HellRaiser 0 #1 November 21, 2008 I dont even vote. I really dont see the point. They are all liars, snakes and con artists who claim they are here to save our wonderful country. Well guess what, I just dont see anybody having enough of an impact on my day to day activities for me to give a shit. Politics are nothing but a game and the award goes to whomever the best actor is. Spare me your bullshit. Sure there are those that will say what about taxes, and the economy and all that crap. Ok, what about it? We will pay taxes until the day we die. They will always go up and down. And dont get me started on the economy. I guess Clinton was responsible for the Tech boom of the late 90's and early 2000? Bullshit. Our economy will always go up and down no matter who is in office. Screw the war subject also. We will never see the end to wars as long as any of us are alive. We will always be fighting with someone, young kids will always be sent off to fight, and yes, they will die. If anybody thinks this will ever stop with XYZ president then you are nuts. The only way to do away with war is for the world to do away with their respective militaries. It will never happen. For every one thing that a president does right, there will be a line of people pointing out everything he did wrong, no matter who is in office. It will never change. It is all bullshit and to be honest with you I am amazed at the number of people who get wrapped up emotionally with the crap these people dish out. I personally do not believe in acting like a fool and pretending that one is better than the other. Once again, spare me the bullshit. Politicians are equally manipulative and have one agenda in mind, their own personal success. President = Scapegoat. Thats all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #2 November 21, 2008 >Our economy will always go up and down no matter who is in office. Agreed. A president has a minimal effect on the economy. (That is to say, he has some, but far less than people give him credit for.) >We will never see the end to wars as long as any of us are alive. We will eventually, one way or the other. How that end comes about is up to us. >If anybody thinks this will ever stop with XYZ president then you are nuts. It will take far more than a new president to put an end to war as a political tool. >President = Scapegoat. Thats all. I think the idea that presidents do nothing is as wrong as the idea that presidents are responsible for everything. As always, the truth is found somewhere in between. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #3 November 21, 2008 it is the balance between the different branches and parties. to bad people don't realize that the president is the final step in the process and has to deal with what congress gives him. the president can talk, influence and sign but but is restricted from doing much by himself. the last couple years the dem controled congress hasn't given him much to work with. the one good thing about congress and the exect branch not working well together is that while they are fighting they are not passing new spending bills to run the debt up further. unfortunatly they made up for that with one big piece of shit bailout bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #4 November 21, 2008 Individuals do not change the world significantly. They can show us possibilities in the future paths a society might take. Which path we actually take is determined by long-term trends playing themselves out with relentless momentum as deep background bass tones while current events shreik for our attention in the foreground. I too have become very apathetic in terms of how much difference any of these goofs really makes; but really for society as a whole, even the worst of them are just a short term inconvenience. I rely on the overall good intentions of humanity to keep us moving forward despite the occasional pinhead leaders we get. Of course how this lands on each individual is a different story. For those that lost loved ones in Bush's totally pathetic war of convenience, short term results can be very tragic." . . . 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
Coreece 190 #5 November 22, 2008 QuoteScrew the war subject also. We will never see the end to wars as long as any of us are alive. We will always be fighting with someone, young kids will always be sent off to fight, and yes, they will die. If anybody thinks this will ever stop with XYZ president then you are nuts. The only way to do away with war is for the world to do away with their respective militaries. It will never happen. I'm inclined to agree with your post overall in a general sense, but lets say we had a president that had not been so eager to go to war, perhaps some young kids would still be with us today. So for their families, yes, the President matters very much so.