperations (hmmm!). But what FDR did was he actually made jobs for people on projects. (I think - we haven't read that part yet but I'm pretty sure what he did).
Nonetheless, it's still not working for Obama. Let's try not to fight over the history. Either that, or my history teacher is full of crap (and I'm pretty sure he's not).
Quote from: Charon on 28, March, 2009, 05:02:00 PMNo no no, Hoover spent money in the economy, so did Reagan and JFK. What he did was he gave money to the cooperations (hmmm!). But what FDR did was he actually made jobs for people on projects. (I think - we haven't read that part yet but I'm pretty sure what he did).
Nonetheless, it's still not working for Obama. Let's try not to fight over the history. Either that, or my history teacher is full of crap (and I'm pretty sure he's not).
No, you're correct. He tried to let the economy fix itself by sinking a lot of money into it, and making large projects such as the WPA is equivalent to creating a demand for labor. Basically, exactly what you just said (I was a bit groggy when I made the last post).
FDR turned the great recession into the Great DEPRESSION. He did all of this spending and made things worse. In the economy, he was made of epic fail. The reason he kept getting re-elected was because he instilled hope into the people... Oh, and because he promised not to get involved in World War II (until Pearl Harbor, that is).
Quote from: Role on 29, March, 2009, 06:04:00 AMFDR turned the great recession into the Great DEPRESSION. He did all of this spending and made things worse. In the economy, he was made of epic fail. The reason he kept getting re-elected was because he instilled hope into the people... Oh, and because he promised not to get involved in World War II (until Pearl Harbor, that is).
Dang, this guy sounds familiar. Like someone we elected in the past six months.
(cue GERMANY! GO INVADE POLAND OR SOMETHING!)
Eheheheheh... wasn't trying to boost FDR or anything. He was hope, not the solution.
Anyhow, I feel that nothing's going to get better unless something drastic happens worldwide, similar to WWII. And after this, we're definately going to have to restrict how much you can buy off of credit.
Idiots. All of them.
Quote from: Charon on 29, March, 2009, 04:34:00 PM(cue GERMANY! GO INVADE POLAND OR SOMETHING!)
Eheheheheh... wasn't trying to boost FDR or anything. He was hope, not the solution.
Anyhow, I feel that nothing's going to get better unless something drastic happens worldwide, similar to WWII. And after this, we're definitely going to have to restrict how much you can buy off of credit.
Idiots. All of them.
The problem is, next time there's a confrontation similar to WWII, there's the risk of nuclear strikes. At best, it'll be another Cold War, where both sides are too fearful of the consequences to use their weapons (luckily, this is probably what would occur). Otherwise... well, go play Fallout 3 for one way things could play out.
Quote from: twocows on 29, March, 2009, 06:15:00 PMQuote from: Charon on 29, March, 2009, 04:34:00 PM(cue GERMANY! GO INVADE POLAND OR SOMETHING!)
Eheheheheh... wasn't trying to boost FDR or anything. He was hope, not the solution.
Anyhow, I feel that nothing's going to get better unless something drastic happens worldwide, similar to WWII. And after this, we're definitely going to have to restrict how much you can buy off of credit.
Idiots. All of them.
The problem is, next time there's a confrontation similar to WWII, there's the risk of nuclear strikes. At best, it'll be another Cold War, where both sides are too fearful of the consequences to use their weapons (luckily, this is probably what would occur). Otherwise... well, go play Fallout 3 for one way things could play out.
You're exactly right. Unlike in the past, now we have the potential to actually destroy our enemies, and to have them destroy us back. This is why war in the modern world is a critical threat. The concept is called Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD for short. We cannot rely on a full-scale war to get us out of this, because if we do that, then there won't be anything left to come home to.
We've grown too powerful for our own good as a species - Modern Medicine inhibits natural evolutionary processes, and Thermo-Nuclear Weaponry causes cyclical war cycles to become imminent extinction events.
What's that you say? We're not that stupid? I have two quotes that will prove that wrong.
"Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity."
"There is no species on Earth that is so eager to kill itself over petty issues other than Mankind."
War has now become the worst case scenario, because this time there is no getting out of it.
Yeah, and that is why anyone who opens their mouth and says, "Just bomb them" is instantly seen as idiotic, uneducated, and stupid in my eyes. If you think that simply starting the worst world war we will have seen to date is the answer, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and all of your opinions should be omitted from consideration.
