hwccdealer
hwccdealer
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 365
Joined: Jun 4, 2013
April 2nd, 2014 at 8:48:49 AM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Comparing two presidents in recent memory is like comapring the merits of dysentery vs cholera.



Ummm...two diseases people in the developed world no longer get? Of course, putting Obama in the White House to get over Bush is like drinking a gallon of Coke to cure a tapeworm.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 9:01:09 AM permalink
Quote: hwccdealer


As for NK...that's one thing I don't understand. Why in the blue hell does the US want NK to stick around? Wouldn't it make more sense to force the collapse, move American industry in to rebuild, and turn the country into the 51st state? (China notwithstanding, of course, but there's no reason they couldn't get in on the economics of rebuilding NK.)



I have talked about Iraq to death here and am not in the mood to repeat it today. But that is a fair question on NK, so here is why the actors do not want it to collapse:


1. NK does not want NK to collapse because it would cease to exist. Yes a "duh" but felt the need to put it first.

2. The USA does not want NK to collapse because if it did then the rationalle for US Troops in S Korea/Untied Korea/Korea is gone. If it is gone the USA must pull back to Japan, meaning China is that much less locked in place as it is now and requiring another amphibious invasion if China ever needed to be ejected.

It also means that Korea as a united country would be able to pose a threat to Japan, which is the key to Asia in a naval sense.

2. SK does not want NK to collapse because they do not want the same bill Germany got for reunification, a reunification that is just now really giving positive results. NK would be an even bigger bill and the people there are so sealeed off from the world you are talking 2 generations to really normalize the place. Easier to live well under threat of attack.

4. China does not want NK to collapse because the USA might decide to just not leave a united Korea and be at their doorstep with troops in hours if needed. A untited Korea becomes a not unignorable threat, and the Koreans have memories of the Chinese invasion. Long memories.

5. Russia is minimally involved, but they would rather have a weaker rather than stronger neighbor.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
FinsRule
FinsRule
  • Threads: 128
  • Posts: 3914
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 9:02:27 AM permalink
All I know is in 2016, when the Republican wins, I'll be genuinely rooting for him to do well. Because I don't care what party wins, I just want good for the country.
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 9:18:32 AM permalink
Quote: hwccdealer

Ummm...two diseases people in the developed world no longer get?



True, but they're also terrible and gross, take a lot ouf of you and leave you feeling misserable.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
LarryS
LarryS
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 1410
Joined: Feb 26, 2011
April 2nd, 2014 at 9:21:10 AM permalink
Is he smarter than other presidents?

It easy to see he is very smart

He was smart enough to get a healthcare plan passed knowing that if he told the truth about it up front ...it wouldnt have a chance.
Hilary and Bill couldnt get a similar plan passed...but they told the truth about it.He was smart enough to learn from their "mistake"

He was smart enough to realize that there are so many people now getting public assistance....that they are valuable voters and making the election a referendum of "have nots" verses " haves" was genious. After all why shouldnt the "have nots" get more of the "haves" money.

when it comes to implementing socialism and teaching the the philosophy to the masses.....he is very very smart.

He is the robin hood of presidents for sure.

and who doesnt like robin hood

yes our healthcare system and economy is going to be shot going fowrad.

but robin hood is so cool
hwccdealer
hwccdealer
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 365
Joined: Jun 4, 2013
April 2nd, 2014 at 10:17:35 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

1. NK does not want NK to collapse because it would cease to exist. Yes a "duh" but felt the need to put it first.



Yeah, globviously. But true nonetheless. The Kim family has an interest in the regime staying up because they're either dead, exiled, or before a war crimes tribunal or something if it doesn't.

Quote: AZDuffman

2. The USA does not want NK to collapse because if it did then the rationalle for US Troops in S Korea/Untied Korea/Korea is gone. If it is gone the USA must pull back to Japan, meaning China is that much less locked in place as it is now and requiring another amphibious invasion if China ever needed to be ejected.

It also means that Korea as a united country would be able to pose a threat to Japan, which is the key to Asia in a naval sense.



Not entirely sure about that...if the US wanted to shoehorn a reason for keeping troops in Korea, it could easily do so. After all, the US has troops in Germany to this day.

I'm also not sure how much of a threat, except economically, Korea is to Japan. Korea always considered itself a shrimp among whales. SK has an organized military, but in the event of a large-scale battle between SK and NK, it won't just come down to SK's military.

Quote: AZDuffman

2. SK does not want NK to collapse because they do not want the same bill Germany got for reunification, a reunification that is just now really giving positive results. NK would be an even bigger bill and the people there are so sealeed off from the world you are talking 2 generations to really normalize the place. Easier to live well under threat of attack.



From what I've read, NK refugees in SK are seen much the way we view Mexican folks crossing the border - yes, they're there, but too many of them is a problem while a handful of them is a propaganda tool. (That and NK women are seen as somewhat exotic.) I am also well aware that the only way to change the attitudes of NK residents is to go after the younger generations, just as the younger generations are changing American views on gay marriage and marijuana.

SK's made the best of their situation and done well with it. Of course, when it came to Germany, West Germany didn't force the fall of communism; it happened anyway. So like it or not, SK will have to roll with the punches if NK does collapse.

Quote: AZDuffman

4. China does not want NK to collapse because the USA might decide to just not leave a united Korea and be at their doorstep with troops in hours if needed. A untited Korea becomes a not unignorable threat, and the Koreans have memories of the Chinese invasion. Long memories.



China likes a buffer, yes. But a war between the US and China is either going to happen or not. And if NK collapses, China can either be paranoid about it or use economics to stave off military action. Looks like China benefits more than anyone outside NK from NK existing.

Quote: AZDuffman

5. Russia is minimally involved, but they would rather have a weaker rather than stronger neighbor.



Russia...not even sure if they're involved. Ever since the USSR collapsed, their interest seemed to go toward the eastern bloc. Also, given the presence of the US and China, Korea's probably pretty far down the list of concerns for them. If Russia went after Korea, it would cement Putin's status as a Bond villain moreso than as a world leader.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 10:38:36 AM permalink
Quote: hwccdealer


Not entirely sure about that...if the US wanted to shoehorn a reason for keeping troops in Korea, it could easily do so. After all, the US has troops in Germany to this day.

I'm also not sure how much of a threat, except economically, Korea is to Japan. Korea always considered itself a shrimp among whales. SK has an organized military, but in the event of a large-scale battle between SK and NK, it won't just come down to SK's military.



Germany is a member of NATO, S Korea is not. While we might be able to come up with a reason, we also might be asked to leave. The Germans like us there to keep them from starting another war, the S Koreans never started one so are not as worried.



Quote:

From what I've read, NK refugees in SK are seen much the way we view Mexican folks crossing the border - yes, they're there, but too many of them is a problem while a handful of them is a propaganda tool. (That and NK women are seen as somewhat exotic.) I am also well aware that the only way to change the attitudes of NK residents is to go after the younger generations, just as the younger generations are changing American views on gay marriage and marijuana.

SK's made the best of their situation and done well with it. Of course, when it came to Germany, West Germany didn't force the fall of communism; it happened anyway. So like it or not, SK will have to roll with the punches if NK does collapse.



I think there are very few refugees in SK and most come via China. SK would have to roll with the punches to use your term, but they would rather leave it for the next generation.


Quote:

China likes a buffer, yes. But a war between the US and China is either going to happen or not. And if NK collapses, China can either be paranoid about it or use economics to stave off military action. Looks like China benefits more than anyone outside NK from NK existing.



But my point is they want the biggest buffer they can have if it did happen. Paranoid nations survive. The USA has AK, HI, and Gitmo because we have been paranoid about keeping our buffers. Imagine how different the Cuban Missile Crisis would have ended had we not ejected Spain and eventually Spain let the USSR have their base? (assume no other Cuban history changes for sake of argument.)
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Zcore13
Zcore13
  • Threads: 41
  • Posts: 3808
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 11:02:18 AM permalink
I found this on the internet. It doesn't include Obama, but is pretty interesting.

"Below, I quote extensively from an article published in Political Psychology by Dean Keith Simonton. See
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00524.x

He used historiometric methods to assess IQ's. Here is a table of his results: Table 1. See the original paper for an explanation of the numbers here.

And here is an extensive quote from his discussion section:

"First, Bush is definitely intelligent. The IQ estimates range between 111.1 and 138.5, with an average around 125. That places him in the upper range of college graduates in raw intellect (Cronbach, 1960). Admittedly, this average is influenced by Cox's (1926) corrected scores, which may be overestimates. Yet even if we focus on just the uncorrected IQs, the range is between 111.1 and 128.5, with a mean around 120, which is about the average IQ for a college graduate in the United States. In addition, the figure is more than one standard deviation above the population mean, placing Bush in the upper 10% of the intelligence distribution (Storfer, 1990). These results endorse what has been claimed on the basis of his SAT scores and his Harvard MBA, namely, that his IQ most likely exceeds 115 (Immelman, 2001). He is certainly smart enough to be president of the United States (Simonton, 1985).

Second, Bush's IQ is below average relative to that subset of the U.S. citizens who also managed to work their way into the White House. In fact, his intellect falls near the bottom of the distribution. When compared with twentieth-century presidents from Theodore Roosevelt through Clinton, only Harding has a lower score (at least on three of the four estimates). A similar conclusion is suggested by the Intellectual Brilliance measure, albeit in this case there are now two twentieth-century presidents with lower scores, namely, Harding and Coolidge. Moreover, Bush's IQ falls about 20 points--more than one standard deviation--below that of his predecessor, Clinton, a disparity that may have created a contrast effect that made any intellectual weaknesses all the more salient. Clinton's intellectual attainments as a Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law School graduate, his demonstrated capacity for mastering impressive amounts of complex and detailed information, his verbal eloquence and fluency, and his logical adroitness and sophistication--at times, as during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, verging on sophistry--places Clinton head and shoulders above his successor in terms of intellectual power.

Needless to say, it can be argued that the Intellectual Brilliance and IQ estimates are biased downward. George W. Bush may be much smarter than Table 1 implies. The counterargument must aim at the score he received on Openness, a score that provided the only information for the imputation of his IQ and Intellectual Brilliance estimates. This score placed him at the very bottom of the distribution of U.S. presidents. Indeed, the score puts him toward the bottom of the general population as well. One reason to question this placement is that Rubenzer and Faschingbauer obtained Bush's NEO scores in a different manner than they did for the preceding presidents. As they expressed it, "We depart here from our usual method; rather than having biographers rate the president, the authors read biographies and then rated him. This was done for one simple reason: None of the few biographers available returned our questionnaires" (2004, p. 301). Although these assessments were supplemented somewhat by a last-minute questionnaire response received right before the book's publication they warned "Although we did eventually obtain three raters, greater caution is called for here in reading our results" (pp. 301-302). After all, "None of us have a deep knowledge of Mr. Bush comparable to the presidential experts that provided the other ratings" (p. 302). Thus, the authors themselves claim that their scores, including the Openness assessment, can only be considered tentative.

Even so, there are several reasons for suggesting that the numbers reported in last row of Table 1 are not unreasonable. To begin with, it is likely that his Openness score would not be higher than his father's whose score of 18.0 put his IQ estimates in the low end of the distribution as well. If anything, the son's score should be lower given that his intellectual curiosity appears to be noticeably more restricted than his father's. As one national correspondent for United Press International put it, "despite being the scion of an elite family with worldwide connections, Bush's hobbies appear limited to not much more than running, fishing and baseball" (Sailer, 2004, p. 2).""

Presidential IQ Chart


ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
hwccdealer
hwccdealer
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 365
Joined: Jun 4, 2013
April 2nd, 2014 at 11:15:55 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Germany is a member of NATO, S Korea is not. While we might be able to come up with a reason, we also might be asked to leave. The Germans like us there to keep them from starting another war, the S Koreans never started one so are not as worried.



The US has military forces in places that aren't NATO. If the US wanted an excuse to keep troops in Korea, they could find one, even if it's in a limited capacity. Honestly, I imagine that's what would happen - a limited number of troops in one or two places and possibly a lot of assistance cleaning up the DMZ.

Quote: AZDuffman

I think there are very few refugees in SK and most come via China. SK would have to roll with the punches to use your term, but they would rather leave it for the next generation.



The way I understand it, refugees from NK who want to go to SK go through China. There's no possible way to get to SK via NK that doesn't involve water or a trip through the aforementioned DMZ - which is way the hell too risky.

The gold mine for refugees is Mongolia, since the Mongolian government deports Koreans - to SK.

Quote: AZDuffman

But my point is they want the biggest buffer they can have if it did happen. Paranoid nations survive. The USA has AK, HI, and Gitmo because we have been paranoid about keeping our buffers. Imagine how different the Cuban Missile Crisis would have ended had we not ejected Spain and eventually Spain let the USSR have their base? (assume no other Cuban history changes for sake of argument.)