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #6 November 22, 2008 YES, the President matters, often hugely so. Those who don't realize this are failing to understand the lessons of history. If Jack Kennedy had remained President through January 1969, it's unlikely he would have escalated US involvement in Vietnam to even remotely the point that LBJ did. Under LBJ, about 35,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and the nation's national psyche was savaged over the war. If Bobby Kennedy had been elected President in 1968, he probably would have withdrawn the troops from Vietnam by the end of 1969. Or, if Humphrey had been elected, he probably would have had us out in 1970 or 71. Instead, Nixon's "secret plan" to end US involvement in the war was to ramp it up, at a cost of 20,000 MORE American lives, and more tearing-apart of the nation's fabric. There were still US troops in Vietnam when Nixon left office in August, 1974. Ford withdrew the last US troops in 1975. When Nixon became president, he made Kissinger his de facto top foreign policy advisor and operative. This unique partnership was directly responsible for the thawing of relations between the US and China, effectively shifting the superpower alignment from "East vs. West", to a 3-way balance of power, which the US parlayed into several years of detente with the Soviet Union. Although detente diminished after several years, the rapprochement with China lasted, forcing the Soviet Union to have to over-spend its military resources not only to counter the US & NATO, but also China. This, in turn, marked the beginning of the ultimate end of the Soviet Union. None of this would probably have happened had Humphrey been elected in 1968. Reagan's strategic military buildup, targeted mainly at the Soviets, forced the Soviets to respond in kind, but the resulting burden on the Soviet economy turned out to be the final straw that caused the Soviet Union to collapse. Had Carter had been re-elected, and then succeeded by Mondale, the Soviet Union might possibly still exist today. The Supreme Court appointments by Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush1 and Bush 2 have resulted in conservative dominance of the SCOTUS for almost the past 40 years. Their rulings have greatly affected the legal and social fabric of the country, probably far more than most people realize. When Bush became President in 2001, he inherited a budget surplus. Assuming 9/11 would still have happened, a President Gore would probably still have gone to war in Afghanistan. But we probably would not have gone to war in Iraq. It is extremely unlikely that we'd be looking at anything close to the $3 trillion deficit that we have today. Yes, Virginia, the President really does matter - a lot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #7 November 22, 2008 The president does matter in some ways. Most of his influence is felt by the appointments he makes such as the Secretary of State, Supreme court justices and others of that nature. Where he becomes the scapegoat is in his "sign or veto" power. This is his only real influence in legislature. The recent wall street bail out is a perfect example. Yes he called for congress to act. And when they did, Nancy Pelosi stood on the house floor and gave the most partisan speech that I can recount in recent history. To get the bill to the president, this piece of crap had an extra $150 billion worth of bribes to congressmen to get their votes. Then it was hung around the presidents neck to sign or veto. In the end history of course will blame him for this financial blunder, and not the democtatic lead House that put this piece of shit together. Politics at it's finest."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #8 November 22, 2008 >In the end history of course will blame him for this financial blunder . . . Correct - because he, not Pelosi, proposed it. ================= Bush proposes biggest bailout in U.S. history OFFICIALS BEGIN TO WORK OUT DETAILS Posted: 09/20/2008 07:30:26 PM PDT WASHINGTON — The Bush administration Saturday proposed to Congress what could become the largest financial bailout in U.S. history, requesting virtually unfettered authority for the Treasury to buy up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets from financial institutions in the United States. ================== So the question is - are you saving up the $2000 that the Bush bailout will cost you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #9 November 22, 2008 QuoteThe president does matter in some ways. Most of his influence is felt by the appointments he makes such as the Secretary of State, Supreme court justices and others of that nature. Where he becomes the scapegoat is in his "sign or veto" power. This is his only real influence in legislature. The recent wall street bail out is a perfect example. Yes he called for congress to act. And when they did, Nancy Pelosi stood on the house floor and gave the most partisan speech that I can recount in recent history. To get the bill to the president, this piece of crap had an extra $150 billion worth of bribes to congressmen to get their votes. Then it was hung around the presidents neck to sign or veto. In the end history of course will blame him for this financial blunder, and not the democtatic lead House that put this piece of shit together. Politics at it's finest. another perfect example of the president not having much power is how the congress is giving money to their friends in the banking but not to the auto industry without strings attached. the president asked for help and got a partisan shit filled bill for the freinds of congress and crap for the backbone of america and the outcome is all going to be charged to bush even though congress is giving him nothing but shit bills and partisan actions to sign. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #10 November 22, 2008 Quote>In the end history of course will blame him for this financial blunder . . . Correct - because he, not Pelosi, proposed it. ================= Bush proposes biggest bailout in U.S. history OFFICIALS BEGIN TO WORK OUT DETAILS Posted: 09/20/2008 07:30:26 PM PDT WASHINGTON — The Bush administration Saturday proposed to Congress what could become the largest financial bailout in U.S. history, requesting virtually unfettered authority for the Treasury to buy up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets from financial institutions in the United States. ================== yep he proposed it and congress returned a piece of shit back to him. it is congress that is supposed to turn it into something that is viable and workable for the people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
klingeme 0 #11 November 25, 2008 Quote>In the end history of course will blame him for this financial blunder . . . Correct - because he, not Pelosi, proposed it. ================= Bush proposes biggest bailout in U.S. history OFFICIALS BEGIN TO WORK OUT DETAILS Posted: 09/20/2008 07:30:26 PM PDT WASHINGTON — The Bush administration Saturday proposed to Congress what could become the largest financial bailout in U.S. history, requesting virtually unfettered authority for the Treasury to buy up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets from financial institutions in the United States. ================== So the question is - are you saving up the $2000 that the Bush bailout will cost you? He wanted the bailout, but not all the pork that got attached to the bill. I was not in favor of the bailout, but I was really pissed when a 10 page documnet became a several hundred page document filled with pork in the congress. I know my numbers on the pages are off, but you get the point. Mark Klingelhoefer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #12 November 25, 2008 Despite what the man in the White House for the last 8 years thought, the President is not King. He is 1/3 of our government. However he never respected the check and balances and now the general public believes that the White House is going to save us all. Yes, the branch of government your topic is about does matter. Just as much as the other two._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #13 November 25, 2008 QuoteYES, the President matters, often hugely so. ....... If Jack Kennedy had remained President t....... If Bobby Kennedy had been elected P....... When Nixon became president, h........ Reagan's strategic military buildup, ....... The Supreme Court appointments by Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush1 and Bush 2 ....... When Bush became President..... Yes, Virginia, the President really does matter - a lot. wow, 100% partisan lean top to bottom. You are talented. Domesticall, I think the pres is a powerless figurehead stereotyped by both parties as either god or satan. The last few, including the next one, have had no power and will be specifically shills for the spending arms of their parties. On the foreign relations front? The other govs and citizens are so completely snowed on partisan positioning and propaganda, that the pres can have a positive effect as long as he's a clear communicator of the party line. On that, I'm hoping for something good to come from Obama - just a little eloquence. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 126 #14 November 25, 2008 Some Presidents work with Congress. Some wield their power like a machete and use it to intimidate not only the general public, but Congress as well. "If you ain't on my side, then you ain't never getting in my office or in front of me" GWB was the latter. Forcing his hand on people, no one really wanted to cross him. So he got his way and look at all the friggin' damage that was done. Obama is only one man, but depending on how he uses the power he has, he can accomplish a little or a lot - yet to be seen. Certainly more hope than with the alternative I think..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #15 November 25, 2008 >He wanted the bailout, but not all the pork that got attached to the bill. So you're against tax breaks now? It's hard to keep track of your position on that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #16 November 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteYES, the President matters, often hugely so. ....... If Jack Kennedy had remained President t....... If Bobby Kennedy had been elected P....... When Nixon became president, h........ Reagan's strategic military buildup, ....... The Supreme Court appointments by Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush1 and Bush 2 ....... When Bush became President..... Yes, Virginia, the President really does matter - a lot. wow, 100% partisan lean top to bottom. Well thank you for cavalierly dismissing me as mono-dimensional, and for playing the man, and not the ball. Not that I'm usually one to get sucked into the SC game of defending myself (as contrasted with defending my positions), but my historical analysis was designed to be academic, and neutral in part, and balanced in part, and not partisan. For but one example, if you'll kindly re-read, you'll note that I give credit where credit is due to Nixon/Kissinger and Reagan with the weakening and ultimate downfall of the Soviet Union, and point out that had Humphrey and Carter won in '68 and '80, the Soviet Union might still exist today. Yes, Virginia Bill, there are times when I'm wearing my partisan hat, but that post wasn't one of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #17 November 26, 2008 Yup - didn't read the whole Nixon argument. Agreed, Nixon was your top republican. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