Yellow font can be painful to the eyes. - Charon
First - STOP USING YELLOW FONT. It's murder to the eyes.
Second - I have to agree. "Just Bomb Them" is what the terrorists had in mind on 9/11. That does nothing but cause more conflict.
Especially in this day and age, since we now have the ability to wipe ourselves off of the face of the Earth, it's imperative that we try to avoid warfare at all costs. I understand that some people, such as radical extremists, you don't have a choice with, but for the love of God, get back in and help clean up the mess afterwords, or you'll just get a bunch of people that blame you for smashing things up!
Discussions like these make me glad I live in a traditionally neutral nation (unless others try to involve us, ofcourse).
And our politics works, because we don't have two mayor parties, but closer to 6 (with tons of minor parties, but I think you have those too). Everyone is represented. Every aspect of a decision carefully weighed.... And we have some of the best nuclear scientists in the world.
No, you're involved too, Weckar. The US is like 20-30% of the GLOBAL economy, so when our epic fail president runs our country into the ground, ALL OTHER COUNTRIES feel it. That, and the dude seems to love you foreign peeps way the hell more than his own country, as he tries to suck up to you (and FAILS!) more than he tries to run the our nation. Now we've gone from a pretty bad deficit in 2008, to FOUR TIMES THAT MUCH in just one hundred freaking days.
Obama is fail incarnate with a silver tongue, and the people of my country are nothing more than a bunch of gullible morons.
so, is President Oblahblah doing any better yet?
Ah, but anything's better than Bush, right? Bush was fail incarnate. Without the silver tongue. And people still voted him in! Twice, even! Makes me snore. :FallenKraden: And he insists that Iraq can't have nukes while hoarding nukes himself! Hippocrite much?
I wouldn't know, I don't really know what he's been doing. I have trouble keeping up with local news, I don't need all this global stuff cluttering my system xD
Quote from: Role on 01, April, 2009, 08:55:00 AMQuote from: twocows on 29, March, 2009, 06:15:00 PMQuote from: Charon on 29, March, 2009, 04:34:00 PM(cue GERMANY! GO INVADE POLAND OR SOMETHING!)
Eheheheheh... wasn't trying to boost FDR or anything. He was hope, not the solution.
Anyhow, I feel that nothing's going to get better unless something drastic happens worldwide, similar to WWII. And after this, we're definitely going to have to restrict how much you can buy off of credit.
Idiots. All of them.
The problem is, next time there's a confrontation similar to WWII, there's the risk of nuclear strikes. At best, it'll be another Cold War, where both sides are too fearful of the consequences to use their weapons (luckily, this is probably what would occur). Otherwise... well, go play Fallout 3 for one way things could play out.
You're exactly right. Unlike in the past, now we have the potential to actually destroy our enemies, and to have them destroy us back. This is why war in the modern world is a critical threat. The concept is called Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD for short. We cannot rely on a full-scale war to get us out of this, because if we do that, then there won't be anything left to come home to.
We've grown too powerful for our own good as a species - Modern Medicine inhibits natural evolutionary processes, and Thermo-Nuclear Weaponry causes cyclical war cycles to become imminent extinction events.
What's that you say? We're not that stupid? I have two quotes that will prove that wrong.
"Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity."
"There is no species on Earth that is so eager to kill itself over petty issues other than Mankind."
War has now become the worst case scenario, because this time there is no getting out of it.
"Only two things are infinite: the Universe and human stupidity. And I'm not so sure about the Universe."
Yeah... Just look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To end WWII, Nuclear bombs were dropped on both of them. In the future, we might have another war. Many of these people are either stupid or crazy. There are good people, but they get harder to find it seems.
North Korea... Underground nuclear testing.
:MercurySet:
Please have a nice day.
Quote from: Salanewt on 10, June, 2009, 07:11:00 AMYeah... Just look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To end WWII, Nuclear bombs were dropped on both of them. In the future, we might have another war. Many of these people are either stupid or crazy. There are good people, but they get harder to find it seems.
North Korea... Underground nuclear testing.
:MercurySet:
Please have a nice day.
Scary thing is? The next world war won't be ended with them. It'll be STARTED with them.
If FREAKING NUKES start WW3, then what the hell ends it?
If obama's in charge, you can sure as hell bet it won't be us ending it. That idealistic pansy wouldn't know how to run a country if he spent his whole life studying for it, so running a war pretty much screams: "Ha ha ha, you're ****ed."
Why does everyone hate Obama anyways? He hasn't really had a chance to do anything wrong yet.
QuoteScary thing is? The next world war won't be ended with them. It'll be STARTED with them.
If FREAKING NUKES start WW3, then what the hell ends it?
Maybe they will end themselves. You would think that the radiation would be trapped underground, but might leak and surface to poison themselves. If not, then WWIII might last a while,. during which other world leaders will be introduced, and they might change things.
QuoteWhy does everyone hate Obama anyways? He hasn't really had a chance to do anything wrong yet.
It isn't so much as they hate him, but there are people with more experience running a country. Although there are racists that hate him for what he looks like, they don't hate him personally, but it is just the way that he was born that they hate.
:MercurySet:
Have a nice day.
Quote from: JamietheFlameUser on 11, June, 2009, 01:48:00 AMWhy does everyone hate Obama anyways? He hasn't really had a chance to do anything wrong yet.
Tell me, how do you pay off your credit card? Surely not by buying more crap with it.
Not only is the FAILdent trying to pay off his card by buying more stuff, he's buying stuff that's NOT working, and is having the OPPOSITE effect. After the stimulus passed, the amount of jobs lost was HIGHER than the estimated amount of jobs lost should the stimulus not be rushed.
He promised to cut earmarks, but the spending bill this year has OVER 9000 earmarks. You think I'm using the meme? I'M NOT. THAT'S THE ACTUAL NUMBER.
The moron is also clearly pushing an agenda, but failing as he does so. The dude is a freaking moron with a silver tongue who wouldn't know how to run his personal finances, let alone a nation's.
Look at the numbers, the data. We've started shooting downhill ever since he came into office, and he doesn't even have the balls to admit that it's his fault, since he's blaming bush for everything (despite being a fscking hypocrite and claiming that it's not the time to point fingers).
Ever since he spouted that foolish word, "HOPE", I didn't trust the guy. You don't HOPE things get better. You use LOGIC. You take a logical approach to fixing what's broken. And you know what? You learn in HIGH SCHOOL ECONOMICS that EVERY SINGLE TIME the government has tried to 'fix' a recession, they made it WORSE. They turned the great recession into the great depression, after all.
Five bucks says that Obama flat out causes our collapse.
This post has been edited by Role on Jun 10 2009, 05:43 PM
Ten bucks says Bush couldn't remember his speeches, never mind run his finances. Look, ok? Obama uses a TelePrompTer. Bush couldn't get his speeches right even WITH a TelePrompTer. "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."
Bush was the biggest idiot any nation has ever had for a President.
It seems to me that the biggest problem with Obama is that he is using Steven Harper as his role model.
Also, it seems to me that Bush used the "foolish word" alot as well, note the word in bold.
As a result of my apology, and the fact that I made people feel bad when I wished not to, I have removed this comment.
Have a nice day.
:MercurySet:
Ooh, nice new emotes... I will pick...
This post has been edited by Salanewt on Jun 12 2009, 02:29 PM
It would be nice to get an NDP or Green in sometime. I'm Canadian too!
I think that the main reason Obama is doing things wrong is that he came in at a time when we have idiot excuse-for-a-Prime-Minister Steven Harper. Obama is new at government, so he needs someone to help him figure out how it's done. Unfortunately, all we have around here are examples of how it SHOULDN'T be done. I think he recognizes the fact that Bush was an example of how not to do it, but I don't think he recognizes that Steven Harper is also an example of how it should not be done.
I'm always amazed at Steven Harper's ability to make a 40-minute speech that does not actually tell anyone anything. I seriously don't know how he does it.
Quote from: Salanewt on 10, June, 2009, 06:27:00 PMQuoteTell me, how do you pay off your credit card? Surely not by buying more crap with it.
Not only is the FAILdent trying to pay off his card by buying more stuff, he's buying stuff that's NOT working, and is having the OPPOSITE effect. After the stimulus passed, the amount of jobs lost was HIGHER than the estimated amount of jobs lost should the stimulus not be rushed.
He promised to cut earmarks, but the spending bill this year has OVER 9000 earmarks. You think I'm using the meme? I'M NOT. THAT'S THE ACTUAL NUMBER.
The moron is also clearly pushing an agenda, but failing as he does so. The dude is a freaking moron with a silver tongue who wouldn't know how to run his personal finances, let alone a nation's.
Look at the numbers, the data. We've started shooting downhill ever since he came into office, and he doesn't even have the balls to admit that it's his fault, since he's blaming bush for everything (despite being a fscking hypocrite and claiming that it's not the time to point fingers).
Ever since he spouted that foolish word, "HOPE", I didn't trust the guy. You don't HOPE things get better. You use LOGIC. You take a logical approach to fixing what's broken. And you know what? You learn in HIGH SCHOOL ECONOMICS that EVERY SINGLE TIME the government has tried to 'fix' a recession, they made it WORSE. They turned the great recession into the great depression, after all.
I apologize, but where was Mr. Bush from again? And where did you say that you are from again? I just want to make a comparison, that is all.
QuoteTen bucks says Bush couldn't remember his speeches, never mind run his finances. Look, ok? Obama uses a TelePrompTer. Bush couldn't get his speeches right even WITH a TelePrompTer. "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."
Bush was the biggest idiot any nation has ever had for a President.
It seems to me that the biggest problem with Obama is that he is using Steven Harper as his role model.
Also, it seems to me that Bush used the "foolish word" alot as well, note the word in bold.
Yeah, although I am, not sure if Bush is the worst president that you have had down there. I think your Nixon was worse. Obama seems okay, but there are people like Hillary and McCain who have more experience. As for Steven Harper, he is a conservative, and I prefer liberal.
:MercurySet:
Have a nice day.
Oh, this is rich. So, are all we Texas the same to you? I hate to break this to you, but most presidents we've had since the late 1800s have been slowly screwing us over. Bush was NO EXCPETION. Keep your foolish comments to yourself if you don't have any evidence behind them, because this 'progressive' movement has been slowly murdering our constitution. Obama's wiping his @#$% with the darned thing, even using his executive immunity to get away with extortion!
Yes, his administration threatened legal action against the shareholders of Chrystler (sp?), and I woudln't be surprised if they get sued by GM's shareholders too.
THE ONLY president that I know of that WASN'T made of fail this century was A MOVIE STAR, NOT A POLITICIAN. Reagan for the win!
Make another comment like that, though, calling me the same as Bush just because I'm Texan, and I'll ban your @#$ for the hateful comment. You have my word on this. NOBODY insults me by comparing me to a filthy republican or democrat, NOBODY, do you hear me? Let alone trying to stick me with fscking stereotype!
Also, "MY NIXON"? I'M A FREAKING INDEPENDENT, MORON! I've ALREADY SAID SO IN THIS THREAD! READ IT BEFORE YOU MAKE BS REMARKS LIKE THAT! You may INSULT SOMEONE!
To embrace liberalism, conservatism, republicanism, or democratism, is to DESTROY the very thing that makes this REPUBLIC work!
Yeah, you heard me, REPUBLIC. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. We're a REPUBLIC. Perhaps you heard about it in school? Or were you too stupid to listen in class? Maybe you're also too stupid not to think for yourself. Do you believe everything the media says? Aww, are you really that naive?
This is IDEALISM vs REALISM.
Right now, we've got so many ideals being chased after that people are forgetting to keep everything rooted in realism. Had you read this thread, you'd see that most people posting in it hate BOTH the republicans AND the democrats. DON'T you EVER accuse or imply that I'm one of those fools whom align themselves with a party, EVER AGAIN, am I clear?
JUST BECAUSE I'M TEXAN DOES NOT MEAN I AM AS FAIL AS BUSH WAS. NEVER INSULT ME LIKE THAT AGAIN.
Wow. And I thought this topic was for non-violent debating? Apparently we're serious on this issue. I personally think you were overreacting a bit, Role.
And personally, I think US politics is just a load of BS, kinda like Canadian politics.
I'm not. I am not a stereotypical person. In fact, stereotypes are actually a form of racism. You do NOT bring stuff like that into a debate. I don't accuse anyone of thinking one way because of their religion, skin color, or WHERE THEY LIVE, and I expect others to be respectful enough to show me the same courtesy. Racist comments are against the rules of the board, and although stereotyping is a minor form of racism, it is STILL a form of racism. So I've chewed him out this time, but if he does it again, it's a permaban.
I do not wear a cowboy hat or boots. I hate country music and western movies. I don't talk with a southern hick accent (the closest thing I come to is the word y'all). I am not a republican, nor do I agree with them. AND I DO NOT AGREE WITH BUSH. The only president so far I've agreed with that I know of wasn't a politician! Nixon? Bush? Obama? ALL OF THEM are horrible leaders. They see the presidency as a profession, not as a service to your country.
I'm fine with poking fun at what software or hardware someone uses, I'm fine at petty name calling like 'Idiot' and 'Moron'. But implying that since I'm from Texas, I'm just a female bush? That's crossing the line. That's gone from petty name calling and mockery to stereotyping and racism. Now, I may be calmer than I was at the time of the post, but I'm still pretty pissed at the comment.
So, Salanewt, in your opinion, are you like all the reporters out there whom call me a racist pig and hater of "african americans" simply because I want Obama to be responsible with my taxes? Be careful how you answer, this boya, because most of use are very sensible people...
If he'd even read the rest of the topic, he'd see that it's not just Obama bashing. We've said he's no better than Bush on more than one occasion, but no, why would he read that? He chose a side after all... Didn't you, mister liberal? Perhaps you'd like to open your eyes. I am not a conservative. I am not a liberal. I'm someone who knows that there's more to it than just that. That the main issue is a balance of chasing one's ideals and keeping a realistic mindset.
If you chase after ideals and ignore what's realistic (this and the last administration, and Clinton at first), you do more than you can handle and COLLAPSE.
If you stay firmly in what's realistic and never chance ideals, it's just as bad. You may not collapse as a nation, but you face STAGNATION. This has never happened in our nation... we've become gradually more and more idealistic.
Reagan, someone who WAS NOT A POLITICIAN, but a movie star, put the breaks on ideals and desperately tried to apply an extreme bit of realism to try and balance us out. But everyone else?
Guys, keep in mind, never take sides. You'll blind yourself to the truth if you do.
This post has been edited by Role on Jun 11 2009, 02:02 AM
I never accused you of being one. But who cares about my opinion? I'm just one of those northern Eskimos who lives in an igloo. (*sarcasm*)
Yeah, I apologize for the misconception, but I was not talking about what state you are from, I was talking about the country. Personally, I do not like politics, but I was just saying that there are reasons. I never said that you or anyone else did anything based on a stereotype. I never said that you were any of the things that you accused me of calling you, but I was just trying to say that things are different in the United States than in Canada. Similar, but quite different. So, I apologize if what I have said has been misunderstood, or taken the wrong way, but I was not trying to insult you or anyone else.
QuoteAnd personally, I think US politics is just a load of BS, kinda like Canadian politics.
I agree,
QuoteAlso, "MY NIXON"? I'M A FREAKING INDEPENDENT, MORON! I've ALREADY SAID SO IN THIS THREAD! READ IT BEFORE YOU MAKE BS REMARKS LIKE THAT! You may INSULT SOMEONE!
Again, I did not mean you personally. I meant a presidental candidate that the United States has had in the past, not someone who you favoured (but I am not saying that you favoured this person, because I am sure that very few people do). Also, I never aligned you with a specific party, I am just making an honest
I apologize, and next time I make a comment, I will try to say my messages differently in the future, to avoid confusion.
EDIT: Fixed grammar and typos.
:MercurySet:
Have a nice day.
This post has been edited by Salanewt on Jun 11 2009, 02:21 PM
Even still, if you were talking about my country, "I apologize, but where was Mr. Bush from again? And where did you say that you are from again? I just want to make a comparison, that is all." is STILL a racist comment. If you're not part of my nation, I fail to see how your discussion on a guy who's not fscking up your nation is relevant.
Remember, it's what you say that matters, it's what people hear. So if you think you said one thing, but I heard it as something else, what you say doesn't matter.
Ask Jamie. I joked around a bit about him having a mac (referring to the mac not liking anything that runs on windows), just teasing him. But he found it offensive, so I apologized and removed the comment.
Yeah, random things interest me... Maybe I should start a new thread, maybe one that talks about... Food, yeah.
Anyway, have a nice day everyone, and with the amount of times that I have said this, then everyone should get a nice summer vacation, woo-hoo!
:MercurySet: :Mercury: :MercurySet: :Mercury: :MercurySet:
I've never been a fan of party politics. I think the Greeks had a good system, where everyone would get together and discuss the issues. I think that was the Greeks, at least. It's a shame we can't do that with 300 million people, but perhaps our elected representatives could be made to have regular public discussions with their electorate and agree to vote based on the results of those discussions. Just an idea. The whole point of democracy is that everyone deserves to have their say, and I don't think our system reflects that right now.
As for "World War 3," I hope Obama would take the same position as first term Wilson. Isolationism isn't always the best policy, but when everyone's pointing nukes at each other, it is.
This post has been edited by twocows on Jun 17 2009, 07:52 PM
QuoteI've never been a fan of party politics. I think the Greeks had a good system, where everyone would get together and discuss the issues. I think that was the Greeks, at least. It's a shame we can't do that with 300 million people, but perhaps our elected representatives could be made to have regular public discussions with their electorate and agree to vote based on the results of those discussions. Just an idea. The whole point of democracy is that everyone deserves to have their say, and I don't think our system reflects that right now.
As for "World War 3," I hope Obama would take the same position as first term Wilson. Isolationism isn't always the best policy, but when everyone's pointing nukes at each other, it is.
I agree, I would rather not be the target of a nuclear war. As long as there is not another Cold War, then we should be okay (since the Cold War was threatening to become another World War).
Have a nice day.
:MercurySet:
I think I'll just drop out of this discussion, since whenever I say something Role seems to get angry at me.
QuoteI think I'll just drop out of this discussion, since whenever I say something Role seems to get angry at me.
I might drop out of this topic too. In fact, I think I should, since I do not want to make any mistakes when typing again.
Although ths will lower my post count increase...
Have a nice day.
:MercurySet:
This post has been edited by Salanewt on Jun 18 2009, 07:34 AM
Quote from: twocows on 17, June, 2009, 07:52:00 PMI've never been a fan of party politics. I think the Greeks had a good system, where everyone would get together and discuss the issues. I think that was the Greeks, at least. It's a shame we can't do that with 300 million people, but perhaps our elected representatives could be made to have regular public discussions with their electorate and agree to vote based on the results of those discussions. Just an idea. The whole point of democracy is that everyone deserves to have their say, and I don't think our system reflects that right now.
As for "World War 3," I hope Obama would take the same position as first term Wilson. Isolationism isn't always the best policy, but when everyone's pointing nukes at each other, it is.
Don't forget though, that the Greek/Roman democracy fell apart when the office holders focused more on holding on to their power than doing the right thing. Sound familiar?
I don't care if they're a republican or a democrat. Right now, the vast majority of the people in office here in the US... nay, I'd say the WORLD actually, are corrupt. Meaning... the whole of the world appears corrupt right now. We're all going down a very dangerous path...
And soon... it's gonna cause all hell to break loose. Notice how close it is to doomsday? Coincidence?
I know I said I was going to leave this discussion, but yes, it does sound familiar. The entire world (or at least most of it) is going in a large doomsday spiral. That's if global warming doesn't get us (not that I entirely believe in global warming, mind you). And even if we do somehow survive for another couple million years, the sun will explode and kill all of us.
Global warming is a sham. We need to stop fighting it and start adapting to it... That's how nature works. Natural Selection. Adapt or Die. Five bucks says we die because we refuse to do the right thing and ADAPT.
As far as I can tell, "global warming" is part of a natural cycle. Some scientists say that the "global warming" will eventually cause another ice age, and then everything will start warming up again. And so the cycle continues, for ever and ever until either: A) we pollute the Earth SO BADLY that we kill the cycle or B) the sun explodes and destroys the entire solar system, or at least any and all life forms in the solar system.
QuoteAs far as I can tell, "global warming" is part of a natural cycle. Some scientists say that the "global warming" will eventually cause another ice age, and then everything will start warming up again. And so the cycle continues, for ever and ever until either: A) we pollute the Earth SO BADLY that we kill the cycle or B) the sun explodes and destroys the entire solar system, or at least any and all life forms in the solar system.
I just hope that they are right, and that it does cause another period of cooling. Although, I must say that yesterday was really our first really warm day.
I know that I said that I might leave this thread, but it is now about nature, not politics... Anyway, I have a feeling that in a few hundred more years, if the world does not start cooling, then the equator might just become the 'Charred Belt of Firey Death'. This is just my theory, and I have little evidence to support this...
Have a nice day.
:MercurySet:
Quote from: JamietheFlameUser on 22, June, 2009, 04:12:00 PMAs far as I can tell, "global warming" is part of a natural cycle. Some scientists say that the "global warming" will eventually cause another ice age, and then everything will start warming up again. And so the cycle continues, for ever and ever until either: A) we pollute the Earth SO BADLY that we kill the cycle or B) the sun explodes and destroys the entire solar system, or at least any and all life forms in the solar system.
When the sun explodes, it will only destroy the inner planets not the entire solar
Well, possibly. However, if the sun keeps expanding (as it does after every few million/billion years (forget which one)), then Earth will be gone long before the Sun explodes. When this happens, then it might reach and destroy every planet.\
Anyway, that is far into the future, so that is nothing that we have to worry about.
Maybe after MANY generations, then people should start to worry (unless there is a Nuclear War, after which many people will probably die of radiation and/or mutate).
Have a nice day.
:MercurySet:
Humanity will be extinct before Sol goes Red Giant on us. No species has lived for billions of years, after all.
Anywho, leave it to Obama to not really contest the Iran results (Hillary had to ride his a** to get him to say anything), and to actually CONDEMN the ousting of a power-hungry president of another country by the people - showing the exact opposite view of the rest of America. Seriously, when our president agrees with Castro and other Dictators, instead of the heads of other democratic nations (and the people of the US, for that matter), something is SERIOUSLY wrong here.
This post has been edited by Role on Jul 11 2009, 06:53 AM
...the people picked the wrong president? XP
From the looks of it, he's a complete waffler, who doesn't really have an opinion on anything, but just tries to appeal to everyone. Bad. Idea.
In other news, he's finally going to Michigan to discuss the auto industry crisis. About bloody time.
This is why I'm moving to Japan in a few weeks, the UK AND the US are completely SCREWED. That and to get Golden Sun 3 before you guys *laughs* ^-^
EDIT: Oh wait a minute, THE WHOLE FREAKING WORLD IS SCREWED!
Obama in a nutshell: Say one thing, do the other!
Obama as far as I'm concerned: Senator/Emperor Palpatine. Bush was Count Duku!
Oh, and Nero? Japan's not any better off. In fact, they've been in a recession for nearly a decade. Trust me, it's not gonna be any easier over there.
Well all the countries of the world are screwed because the governments are all a load of dumbasses. And atleast I'll get GS3 before you, all I need now is a DS to play it on (and for it to come out and some money to buy it) ^-^
QuoteWell all the countries of the world are screwed because the governments are all a load of dumbasses.
Quoted for Truth. We're a world run by idiots.
Certainly we are in a world run by those incapable to do so, but is it their selfishness that makes them "idiotic" or rather the fact that you don't agree with their policies? I honestly feel that nationalized healthcare is the way to go, but I still feel we need to boot out all those illegal immigrants XD
Everyone has their own idea on how to make the world a better place - it's just how they implement such ideas and the end results that determine whether or not that person was worthy of the "good politician" stamp.
Quote from: Role on 22, December, 2009, 12:49:55 AM
QuoteWell all the countries of the world are screwed because the governments are all a load of dumbasses.
Quoted for Truth. We're a world run by idiots.
Big governments, small brains. the world in a nutshell.
Quote from: Corvidae on 23, December, 2009, 01:29:41 PM
Certainly we are in a world run by those incapable to do so, but is it their selfishness that makes them "idiotic" or rather the fact that you don't agree with their policies? I honestly feel that nationalized healthcare is the way to go, but I still feel we need to boot out all those illegal immigrants XD
Everyone has their own idea on how to make the world a better place - it's just how they implement such ideas and the end results that determine whether or not that person was worthy of the "good politician" stamp.
"Let's run the world by pushing policies with no monetary backing! What do you mean, we've forgotten to make it realistic? You're just a hater! RACIST! RACIST! FILTHY TEABAGGING RACIST!"
You mean, how can I disagree with that? You're joking, right?
I could care less about policy, I'm pissed that they've forgotten what's realistically possible. If a nation is too conservative, it becomes stagnant. We DO need a bit of liberal force in the world, so that it can continue to grow and evolve. However, too much is a bad thing - it leads to you overstepping your means, and in the end, collapsing because you bit off more than you could chew.
A good politician is one that is seeded in realism, but isn't afraid to risk a few small things at a time. The keyword here is SMALL. Slow and steady wins the race. Sure, you can't get hurt if you don't move, but you'll just sit there and rot. And if you go to fast, you'll trip, fall, crash and burn. We're going to fast.
Furthermore, the guys are totally breaking the law... The tenth amendment of the constitution specifically states - If the constitution does not say you can do it, then YOU CANNOT DO IT. That right belongs not to the federal government, but to the state and local governments. So while other countries are doing it left and right, ours has actually been blatantly breaking the law when they do things like that... Healthcare is not up to the Federal Government, the Constitution prohibits it simply because it's not mentioned. This is something they're infringing upon the state's rights on.
If the government will go so far liberal that they won't even follow the laws, then what does that mean for the rest of us? I can't say this is going to be good...
Yay, it's the "THE GOVERNMENT IS THE SOURCE OF ALL PROBLEMS" argument -/-
You're missing the point - you can have whoever you want in that position, somebody's gonna hate them. Everyone has different ideas on how the world should work, how they're gonna save the world, what they would do if they were in this or that person's shoes. Truly, everything that you believe in you THINK will work, but of course, nothing in the political world goes as planned. Of course, the same goes with my political ideologies as well.
Quote
Furthermore, the guys are totally breaking the law... The tenth amendment of the constitution specifically states - If the constitution does not say you can do it, then YOU CANNOT DO IT. That right belongs not to the federal government, but to the state and local governments. So while other countries are doing it left and right, ours has actually been blatantly breaking the law when they do things like that... Healthcare is not up to the Federal Government, the Constitution prohibits it simply because it's not mentioned. This is something they're infringing upon the state's rights on.
This is where you are factually incorrect - the Tenth Amendment states:
QuoteThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Which gives power to the States and Local governments, HOWEVER, does not say they are "prohibited by the federal government". If this were the case, we would not have federal laws states would have more power than they currently do - in addition, the US supreme court, as well as the US Houses of Congress and President would have little power in comparison to the truth. This is, of course, an interpretation of the constitution that dates back to the early days of the country, involving the strict interpretation of the text in which anything not mentioned is wrong, or a loose interpretation in which anything not mentioned is in the air. I personally feel that for consistency's sake that two things not mentioned in the constitution that should be governed by the federal rather than the states are multi-state felony charges and public welfare services such as welfare, unemployment benefits, and health care.
Dividing power is not always the best route - Wayne County of Michigan, where Detroit is located, is in far worse condition than Oakland County, which is just north of it - oddly enough, however, many of the people who live in Oakland go to Wayne for work. Narrowing our perspective, Detroit has one of the worst city governments in pretty much every respect - the mayor is dishonest, the schooling system is a complete joke, the city counsel members fall into bribes - and with a less broad base of people, they can get away with a lot more because the people in Detroit don't have the money (power) to stop it. Detroit is falling apart on itself. Of course, for every failure there's a more successful counterpart, such as Boston, but this roller coaster of consistency is truly unacceptable - should people in Detroit be suffering simply because they live there, and don't have the ability to get out?
Source of all problems? No it's not. Our general ignorance is what got them in office to begin with! We're suffering a lot because of it, but it's even more than that. People are forgetting about one of the most important things: Responsibility.
NOBODY has been taking responsibility for anything anymore. This isn't just a problem in the US, it's a problem around the world. This is the true form of the cancer killing society - Irresponsibility is to blame. The current government isn't the source of the problems, it's the most noticeable symptom. And it's also a great method of spreading that irresponsibility. You see, when people look to the government instead of themselves and each other for help, they grow dependent, and if anything goes wrong, they don't blame themselves for screwing up and losing their job, they blame the job. They then do the worst thing - turn to the government for help instead of helping themselves. Our own irresponsibility is crippling us, and government, though it's not the source, IS facilitating it. THAT is what needs to stop.
QuoteThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Actually, read this a wee bit closer. If the constitution doesn't say that the federal government can do it, and doesn't say the states can't do it, then it's RESERVED TO THE STATES/PEOPLE. Meaning, the Federal government cannot touch it - that right doesn't belong to them, it belongs to the state/people. My statement wasn't wrong, just misinterpreted.