Of course, that could have gone clear in the other direction if the US decided to make Cuba a territory, too. Then the Cuban Missile Crisis doesn't happen at all, since most of the communist activity in Central America came much later.

Paranoid nations survive, but paranoid, CAREFUL nations survive. Paranoid nations that take unnecessary risks do not. If NK, for example, steps on the wrong toes, it ceases to exist. So if China's hand is forced, what is the careful thing to do? The correct answer is probably an uneasy economic and military peace, reminiscent of the Cold War with a lot more economic dependence. Keep this in mind - China's growth is due for a serious brushback. Its population is aging and its dependence on the US far exceeds American dependence on the Chinese. So as careful as the US has to be, China has to be that much more careful. Simply being paranoid won't cut it if NK collapses. It will take some political and economic ninja moves to secure the China-Korea border.
Mosca
Mosca
  • Threads: 191
  • Posts: 4140
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 11:39:39 AM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

Were you born after January 20th of 1981? Obama is not good, but I'd strongly argue that Carter (and Ford) was worse.



Agreed. I was born in '54.

My OPINION, best to worst:

Eisenhower
Johnson
Clinton
Bush I
Kennedy
Nixon
Obama
Reagan
Ford
Bush II
Carter

I put Nixon ahead of Obama. Thing is, Trickster was a damn good president in a lot of ways. He never forgot his roots. There was that criminal thing, sure, but I'm not judging that.

Carter was ineffectual during a time when both parties would have worked together to solve problems. He was a good man, but indecisive.

Eisenhower and Johnson are both underrated as presidents. My opinion is that both worked toward a better economic future for Americans, as well as a better society for all Americans.

Clinton and Bush I are great friends for a reason.

Had Kennedy governed another 5 years, he would have been either a savior or a disaster.

Obama hasn't had much to work with, but he hasn't done anything to help himself, either. He won both elections because most Americans see Republicans as The Sheriff of Nottingham.

I don't buy into the Reagan as savior bs. He did more to drive the country into the warring camps it is in now than any other president. All appearance, no delivery. Trickle-down was a lie. He started the Republican deficit spending boom.

Ford didn't ask for it, but did the best he could when handed it.

Bush II didn't live up to his promise to unite the left and right. Had he even tried, he would be near the top of this list.

Carter, already discussed.


That's it from this late middle aged moderate capitalist Democrat.
A falling knife has no handle.
hwccdealer
hwccdealer
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 365
Joined: Jun 4, 2013
April 2nd, 2014 at 11:56:21 AM permalink
Quote: Mosca

Had Kennedy governed another 5 years, he would have been either a savior or a disaster.



Kennedy wasn't going to govern for another five years. He had Addison's disease, and there's a good chance he would have passed by the end of a second term he probably would have gotten. It's entirely possible LBJ and RFK would have been the real voices of the presidency, although how they would have kept their feud to a dull roar is kind of tricky.

Quote: Mosca

Obama hasn't had much to work with, but he hasn't done anything to help himself, either. He won both elections because most Americans see Republicans as The Sheriff of Nottingham.



The Republican candidates for president in 2012 are a lot like the candidate list for the Cleveland Browns this past offseason - nobodies who won't get the job done. The only thing keeping the GOP relevant is FOX News and money.

Quote: Mosca

I don't buy into the Reagan as savior bs. He did more to drive the country into the warring camps it is in now than any other president. All appearance, no delivery. Trickle-down was a lie. He started the Republican deficit spending boom.



Exactly. Reagan was an actor and was an inspiring figure, nothing more. It was under his watch that organized labor became the enemy and selfishness began to rule. Granted, a lot of that was a culture shift, but Reagan's policies allowed it to happen.

Quote: Mosca

Ford didn't ask for it, but did the best he could when handed it.



America didn't ask for Ford, and Ford kind of got pushed in. He's the interim head coach of American presidents. No way to judge him.

Quote: Mosca

Bush II didn't live up to his promise to unite the left and right. Had he even tried, he would be near the top of this list.



I dunno...Bush II was way too careless and far from even being the inspiring figure Reagan was.
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
April 2nd, 2014 at 11:59:25 AM permalink
Quote: Mosca

Agreed. I was born in '54.

My OPINION, best to worst:

Eisenhower
Johnson
Clinton
Bush I
Kennedy
Nixon
Obama
Ford
Bush II
Carter

I put Nixon ahead of Obama. Thing is, Trickster was a damn good president in a lot of ways. He never forgot his roots. There was that criminal thing, sure, but I'm not judging that.

Carter was ineffectual during a time when both parties would have worked together to solve problems. He was a good man, but indecisive.

Eisenhower and Johnson are both underrated as presidents. My opinion is that both worked toward a better economic future for Americans, as well as a better society for all Americans.

Clinton and Bush I are great friends for a reason.

Had Kennedy governed another 5 years, he would have been either a savior or a disaster.

Obama hasn't had much to work with, but he hasn't done anything to help himself, either. He won both elections because most Americans see Republicans as The Sheriff of Nottingham.

Ford didn't ask for it, but did the best he could when handed it.

Bush II didn't live up to his promise to unite the left and right. Had he even tried, he would be near the top of this list.

Carter, already discussed.


That's it from this late middle aged moderate capitalist Democrat.



Interesting rankings, Mosca!

My OPINION would be, best to worst, Presidents in my lifetime (a few years younger than you, Nixon-era Republican, near-libertarian but moderate):

Clinton
Nixon
Obama
Johnson
Bush I
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Reagan
Ford
Carter
Bush II

Since I'm self-limited to lifetime in this particular list, I will say I don't think any of that list lives up to Truman or several other predecessors; Truman was the last truly great President IMO. People who I'd rather have seen in office: John Anderson (1980), Bob Dole (1996), John McCain (2000 edition), Jon Huntsman (2012). I do think Johnson is under-rated, and Eisenhower is about right-rated, generally; Reagan is over-rated, and Bush I under-rated in general. An awful lot of who those Presidents ended up being depended on who they trusted, which is a lot of my low rating for both Bush II and Carter.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
TerribleTom
TerribleTom
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 319
Joined: Feb 18, 2014
April 2nd, 2014 at 12:02:33 PM permalink
One of the few presidents I think I could have beaten at chess.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 12:13:52 PM permalink
Quote: Mosca



Had Kennedy governed another 5 years, he would have been either a savior or a disaster.



Put me in the "disaster" camp. He was either doing great (Cuban Missile) or Horrible (Bay of Pigs.) But a wild guess is Civil Rights push would have still fractured the Dems and allowed the Moon Shot to die as a price for party peace.

Quote:

Obama hasn't had much to work with, but he hasn't done anything to help himself, either. He won both elections because most Americans see Republicans as The Sheriff of Nottingham.



Obama fails to understand that most of the time the job of the top guy is to do little but react well to what does happen. When something did happen his team blamed a YouTube video. When things are quiet he tries to push the wrong things. All the time he never realizes his campaign is over and it is time to get to work.

I don't buy into the Reagan as savior bs. He did more to drive the country into the warring camps it is in now than any other president. All appearance, no delivery. Trickle-down was a lie. He started the Republican deficit spending boom.



I guess you missed the boom of the 1980s, an economy we would kill for today. Compare how we lived in 1980 vs 1989 in terms of comfort and you will see trickle-down was a huge success. No POTUS has inspired since him.

Quote:

Bush II didn't live up to his promise to unite the left and right. Had he even tried, he would be near the top of this list.



He tried, invited Dems over at first and even let Ted Kennedy have major input into NCLB. But the Dems wanted to spend the surplus and Bush wanted to return it to the people. Then 9/11 changed priorities.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
teliot
teliot
  • Threads: 43
  • Posts: 2871
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 12:14:21 PM permalink
Me (best to worst):

Johnson
Clinton
Obama
Kennedy
Eisenhower
Bush I
Reagan
Ford
Carter
Nixon
Bush II
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 12:21:24 PM permalink
Quote: hwccdealer



Paranoid nations survive, but paranoid, CAREFUL nations survive. Paranoid nations that take unnecessary risks do not. If NK, for example, steps on the wrong toes, it ceases to exist. So if China's hand is forced, what is the careful thing to do? The correct answer is probably an uneasy economic and military peace, reminiscent of the Cold War with a lot more economic dependence. Keep this in mind - China's growth is due for a serious brushback. Its population is aging and its dependence on the US far exceeds American dependence on the Chinese. So as careful as the US has to be, China has to be that much more careful. Simply being paranoid won't cut it if NK collapses. It will take some political and economic ninja moves to secure the China-Korea border.



China has major issues coming, and it is part of why I keep telling people the 2020s are going to be a very rough decade. China could even fracture to some of her parts.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
Zcore13
Zcore13
  • Threads: 41
  • Posts: 3808
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 12:30:15 PM permalink
I'm open minding and willing to give anyone their due for anything they accomplish, including a President I didn't vote for. I'm an Independent. But, I just can not see how anyone can list Obama in the top 10 of any list of all time Presidents. What has he done other than Obama Care, which it's too early to tell if it's going to be a winner or loser.

The IRS Scandal
Benghazi
The monitoring of phones of news reporters that appose him
Promising to close Guantanamo Bay
Terrible unemployment

These are all stains on his record. There are a lot of other smaller items like his promise to allow citizens to buy prescription drugs from other developed countries if they could be purchased cheaper than here and many other campaign promises.

Is he a horrible person? No. Would he be fun to shoot some baskets with? Probably. Is he a top 10 president of all time? No chance on earth.


ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 12:36:24 PM permalink
Dems say Bush II was stupid, GOPs say Obama is stupid. What else is new?

It's not really objective. Even when a president "appears" intelligent, someone will say that IQ tests doesn't matter because it's a "different type" of smart, especially if they are of an opposite political ilk.

My IQ might be rated at near-genius, but I tell you that I would make a lousy politician.

But don't give me the BS that Obama achieved nothing. He's POTUS. So was Bush. There have only been 44 presidents, and it's an amazing achievement.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
hwccdealer
hwccdealer
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 365
Joined: Jun 4, 2013
April 2nd, 2014 at 12:43:55 PM permalink
Quote: Zcore13

The IRS Scandal



I've read that they actually monitored liberal groups as closely, if not more closely, than conservative groups. If anything, it was something that got out of hand, triggered by and large by the fact that Obama seemed to pick some less-than-savory people to help him run things.

Quote: Zcore13

Benghazi



Clinton had the USS Cole and the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Bush had 9-frigging-11 and an utter failure to get bin Laden. Benghazi should barely be a blip on the radar.

Quote: Zcore13

The monitoring of phones of news reporters that appose him



This one...well, again, the NSA is out of hand, and Obama needs to do more about it than what he has done. Not sure how much is that he didn't want to and how much was that he couldn't.

Quote: Zcore13

Promising to close Guantanamo Bay



This was one he couldn't do.

Quote: Zcore13

Terrible unemployment



Again, he inherited a bad situation and has done some things to help but not as much as people would want. This was more a case of ridiculous expectations.
Zcore13
Zcore13
  • Threads: 41
  • Posts: 3808
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 12:54:33 PM permalink
I've recently wondered if the government is paying people (unemployment) why can't these people work for the money? Would 20 hours a week be too much to ask? There must be something all theses people could do? If they don't show up, no check. If they fail a drug test, no check.

ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 12:55:20 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo



But don't give me the BS that Obama achieved nothing. He's POTUS. So was Bush. There have only been 44 presidents, and it's an amazing achievement.



There have only been 43 POTUS.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 100
  • Posts: 14260
Joined: May 21, 2013
April 2nd, 2014 at 1:46:47 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

There have only been 43 POTUS.



Yeah, you're both right. G Cleveland counts twice because of one in between.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
  • Threads: 240
  • Posts: 13886
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 3:22:55 PM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

Yeah, you're both right. G Cleveland counts twice because of one in between.



Sadly you have to wonder how many people in the USA don't know that.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
hwccdealer
hwccdealer
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 365
Joined: Jun 4, 2013
April 2nd, 2014 at 5:04:07 PM permalink
Quote: Zcore13

I've recently wondered if the government is paying people (unemployment) why can't these people work for the money? Would 20 hours a week be too much to ask? There must be something all theses people could do? If they don't show up, no check. If they fail a drug test, no check.

ZCore13



Nice idea - if they can find appropriate work for people to do for the check. Of course, a lot of people would call it socialism, entitlement, etc. and it may be difficult to ram through Congress.

Also, as far as I am concerned, if people can do the work well enough while whacked out on drugs and they don't hurt anyone, far be it from me to deny them a check. It's partially about an opposition to the overblown War on Drugs and more about the idea of "if people can do it right, I don't argue with it."
Zcore13
Zcore13
  • Threads: 41
  • Posts: 3808
Joined: Nov 30, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 5:12:45 PM permalink
Quote: hwccdealer

Nice idea - if they can find appropriate work for people to do for the check. Of course, a lot of people would call it socialism, entitlement, etc. and it may be difficult to ram through Congress.

Also, as far as I am concerned, if people can do the work well enough while whacked out on drugs and they don't hurt anyone, far be it from me to deny them a check. It's partially about an opposition to the overblown War on Drugs and more about the idea of "if people can do it right, I don't argue with it."



I'm not sure what "appropriate" work would be. They are getting money from the Government, or more specifically, us taxpayers. Paint house numbers on curbs to make it easier for emergency services, clean trash along highways, pull weeds in medians, paint over graffiti, do maintenance/clean up at schools, help at animal shelters... the list can go on and on.

I don't see how it's socialism when we already pay them to do nothing. I think making them work a little (20 hours per week for a check) might give them more incentive to get job than they have right now.


ZCore13
I am an employee of a Casino. Former Table Games Director,, current Pit Supervisor. All the personal opinions I post are my own and do not represent the opinions of the Casino or Tribe that I work for.
hwccdealer
hwccdealer
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 365
Joined: Jun 4, 2013
April 2nd, 2014 at 5:35:34 PM permalink
Quote: Zcore13

I'm not sure what "appropriate" work would be. They are getting money from the Government, or more specifically, us taxpayers. Paint house numbers on curbs to make it easier for emergency services, clean trash along highways, pull weeds in medians, paint over graffiti, do maintenance/clean up at schools, help at animal shelters... the list can go on and on.

I don't see how it's socialism when we already pay them to do nothing. I think making them work a little (20 hours per week for a check) might give them more incentive to get job than they have right now.


ZCore13



"Appropriate" work would be enough work that the government is willing to pay for and that can be sustained. To be honest, what you describe sounds a bit like the Civilian Conservation Corps that FDR implemented, and it sounds like a solid idea. The trouble with it is this - if it's just something people do when they don't have work, it becomes stigmatized, and people start seeing it as something undesirable. The other extreme, of course, if forcing people into it when they lose their job, in which case it might as well be military service. What is the right balance between one stigma and the other? Turning it into a full-time education program that's part community service and part skills training and interviewing? That's a tricky balance to strike.
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
April 2nd, 2014 at 5:36:14 PM permalink
Quote: Zcore13


I don't see how it's socialism when we already pay them to do nothing. I think making them work a little (20 hours per week for a check) might give them more incentive to get job than they have right now.
ZCore13



Looks like classic marxism to me. Aren't you basically asking for the "From each according to his ability" part of Blanc's slogan?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
Nareed
Nareed
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
April 2nd, 2014 at 6:18:16 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

Looks like classic marxism to me.



I wouldn't go that far. But it's funny to see "free market capitalists" show such a misunderstanding of the free market, that they begin to advocate make-work jobs. And you should see how fast even basic understanding of the free market vanishes in the presence of a border.

Repeal welfare. Don't reform it.

PS How long until this thread causes a suspension? ;)
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
SFB
SFB
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 203
Joined: Dec 20, 2010
April 2nd, 2014 at 10:18:12 PM permalink
Quote: Zcore13

The IRS Scandal


Quote: hwccdealer

I've read that they actually monitored liberal groups as closely, if not more closely, than conservative groups. If anything, it was something that got out of hand, triggered by and large by the fact that Obama seemed to pick some less-than-savory people to help him run things.




Actually, This did get out of hand. Some of it had to do with the "surge" of applications after the Citizens United SCOTHUS ruling, but the they delayed so many Tea Party applications, that you wonder why? And when you go thru the lists of who was delayed, you have token liberal groups. ON the order of 2000 T/P groups and 15 liberal sounding groups.

99% of all Non-Profit applications are accepted. So, the delay they did on these 501C4's was planned. They could have approved a whole bunch and investigated a random sample. Its was a brave new world for these entities, and the IRS should look at some to find out how they worked. That is NOT what happened. They slowed them all down.

Lois Lerner taking the fifth is an appropriate action for her. One day Congress will give her immunity and then she will sing. Many might not like what she has to say, but really, it is NOT going to indicate a path to the administration directing the delay.

SFB
  • Jump to: