shah269 0 #1 January 9, 2012 Look hate to say it but thanks to little baby bush as it stands companies have more control over you lives than ever before. Be it your health to your ability to find and maintain a job. As it stands now the top 100 of the fortune 500 companies have more liquidity than all of the EU it is estimated that on any given day the 500 have more liquidity than the US. And before you scream "well we will just take their money!" you can't and even if you could they could at a blink of an eye just shoot it from one country to the next. And job creation! HA HA! Oh you poor pathetic soul! You think 9-5 jobs will be around in the next 5-10 years! Odds are a good portion of the population will be 1099ed and be living paycheck to paycheck as independent contractors! Oh you wanted to retire? You wanted a savings? You wanted.....a quality of life! Well I'm sorry.....the company doesn't think you deserve one. Look sit around and kick the horse shit all you want and call each other names and spin like you have never spun before.....but don't be a dumb ass, things are not going to change. Pandoras box is now open, companies now have the same unalienable rights as any one of us and as such....they have the right to vote and shape the political landscape. And unlike you and I they for a lack of a better word have infinite funds to spend. So stop pushing your blood pressure up for no apparent reason, not like your health insurance would cover any of your major illnesses. Just know full well that the future is not in your hands. And thanks to little baby bush......it will never ever be back in your hands.Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #2 January 9, 2012 QuoteDoes it really matter who you vote for? It depends: Legislation: If the president is Party X, and both houses of Congress are Party X, you'll see a lot of "X-ish" laws getting passed. That is all the more so if party X has a filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate. Lacking this, however, Party Y in Congress will have some success at keeping some of the President's X-ish agenda in check, either via parliamentary blockage, or by forcing compromise. Administrative regulations: i.e., regulations put out (and/or enforced - or not enforced) by agencies like the FTC, FCC, DEA, EEOC, etc. Such agencies regulate an awful lot of things that directly affect the lives of people and the affairs of businesses. They are also all part of the Executive branch, so the President's administration can have a great deal influence over what they do, and do not, do. Federal trial- and appellate-level judges, and the US Supreme Court: The President has a huge amount of influence over who gets on the bench, because all of these are appointed by the President (subject to confirmation by the Senate). All federal judicial appointments are for lifetime, so presidents can use this power to indirectly affect public law and policy for literally decades after they have left office. So if you care about who will be on the SCOTUS, it really does matter who you vote for, for president. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 620 #3 January 9, 2012 For POTUS? Not in the least. It's really sad how we're under the impression that it does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #4 January 9, 2012 QuoteFor POTUS? Not in the least. It's really sad how we're under the impression that it does. There's a huge difference in the SCOTUS justices appointed by Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes, versus those appointed by Clinton and Obama. I do think a President Gore would have gone after al-Quaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I seriously doubt he would have invaded Iraq. President McCain would still have us deeply involved in Iraq. Ironically, he might have had the guts to shut down Guantanamo by now, a promise Obama reneged on, to the deep chagrin of those who voted for him. On the other hand, in Justice Department policy re:, say, civil liberties, police powers, etc., I haven't seen a whit of difference since Obama took office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #5 January 9, 2012 Yep, it's all Bush's fault. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 620 #6 January 9, 2012 WHOOOOSH! "Re-elect Gore in '04" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #7 January 9, 2012 QuoteFor POTUS? Not in the least. It's really sad how we're under the impression that it does. I would take a step farther... For ANY OFFICE? Not in the least.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #8 January 9, 2012 QuoteFor POTUS? Not in the least. It's really sad how we're under the impression that it does. Amen brother! And the MOMENT the supreme court gave companies the same legal rights as citizens.....we fucked ourselves HARD! Now I hate to say it since it will start a shit storm but we really only don have one dumb ass to thank for this! Good old baby bush! And then our rudderless leader Obama failed to fix it quick and now...well kiss your future good bye! Really! I know you are not going to believe me since we as Americans are very optimistic but watch more and more people will no longer be hired full time. Expect a vast number of the population to be hired at 1099 contractors. The company exists for the in betterment of the company not the in betterment of its employees. As such they now wield more power than any political organization or party. Long and short of it we are FUCKED! So why give a rats ass about who gets elected. Neither party wants to change things and neither party has the ability to change things. And do you know what it takes to repeal a law once it's passed! I have a better chance of seeing Jesus bring pork chops to Mohameds BBQ than seeing companies rights reduced!Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #9 January 9, 2012 Quote Yep, it's all Bush's fault. Look hate to say it but other than the war in iraq...yeah this falls right on baby bush's feet. Remember who was president when the companies got more rights than you? YEAH....don't spin shit with me. I'm not one of those spineless gutless jellocrats.Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #10 January 9, 2012 QuoteAnd the MOMENT the supreme court gave companies the same legal rights as citizens.....we fucked ourselves HARD! Perfect illustration of my point! And the 5-justice majority that decided the case was Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts, each of whom were appointed by Republican presidents. Of the 4-justice minority, only Justice Stevens was appointed by a Republican, that was President Gerald Ford, who was not an ideologue, back in 1975, when appointing moderates to the SCOTUS was a lot more commonplace. Regardless of how one feels about the Citizens United decision, I guarantee you, had there been one more justice on the court that had been appointed by a Democrat, the decision would have gone the other way. And yet everyone keeps on repeating the same tired, old cliche. Whatever; I've made my point, and I've backed them up with plenty of details. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #11 January 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteAnd the MOMENT the supreme court gave companies the same legal rights as citizens.....we fucked ourselves HARD! Perfect illustration of my point! And the 5-justice majority that decided the case was Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts, each of whom were appointed by Republican presidents. Of the 4-justice minority, only Justice Stevens was appointed by a Republican, that was President Gerald Ford, who was not an ideologue, back in 1975, when appointing moderates to the SCOTUS was a lot more commonplace. Regardless of how one feels about the Citizens United decision, I guarantee you, had there been one more justice on the court that had been appointed by a Democrat, the decision would have gone the other way. And yet everyone keeps on repeating the same tired, old cliche. Whatever; I've made my point, and I've backed them up with plenty of details. My memory is a bit foggy but, wasn’t there a case, back in the 40's (or so), where the SC changed the legal status of a corporation ? If so, I would think the mess started way back then Do you know the case I am trying to rememeber?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #12 January 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteAnd the MOMENT the supreme court gave companies the same legal rights as citizens.....we fucked ourselves HARD! Perfect illustration of my point! And the 5-justice majority that decided the case was Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts, each of whom were appointed by Republican presidents. Of the 4-justice minority, only Justice Stevens was appointed by a Republican, that was President Gerald Ford, who was not an ideologue, back in 1975, when appointing moderates to the SCOTUS was a lot more commonplace. Regardless of how one feels about the Citizens United decision, I guarantee you, had there been one more justice on the court that had been appointed by a Democrat, the decision would have gone the other way. And yet everyone keeps on repeating the same tired, old cliche. Whatever; I've made my point, and I've backed them up with plenty of details. yah and as i said, after that nothing matters any more! Yeah vote all you want scream all you want....like that makes any changes! HA! We are F-U-C-K-E-D!Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #13 January 9, 2012 Why do you think McCain would have us deeply involved in Iraq? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #14 January 9, 2012 QuoteWhy do you think McCain would have us deeply involved in Iraq? Because McCain is more of a mission-oriented thinker than a deadline-oriented thinker. Obama subscribed to the school of thought that, after a period of time in Iraq, enough is enough, and one way or another, it would be time to leave. McCain as President would have been continuously assessing whether the US/UN mission in Iraq had been successfully accomplished. That's rather abstract, though, since the mission was subject to "mission creep", i.e., the constant re-defining of what the mission is. The logical result is that McCain's mission-oriented approach would very probably have extended the withdrawal farther down the time-line than Obama's time-oriented approach did. Put simply, Obama's approach was essentially to say "We're leaving because it's time to go", whereas a President McCain would likely have set the policy "We're leaving when the job is done"; and the latter approach would probably have taken take longer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #15 January 9, 2012 I think a lot has been made over McCains comments that we could be in Iraq for 100 years. I think he was referring to a presence much like we have in Korea, Japan, Germany etc. I do not think McCain envisioned a war for 100 years. I think he felt that withdrawing US troops before Iraq was capable of providing their own security was a big mistake. Only time will tell if he was correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #16 January 9, 2012 QuoteWhy do you think McCain would have us deeply involved in Iraq? YO SPIN MASTER FLEX....CUT IT OUT! Does this look like AM radio to you? Do i look dumb enough to even think that such POS spin would work? HELL NO!Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #17 January 9, 2012 QuoteI think [McCain] felt that withdrawing US troops before Iraq was capable of providing their own security was a big mistake. I think that's a fair way of describing his position. I doubt that McCain as president would have felt that was accomplished during his first term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #18 January 9, 2012 Quote Quote Why do you think McCain would have us deeply involved in Iraq? YO SPIN MASTER FLEX....CUT IT OUT! Does this look like AM radio to you? Do i look dumb enough to even think that such POS spin would work? HELL NO! What are you talking about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #19 January 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhy do you think McCain would have us deeply involved in Iraq? Because McCain is more of a mission-oriented thinker than a deadline-oriented thinker. Obama subscribed to the school of thought that, after a period of time in Iraq, enough is enough, and one way or another, it would be time to leave. McCain as President would have been continuously assessing whether the US/UN mission in Iraq had been successfully accomplished. That's rather abstract, though, since the mission was subject to "mission creep", i.e., the constant re-defining of what the mission is. The logical result is that McCain's mission-oriented approach would very probably have extended the withdrawal farther down the time-line than Obama's time-oriented approach did. Put simply, Obama's approach was essentially to say "We're leaving because it's time to go", whereas a President McCain would likely have set the policy "We're leaving when the job is done"; and the latter approach would probably have taken take longer. Disagree - McCain would have been bound by the SOFA Bush signed just like Obama was.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #20 January 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhy do you think McCain would have us deeply involved in Iraq? YO SPIN MASTER FLEX....CUT IT OUT! Does this look like AM radio to you? Do i look dumb enough to even think that such POS spin would work? HELL NO! Chill, Shah...you've doing more spinning than everyone else posting the thread.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #21 January 9, 2012 QuoteDisagree - McCain would have been bound by the SOFA Bush signed just like Obama was. Maybe, but maybe not. The SOFA was not a treaty formally ratified by the Senate under Article II of the Constitution (in fact, only a small minority of US international agreements treaties are of the "Senate-ratified treaty" version nowadays). Instead, the SOFA is more properly classified as either a Congressional-Executive Agreement, or a Sole-Executive Agreement. That alone gives a president some wiggle room to unilaterally breach or modify the terms of such an agreement. Additionally, in 1979 the Supreme Court declined to hear a case where Congress challenged President Carter's authority to unilaterally abrogate a defense treaty. The federal courts also declined to intervene to prevent President Bush from unilaterally withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty in 2002. The effect of all this is that if a President McCain decided that he wanted to act in conflict with the SOFA, there is some precedent that the federal courts would probably let him get away with it. Plus, I don't see McCain as the kind of guy who backs away from a fight (usually) when he feels strongly principled about something. Plus-plus, the SOFA applies principally to combat troops, not to troops technically classified as non-combat advisors. Which means that troops can be justified in being there if they're re-classified to non-combat designations. In December 2009, Secretary of Defense Gates predicted that the US would still have upwards of 10,000 "non-combat" troops in Iraq after December, 2011. So on this basis, I still think there's support for my "historical what-if" prediction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #22 January 9, 2012 Quote Chill, Shah...you've doing more spinning than everyone else posting the thread. I'm sorry but was this thread about Iraq? I think not! Typical GOPer...have 10 talking points...whenever a question comes up utilize said 10 talking points all other thoughts are immoral and un-American. I'm telling you the GOP needs to pack its stuff up and move to Iran where such BS actually floats! And leave us here to fix the mess they left behind...and while you are at it take the jellocrats with you! You need some dumb fuck to carry your bags for you! We now live in a society where massive corporations have human rights to treat the rest of us like shit and to expand their power without end.Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #23 January 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteDisagree - McCain would have been bound by the SOFA Bush signed just like Obama was. Maybe, but maybe not. The SOFA was not a treaty formally ratified by the Senate under Article II of the Constitution (in fact, only a small minority of US international agreements treaties are of the "Senate-ratified treaty" version nowadays). Instead, the SOFA is more properly classified as either a Congressional-Executive Agreement, or a Sole-Executive Agreement. That alone gives a president some wiggle room to unilaterally breach or modify the terms of such an agreement. Additionally, in 1979 the Supreme Court declined to hear a case where Congress challenged President Carter's authority to unilaterally abrogate a defense treaty. The federal courts also declined to intervene to prevent President Bush from unilaterally withdrawing the US from the ABM treaty in 2002. The effect of all this is that if a President McCain decided that he wanted to act in conflict with the SOFA, there is some precedent that the federal courts would probably let him get away with it. Plus, I don't see McCain as the kind of guy who backs away from a fight (usually) when he feels strongly principled about something. Plus-plus, the SOFA applies principally to combat troops, not to troops technically classified as non-combat advisors. Which means that troops can be justified in being there if they're re-classified to non-combat designations. In December 2009, Secretary of Defense Gates predicted that the US would still have upwards of 10,000 "non-combat" troops in Iraq after December, 2011. So on this basis, I still think there's support for my "historical what-if" prediction. All good points, but I think a "President McCain" would not touch the none-combat troop- advisor idea after his experience with Viet Nam. But as he is not the President, it is a neat to debate "what if". IMO the SOFA is the only reasons we are out. IMO, a personal agenda is the only reason we went in. Matt MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 January 9, 2012 QuoteQuote Chill, Shah...you've doing more spinning than everyone else posting the thread. I'm sorry but was this thread about Iraq? I think not! Typical GOPer...have 10 talking points...whenever a question comes up utilize said 10 talking points all other thoughts are immoral and un-American. Nice stereotype about Republican stereotypes you've got going on, there. Hypocrisy score: 10 QuoteI'm telling you the GOP needs to pack its stuff up and move to Iran where such BS actually floats! You first, seeing as 90% of the bullshit in the thread is in your posts. QuoteWe now live in a society where massive corporations have human rights to treat the rest of us like shit and to expand their power without end. Got any *proof* the CU decision gave them that power, Shah? Or is this more of your usual ranting without any basis in reality?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #25 January 9, 2012 Hey man I told you to take those gutless spineless jello crats with you! We have some work to do cleaning up the mess both sides made here. Now try and answer without utilizing any GOP talking points! Or spin! As for proof,,,,read any of the public disclosures as to how much liquid capital any of the major fortune 500 companies have. They own your ass!Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites