The "let's put everyone in Texas" talking point would be fine if it was not for the fact that people need to eat. Sure, you can fit millions of people in New York City, but you cannot feed them. All their food is imported from either upstate New York, somewhere else in America, or from some other country.
As for the the food production itself, you need an area that has a suitable climate and geographic features. Since 75% of the Earth's surface is water we can fish... but those resources are limited and becoming depleted[1].
About 33% of the world's land mass is desert once you add in tundra and dry cold regions to go along with the typical sand covered desert[2]. Those areas are useless when it comes to farming but the problem is that if we over farm the areas that are suitable then they too become deserts... and they are growing at an alarming rate.
There is also the problem of deforestation because you can't farm in an area covered in trees. The problem with this is that you can only cut down some many trees before the lack of oxygen starts to take effect and diversity of life becomes a mess.
1. http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/
You want to slow down the game even more? It's already bad enough that there is instant replay that takes ten minutes on a home run that clearly had enough distance. Since base running has way more close calls then home runs we would be watching nothing but replays all day.
The problem is not with the idea of down voting, but rather how cowards down vote without responding.
By downvoting an argument what you are basically doing is saying that the person's argument is a load of shit. By not responding you are saying that the person's argument is a load of shit but you're too much of an idiot to say why.
No, the federal government has no authority to tell private citizens what to do with their waste. If the states wish to act nanny-like then that is their businesses, but I'd prefer if neither state or federal government forced people to recycle.
I'm rather indifferent. Checking the immigration status of someone who just got arrested sounds like a pretty good idea... arresting people just so you can check their immigration status not so much. I'd prefer more open boarders and the elimination of the minimum wage to combat illegal immigration.
As for Arizona, they gave Congress the opportunity to fix the immigration laws and the feds the opportunity to increase border security. Neither happened so they stepped in and put forth their own law.
Those on the left don't like it? Too fucking bad, you failed and the consequence is the new law is something that you don't like. After hearing the bitching and whining from the left about how Bush did nothing about health care and therefore it is okay for Obama to ignore conservatives when it comes to reform I have no sympathy for those are pissed about this law. They can whine all they want, but Arizona supports this law just like the rest of this country, so it doesn't look like it will being going away.
At schools, I have noticed the "non-social-goth-metalheads-bad ass" population is going extinct, and they are becoming an somewhat of an endangered species.
I wouldn't say they are going extinct, they are just becoming pussified. They have gone from listening from actual metal bands, to listening to rock that pretends to be metal, to rock that has rap in it, to whiny emo shit.
What ever happened to the guys and gals who listened to My Chemical Romance, Black Sabbath, and all those other bands in the back of the playground?
They must have realized that My Chemical Romance is for pussies.
They are the coolest! I remember being in the back of the playground listening to Disturbed while all the other kids just ran around doing their thing.
I remember Disturbed being listened to by the fat, smelly kids who thought they were bad ass but never did anything.
The bad asses were the ones who would do anything if you paid them a buck, remember?
The bad asses were the ones who did whatever the fuck they wanted and did not care what the consequences were. You did not have to pay them or even tell them to do for that matter because they were already doing it regardless of whether you approved or not. The ones who took payment to do something stupid were just attention whores.
They also were all anti-maintstream. Twilight, Kanye West, Miley Cirus, they loathed all of them.
I wouldn't say that they were anti-mainstream, they just happened to hate most things that were mainstream. They hated something because they did not like it, whether it was mainstream or not had no effect on their liking. The difference is that today there are kids who hate everything mainstream just because it is popular because they think that the whole "counter culture" apparel is cool(it's not).
Usually, it is quite obvious. If anybody writes a conservative or a religious argument (even on a conservative or a religious debate), they will be down-voted by those who disagree.
That's not true for religious debates. I'm an Agnostic and my arguments go up and down during religious debates. I've had one argument that has been up voted 8 times and down voted 4 times. So Conservatives do down vote.
For economic and foreign policy topics it is rather clear that the lefties are the ones doing the down voting.
In an ironic twist, the conservatives and the religious folks rarely bother to down-vote opposing viewpoints.
Joe and Jake used to be famous for downvoting arguments and they were the main conservatives a year ago.
But there does seem to be a coalition of lefties who are constantly up voting their friends' arguments and down voting the ones they disagree.
The "you need to stop spamming " talk. I remember having this discussion when I caught you giving one sentence responses to debates that had not seen activity in 100+ days. You have also received criticism for clogging up the the topics page with debates... would you like a list?
I have not down voted an argument in about 200 days, it seems rather pointless and makes you look like a prick.
As for the arguments I have down voted, a lot of them were against people who down vote my arguments without responding. So it was basically a reaction down vote. A few were because I thought the argument had more up votes then it deserved and I was too lazy to respond. The rest were against people who I hated with a passion and always traded down votes just for the hell of it.
As for whether down voting without responding is justified it depends on what the argument is. If the argument has no intellectual value or the person is just going out of their way to troll then I see no problem in down voting the argument. I remember last year when some prick wrote that Hitler was not as evil as Truman I down voted him because such stupid comments do not deserve responses.
If it is a well thought out argument then it should not be down voted at all even if you do reply. Just people a person has a different view then you do does not mean that their view is any less correct.
1. People need to learn how put all their thoughts and talking points into a simple post... quit making multiple one sentence posts in the same debate, it's getting obvious who the point whores are.
2. People need to stop up voting every argument that they agree with. Some of the posts here look like they were written by someone in second grade and should never even get one up vote much less three.
3. People need to stop making topics about Terminator, it's getting creepy.
4. Terminator, settle down with the debate creations. We have had this topic come up multiple times and the spam is still annoying.
To call them "Ultra Left Wing Propaganda" is taking it a bit too far. Overall they favor the left, but at least they don't worship them.
Fox worships Conservatives, ABC basically runs whatever the White House tells them to run, and MSNBC sucks Obama's cock. So, when it comes to being balanced CNN wins... pretty much by default seeing as they are the only station that at least tries to be nonpartisan, they rest are unapologetically biased.
Jules(Samuel Jackson) from Pulp Fiction: There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you. I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, that meant your ass. I never game much thought to what it meant. I just thought it was a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker before I popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some shit this mornin' made me think twice. See, now I'm thinkin': maybe it means you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. And I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.
With respect to a free market, we create an environment where fitness is measured by a business's ability to make a profit. This can be called the primary selection pressure. Because concepts like fair working conditions, workers' rights, human rights violations, government entanglement, and the environment are all auxiliary it must therefore come to pass that the most fit businesses will be those that can turn a profit most efficiently
The problem I have with this natural selection analogy is that it assumes that the top predator in the food chain is untouchable. The Constitution grants the freedom of speech and assembly that allow for unions that represent the workers to have a say in what goes on. So, companies can abuse their workers to get a few extra dollars but they will end up losing money overall because a destructive union will cost money for lack of productivity and loss of PR.
This is why a free market must always lead to exploitation of workers, consumer abuses, and government entanglements. It can all happen, and it leads to a more efficient business.
The free market has the ability to correct consumer abuses. Take Toyota for example, the government regulations failed when it came to keeping them in check but once the brake issue occurred people turned their backs on Toyota. Sales dropped and that forced Toyota to fix their problem because they knew that as long as they produced faulty vehicles nobody would buy them and the invisible hand would end them.
As for government entanglements assisting favored businesses, that's corporatism. In a society run by Libertarians the government would not be assisting companies or pass preferential treatment.
The point is about rent seeking and government entanglement with wealthy businessmen who effectively buy laws with extensive lobbying and public opinion making efforts, reverting our democracy into a state that resembles the days of old when the wealthy made the laws and the little man had no say (which democracy was supposed to counteract).
That's corporatism.
I'm for Abortion and the Death Penalty, which they tend to generally be against
Abortion is an issue that they are divided on, but from what I've read they tend to be pro-abortion.
In general, the political party that I correspond with the most would be the Libertarian party.
I'd agree with that.
Seeing as I'm one of the site's Libertarians I suppose I ought to five my two cents.
The term 'free market' is really a euphemism. What the far right actually means by this term is 'lawless market.' In a lawless market, entrepreneurs can get away with privatizing the benefits of the market (profits), while socializing its costs (like pollution).
There is a huge difference between anarchy and libertarianism. Libertarians get annoyed when the government tries to come in and tell people what to do with their business, but ultimately realize that some regulations are required. I don't mind the government making rules that require people to not be allowed to dump garbage wherever they want. However, some of these regulations are just over the top and those are the ones that we oppose.
There is no such thing as a free economy just like there is no such thing as a completely socialized economy. It's more of a line and Libertarians just happen to be closer to the free side then Democrats and Republicans do.
Uncomfortable with the concept of a lawless market? The far right will try to reassure you with claims that the market can produce its own laws, either as a commodity bought and sold on the market, or through natural market mechanisms like the "invisible hand" or the Coase theorem.
Comments like these make we wonder if those on the left have even bothered to read a book on economics. Businesses if left alone will devour each other because each of them is led by a greedy ass hole who will stop at nothing to be number one. Competition will lead to a decrease in prices and the invisible hand will have no problem removing companies that fail to produce in an efficient manner. Anyone who is unable to understand these basic principles of economics is a dumb ass.
But it is interesting to note that even if the entrepreneurs don't take the more likely shortcut of creating their own state, this type of law removes the creation of law from democratic legislatures and gives it to authoritarian business owners and landlords.
You mean to tell me that in a free market system the owners of businesses and landlords will be deciding what they do with their businesses instead of having the government run everything? It amuses me how socialists bitch and moan about there being no democracy in businesses and yet fail to realize that elected officials can only do so much before they pass on their responsibilities to some bureaucracy that is neither elected or held accountable for its failures.
And since you get what you pay for, "purchased law" will primarily benefit its purchasers. Society might as well return to aristocracy directly.
Steve Kangas
Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty then any other economic system and is a lot less likely to cause a country to become a dictatorship... and yet this dumb ass is for some reason a socialist, which has been known to not only led to totalitarian regimes but ultimately it's not even a good system for generating wealth for the individual despite its intentions.
I think this is a good discussion topic because in American politics the libertarian party and its candidates have often been fringe despite sharing values with many Americans.
The party itself is full of people who are rather reasonable, it's the media that gives them a bad name. The problem this country has is that the national media does not report news but instead promotes party propaganda. We are in a perpetual battle between Democrats and Republicans and even though the American people hate both they don't have another option to vote for. By allowing a third parties such as the Green, Constitution, Libertarian, etc. involved in the law making process this opens the door for competition that would cause the two major parties to actually get their shit together if they want to remain in power. The owners of both parties don't want that because then they would have to spend all the extra resources buying off other parties and because of that they just use their "media" to make them seem psychotic in order to discredit them.
If the party ever could gain full momentum, it could really change the political landscape since they tend to oppose government regulation so much, and America has so much of it right now.
With the rise of the internet I can see them becoming more popular. Ron Paul is mostly a Libertarian and he got more support from the internet then any other candidate. There also seems to be a higher percentage of Libertarians on the internet then the 2% that votes for the Libertarian candidate in the presidential elections.
Last time I checked that guy that tried to bomb Times Square was read his Miranda Rights, so that argue is pointless.
They are trying to take those away and Obama has continued the same privacy violations that the Bush administration was accused of.
He has a huge majority but 59 votes isn't enough to pass legislation, you need 60 votes to have a true "majority," and true, the Republicans aren't being very helpful, in fact, their no help at all.
Just because he cannot pass any new laws does not mean he cannot enforce the ones that are already on the book. These new regulations that he wants passed in the name of market security is just some bull shit excuse to get more power, if he wants to prevent another collapse then he needs to spend more time enforcing already existing laws rather than dream up new ones.
Because Bush didn't do the exact same thing with Katrina right?
He did, that's why it is on my list of ways Obama = Bush.
Atleast he's trying to fix the economy, all Bush did was sit around and let it collapse.
Actually, Bush was the one who passed the first bail outs and in 2003 he tried to regulate Fanny and Freddie but the Democrats blocked him.
By who? Some 12 year old you were chatting with on the internet?
To name a few:
1. The Black Caucus and Al Sharpton went on tv and lied by saying they were called racial slurs during the final health care vote even though no such comments appeared on any of the hundreds of recording devices at the event.
2. When a black man showed up with an assault rifle at a Tea Party MSNBC decided to crop out his body so the audience could not tell that the guy was black and thus assume he was white. Contessa Brewer then went into "hypotheticals" about how the man might have been angered by having a black president.
3. Apparently you did not see Keith Olbermann interview with Janeane Garofalo.
4. Bill Maher has called them racist on his show.
5. Just about every single article and post on Huffington... though there is a good chance that they were written by some 12 year old.
Do you have any idea what the consequences were to society in this country of following the idiotic recommendation you just put forward?
Do you have any idea that by making such comments like these you don't sound witty or intelligent but instead smug and condescending?
As for the consequences, while there were businesses who were pro segregation what really hurt the blacks were the Jim Crow laws passed by states in the south that forced businesses to segregate. Get rid of those laws and the smart business owners would have realized that there was a huge profit to make off of blacks and eventually the pro-segregation businesses would either die out or would just become the hang out place for klan members, which might not be so bad seeing as if they are all hanging out in one place that means the rest of us would not have to put up with them so much.
Let's see.. yeah, I totally remember when the GOP were opposing health care reform and the Democrats called them racist.
Or when the GOP was opposing financial reform and the Democrats called the racist.
Oh! And when they were opposing the stimulus and Democrats called them racist!!
Seriously? They were called racist during all of those. Their logic was that since Obama supports those things and Obama is black, therefore anyone who does not support what Obama supports is simply upset about having a black man in office.
But I do remember when Rand Paul shot his dumb mouth off about the Civil Rights Act and danced around saying businesses should be prevented from practicing racial discrimination
He is correct, the government should not be telling private businesses who they should serve. If a Jew wants to refuse service to a Nazi then the ought to be able to refuse service. If a black person wants to deny a kkk member service then they ought to be allowed to deny service. If a black club wants to be black only then they ought to be allowed to be black only. If a white person wants to only serve white people then it is morally corrupt, but that is still their right.
I like Sulith, his trolling amuses me.
He is not irrational like either the atheists on here or the religious people on here.
Christians think that the Bible is the word of God and believe in it. The Bible talks about unicorns, the moon being a light, and a guy surviving inside of a giant fish.
So how is not believing in the Bible irrational?
Liberalism is a mask to hide totalitarianism and it the name will be discarded once people grow tired of it.
Liberalism was originally what Libertarianism is today.
The definition has become the exact opposite of what it originally meant when it comes to economic terms. If you were to ask a modern day liberal what they think about how the economy should be run they will say that they want the government to regulate it and some will even say they want the government to control it. Yet, economic liberalism is actually another term for laissez-faire economics[1].
Today's liberalism still has some ties to original liberalism when it comes to social issues but positions about affirmative action, tobacco regulation, social security, environmentalism, gender politics, and race politics are different.
I happen to think he's doing awsome, even if one disagrees, this hatred cannot possibly be based in reality.
Because everyone who disagrees with you must not be involved in reality...
As for your list of "accomplishments" it was rather clever of you to use a link to another forums and by doing so hiding the fact that the list is from DailyKos.
I wish I could color code stuff, but bold will represent things that are nothing special or would have most likely been done by McCain and italics will represent something that should not be the government's job or something that is not even an accomplishment.
1. Taxes are the main gripe of all those fat pasty Tea Party weirdos. Yet this very year is the least taxes Americans have paid then at any time during the Bush administration. Where were these lard asses when there was a white guy in office?
Cutting taxes is something that just about any leader would do in a recession, its the future tax hikes to cancel out the huge deficits that people are pissed about.
2. Spending has actually been cut, and everyone conveniently ignored that Obama finally ended the f-22 program which Presidents have been trying to elimante but couldn't because they were not cool enough since Bush Sr. In fact Obama has passed 60% of cuts, much more than Bush Jr. - hence actually shrinking the size of government.
$82.69 billion dollar deficits this April, though it is nice to see the military industrial complex get a kick in the balls.
3. Every nation that has ever passed a Healthcare plan similar to the one Obama passed was happy for it and held that residing government in great esteem in subsequent generations. This will be no different. If nothing else he has already assured his spot in world history as a great American President for this alone despite knee-jerk "there's a monster in your closet" reaction from the perpetually scared right.
I'm sure the free-riders in this country will love it and those who realize that we have no way to pay for it will hate.
4. Due to the stimulus package, the economy is improving. Here is a jobs chart link And that is actually off, we actually gained 200,000 jobs in January the most recent numbers indicate.
Keynesian economics: Fix something in the short run only to see it fail even more in the long run.
5. We are leaving Iraq, and we are doing better in Afghanistan since Obama took office now that we are actually concentrating on the terrorists responsible for 911 instead of chasing Cheyene's oil interests.
I oppose the war, but I'll give him credit for recent success.
And here's a list of things Obama has done, some may not agree with everything, but at least he isn't at Camp David or reading to Kindergartners on the tax payer's dime:
1.Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending
Trying to make agencies more efficient is not a new concept.
1.Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices
See above.
1.Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women
I'll give him credit... though if women are to except maternity leave then they ought to expect lesser pay.
1.Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
Good.
1.Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB
McCain would have likely done something similar.
1.Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information
Seeing as every tv station not named Fox is in the tank for him this is not much of accomplishment.
1.Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier's family
Good.
1.The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act
Until what goes on behind closed doors with the Federal Reserve and Obama's negotiations with Unions and Democrats this is not much of an accomplishment.
1.Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible
Really? They are counting this as an accomplishment?
1.Limits on lobbyist's access to the White House
I like this one.
1.Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration
There are still loop holes but if this policy works I'll give him credit.
1.Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date
McCain might have done something like this, but I'll give Obama credit.
1.Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan
1.Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research
1.Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research
I don't mind stem-cell research, but tax payers should not pay for it.
1.New federal funding for science and research labs
Not their job to do so.
1.States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards
I would respect this if he had a consistent record as to what the states are allowed to.
1.Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect
1.Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools
Not government's job.
1.New funds for school construction
Not government's job, the schools still suck anyways.
1.The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out
This one is just fucking retarded and is nothing more then a PR move. If he wants to change the prison's policies then that is one thing, but closing down a prison only to send the prisoners elsewhere is just stupid.
1.US Auto industry rescue plan
Propping up failing companies is not an accomplishment.
1.Housing rescue plan
He still needs to fix Fannie and Freddie.
1.$789 billion economic stimulus plan
The tax cut parts were good, the rest not so much.
1.The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying
1.US financial and banking rescue plan
Not government's job.
1.The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed
Good.
1.Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards
Good
1.Better body armor is now being provided to our troops
McCain would have done the same.
1.The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010
Good.
1.Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols
New policy with new president, nothing special.
1.Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic
Protect it from what?
1.Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions
More bull shit regulations from self righteous environmentalists.
1.Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office
And now they like us more... so what?
1.Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job
Do you really think that a Republican would have hesitated to have the SEALS do their job?
1.US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast
Do you really think that a Republican would have hesitated to increased military presence?
1.Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles
Preferential treatment to his environmental followers is not an accomplishment.
1.Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales
Not the government's job, no way to pay for the program, Japan automakers love us now.
1.Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government
1.Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children
Not government's job.
1.Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program
Not government's job.
1.Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones
He could just lift the ban on Cuba altogether seeing as it hurts the Cuban people more then it hurts their government.
1.Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions
Not government's job.
1.Expanding vaccination programs
And wasting millions in the process on unused vaccines.
1.Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters
MSNBC was criticizing the government for not doing anything, enforcing something like this after you are chewed out is not an accomplishment.
1.Closed offshore tax safe havens
Good.
1.Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals
Good.
1.Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back
Good.
1.Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry's predatory practices
Good.
1.Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources
Not government's job.
1.Lower drug costs for seniors
Not government's job.
1.Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings
Good
1.Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel
McCain would have done something similar.
1.Improved housing for military personnel
McCain would have done something similar.
1.Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses
McCain would have done something similar.
1.Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals
McCain would have done something similar.
1.Increasing student loans
Not government's job, not only that but they have failed to address growing tuition costs which negates the benefits of increasing loans.
1.Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program
Ehhh, sure, I like this one.
1.Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy
Good
1.Established a new cyber security office
And now he wants the government to be able to take control of the internet in case of "emergency".
1.Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.
New president, new policy.
1.Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts
Good
1.Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness
Sounds like something any president would do.
1.Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient
1.Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced
Not government's job, if they really gave a shit then they would have fixed the problem of the rising costs of college, but seeing as the left is in love with academia I doubt that will happen.
1.Improving benefits for veterans
McCain.
1.Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration
Narcissism is not an accomplishment.
1.Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud
Good.
1.The FDA is now regulating tobacco
Increasing the role of the nanny state is not an accomplishment.
1.Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules
Increasing the role of the nanny state is not an accomplishment.
1.Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports
Good.
1.Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons
The reporters were not worth the costs.
1.Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive
Not worth the costs.
1.Making more loans available to small businesses
1.Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare
Good.
1.Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court
I thought race did not matter to the left? Anyways, he appointed some bitch that he knew would agree with him on most issues, that is not an accomplishment that is politicizing the court, though that is nothing new.
1.Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans
McCain.
1.Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000
They should be making a lot less.
1.Renewed loan guarantees for Israel
Fuck Israel.
1.Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan
New president, new policy.
1.Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan
McCain.
1.New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans
New president, new policy, but since this a really good policy I'll give him credit.
1.Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production
1.Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and
private living quarters
PR move.
1.Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket
Really? Kos included this with accomplishments.
1.Held first Seder in White House
He threw a Jewish party? That's an accomplishment?
1.Attempting to reform the nation's healthcare system which is the most expensive in the world yet leaves almost 50 million without health insurance and millions more under insured
Already listed.
1.Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform
States are passing their own laws because they are tired of inaction at federal level.
1.Has announced his intention to push for energy reform
I wasn't aware that simply announcing a plan was an accomplishment. And since this is the Kos what they mean by "reform" is cap and trade that will cause electricity costs to sky rocket while at the same time allowing large companies to continue to pollute as long as they are willing to buy credits.
1.Has announced his intention to push for education reform
I wasn't aware that simply announcing a plan was an accomplishment.
Conservatives have religion as means of propaganda, but the problem with religion is it places moral standards that are too great on individuals who are anything put moral beings.
Lefties on the other hand have the self-righteous "good of the people" stance that allows them to criticize conservatives despite the fact that they don't follow their own rules.
As for who has the better propaganda I will give the point to the left. When a conservative steps out of line and cheats on wife, is gay, or makes a politically incorrect statement they get hammered not only from the left but from other conservatives.
On the flip side when a leftest cheats their taxes, makes a racist statement, or makes a politically incorrect statement their entire base not only fails to penalize them but actually tries to justify their action like it was no big deal.
I'm not really sure why those on the right don't love the man, his arrogance and condescending attitude will lead to the Republicans having huge gains in November... and the funny thing is that Obama is really not much different then the Republicans that hate him. Sure, he got his health care bill passed, but other then that what has he done that was so different then Bush?
War in the Middle East? He is pulling the troops out of Iraq, but only to have increased activity in Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and soon to be Iran.
Patriot Act? Check, still there and growing strong.
Turning his back to those accused of being terrorists?" Check, adios to Miranda Rights.
Jumping through obstacles and use of bullying to get unpopular legislation passed? Check. Though the Republicans have not exactly been helpful.
Allowing Wall Street to do whatever the fuck they want? Check. This one falls more on Congress, but seeing as he has a huge majority he does not have much of an excuse.
Allowing the Federal Reserve to do whatever the fuck they want? Check. He's not even sorry about this one.
Allowing big banks to do whatever the fuck they want? Check, this one may see some action though.
Allowing giant corporations deemed "too big to fail" do whatever the fuck they want? Check.
Watch as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fail? Check, only a matter of time before they get a bailout.
Bailout failing entities? Check. This time we have gone from bailing out banks to bailing out countries.
Backroom deals hidden from the public? Check.
Criticize the public for the same mistakes that he commits?" Check, telling people to be tolerant of different views in the media while declaring the Tea Party Movement to be "Teabaggers" does not send the best message.
Holding a party while states are experiencing extreme natural disasters?" Check, but at least he was able to get some good stand up comedy done.
Offshore drilling?" Check, he might want to rethink this compromise over.
Go against gay marriage?" Che... never mind, he was never for it.
Have no sense of fiscal responsibility? I'm not not sure if I should even count this one because was there even any hope of this happening?
Continue war on drugs? Check, but I'll give him credit for some innovation when it comes to fighting the war.
Pretend to be for safe boarders while at the same time doing nothing to protect them? Check.
Promote environmentalism while at the same time failing to get some real legislation done? Check, I'm aware that Cap and Trade is still technically alive, but seeing as it is pretty much dead and watered down I think it might be safe to consider this a failure.
Granted, some of these points might be a bit weak and I'm well aware that he has been able to get some leftest bills passed that have not gotten much coverage. But honestly, will the rest of his term really matter? It's become rather clear that the majorities that the Dems hold in Congress are going to be widdled down if not flat out erased come November, so any major legislation that he wants to get passed will have to be done right now. He has Congress busy with the Wall Street "reform" bill, but that thing is getting wattered down to the point where it is looking more like a PR stunt rather than actual legislation.
There is always the possibility of Obama becoming more pragmatic with the Republicans during the second half of his term like Clinton was in the 90's, but what's the point? They have already shown that they would rather see him fail in order for their own political gain instead of attempting bipartisanship.
how can you know god exists when you are missing components from your brain
There is no evidence in favor or God and no evidence against him. To imply that there is or is not a God is foolish seeing as such a statement would require knowledge that nobody has.
If that's all you got then I'm going to say he is not a socialist. Don't get me wrong, he is a dumb ass, a hypocrite, and ultimately a disgrace to America... but he is not a socialist. He nationalized car companies, but that was only because they ASKED for the bailouts. It would be one thing if he decided to start taking over productive businesses, but so far he has only taken over failing companies that willingly accepted aid from the government.
With the new health care bill, Medicaid is expanding to some additional 15-20 million people adding up to 500 billion dollars.
While this expands the role of government it does not exactly mean socialism. He really wants health care to be nationalized, but for now all he can do is settle for a Trojan horse like approach where he will force insurance companies to go out of business, but until he actually takes over the system that idea is too much of a conspiracy theory to be considered a reason for calling him a socialist.
Obama wants to raise taxes for Social Security
It's a failing program, he really does not have a choice on this one.
We already have some socialist programs (welfare, education, libraries, fire departments, etc.)
You're coming apples to oranges, there is a huge difference between majoritarian politics and client politics. With libraries, police stations, fire stations, and parks mostly everyone pays into the system and everyone receives the benefits. If I pay taxes to fund a park then I get to go to that park, if I pay taxes to the fire station then they come to my aid when my house is one fire, and if I pay taxes to fund the police then the benefit I receive is protection. These services are run by the government because they could not make profit on their own and the reason they exist is because everyone wants them to.
Education and medical services on the other hand are an example of client politics. Everyone pays for them, yet only a certain group of people and that makes them completely different from those services mentioned above. By forcing these kind of programs on the American people the government is acting like a self-righteous bully who wishes to steal money from its citizens in order to give a service to someone else... often times for political gains.
IMO we've gone too far to the right on this question. I mean, trying to privatize public education and social security! Come on! That is purely an effort to make already really rich people even richer. Privatization of social programs is almost always a bad idea.
Public education in America has been a failure. Those who live in the inner cities are forced to go to some shitty school and without choice there will be no competition to make that school better. Social Security is broke and yet will owe people trillions of dollars that the government does not have... it's a failure.
Christianity preaches about helping people by choice, not by force... that would tyranny. Christians do help each other out via mission work, soup kitchens, hospitals, etc. and when the government comes in and raises their taxes they are less able to donate to those charities because all their money is going to some incompetent bureaucrat instead.
Want to know who else wrote a few books? Clive Staples Lewis, that's who!!! With his preaching in the Chronicles of Narnia he has opened my eyes to what faith really means!
There is only one true religion and one single purpose in life... to exist FOR NARNIA!
C-SPAN: great interviews and since people call in you can't accuse the station itself of being biased.
Wall Street Journal: They know economics even if their opinion section is biased towards conservatives.
Schiff Report: The guy predicted the economic disaster as early as 2004 and knows a lot about the market.
You made some good points, but I'm a true believer in Narnia. I read once in a book that it is possible to travel to an enchanted land via wardrobe. It was in a book and therefor cannot be wrong.
A small lesson 4 the atheists and agnostics, christian from islam even though u r prejudice!?
Are you trying to sound like a dumb ass?
You can only debate the same thing so many times before it gets boring. Abortion, religion, gay rights, drugs, politics, etc. have already been debated to the point where there is really nothing more to be said about them and the result is that people try to act creative and make up fun debates.
No, they are too simple to get around so the effect would be limited.
Rather then just ban the kids I would like to see a rule that makes it so where you can only downvote arguments once you reach a certain amount of points. That way the kids who come here for school projects and only stay for a week cannot simply downvote with no explanation and never return again.
Errr, just about every social issue?
Libertarians are in favor of abortions, legalization of drugs, less money spent on the industrial military complex, removal of troops in the Middle East, gay marriage, getting rid of the Patriot Act, less strict immigration laws.
Basically look at Ron Paul's voting record and apart from his stance on abortion you will find the general way a Libertarian would vote.
This country has a lot more political parties then people realize. While only five parties(Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Constitution, and Green) have over 100,000 registered voters there are 20+ other parties.
So the problem is that that there is a shortage of parties but rather that only two parties currently have power. The only way to fix that would be to focus more on campaign finance reform so that the playing field is even or switch over to a Parliamentarian Congress where people vote for a party rather then a person and that way third parties would be able to make their way into Congress.
Why would I want to watch lesser basketball? The skill level of the WNBA is nothing special and even a mens minor league team could beat them and since I don't watch minor league teams play I don't watch womens sports.
I make an exception for mud wrestling.
I depends on what versions you read, but just because his works fall into early modern English and are easy when compared to Chaucer's middle English does not mean that Shakespeare is easy for an incoming freshman. Most freshmen come into high school without much experience if any at all when it comes reading plays and they are better suited for more modern English that they would understand.
Would you prefer that they read 24 of his works?
24? They ought to teach one or two.
I'm just going to assume that you don't know what you are talking about.
Care to explain why you think I don't know what I'm talking about?
There are millions of books out there - they can't teach 'em all.
No shit, but just because they can't teach every single book doesn't mean that they can't at least try to be as diverse as possible rather then have them read just Shakespeare and Steinbeck.
I agree, he is grossly overrated. I've never really enjoyed any of his works - but that is still not a good enough reason not to teach him in high school.
I'm not advocating him not being read at all, but the fact that 4+ of his works are read throughout a student's time at high school stay while other great authors are not read at all is simply ridiculous.
The language is confusing to most people, not just those in high school. Don't those in high school also find such subjects as math and biology confusing? Maybe they oughtn't be taught those, either?
The difference between math and science is that students are not thrown into the advanced classes when they are freshmen. Before a student takes calculus they take geometry and algebra. Before a student takes an advanced biology class where they go into detail about the functions of the cell they take a basic biology class.
Yet, with English they throw the students into a difficult class before they get a chance to read simpler literature.
Some schools teach Twain, but many object due to the numerable derogatory terms.
I'm not sure how that works seeing as Shakespeare is full of sex and violence.
Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are quite long
They can teach some of their shorter novels or some of their novellas.
Yeah, the drinking age in America is pure bullshit.
The government can trust 18 year olds to drive, get a job, have sex, vote for public officials, serve in the armed forces, go to college, and live on their own but they for some reason cannot trust them to have an alcoholic beverage.
Sure, high schools in general have been failing miserably to get students to read books and think the curriculum might be to blame.
His works might have academic value, but to a freshmen in high the language is too confusing and they completely miss out on all the humor Shakespeare has to offer.
That and I find him to be rather overrated. His works were good, but there is no reason why one of his works ought to be read at least once a year for every grade level while great authors such as Conrad, Twain, Tolstoy, and Dostoyevsky are not taught in nay of the four years.
If anything it should be raised to 21, not lowered. Young people in general have no clue what is going on in the country, most of them don't pay taxes, and I don't like the idea of some smug prick whose "eyes have been opened by his college professor" deciding an election.
The only reason I can think of for having the voting age be 18 is because that is the age that people can join the army and the soldiers ought to have a say in who their commander in chief is.
Depends on what age the two people are. After a person reaches their mid-twenties then they have matured to the point where a few years older is no big deal. A sixteen year old going out with a twenty-one year old on the other hand is a bit creepy.
Eight years is already enough time for a person to radically change the entire country. What nobody has mentioned yet is that the lasting impression of a president tends to exceed the amount of time that they spent in office.
Look at FDR, he was in office for four terms and that was long enough for him to completely transform the country and leave us with certain policies that we would not be able to get rid of even if we have tried, which kind of defeats the purpose of a democratic republic.
