Richards 0 #26 June 15, 2007 QuoteQuoteWould you decline to vote for a great candidate, just because he was the son of a former president? Would you vote for a lousy candidate, just because he was the son of a great former president? It doesn't matter what their name or their family lineage is. What counts is their ideas, and whether they'll be good for the country. That's how to decide whether to vote for them or not. Agreed My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #27 June 15, 2007 I'll play serious, though I won't vote, options are sparse. Below list is not comprehensive. PROs: 1. The second person has a good resource to consult with without the fear of political games. 2. Probably has met most/all of the Cabinet already, as well as opposition members. Cons: 1. Picks the same dumbasses for Cabinet. All concerned know how to best graft the system. 2. Has shadow of first person. End result- it can go either way. Looking at the Bushes, I don't think the name recognition did much by itself. It's not like people fondly look back on 1989-1993. For the most part, the economy sucked and Bush had little appreciation for that. But after 7 years of Clinton, the GOP was desperate to win again and saw his son as the best shot, so all support and funding flowed to him. He also had a record as governor of a significant state. Without that, nothing doing. (See Kathy Brown trying to become governor of California solely on the Brown name) For all of that, he barely eeked out an EC win, and lagged on the popular vote. Since then he's proven to be a weaker version of his father, yet confronted with more difficult situations. The Democrats have never been able to act in a single entity, so Clinton won't get the same gather around the candidate effect. And she made her name during Bill's reign, but not a good one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tbrown 26 #28 June 15, 2007 I'm going to say bad on general principle. For years people have accused the Kennedys of trying to launch a Presidential dynasty, forst with Jack, then Bobby, then Teddy. The Bushes have already done more, as the Walker and Bush families are already powerful political dynasties in themselves. And I shudder to think that Jeb is still waiting in the wings and that there are people out there who would undoubtably vote for him. I'm a Democrat, but not at all impressed with Hillary Clinton. She doesn't have the human charm of her husband and I don't trust her. I will only vote for her in the general election if I have to and then I will hold my nose as I do so. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #29 June 16, 2007 Quote Would you decline to vote for a great candidate, just because he was the son of a former president? Would you vote for a lousy candidate, just because he was the son of a great former president? It doesn't matter what their name or their family lineage is. What counts is their ideas, and whether they'll be good for the country. That's how to decide whether to vote for them or not. Addendum: And I see that this thread has already gone to crap with petty partisan bickering, instead of intelligent discussion, so I'll be exiting now, and won't be back. So how do you know who to vote for since they are all RICH LIARS? Do you believe ANYTHING they say? They have money and now that the money doesn't satisfy them the want POWER. OVER YOU AND ME. But they ain't getting me. Shiny objects don't impress me.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nygal 0 #30 June 17, 2007 A President should do the country good not evil. -should protect our borders -get illegal immigrants out that want to do harm to this country and its people. -not be a liar -create jobs -build a awesome economy -love his or her family not publicly shaming them. -give the millitary the correct amount of spending to function. -love its citizens and help them to achieve a better quality of life. -fund programs that would benefit its citizens -protect the poor, help them rise to higher quality of life -build the country up not tear it down. -help the space program doesnt matter what family name you have or how much money , its what you do to help the country Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crwtom 0 #31 June 17, 2007 Quote Looking at the Bushes, I don't think the name recognition did much by itself. It's not like people fondly look back on 1989-1993. There is nothing great about McDonalds burgers either. The success of the restaurant chain has nothing to do with superior quality but with comfort and certainty that it's not going to suck any worse than what you have been used to from previous experience. The comfort of familiarity and a (perceived!) guaranteed lower bar can go a long way. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,177 #32 June 17, 2007 Quote Taking into account where the candidate went to school? I'm haiving a bit of a problem connecting that to political issues. I'm not. It's the whole reason candidates like to talk to people one-on-one. They become a whole person, then, rather than a cardboard cutout of their party/whatever. My dad, a lifelong liberal and generally Democrat, votes for Ron Paul because he came by our house and talked for 1/2 and hour or so during his first election. When you went to school with someone, or even just to the same school, it's a connection. I went to the same school as, (and mostly during the same time as) Alberto Gonzales. It took longer for me not to like him, simply because I can identify specifically with part of his background. It's called social networking. It's how you get jobs sometimes, too. Wendy W. (oh -- and no, I didn't know Alberto Gonzales There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites azdiver 0 #33 June 18, 2007 QuoteQuote Would you decline to vote for a great candidate, just because he was the son of a former president? Yes if the former president proved to be a liability to the country while lining his own pockets and boosting the family business at the expense of the country and the world for that matter. QuoteWould you vote for a lousy candidate, just because he was the son of a great former president? Hell No QuoteIt doesn't matter what their name or their family lineage is. If the former president proved to be a liability to the country while lining his own pockets and boosting his family business at the expense of the country and the world for that matter then the sibling stands to gain by continuing the mayhem. Therefore it matters a great deal. QuoteWhat counts is their ideas, and whether they'll be good for the country. That's how to decide whether to vote for them or not. You are bang on there bro. And if we are 'in fact' talking about whether Hillary Clinton should be voted for or not? then the fact that she let her husband off the hook for having his cock sucked in the oval office and publicly shaming their family. She is hardly and advocate for good morals is she.what if they were on opposite sides, dem, replight travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #34 June 18, 2007 Quote Quote Why do you think George H. W. Bush is an asshole? He invaded Iraq for the same greedy reason that his son did. He and his idiot son have systematically made this planet a much less enjoyable/safe place to be. Wow. It's hard to argue with such insight. Quote war mongering fucks like that need a taste of their own medicine (and that medicine is pain and suffering). Are you saying the US deserves pain and suffering? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nygal 0 #35 June 18, 2007 I dont deserve pain and suffering, neither does anyone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #36 June 18, 2007 Quote Are you saying the US deserves pain and suffering? Well, maybe not everybody but some people could possibly benefit. http://www.snopes.com/photos/automobiles/lumber.asp Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #37 June 18, 2007 QuoteQuote Are you saying the US deserves pain and suffering? Well, maybe not everybody but some people could possibly benefit. http://www.snopes.com/photos/automobiles/lumber.asp Can you bend over backwards and touch your head to the ground? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #38 June 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Are you saying the US deserves pain and suffering? Well, maybe not everybody but some people could possibly benefit. http://www.snopes.com/photos/automobiles/lumber.asp Can you bend over backwards and touch your head to the ground? Only as a prelude to a hospital visit, and never in mixed company. Why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #39 June 18, 2007 I'm indifferent. Part of the indifference comes from the fact that it has happened now in four different centuries of U.S. History. You had John Adams (1797-1801) and John Quincy Adams (1825-1829). You had Teddy Roosevelt (1901-1909) and Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945). Now you've got George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) and George W Bush (2001-present). I can look at the Kennedys as a political dynasty, though not presidential. Hillary Clinton? We'll see. But I can't see the Clinton dynasty going any further than Bill and Hillary, since it does not appear that Chelsea has any real political aspirations, and because Roger Clinton was able to show people that Billy Carter really wasn't that bad. Okay - the only thing "bad" about a familial political dynasty is the appearance of a nobility. The good is that when people grow up knowing the system, the movers, etc., they usually stand an easier chance of getting things done. They know and understand the system. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #40 June 18, 2007 It isn't inherently bad, but it demonstrates a flaw in our system. We are not a monarchy, and there is not a genetic predisposition for being the best person for the job. Thus, the odds of two people from the same family just happening to be the best person to lead this nation at seperate points in time are astronomically slim. That they are given the job regardless is a poor testament about the electorate. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DSE 3 #41 June 18, 2007 You didn't mention the Harrisons; William Henry Harrison and his grandson Benjamin Harrison. They were big tobacco, which is more or less the big oil of today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #42 June 18, 2007 Quote Are you saying the US deserves pain and suffering? No I am not, and it is bizarre how you could interpret what I said as that for one and secondly how such a narrow mined interpretation could stem such a deviation from the subject. I consider both GW Bush senior and Junior to be warmongering murderers along with their corrupt posse. They deserve to feel a fraction of the pain they have inflicted. Before you all go on another tangent about America bashing etc. I do not dislike the USA, I feel sorry/pity the USA for being oppressed by such a corrupt and inconsiderate system I feel the same sadness for many countries in this corrupt and unfair world."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #43 June 18, 2007 Quote Quote Are you saying the US deserves pain and suffering? No I am not, and it is bizarre how you could interpret what I said as that for one and secondly how such a narrow mined interpretation could stem such a deviation from the subject. To see where this thread went off topic, check out the first reply.And your subsequent, "they invaded Iraq for the same reasons" was a real laugher. Quote I consider both GW Bush senior and Junior to be warmongering murderers along with their corrupt posse. Anyone else view Bush Sr. in the same light? Quote I feel sorry/pity the USA for being oppressed by such a corrupt and inconsiderate system What system are you talking about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #44 June 18, 2007 Quote Quote On another note, don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. If you don't vote, you can't bitch Jeesh. You actually think your vote mattered? We need a blind sheep icon Sangrio. I blame all the people who voted for Bush in the last two elections for our more recent international, economic, and constitutional problems. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #45 June 18, 2007 QuoteI blame all the people who voted for Bush in the last two elections for our more recent international, economic, and constitutional problems. Blues, Dave What economic problems? Unemployment is 4.5%, inflation for the last 6 years has been near 2% per year, the stock market is going gangbusters. Of any economic problems you see, which of them are the fault of the current administration? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #46 June 18, 2007 QuoteBefore you all go on another tangent about America bashing etc. I do not dislike the USA, I feel sorry/pity the USA for being oppressed by such a corrupt and inconsiderate system I feel the same sadness for many countries in this corrupt and unfair world. Might as well get used to it. Until we undergo a cultural change we are not going to see another leader worthy of the office. The last incorrupt person to hold the office was Mr. Carter; but the public and media are ruthless, even going after him just for saying he had lust for beautiful women. Sorry if this is shocking news to anybody, but if a person is male and not gay - they have lust for women (maybe even ones not all that beautiful; i.e. - Clinton/Lewinsky). Bit I digress. Our hypocritical standards gotta scare all the good people, and the game has evolved to the point of attracting mostly unprincipled scum that practice situational ethics. We have a great country, why do we keep playing stupid childish games in the process of picking people to administer it for us?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #47 June 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteI blame all the people who voted for Bush in the last two elections for our more recent international, economic, and constitutional problems. Blues, Dave What economic problems? Which of them are the fault of the current administration? Massive overspending. While it has been an on-again off-again problem for quite some time, responsibility for the current deficit rests on the shoulders of GWB and the people who elected him. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #48 June 18, 2007 You really are naive."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,476 #49 June 18, 2007 >Until we undergo a cultural change we are not going to see another leader worthy of the office. And the first "cultural change" we must undergo is to lose the thinking that it's such an important office that you must be immensely qualified to fill such a lofty position. As envisioned by the constitution, the president is not a lawmaker. He does not make laws, declare war, set foreign policy or control the judiciary. The constitution calls out his roles very clearly, which are basically: An ambassador. He can go to other countries and sign treaties with them (provided the Senate agrees.) You need one person to do that. Commander of the armed forces. Again, you need one person to do that so that in time of imminent threat there is no need to assemble a quorum or anything like that. He also commissions officers. He does not declare war or fund the military though. Appointer of Supreme Court justices, ambassadors and other functionaries - again, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Executor of laws. Specifically, "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That's basically it. He can also arbitrate when Congress can't decide to adjourn, give State of the Union addresses etc. but those are the major points. Constitutionally he's not that big a deal. Many americans, however, have a desire for a king, and thus we cede more and more of the power reserved for the other branches of government to the president. This is a natural result of pack behavior; people want a "leader" to either follow or berate. It is, after all, easier to laud or condemn one person than an (often squabbling) legislature. That's the attitude we have to change if we want to return to the government that the authors of the Constitution envisioned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #50 June 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteI blame all the people who voted for Bush in the last two elections for our more recent international, economic, and constitutional problems. Blues, Dave What economic problems? Which of them are the fault of the current administration? Massive overspending. While it has been an on-again off-again problem for quite some time, responsibility for the current deficit rests on the shoulders of GWB and the people who elected him. Blues, Dave How has that impacted the economy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kelpdiver 2 #27 June 15, 2007 I'll play serious, though I won't vote, options are sparse. Below list is not comprehensive. PROs: 1. The second person has a good resource to consult with without the fear of political games. 2. Probably has met most/all of the Cabinet already, as well as opposition members. Cons: 1. Picks the same dumbasses for Cabinet. All concerned know how to best graft the system. 2. Has shadow of first person. End result- it can go either way. Looking at the Bushes, I don't think the name recognition did much by itself. It's not like people fondly look back on 1989-1993. For the most part, the economy sucked and Bush had little appreciation for that. But after 7 years of Clinton, the GOP was desperate to win again and saw his son as the best shot, so all support and funding flowed to him. He also had a record as governor of a significant state. Without that, nothing doing. (See Kathy Brown trying to become governor of California solely on the Brown name) For all of that, he barely eeked out an EC win, and lagged on the popular vote. Since then he's proven to be a weaker version of his father, yet confronted with more difficult situations. The Democrats have never been able to act in a single entity, so Clinton won't get the same gather around the candidate effect. And she made her name during Bill's reign, but not a good one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #28 June 15, 2007 I'm going to say bad on general principle. For years people have accused the Kennedys of trying to launch a Presidential dynasty, forst with Jack, then Bobby, then Teddy. The Bushes have already done more, as the Walker and Bush families are already powerful political dynasties in themselves. And I shudder to think that Jeb is still waiting in the wings and that there are people out there who would undoubtably vote for him. I'm a Democrat, but not at all impressed with Hillary Clinton. She doesn't have the human charm of her husband and I don't trust her. I will only vote for her in the general election if I have to and then I will hold my nose as I do so. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #29 June 16, 2007 Quote Would you decline to vote for a great candidate, just because he was the son of a former president? Would you vote for a lousy candidate, just because he was the son of a great former president? It doesn't matter what their name or their family lineage is. What counts is their ideas, and whether they'll be good for the country. That's how to decide whether to vote for them or not. Addendum: And I see that this thread has already gone to crap with petty partisan bickering, instead of intelligent discussion, so I'll be exiting now, and won't be back. So how do you know who to vote for since they are all RICH LIARS? Do you believe ANYTHING they say? They have money and now that the money doesn't satisfy them the want POWER. OVER YOU AND ME. But they ain't getting me. Shiny objects don't impress me.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nygal 0 #30 June 17, 2007 A President should do the country good not evil. -should protect our borders -get illegal immigrants out that want to do harm to this country and its people. -not be a liar -create jobs -build a awesome economy -love his or her family not publicly shaming them. -give the millitary the correct amount of spending to function. -love its citizens and help them to achieve a better quality of life. -fund programs that would benefit its citizens -protect the poor, help them rise to higher quality of life -build the country up not tear it down. -help the space program doesnt matter what family name you have or how much money , its what you do to help the country Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #31 June 17, 2007 Quote Looking at the Bushes, I don't think the name recognition did much by itself. It's not like people fondly look back on 1989-1993. There is nothing great about McDonalds burgers either. The success of the restaurant chain has nothing to do with superior quality but with comfort and certainty that it's not going to suck any worse than what you have been used to from previous experience. The comfort of familiarity and a (perceived!) guaranteed lower bar can go a long way. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,177 #32 June 17, 2007 Quote Taking into account where the candidate went to school? I'm haiving a bit of a problem connecting that to political issues. I'm not. It's the whole reason candidates like to talk to people one-on-one. They become a whole person, then, rather than a cardboard cutout of their party/whatever. My dad, a lifelong liberal and generally Democrat, votes for Ron Paul because he came by our house and talked for 1/2 and hour or so during his first election. When you went to school with someone, or even just to the same school, it's a connection. I went to the same school as, (and mostly during the same time as) Alberto Gonzales. It took longer for me not to like him, simply because I can identify specifically with part of his background. It's called social networking. It's how you get jobs sometimes, too. Wendy W. (oh -- and no, I didn't know Alberto Gonzales There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azdiver 0 #33 June 18, 2007 QuoteQuote Would you decline to vote for a great candidate, just because he was the son of a former president? Yes if the former president proved to be a liability to the country while lining his own pockets and boosting the family business at the expense of the country and the world for that matter. QuoteWould you vote for a lousy candidate, just because he was the son of a great former president? Hell No QuoteIt doesn't matter what their name or their family lineage is. If the former president proved to be a liability to the country while lining his own pockets and boosting his family business at the expense of the country and the world for that matter then the sibling stands to gain by continuing the mayhem. Therefore it matters a great deal. QuoteWhat counts is their ideas, and whether they'll be good for the country. That's how to decide whether to vote for them or not. You are bang on there bro. And if we are 'in fact' talking about whether Hillary Clinton should be voted for or not? then the fact that she let her husband off the hook for having his cock sucked in the oval office and publicly shaming their family. She is hardly and advocate for good morals is she.what if they were on opposite sides, dem, replight travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #34 June 18, 2007 Quote Quote Why do you think George H. W. Bush is an asshole? He invaded Iraq for the same greedy reason that his son did. He and his idiot son have systematically made this planet a much less enjoyable/safe place to be. Wow. It's hard to argue with such insight. Quote war mongering fucks like that need a taste of their own medicine (and that medicine is pain and suffering). Are you saying the US deserves pain and suffering? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nygal 0 #35 June 18, 2007 I dont deserve pain and suffering, neither does anyone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #36 June 18, 2007 Quote Are you saying the US deserves pain and suffering? Well, maybe not everybody but some people could possibly benefit. http://www.snopes.com/photos/automobiles/lumber.asp Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #37 June 18, 2007 QuoteQuote Are you saying the US deserves pain and suffering? Well, maybe not everybody but some people could possibly benefit. http://www.snopes.com/photos/automobiles/lumber.asp Can you bend over backwards and touch your head to the ground? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #38 June 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Are you saying the US deserves pain and suffering? Well, maybe not everybody but some people could possibly benefit. http://www.snopes.com/photos/automobiles/lumber.asp Can you bend over backwards and touch your head to the ground? Only as a prelude to a hospital visit, and never in mixed company. Why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #39 June 18, 2007 I'm indifferent. Part of the indifference comes from the fact that it has happened now in four different centuries of U.S. History. You had John Adams (1797-1801) and John Quincy Adams (1825-1829). You had Teddy Roosevelt (1901-1909) and Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945). Now you've got George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) and George W Bush (2001-present). I can look at the Kennedys as a political dynasty, though not presidential. Hillary Clinton? We'll see. But I can't see the Clinton dynasty going any further than Bill and Hillary, since it does not appear that Chelsea has any real political aspirations, and because Roger Clinton was able to show people that Billy Carter really wasn't that bad. Okay - the only thing "bad" about a familial political dynasty is the appearance of a nobility. The good is that when people grow up knowing the system, the movers, etc., they usually stand an easier chance of getting things done. They know and understand the system. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #40 June 18, 2007 It isn't inherently bad, but it demonstrates a flaw in our system. We are not a monarchy, and there is not a genetic predisposition for being the best person for the job. Thus, the odds of two people from the same family just happening to be the best person to lead this nation at seperate points in time are astronomically slim. That they are given the job regardless is a poor testament about the electorate. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 3 #41 June 18, 2007 You didn't mention the Harrisons; William Henry Harrison and his grandson Benjamin Harrison. They were big tobacco, which is more or less the big oil of today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #42 June 18, 2007 Quote Are you saying the US deserves pain and suffering? No I am not, and it is bizarre how you could interpret what I said as that for one and secondly how such a narrow mined interpretation could stem such a deviation from the subject. I consider both GW Bush senior and Junior to be warmongering murderers along with their corrupt posse. They deserve to feel a fraction of the pain they have inflicted. Before you all go on another tangent about America bashing etc. I do not dislike the USA, I feel sorry/pity the USA for being oppressed by such a corrupt and inconsiderate system I feel the same sadness for many countries in this corrupt and unfair world."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #43 June 18, 2007 Quote Quote Are you saying the US deserves pain and suffering? No I am not, and it is bizarre how you could interpret what I said as that for one and secondly how such a narrow mined interpretation could stem such a deviation from the subject. To see where this thread went off topic, check out the first reply.And your subsequent, "they invaded Iraq for the same reasons" was a real laugher. Quote I consider both GW Bush senior and Junior to be warmongering murderers along with their corrupt posse. Anyone else view Bush Sr. in the same light? Quote I feel sorry/pity the USA for being oppressed by such a corrupt and inconsiderate system What system are you talking about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #44 June 18, 2007 Quote Quote On another note, don't blame me, I voted for the other guy. If you don't vote, you can't bitch Jeesh. You actually think your vote mattered? We need a blind sheep icon Sangrio. I blame all the people who voted for Bush in the last two elections for our more recent international, economic, and constitutional problems. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #45 June 18, 2007 QuoteI blame all the people who voted for Bush in the last two elections for our more recent international, economic, and constitutional problems. Blues, Dave What economic problems? Unemployment is 4.5%, inflation for the last 6 years has been near 2% per year, the stock market is going gangbusters. Of any economic problems you see, which of them are the fault of the current administration? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #46 June 18, 2007 QuoteBefore you all go on another tangent about America bashing etc. I do not dislike the USA, I feel sorry/pity the USA for being oppressed by such a corrupt and inconsiderate system I feel the same sadness for many countries in this corrupt and unfair world. Might as well get used to it. Until we undergo a cultural change we are not going to see another leader worthy of the office. The last incorrupt person to hold the office was Mr. Carter; but the public and media are ruthless, even going after him just for saying he had lust for beautiful women. Sorry if this is shocking news to anybody, but if a person is male and not gay - they have lust for women (maybe even ones not all that beautiful; i.e. - Clinton/Lewinsky). Bit I digress. Our hypocritical standards gotta scare all the good people, and the game has evolved to the point of attracting mostly unprincipled scum that practice situational ethics. We have a great country, why do we keep playing stupid childish games in the process of picking people to administer it for us?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #47 June 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteI blame all the people who voted for Bush in the last two elections for our more recent international, economic, and constitutional problems. Blues, Dave What economic problems? Which of them are the fault of the current administration? Massive overspending. While it has been an on-again off-again problem for quite some time, responsibility for the current deficit rests on the shoulders of GWB and the people who elected him. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #48 June 18, 2007 You really are naive."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #49 June 18, 2007 >Until we undergo a cultural change we are not going to see another leader worthy of the office. And the first "cultural change" we must undergo is to lose the thinking that it's such an important office that you must be immensely qualified to fill such a lofty position. As envisioned by the constitution, the president is not a lawmaker. He does not make laws, declare war, set foreign policy or control the judiciary. The constitution calls out his roles very clearly, which are basically: An ambassador. He can go to other countries and sign treaties with them (provided the Senate agrees.) You need one person to do that. Commander of the armed forces. Again, you need one person to do that so that in time of imminent threat there is no need to assemble a quorum or anything like that. He also commissions officers. He does not declare war or fund the military though. Appointer of Supreme Court justices, ambassadors and other functionaries - again, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Executor of laws. Specifically, "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That's basically it. He can also arbitrate when Congress can't decide to adjourn, give State of the Union addresses etc. but those are the major points. Constitutionally he's not that big a deal. Many americans, however, have a desire for a king, and thus we cede more and more of the power reserved for the other branches of government to the president. This is a natural result of pack behavior; people want a "leader" to either follow or berate. It is, after all, easier to laud or condemn one person than an (often squabbling) legislature. That's the attitude we have to change if we want to return to the government that the authors of the Constitution envisioned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #50 June 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteI blame all the people who voted for Bush in the last two elections for our more recent international, economic, and constitutional problems. Blues, Dave What economic problems? Which of them are the fault of the current administration? Massive overspending. While it has been an on-again off-again problem for quite some time, responsibility for the current deficit rests on the shoulders of GWB and the people who elected him. Blues, Dave How has that impacted the economy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
