wu :: forums - Print Page


    
      
        wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        general >> truth >> Presidents
        
(Message started by: John_Gaughan on Feb 26^th, 2004, 11:57am)

Title: Presidents
Post by John_Gaughan on Feb 26^th, 2004, 11:57am

Do you think the United States will ever have an honest President?

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Feb 26^th, 2004, 12:02pm

An honest president? I suppose not.. A president is a politician, and an honest politician is an oxymoron. Which doesn't preclude him being a moron as well btw ;D

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Icarus on Feb 26^th, 2004, 5:20pm

One should be careful in judging both the honesty and the intelligence of anybody. This is even more true of politicians, and the more powerful the politician, the more care is needed. Presidents are surrounded by a powerful cloud of invective put out by their opponents and by their supporters. Never be quick to believe what either side tells you.

The question of Bush's honesty is very much up to debate right now. To the question of his intelligence, however, there is strong evidence contradicting the popular view. If you examine Bush's record, both as governor of Texas, and as president, dispassionately, something becomes clear. He gets what he wants, despite having an apparently very weak hand.

An example: Two rules in American politics were considered to be ironclad: In a recession, the party of the president loses seats in congress, as the public blames them more for the economic mess. And if the party of the president is in control in congress, they will lose seats in the mid-term elections, as the American public also prefers to divide the power between the parties.

Bush broke both rules in 2002. Despite the bad economy and having a Republican president, the Republican party actually gained seats and retook control of the Senate in the mid-term elections. This, I am given to understand, was in large part due to the efforts of Bush himself.

You can claim that the increase was due to 9/11, and to the fact that Americans tend to trust Republicans more than Democrats in times of war. It is certainly the case that this contributed heavily to the Republican victory. But this is not a isolated incident. Bush regularly confounds his critics by obtaining what he wants even when they thought everything was on their side.

He record makes clear that Bush is a very savvy politician. He could not be so if he were also the idiot that so many claim that he is.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by John_Gaughan on Feb 26^th, 2004, 8:52pm

While you have good arguments on intelligence, I was mainly concerned with honesty -- does a president keep his word, and does he have the best interests of the people in mind (i.e. the integrity to uphold his oath of office and the Constitution).

By the way, I said "president," not "George Dubya Bush."

Thinking back, I have to go back a great while to find presidents that did not tell big lies in office (WMD, Lewinsky, Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, et al) and generally were honest all around. Nobody will be honest all the time, but some are worse than others.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Feb 27^th, 2004, 12:59am

People don't _want_ their president to be honest.. They want to believe in a fairy tale. Promises that can't possibly be realized. No president can make everything better, but that's what the people want to hear, or at the very least they don't want to hear the actual truth.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by John_Gaughan on Feb 27^th, 2004, 8:26pm

on 02/27/04 at 00:59:24, towr wrote:

So then, what is politics? Two competing fairy tales, each one bashing the other as "untrue," so the other party can get into office?

By the way I am not trying to be critical of other posters, I am trying to take a step back and look at U.S. politics halfway objectively.

Personally, I think given the way the electoral system works, we will never have an honest president. Other threads talked about the electoral college specifically, but I think the problem is in the two party system and how candidates are nominated.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Feb 28^th, 2004, 4:01am

on 02/27/04 at 20:26:28, John_Gaughan wrote:

So then, what is politics?

politics, from poly ticks,
poly: many
ticks: bloodsucking arachnids
Close enough.. ;)

Quote:

Two competing fairy tales, each one bashing the other as "untrue," so the other party can get into office?

Well, it may be substantially more than two in a democracy.. euhm, I mean other democracies ::)
It'd be nice if they for once tried to do what's right for the country, rather than what increases the chance they'll get voted in again next election or whatever appeases their campaign-sponsors most..

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Icarus on Feb 28^th, 2004, 7:57am

My apologies, John, for diverging from your question. I knew I was not addressing it, but there have been so many comments such as towr's that were evidently aimed at our current US president, that I felt the need to point out that this view of his intelligence is not in line with available evidence.

Whether you love Bush or hate him, it's foolish to dismiss him as a moron. The man clearly knows how to work with the political system, better than either his predecessor or his father.

--------------------------

Now to your actual intent. I cannot agree with your assessment that the current system precludes honest politicians. Not to say that it allows them, but rather to say that the problem is far more deeply rooted than that.

The electoral college is not responsible for political corruption. It is an inherent flaw in democracy itself. Look at other democracies. Do they fare any better? Not by what I've seen.

As long as we let people offer support to candidates, we will have money and power deals which will attract the corrupt to serve, and put the honest at a disadvantage. But to prevent people offering support is to give up the concept of freedom of speech, which is absolutely vital to a democracy.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Icarus on Feb 28^th, 2004, 12:00pm

I have more to say, but ran out of time. Just as I buck "conventional wisdom" on the question of Bush's intelligence, based on the evidence, so also, I must argue against "conventional wisdom" on the subject of political honesty.

The truth is, by the same standards that we hold other people to, most politicians are honest. They will stretch the truth, bend it to fit the needs of the moment, twist it until it is unrecognizable, but how is this any different from what we see others do, and sometimes do ourselves? Few will stoop to outright lies unless backed in a corner. But again, do you not see this in practically everyone? Did you never lie to get out of something?

Politics breeds corruption. It is in the very nature of the beast. Where there is power, there is the temptation to misuse it. But most politicians are not intentionally corrupt. They usually desire to do what they think is right. Sometimes they will excuse to themselves corrupt behavior as being the only way to accomplish something they believe is good. Once this starts, it grows, and they will excuse worse and worse, while their motives get meaner. They grow progressively more corrupt as time goes by.

Both responses are common to human behavior. We accept a little that we at first know we should not, because it is a little, so we figure it is no big deal. Once we are used to accepting that, something just a little worse comes along. But hey, if this is okay, and that is hardly anymore, why deny it? And it keeps going. What was once undreamable, becomes commonplace. How can we expect our politicians to be any better than we ourselves are?

So most bad politicians started out as good ones, and even as they grow bad, they consider it justified as the price of doing the good they want to do. There is considerable evidence that Nixon fell into this trap. Nixon was a liar, a crook, a machine politician, and had perhaps the worst economic policy of any president in our history. (You young goats obviously didn't see it, and may not have heard the truth of it over the rhetoric, but the 70s were the worst decade economically in the USA since the great depression. Much of this can be laid to the absolutely stupid approach (price freezes) Nixon took to the economic problems fostered by the Vietnam war.) But the evidence indicates that Nixon entered into politics and behaved as he did as a politician because he saw himself as acting in the best interests of the country (self-delusion is a powerful thing).

Much the same thing goes on with other politicians. Clinton considered his lying in the best interest of the country. Truman came to power as a flunky of an absolutely corrupt political machine, but broke ranks with it once he was there.

The last president we had whom people generally agree was honest was Jimmy Carter. (This is not an indictment of later presidents, just acknowleging that political posturing still the clouds the ability to make accurate judgments concerning them.) Most people, liberal, moderate, or conservative, will admit that Carter was and is a righteous man. Unfortunately, most will also admit that he was at best a mediocre president. Carter was sincere, but he did not have the werewhithal to bring the country out of the economic slump it was in, and left us in a severely compromised position on the world stage that continues to have reprecussions today.

So, honesty is not the most desirable quality in a president, though I do desire it! Effectiveness is far more valuable.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Feb 29^th, 2004, 8:36am

on 02/28/04 at 07:57:59, Icarus wrote:

Whether you love Bush or hate him, it's foolish to dismiss him as a moron.

I certainly don't dismiss him, he's there, and just due to his position his actions have the potential to affect pretty much everyone on the globe. I just wish it were someone I felt I could put some trust in, but I don't get a vote on that.. (Not that our prime minister is any better.. Even getting a vote doesn't mean it matters..)

Quote:

The truth is, by the same standards that we hold other people to, most politicians are honest.

Politicians aren't "most people", that's the problem. They have more responsibility and power, and we trust them to be better than us in dealing with it. That's supposedly why they're there, and we're not.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Icarus on Feb 29^th, 2004, 9:00pm

I'm not suggesting you should trust him. Just choose your complaints wisely, and always look beyond the rhetoric. Whenever I find my opinion matching what I hear from pundits & partisans, then I know that matters behind that opinion need a second look, and this one far closer. Quite often I discover that the truth is far different than what I had originally thought, and what I was hearing.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by aero_guy on Mar 8^th, 2004, 3:54pm

One of the great difficulties surrounding the intelligence of Bush is public speaking. We, as humans, tend to guage another's intelligence based on how they speak. You will often see people thinking of others with a poor grasp of English as their second language as being stupid, even if they are rocket scientists in their own country.

One thing that is not in questions is that Bush is a very poor public speaker, and I would blame that more than anything for the general consensus of his being stupid as well. (Not saying that I do not agree with the consensus).

As to Icarus describing the merits of Bush as a politician, I would not agree that this has much to do with intelligence. Being a good politician often has much more to do with high powered connections, a good judge of the abilities of others (who you delegate authority to), and the ability to inspire others. If you are smart as well, well that is just a bonus. Note that honesty does not figure in here anywhere. In fact, honesty can be a great drawback if you are attempting to convince others to change their opinions (or votes).

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by John_Gaughan on Mar 8^th, 2004, 9:52pm

That is so true. The head of my CompSci department does not speak English well, but is a brilliant mathematician, extremely intelligent.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Icarus on Mar 10^th, 2004, 8:33pm

"merits" is not really the word I would use. "Talents" is more descriptive of what I was describing. I make no argument as to Bush's worth. Only that he is a much sharper politician than he is generally perceived as. And I was using "intelligence" to describe something more general than IQ, just as the term "moron" usually refers to more than low IQ.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by KenYonRuKu on Apr 5^th, 2004, 2:56am

I agree with Icarus that Bush is not necessarily the moron that is common belief. Surrounding himself with the right people and using circumstance to his advantage are indeed savvy qualities.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by John_Gaughan on Apr 5^th, 2004, 6:37am

on 04/05/04 at 02:56:11, KenYonRuKu wrote:

I agree with Icarus that Bush is not necessarily the moron that is common belief. Surrounding himself with the right people and using circumstance to his advantage are indeed savvy qualities.

This is no testament to his dishonesty. Even Clinton told the truth after several years. I think they are both dishonest, though.

All Bush has to do is come out and say what everyone knows about his motives for attacking Iraq. Then he needs to come clean about his family's connections to the prince of Saudi Arabia. Owning up to our government's involvement with arming Saddam in the first place (ever see the pictures of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand?) would be a positive step, even if that particular incident was not his fault.

The last century saw a lot of deception and hiding bad things like puppet regimes, assassinations, etc. I think our government as a whole needs to admit to wrongdoing, take steps to correct it, and never do it again. Unfortunately, the President usually is the lynchpin of the operation. Congress rarely demands we go invade somewhere without coercion, and if they do, it generally is warranted (e.g. World War II). Congress rarely demands we assassinate a foreign leader or set up pupper regimes. The President is the one that tries to play house with the world.

I am not completely sure why this is. I think it has to do with the fact that there is only one President, as opposed to 535 Congressmen. I think Presidents have an easier time being secretive and hiding things. Plus, with a cabinet and various appointed positions in the various executive departments, they have many fall guys in case things go wrong. I think one factor is the environment that makes it easy to do political actions for personal gain.

This is related to the discussion of the electoral college in that I think the college is part of the problem. That is a whole different can o' whoopass, one that I do not have time to open right now ;-)

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Icarus on Apr 5^th, 2004, 5:55pm

on 04/05/04 at 06:37:58, John_Gaughan wrote:

All Bush has to do is come out and say what everyone knows about his motives for attacking Iraq. Then he needs to come clean about his family's connections to the prince of Saudi Arabia. Owning up to our government's involvement with arming Saddam in the first place (ever see the pictures of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand?) would be a positive step, even if that particular incident was not his fault.

"What everybody knows" is a phrase you should be very, very cautious of! I'd guess that at least in the political arena, more things that "everybody knows" turn out to be false than turn out to be true. I have heard many suggestions about why Bush wanted to attack Iraq, but most of them were ridiculous ("Bush wants revenge for Saddam's threats against his father", as if Saddam had offered any serious or unexpected threat, or "Bush is after the oil", as if the same amount of oil could not have been obtained far more cheaply and easily by other means). If you want to know why Bush & co. went after Iraq, there is a far better explanation! Shortly after the end of the first war, Saddam started flouting the treaties he signed to end that war. The United Nations choose to let this treaty breaking slide. Clinton also refused to hold Saddam to his word. This has been a sore point for conservatives, who remember all too well the result of a similar treatment of Adolf Hitler. This history amplified the size of Saddam's threat to the west in the minds of conservatives, and made them too ready to accept apparent evidence of illicit activity, and too suspicious of evidence against it. It is no wonder that when these same conservatives found themselves in the decision-making arena, they chose a get-tough strategy towards Iraq, and were quick to believe the worst.

Quote:

The last century saw a lot of deception and hiding bad things like puppet regimes, assassinations, etc. I think our government as a whole needs to admit to wrongdoing, take steps to correct it, and never do it again. Unfortunately, the President usually is the lynchpin of the operation. Congress rarely demands we go invade somewhere without coercion, and if they do, it generally is warranted (e.g. World War II). Congress rarely demands we assassinate a foreign leader or set up pupper regimes. The President is the one that tries to play house with the world.

You are mistaken about Congress. We nearly went to war with Canada over the Oregon Territory because of congress. It was only because Pierce (I believe he was the one), who stongly opposed this, chose to drag us into Texas' war with Mexico instead that we did not. Rather than fight two wars at once, we split the Oregon Territory with Canada. Congress was also the main pusher politically behind the Spanish-American war. Congress' only advantage in this over the president is that it is harder to get 500+ heads hot than it is to get 1. But by the same token, it is harder to cool 500+ heads down than 1.

Quote:

I am not completely sure why this is. I think it has to do with the fact that there is only one President, as opposed to 535 Congressmen. I think Presidents have an easier time being secretive and hiding things. Plus, with a cabinet and various appointed positions in the various executive departments, they have many fall guys in case things go wrong. I think one factor is the environment that makes it easy to do political actions for personal gain.

Again, you need to look harder at congress. The presidency has always been less, not more, corrupt than congress. The president is in a far more visible position than congressmen are. Everyone is watching him. His enemies are quick to jump on any hint of a means of attack. Congress members do not receive nearly as much scutiny. At one time most of Congress was controlled by "political machines" - illegal organizations by which a few bosses controlled most of the votes in congress and peddled them to whoever would pay enough (you may say that this sounds like what goes on now, but the worst present day corruption is a joke when compared to what used to go on). As I said before, Truman came to power as a flunkie of one of these machines, but apparently broke from it upon becoming president, as he several times went against his former boss's expressed wishes. One of the reasons that the Civil War took 4 years to sort out, even though the south was horrendously outmanned and outgunned, was that political bosses were making a fortune from it.

Quote:

This is related to the discussion of the electoral college in that I think the college is part of the problem. That is a whole different can o' whoopass, one that I do not have time to open right now ;-)

BRING IT ON! :D

Really though, while some reforms of the electoral college system might pass, you will find that once people in the majority of states become aware of the implications of abolishing it, support will dwindle rapidly. We who do not live near a coast or in the middle of a crowd do not care to lose what little voice we still have in the selection of presidents.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by John_Gaughan on Apr 5^th, 2004, 8:52pm

on 04/05/04 at 17:55:57, Icarus wrote:

You are mistaken about Congress. We nearly went to war with Canada over the Oregon Territory because of congress.

I was talking about the last century, not the 1800s ;-)

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Icarus on Apr 6^th, 2004, 6:46pm

The most clear examples are in the 1800s, but why would you suppose that the 20th century politicians are any better. More likely, the right combination of political pressures never arose. Besides which, my corruption examples are 20th century. The political bosses did not wane until the 1950s and 1960s. By that time enough people had learned of the corruption and put enough pressure that reforms started to trickle through, slowly eroding the power of these machines. This forced politicians to start finding other ways to finance their campaigns. Not that plenty of corruption does not occur in the new methods, but it isn't as blatant as it used to be.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by King_T on May 12^th, 2004, 4:07pm

Quote:

Not that plenty of corruption does not occur in the new methods, but it isn't as blatant as it used to be.

Check out the beginning of Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" for details on the blatant cheating in the last 'election' - you'll soon be fuming. Remember who's really threatening your freedom come election time.

For the record, I count the WMD falsification as blatant as well.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Patashu on Sep 20^th, 2004, 12:19am

According to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, any man who is capable of making himself President should by no means take the job.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by EZ_Lonny on Sep 20^th, 2004, 3:38am

I think politicians are honoust (to get back to the original question).

Any politician says s/he is trying to get a certain job done. That does not mean s/he actually gets it done.

Trying to make the US (for example, being anti-Bush) a better place to live in and defend it from threats of Islamic countries and thus sending thousands of American militaries to their death is certainly not a way to defend aany country. Even reaching the nearly "hatred" against the West (read: America). For every victim of war in Iraq I fear the retaliation from either Osama or any other Extreme Moslim Foundation.

To be honoust I can't realy blame them. I hate the thought of violence (I even refused to go into the army on my draught, and got "punished" for that. Doing time as a administrator for local government) But I can feel the emotions of relatives as they find their peers or son dead (by UN / US or friendly fire).
(come to think of it: Friendly fire? Getting shot by a friend is better than to be shot by the enemy?)
They want to get even. Now not calling it a war anymore, but a incident doesnt make it right. But revench on revenche makes a miilion or more victim.

Getting back again to the original question. Saying Iraq has weapons of mass distruction and start a war over it with the wrong intents, makes you a liar and and a horny for power ass**

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by SpaceMonkey on Apr 18^th, 2006, 6:01am

Couple things about the Bush bashers out there should look at:

1. Clinton was in office for 8 years, 4 of which were spent with fat ass monica under the desk(why her??). He ignored the middle east and dealt with eastern europe(which is no threat... Kosevo??)

2. G Dub was elected and because of his father running out of time he by default gets labeled by people as this guy everyone says he is and in all reality he did what any other president would have done in his situation.

3. Im not agreeing with us being in there still but its kinda hard to back away from people who are "Masterminds" when the strap bombs to themselves... How is that a mastermind??

Think about that stuff... Peace

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by anonymous on Jul 30^th, 2006, 11:28am

Quote:

Clinton was in office for 8 years, 4 of which were spent with fat ass monica under the desk(why her??). He ignored the middle east and dealt with eastern europe(which is no threat... Kosevo??)

Clinton... meh... couldn't care less about his affairs. But he wasn't great as a president.. but Bush has possibly done worse.

Quote:

Im not agreeing with us being in there still but its kinda hard to back away from people who are "Masterminds" when the strap bombs to themselves... How is that a mastermind??

and Who's calling them masterminds?

Politicians will do whatever it takes (without crossing the line) to become President or to have more power. Honest? They could well be. But what they do when they attain that higher position will show whether their "manipulation of he people" was worth it (for the people that is). They can either take advantage of their power and do whatever they possibly can to help their country, or they can spend their time trying to make ways to ensure that they are re-elected. Both these paths are connected, I know.

Quote:

Saying Iraq has weapons of mass distruction and start a war over it with the wrong intents, makes you a liar and and a horny for power ass**

Yeah, terrible reason. No one else is allowed to have WMD except for the US, huh? psh. But there's more to it than just the WMD.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Icarus on Jul 30^th, 2006, 2:44pm

I don't think we will be able to truly say how good of a president either Clinton or Bush was without much more perspective than we have now. As time goes on, my view on both changes. While Bush showed certain political skill in the 2002 and 2004 elections shortly before this thread started, I've seen less evidence of it since.

Clinton needed to deal with Kosovo and Eastern Europe to keep it from becoming a threat. Reasoning similar to SpaceMonkey's was why everybody just set back and let it happen when Hitler started placing troops in the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Had the Allies objected, Hitler would have been forced to back down (he didn't have the resources at that time to do anything else), and the course of later years would have been significantly different.

The Middle East was, and is, a much tougher nut to crack. The animosities there have perplexed every world leader for the last 60 years. So I give no great blame to anyone for failing to find a cure. Even Carter's success was simply taking advantage of an opportunity that was not the result of anything he did (but rather, was created by Sadat and Begin themselves).

As for WMDs, there is a lot more to it than just the weapons: there was a nation that viewed itself free to use such weapons however it wanted to (including on its own people), regardless of the lessons learned by other nations in the past, or the treaties that had been signed. As for saying Iraq has WMDs making you a liar - that is true only if you don't believe it yourself, and have not purposefully overlooked significant evidence to the contrary.

As far as I can tell, Bush believed in the WMDs (and you will notice, despite the myriad claims I heard that he would manufacture evidence of WMDs, he never did so even though it cost him dearly). While there is room to debate purposeful overlooking of evidence, you should always remember that everything looks much clearer in hindsight.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Death on Aug 25^th, 2006, 3:05pm

I no this is replying to a much earlier post, but im not so sure about Bush's iteligence or talent. Personally I think that the president needs to be a figurehead as much as anything else. They need to be able to inspire confidence and trust in people. That is what made people like Clinton (i think it was Clinton :-/). And that is what i think George Bush is. I think that he is more of a puppet. The people who are really in power are behind the scenes. That is wat grants them that power. Bush needs to be able to simply do as they ask. That is why I believe that he gets what he wants: The people doing the thinking can do this without having a president who can be manipulated; their plans go on undisturbed. Either that or he is VERY smart and a fantastic actor. I'm not 100% sure which it is....

As to the actual question, I think that a president who is honest, and therefor can succumb the temptation of power, and really does want the best for the people and puts everything he has into helping them is not impossible. It is simply highly improbable to ever happen in any of our lifetimes. I also think that if such a person came along, he/she would need far more that 2 terms to be able to sort out a majority of the problems facing America.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ima1trkpny on Jun 6^th, 2007, 2:25pm

I think that the most likely scenario is Bush is brilliant. As Icarus pointed out he gets what he wants. As to being a puppet, if he were a puppet he would have given in to the demands of others by now to appease them. One thing that irritates the hell out of me is people complaining about him who voted for him because he sticks to his guns! Now they want him to suddenly go all wishy-washy on us?!? I don't know about all of you, but when I am picking someone who is going to be in a position of leadership I want someone who will actually lead instead of being chased into things by the public. To me it is more a question of consistency than honesty. With a consistently dishonest person you know they will always lie so you can predict and act accordingly. I would personally rather have a consistently dishonest person in charge than one who was inconsistent from one moment to the next, because those are the ones who will get you in the most trouble and their actions are completely unpredictable. Whether you like him or not, think he is honest or not, Bush is extremely consistent. Some people think this is to the point of being reckless considering there is "evidence" he is wrong, but I have yet to see anything that convinces me he should completely change his course. I think he will change tactics if evidence shows something isn't working but he consistently works towards the same goal and I feel that is something to be respected and admired no matter what your opinion. That is tanacity and courage to continue and persevere at your job because you feel it is right even when everyone is trying to browbeat you, make fun of you, and humiliate you. These are the qualities that the people voted for so like it or not it is your fault as you knew going into it what kind of values and personality he has and you will just have to live with it until the next election, where if you so chose you can reevaluate what you find important in a candidate and act accordingly instead of complaining when someone is doing the job you told them to do.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Sameer on Jun 6^th, 2007, 2:54pm

on 02/26/04 at 11:57:06, John_Gaughan wrote:

Do you think the United States will ever have an honest President?

Can you define honesty? Sometimes a leader has to show strength and not necessarily divulge or reveal everything. Is that indicative of lying or strong leadership? The qualities of human emotions and reactions are perceived in so many ways by everyone e.g. for one person it maybe fear and for other it may be smart choice!!!

Real question is what are the qualities in a president we would all like to see!!!

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Icarus on Jun 6^th, 2007, 6:50pm

on 06/06/07 at 14:25:32, ima1trkpny wrote:

I think that the most likely scenario is Bush is brilliant. As Icarus pointed out he gets what he wants.

"Brilliant" is definitely more than I would say. I still hold that evidence shows him to be much smarter than he is given credit for. But I can't say that he gets what he wants anymore. Whatever magic that he worked in 2002 abandoned him in 2006.

Yet even though Congress is now hostile, his agenda does seem to still be on track - possibly even more so than before: he has been pushing for an immigration reform act like the one just passed for ages, but could not get it through the Republican Congress. And the Democrats want to withdraw from Iraq, but instead what we get is the surge, and no timetables.

on 06/06/07 at 14:54:19, Sameer wrote:

Real question is what are the qualities in a president we would all like to see!!!

That's the problem, isn't it? There are no qualities that we all would like to see.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by tiber13 on Jun 27^th, 2007, 4:46pm

I am soooooo happy i live in Canada, there havent been 50 presidents.
But we do have Primeministers.....

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Sameer on Jun 27^th, 2007, 5:09pm

on 06/27/07 at 16:46:33, tiber13 wrote:

I am soooooo happy i live in Canada, there havent been 50 presidents.
But we do have Primeministers.....

I lived in India for 21 years and now live in US.... but whatever it is ... a US president is very important for the whole world however you may like to think as his actions are going to influence a lot in your life.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by rmsgrey on Jun 28^th, 2007, 6:28am

on 06/27/07 at 17:09:14, Sameer wrote:

And most of us don't get a vote...

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ThudanBlunder on Jun 28^th, 2007, 11:50am

::)

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ima1trkpny on Jun 28^th, 2007, 10:11pm

simple solution rmsgrey... move to the U.S. then you can vote ;D Hell... we let the illegals do that... so why not Brits? :P
By the way... I love that pic you found ThudandBlunder... brilliant.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Sameer on Jun 29^th, 2007, 8:57am

on 06/28/07 at 22:11:19, ima1trkpny wrote:

simple solution rmsgrey... move to the U.S. then you can vote ;D Hell... we let the illegals do that... so why not Brits? :P
By the way... I love that pic you found ThudandBlunder... brilliant.

Hmmm even if you are in US, you can't vote until you have citizenship!!! The only thing I can do is interest people - who can vote - in politics and maybe give them a new viewpoint!!!

Anyways getting back to the point, I have noticed that people rarely trust their politicians now. They are always looked with suspicion and every action comes with a conspiracy theory. Why have we reached this stage? Is there something we can do to avoid this?

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ima1trkpny on Jun 29^th, 2007, 10:26am

Sameer (I probably shouldn't be telling you/encourageing this... ) fyi, if you have a driver's license you can walk into any polling place and vote. They are supposed to place those ballots in a seperate box until citizenship is verified but lets just say things don't always go like they are supposed to. This is the reason that so many people are pissed off about illegal aliens, because some of them are voting and taking welfare (if they have citizen children) without paying taxes or having any of the accountabilities expected of a citizen. I love the U.S. but we sure do have a knack for setting up our system to allow and even encourage others to take advantage of us. “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money” (De Toqueville) pretty much sums up where a fair majority of the U.S.'s problems lie.
And getting back to the main point of politicians/presidents, I feel the quote also is appropriate to answer your question. Many of our presidential candidates are experienced politicians from Congress. Subconciously the American public is beginning to realize how much manipulation goes on in politics and how much power a politician has to manipulate the populus and it scares the hell out of them. This is completely disregarding the fact that we give them that power over us in the first place... oh what a tangled web we weave...

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by rmsgrey on Jun 29^th, 2007, 11:49am

on 06/28/07 at 22:11:19, ima1trkpny wrote:

simple solution rmsgrey... move to the U.S. then you can vote ;D Hell... we let the illegals do that... so why not Brits? :P

And what about the remaining 5 billion or so people whose lives are affected by US foreign policy? It seems preferable to come up with a solution that scales better...

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Sameer on Jun 29^th, 2007, 1:07pm

on 06/29/07 at 10:26:01, ima1trkpny wrote:

Sameer (I probably shouldn't be telling you/encourageing this... ) fyi, if you have a driver's license you can walk into any polling place and vote.

Haha I already know that.. but I am an honest person... :)

The problem is the laws, the loops, the monitoring systems they come up with to curb illegal immigration affects people like me who are here legally and want to live peacefully. Do you know I have to send my address change to the immigration department within 10 days of changing my address? Even if I move a block away. *sigh* i don't really wanna start an immigration debate here... so sorry to let my steam out :-[

on 06/29/07 at 11:49:53, rmsgrey wrote:

And what about the remaining 5 billion or so people whose lives are affected by US foreign policy? It seems preferable to come up with a solution that scales better...

I agree with rmsgrey here.. in this age of globalization when powerful countries play with lives of the whole world, the system is not completely democratic.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ima1trkpny on Jun 30^th, 2007, 1:22am

Well Sameer you get bonus points from me for being honest, but my point was that there are a hell of a lot of dishonest people in the world who do nothing but search for ways to get around the rules. It's funny actually how much time and creative energy goes into subterfuge when just obeying in the first place would make life so much simpler and enjoyable for all.
As for how U.S. policy affects the world... I can't really accurately address that, as while I have visited many other countries, I have never resided outside the U.S. for any extended length of time. I am sorry if things affect you negatively but to be perfectly honest I elect these officials to look out for my interests and the interests of the country not Britain's interests or who ever else may be involved. Forgive me if this seems blunt but why is everything always America's fault, etc... can't you people look out for your own interests? I have no problem with people disagreeing with me or with my country, but instead of whining about it do something. Put your money where your mouth is and stop supporting U.S. goods (yes I know this is economic suicide...) but my point being if you really want something done, have the guts to actually do something about it instead of bashing leaders or others.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by rmsgrey on Jun 30^th, 2007, 5:43pm

on 06/30/07 at 01:22:46, ima1trkpny wrote:

For example, in the invasion of Iraq, Australia sent troops despite public opinion polling 90%+ against the war (I was there at the time, and it was a pretty unpopular move by the Aussie government)

Granted, the Aussie government could have refused to send troops into Iraq, but they decided to try and keep the US happy...

Truthfully, I don't follow politics closely enough to know chapter and verse on US influence on global events, so I may be wildly misinformed. On the other hand, what I have heard has reinforced my beliefs about the US being the 800lb gorilla in world affairs.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Jul 1^st, 2007, 7:10am

on 06/30/07 at 01:22:46, ima1trkpny wrote:

Forgive me if this seems blunt but why is everything always America's fault, etc... can't you people look out for your own interests?

It's hard for countries to stand up against a superpower, especially when there's only one.
Which also means that if any standing up against anything has to be done, people will look to the US to do it; and if they don't, blame them. Even in so far the US isn't responsible for the situation. (Considering all the puppet-regimes of latin america have long since gone, and most other cold-war indescretions are far in the past as well, there aren't many things I could squarely pin on the US.)

Quote:

Put your money where your mouth is and stop supporting U.S. goods (yes I know this is economic suicide...)

Hence, not an option.
Whining however, is an option. And perhaps eventually it'll wear the US down. It's a valid political strategy as much as invading another country or destroying it's economy through sanctions.
If america doesn't like the whining about it in the (rest of the) world, they could try to do something about it. Just as the world could try to do something about what they're whining about. That argument goes both ways.

Quote:

but my point being if you really want something done, have the guts to actually do something about it instead of bashing leaders or others.

There isn't realisticly much to do unfortunately. Nothing short of one form or other of suicide. Be it economic, political, explosive or other.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ima1trkpny on Jul 1^st, 2007, 2:02pm

Ok, let me phrase that better... If you have a problem with the U.S., yet you continue to take advantage of all the perks the U.S. has to offer you are a total hypocrite. Don't like what we are doing somewhere, support the other side! My point being stop being passive resistors, if you have an ethical problem with something do something about it as whining implies to me that you like to bitch about it but don't actually care enough to put themselves on the line for it. This doesn't have to be the government's "position" on the issue, if you want something done about it do it yourself. If enough individuals start doing something about it you will eventually get what you want... whining just pisses people off.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Sameer on Jul 1^st, 2007, 2:39pm

on 07/01/07 at 14:02:35, ima1trkpny wrote:

Didn't you hear what Bush said - "Either you are with us or against us" ...

We all want to live our lives peacefully, happily and least of all getting dictated by bullying governments that we didn't elect.

When you think about it, when US goes about preaching democracy to the rest of the world, does it actions seem democratic to you? Its a new imperial world order or monarchy if you wish...

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ima1trkpny on Jul 1^st, 2007, 2:45pm

Yes, I did hear that speech. I can't speak for those opposed to Bush as I fully support him but I have been in other situations with various other leaders in whose methods or ethics I was dubious of but I didn't whine, I did something about it. It is a government for, by and of the people. You have every right to voice your opinion but be prepared to back it up is all I am saying.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ThudanBlunder on Jul 1^st, 2007, 3:51pm

on 07/01/07 at 14:39:08, Sameer wrote:

Didn't you hear what Bush said - "Either you are with us or against us" ...

Of the Iraqi insurgents, in 2003 this draft-dodging president also said "Bring 'em on!"

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ima1trkpny on Jul 1^st, 2007, 4:13pm

Oh yes... dodges draft by enlisting in the armed forces... sure... that makes soooo much sense to me... ::) at least he wasn't like Muhammad Ali... a professional fighter who claimed he didn't believe in violence...

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ThudanBlunder on Jul 1^st, 2007, 5:02pm

on 07/01/07 at 16:13:19, ima1trkpny wrote:

Oh yes... dodges draft by enlisting in the armed forces...

Draft dodging by enlisting in a military unit which had been granted exemption from call-up for Vietnam, the National Guard.

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy)

on 07/01/07 at 16:13:19, ima1trkpny wrote:

...at least he wasn't like Muhammad Ali... a professional fighter who claimed he didn't believe in violence...

I agree. Unlike Ali, Bush wouldn't have had the brain cells to appreciate the significant difference between killing somebody and boxing them around the ears.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ima1trkpny on Jul 1^st, 2007, 5:23pm

Except you forget one thing... people do get killed in boxing and permanently destroyed, to which Ali himself attests as he has been hit so hard so many times he is only a vegatable now (and being the brillian boxer that he was hit a lot of people very hard himself)... I would rather be shot myself... much quicker and less painful. There have been cases where boxers were hit so hard their brain litterally came loose and the hemmoraging caused by their brain rattling around in their skull like a boulder killed them (and it's a rather painful death).
I have already read just about everything on him from both sides (including the wikipedia article) as I prefer to make an informed decision. He still did military service and I don't really care where as protecting our own soil is just as important to me as winning in foreign engagements. I myself have many WWII vets in my family, several members in the Coast Guard currently, and I highly considered going into the Navy myself.
Bush is far more intelligent than you give him credit for... even with a congressional majority of the opposite party he still manages to be most effective in proceeding to do what he wants. I elected a President to lead the posse not be chased by it or the fluctuating poll numbers typical of America. Maybe if Clinton had had the balls to pay more attention to what was going on and finishing out Bush 41's engagement in Iraq instead of messing around with Monica, we wouldn't have had to in again (i.e. fewer casualties and Bush 43 would not be forced to deal with all this). You must also remember that being President is a very difficult and stressful job the extent of which cannot be realized without having actually done it. You get the benefit of Monday morning quarterbacking but the President's job is to make the best decision he can in the interests of his people with the information he has at the time.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Jul 2^nd, 2007, 2:07am

on 07/01/07 at 14:02:35, ima1trkpny wrote:

Ok, let me phrase that better... If you have a problem with the U.S., yet you continue to take advantage of all the perks the U.S. has to offer you are a total hypocrite.

So, say, if you have a problem with the fruits at a supermarket, you're a hypocrit if you buy anythign else there too? I don't see how that follows.
Just because you don't turn a blind eye to the faults of the US doesn't mean you should boycit it's benefits as well. Only in so far as the advantages it offers are a direct result from the ills you perceive should you avoid them.

Quote:

Don't like what we are doing somewhere, support the other side!

What other side? What alternative is there?
The only option there is, is to try and change the side we're on. And the only power there is to do that is complain; which is what humanity has done best since the dawn of time.

Quote:

My point being stop being passive resistors

Hey, it worked for Ghandi.

Quote:

if you have an ethical problem with something do something about it as whining implies to me that you like to bitch about it but don't actually care enough to put themselves on the line for it.

What viable alternative to words is there?
Blowing things up doesn't work, and doesn't particularly improve the world either.

Quote:

whining just pisses people off.

Good.

How do you feel about whining about whining?

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Sameer on Jul 2^nd, 2007, 5:17pm

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-CIA-Leak-Trial.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Is this short of any totalitarian regime whose leader does what he wants to do anyways!!! Oh wait "I can't recall" when I pardoned him!! ::)

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ThudanBlunder on Jul 2^nd, 2007, 5:31pm

Here's (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2117291,00.html) a link to the story that doesn't require registration.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ThudanBlunder on Jul 3^rd, 2007, 4:15pm

on 07/01/07 at 17:23:42, ima1trkpny wrote:

Bush is far more intelligent than you give him credit for...

Oh yeah?

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ima1trkpny on Jul 3^rd, 2007, 7:36pm

Ever considered the fact that he does in fact have a sense of humor??? http://youtube.com/watch?v=Dii3mzMQ3SQ If he was actually calling someone a photographer would not have been in the room as anything important enough to make the President call personally would be in private with only the cabnet in attendance. He is a nervous speaker who can get tongue tied, but could you talk eloquently knowing that you had the entire world watching? Could you handle the pressure of this office better? Even Steven Hawking can be proven wrong, yet when he is stubborn no one calls him stupid like they do Bush who has yet to be proven wrong. (I will be more than willing to listen to proof that he is but until then I will judge the evidence presently before me.)

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by JiNbOtAk on Jul 4^th, 2007, 3:22am

on 07/03/07 at 19:36:46, ima1trkpny wrote:

Even Steven Hawking can be proven wrong, yet when he is stubborn no one calls him stupid like they do Bush who has yet to be proven wrong. (I will be more than willing to listen to proof that he is but until then I will judge the evidence presently before me.)

You're kidding rite ? What I knew about Hawking is far from being stubborn when found wrong, he admitted to be wrong, in print. Doesn't seem stubborn to me. As for Bush, hey, I might not like the guy, but whether he's the right person to lead America, should be decided by you Americans. Just as who governs my country should be decided by me and my fellow countrymen.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ThudanBlunder on Jul 4^th, 2007, 9:56am

on 07/03/07 at 19:36:46, ima1trkpny wrote:

Ever considered the fact that he does in fact have a sense of humor???

Ever considered the fact that he does in fact have scriptwriters?

on 07/03/07 at 19:36:46, ima1trkpny wrote:

If he was actually calling someone a photographer would not have been in the room as anything important enough to make the President call personally would be in private with only the cabnet in attendance.

Or maybe he wasn't talking about anything important.
Maybe he was just reneging on the Kyoto Agreement or opting out of ratifying any International Criminal Court legislation. Maybe he was merely reversing a 10-year US policy to eliminate all anti-personnel landmines. Perhaps the photo was taken much earlier while, as a God-loving Texas governor, he was rejecting his 155th plea for clemency.

But maybe he was.
Maybe he was talking about the present movement to impeach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush) him or about committing more troops to his personal crusade in Iraq - his Dad must be really proud of him - or about giving his Corporate Oil cronies permission to drill in the Arctic wilderness.

But at the end of the day I suppose 51 million rednecks can’t be wrong. ::)

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ima1trkpny on Jul 5^th, 2007, 12:03pm

ThudandBlunder, I think we should agree to disagree on this one as I lack the time to waste arguing with you. I find myself siding with you on most issues and like your sense of humor, however this is one debate you have yet to convince me of and I lack the time to argue effectively. It would also be a considerable waste of effort on my part as you can't vote on it either way and you have not experienced first hand the circumstances in America that make me feel he is a good choice.

on 07/04/07 at 09:56:39, ThudanBlunder wrote:

But at the end of the day I suppose 51 million rednecks can’t be wrong. ::)

And as for that, go take a trip down to Texas. Those are some of the nicest most generous and hospitable people on the planet. Generally I find your sense of humor very amusing but this time it was way over the line. Just because people enjoy outdoor activities like fishing and hunting more than chess does not in any way make them stupid. I have two very close friends, who are the poster boys for stereotypical rednecks, who are also fantastic nurses. I can think of no one I would sooner entrust my life to in the event of a medical emergency then they as I know they take their jobs seriously and will work to the fullest extent of their ability. You would also be quite suprised to know they have a wide range of interests, are very self-motivated, and tend to be much better informed than many highly educated people you seem to think are so much better. They have great family lives with well behaved children and show nothing but the most impeccable manners. I have several times been down to Texas and the other "redneck" regions, and found nothing but the most charming people you could ask for, always willing to lend a hand or help a lost traveler. If this is the kind of people you feel are beneath you then add me to their ranks because I admire them as hard working people who are far better examples of decent human beings than you will find in more "civilized" (i.e. urban) areas.

JiNbOtAk, Hawking took well over 20 years to finally admit he was wrong after being forced to by overwhelming evidence. My point was not an attack on Hawking but that only time will tell if Bush is right or not. At the current time I believe him to be correct, but for him to say he is wrong when we have yet to see how events will unfold would be quite premature.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Sameer on Jul 5^th, 2007, 1:29pm

on 07/05/07 at 12:03:09, ima1trkpny wrote:

You still think he is a good choice in spite of him pardoning ppl like scooter libby and taking no action on gonzales? Lying through the teeth. Saying one thing at one time and denying having ever said that again? Cheney shoots a guy in face and the guy has to apologize? Now, come on there has to be some limit. I can't even go on listing things, I get depressed every time I see what this government does and tells everyday.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ima1trkpny on Jul 5^th, 2007, 2:22pm

on 07/05/07 at 13:29:08, Sameer wrote:

As we all know sometimes you have to concede a fight, no matter how much you want to finish it, because if you don't it will hamper your ability to do things that may be more important. I have yet to see anything that makes me believe that he has knowingly lied. Only time will tell if his actions are justified or not, and even then not everyone will agree. I respect him because I feel he does what he believes is right and in the best interest of the people and in so doing focuses on doing the most good for the greatest amount of people knowing he can never make everyone happy and if he tried he would never be able to accomplish anything.
The shooting accident was just that, an accident. The man never had to appologize, he chose to. Every reliable source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11312757/) or account by witnesses indicates that it was a complete accident caused by miscommunication. It is most tragic that it happened but if the VP was so unconcerned he wouldn't have gone to such effort to make sure the man was treated instantly.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ThudanBlunder on Jul 5^th, 2007, 3:23pm

I also have no wish to debate how many angels can dance on the end of a pin. But the voting demographic of the 2004 election is interesting. That bracing sea air must clear the mind wonderfully! ;)

Quote:

Generally I find your sense of humor very amusing but this time it was way over the line.

Don't worry, ima1trkpny, it was tongue-in-cheek but they don't have an icon for that.

on 07/05/07 at 12:03:09, ima1trkpny wrote:

OK, I am sorry if I offended these nice rednecks by implying that any of them would vote for Bush. :P

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ima1trkpny on Jul 5^th, 2007, 5:37pm

Hey, I am a Californian... and I am proud to say I did vote for him. Far better than Kerry and I will totally leave if Hillary is elected... boy will the country go to hell in a handbag if she gets elected. If God had a sense of humor, Condoleza would run... smart woman who gets things done... but she doesn't have enough political experience to be electible. (This is no big deal in my book however because as a general rule I hate politicians.) Another person I would totally vote for is Laura Bush, class act who, while she may be in the shadows, is a very capable woman. But at this point in this election I will have to pick the least of all the evils as I have yet to see a candidate I feel is worthy... but I would have just about anybody but Hillary.
Yes, I knew you were being tongue-in-cheek as you so aptly put it, however I still don't think that is by any means fair to criticise people who work hard and have a right to their opinion as well as to who should decide how their money is spent. If they feel Bush's agenda is a good idea who the hell are you to tell them differently?

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ThudanBlunder on Jul 5^th, 2007, 5:48pm

on 07/05/07 at 17:37:37, ima1trkpny wrote:

But at this point in this election I will have to pick the least of all the evils as I have yet to see a candidate I feel is worthy... but I would have just about anybody but Hillary.

How about the guy who used to be The Next President of The United States before your Supreme Court decided otherwise by voting down party lines? (Isn't The Law supposed to be independent of political affiliation?)

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ThudanBlunder on Jul 5^th, 2007, 6:20pm

on 07/05/07 at 14:22:18, ima1trkpny wrote:

The man never had to appologize, he chose to.

I suppose it was something like, "So sorry about that, Dick. My face got in the way of your shot. That bird owes me. Hang on while I turn the other cheek."

Anyway, one would think that the second most powerful man on the planet would have better things to do than shooting dead wee, innocent birds for amusement. But I guess they had it coming. They didn't realize who they were messing with and were duly shocked and awed.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Jul 6^th, 2007, 12:42am

on 07/05/07 at 17:37:37, ima1trkpny wrote:

Far better than Kerry and I will totally leave if Hillary is elected...

boy will the country go to hell in a handbag if she gets elected.

I doubt that one option is honestly that much worse than the other. And the first Clinton was far from a disaster for the US.

Quote:

Yes, I knew you were being tongue-in-cheek as you so aptly put it, however I still don't think that is by any means fair to criticise people who work hard and have a right to their opinion as well as to who should decide how their money is spent. If they feel Bush's agenda is a good idea who the hell are you to tell them differently?

He's someone with a right to his opinion?
Also being hardworking doesn't improve in itself one's opinions and decisions, and doesn't exempt one from criticism.
If people voted in Hillary next election, would you not criticize people that voted for her, even though they have the right to their opinions and the right to decide how their money is spend (or flushed down the drain, if that's how you might perceive it)?

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ThudanBlunder on Jul 6^th, 2007, 10:42am

on 07/06/07 at 00:42:05, towr wrote:

He's someone with a right to his opinion?

I use the generic term 'redneck' about nobody in particular and she manages to get all offended by labelling her own friends as rednecks. ???

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Jul 6^th, 2007, 11:44am

on 07/06/07 at 10:42:38, ThudanBlunder wrote:

I use the generic term 'redneck' about nobody in particular and she manages to get all offended by labelling her own friends as rednecks. ???

It may be nobody in particular to you, but those "51 million rednecks" do, apparantly, in particular include (some of) her friends. Nevermind that that 'generic' term is derogatory in nature.
And even from your usage it's pretty clear you didn't mean it as "fine, intelligent, upstanding citizens of america"; you might as well have said "51 million idiots". I can see how someone might take offense at such an opinion.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ThudanBlunder on Jul 6^th, 2007, 6:28pm

on 07/06/07 at 11:44:26, towr wrote:

you might as well have said "51 million idiots".

So I say, "51 million idiots blah blah blah...." and she says, "Hey, some of my best friends are idiots!" and somehow I'm the bad guy?

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ima1trkpny on Jul 6^th, 2007, 10:57pm

on 07/06/07 at 00:42:05, towr wrote:

A lot of people said they'd leave if Bush was elected, more said they'd leave if he was elected a second time; few, however, made good on their promise.. So honestly, would you really leave? ::)

I doubt that one option is honestly that much worse than the other. And the first Clinton was far from a disaster for the US.

Yes, I would leave or die trying (still in debate as to the exact relocation point and hopefully it doesn't come to that, as it isn't looking good for her in the sense that she isn't getting all the money like other candidates). Did you ever see the national health care system Bill put her in charge of designing? The problem with her is that she much more vicious than Bill... she is the one who wears the pants in that relationship and pretty much runs the show for both of them. She would be considerably worse than her incompetent hubby, as she has even less of an idea what she is doing, but far more insistant that she does.

Yes, ThudandBlunder has a right to his opinions (never once did I say he didn't) but lets keep those opinions to the leaders and not aimed at the citizens. I got upset about your use of rednecks because it's stereotypical meaning of someone from the south who loves shooting, hunting and other outdoor sports is synonymous with white trash, which in many cases is entirely backwards as what I would call "trashy" people are those who rape the system by getting everyone else to support them and their lazy ass tendencies. The particular people I was refering to have logical reasons for their voting choices in that they feel he best represents their interests. Their reasoning behind their decisions is none of his business and he has no right to challenge the legitimacy.

As to how I would react to the population if they voted her in, same thing. They are looking out for their best interest or what they think is in their best interest and who the hell am I to tell them differently? If asked I will discuss the pros and cons with someone who engages me about it, but as well as I may reason an arguement, I will never be able to be in their shoes and experience the exact circumstances that prompted their actions, and so they will either change their mind or they won't. But it is not my place to criticise, browbeat, or degrade them if they thought it out and came to a different solution than I. All I know is that she is most definately not in my best interest and so all I can do is take care of myself. I do however admittedly occasionally lose my temper at people like Paris Hilton however who campaigns for months for Rock the Vote, etc and then doesn't bother to do it herself (however this may in fact be a good thing as I am not convinced she does think things through... but maybe I am wrong... ::)) But at least with voters who have thought the dicision out they have taken the time and "put their money where their mouth is" and followed through in support of their decision.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Jul 7^th, 2007, 5:49am

on 07/06/07 at 18:28:16, ThudanBlunder wrote:

So I say, "51 million idiots blah blah blah...." and she says, "Hey, some of my best friends are idiots!" and somehow I'm the bad guy?

What she said amounted not to "Hey, some of my friends are idiots" but "Hey, some of those 51 million people are my friends, and you just called them idiots!"

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Jul 7^th, 2007, 5:56am

on 07/06/07 at 22:57:57, ima1trkpny wrote:

But it is not my place to criticise, browbeat, or degrade them if they thought it out and came to a different solution than I.

Perhaps we have a different definition of criticising; but I don't see anything wrong with criticising people's decisions and opinions. I'd agree, however, that it's another story to browbeat or degrade people for them; that's several leaps beyond criticism.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ima1trkpny on Jul 7^th, 2007, 1:01pm

on 07/07/07 at 05:56:32, towr wrote:

That is fair but quite often people don't stop at just criticizing the decisions or opinions and move on to personal attacks which is the part I particularly despise. I think we are pretty much on the same page about that one. I may disagree with someone and tell them so, but calling them stupid for having a different opinion isn't fair... (that is only justifiable if they never thought it out at all and just copied someone else's opinion. :P)

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by ThudanBlunder on Jul 8^th, 2007, 5:05pm

on 07/07/07 at 05:49:36, towr wrote:

What she said amounted not to "Hey, some of my friends are idiots" but "Hey, some of those 51 million people are my friends, and you just called them idiots!"

Anyway, I find it humorously appropriate that when I post a provocative over-generalisation such as 'All Bush voters are rednecks' somebody rushes to the defence of rednecks rather than Bush voters.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by SWF on Jul 8^th, 2007, 9:29pm

On hindsight, whoever got elected ends up looking like the bad choice, mainly because we basically get to choose between two unacceptable candidates. That we have two less than ideal choices each election is partly the voter's fault because politicians know what it takes to win votes. Unfortunately what it takes to win an election is usually not what is best for the country.

For example, saying you will get the country out of debt by raising taxes and cutting government spending is a no win campaign. They need to say something like spending on education and medicial benefits will be increased and taxes will be cut, and then do some tricky bookeeping to hide the additional debt it would cause.

The voting process isn't all it is hyped to be. The comment made earlier about Paris Hilton involved in a get-out-and-vote publicity is opposite of the way I feel. I don't want uninformed people voting, so it is fine with me if Paris Hilton does not vote.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by JiNbOtAk on Jul 8^th, 2007, 10:31pm

on 07/08/07 at 21:29:04, SWF wrote:

I don't want uninformed people voting, so it is fine with me if Paris Hilton does not vote.

Are you saying that the voting process should only be allowed to the informed ones ? That doesn't sound very democratic to me. ( Not that I agree wholeheartedly with democracy anyway, but that's a different story ). If we were to limit who gets to vote and who doesn't, how is that different from racial or gender segregation ? The uninformed may vote wrongly ( from your point of view ) but that does mean his/her vote should not be counted.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Jul 9^th, 2007, 12:30am

on 07/08/07 at 17:05:12, ThudanBlunder wrote:

Anyway, I find it humorously appropriate that when I post a provocative over-generalisation such as 'All Bush voters are rednecks' somebody rushes to the defence of rednecks rather than Bush voters.

Why would the bush voters need 'defending' if being a redneck isn't a bad thing in the first place? Certainly they're not all 'rednecks', but that's just a minor point of inaccuracy once the insult has been diffused.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Jul 9^th, 2007, 12:54am

on 07/08/07 at 22:31:33, JiNbOtAk wrote:

Are you saying that the voting process should only be allowed to the informed ones ? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.

It is, as long as everyone is free an able to get informed.

Quote:

If we were to limit who gets to vote and who doesn't, how is that different from racial or gender segregation?

Reading up on political issues is a lot cheaper than getting a sex-change, and a lot less time consuming than reincarnating as a different race.

Quote:

The uninformed may vote wrongly ( from your point of view ) but that does mean his/her vote should not be counted.

That also depends on in how far they have been manipulated and in how far they are voting on their instincts. People are terrificly well adapted to massively make the wrong choice when prompted to, often to their own detriment. (Ancient Greek democracy has some great stories to this effect.)
One of the problems with elections is that they freeze one momentary popular opinion and you get stuck with it for several years. And every party tries to take advantage of this "folly of the day" phenomenon, among other things by promising tons of things they can't make good on. And people buy this crap wholesale, every time.
Once the politicians are in office they have several years to do whatever they want, and only have to worry about doing what the public wants the year before reelection, so they can dupe them again.

Perhaps it might be better if instead of one election every 4 years, you have an election every year by 25% of the population that replaces 1/4th of the politicians (if so desired by the voting public).
Everyone could vote out 25%, then vote in replacements. Or some such scheme.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by SWF on Jul 9^th, 2007, 6:38am

on 07/08/07 at 22:31:33, JiNbOtAk wrote:

Are you saying that the voting process should only be allowed to the informed ones ?

I am not saying uniformed voters should be stripped of their voting rights, only that I prefer they not vote. The get-out-and-vote campaigns are ridiculous. I don't want a bunch of votes cast by people who only voted because a commerical told them to just get out there and cast a ballot. Actually, the state where I used to live bans former convicted felons from voting, and Paris Hilton may qualify. In that case taking away her voting rights is OK with me.

Part of the problem is too many voters lack foresight and live for the moment- the same mindset that puts so many people in credit card debt. Sort of what would happen if you have a family of 8 children and let the household be run by majority vote. You would end up have candy for meals, no school, dental checkups, or exercise.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by JiNbOtAk on Jul 10^th, 2007, 8:28pm

on 07/09/07 at 06:38:32, SWF wrote:

Part of the problem is too many voters lack foresight and live for the moment- the same mindset that puts so many people in credit card debt. Sort of what would happen if you have a family of 8 children and let the household be run by majority vote. You would end up have candy for meals, no school, dental checkups, or exercise.

How do we segregate the voters with foresight, and those who lacked them ? Democracy is simply that, the decision is made by the majority. How insightful, or ignorant, the majority might be, is not in question. As I've said in my earlier post, I'm not a big fan of democracy anyway, but if one were to adopt the system, they should do so without prejudice.

As for the family example you've given, how is that different from a dictator system ? Granted, it works for families ( with good fathers anyway ), but will it work on a large scale, i.e. government ?

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Jul 11^th, 2007, 12:50am

on 07/10/07 at 20:28:07, JiNbOtAk wrote:

How do we segregate the voters with foresight, and those who lacked them ?

You stop urging people to vote. People with foresight will mostly vote anyway, those without will be less inclined. It's self-selection.
Giving people a choice, and urging them to make it regardless what, are not the same thing.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by JiNbOtAk on Jul 11^th, 2007, 1:35am

Whoa, stop urging people to vote ? Come on, that is not right. I mean, how is that democratic at all ? We should always strive to have 100% turnout at the polls, as that is what democracy really is, representation of the people, chosen by the people, rite ? Not just a select group of the people.

Even if we have only the informed ones voting, there would always be opposing sides, and I believe the same results would be in, even discounting the not so informed voters.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Jul 11^th, 2007, 2:40am

on 07/11/07 at 01:35:32, JiNbOtAk wrote:

Whoa, stop urging people to vote ? Come on, that is not right.

I mean, how is that democratic at all ?

How isn't it? Essentially people get an extra choice. Urging people that don't want to to vote, is a few steps removed from making a law forcing everyone to vote. People need to take that responsibility themselves.

Quote:

We should always strive to have 100% turnout at the polls, as that is what democracy really is, representation of the people, chosen by the people, rite ? Not just a select group of the people.

There should only be 100% turnout, if 100% of people want to vote. If they do not want to they should not be badgered or forced to. If the will isn't there democracy has already failed, and making them vote anyway only makes it worse.
One way in which it is worse is that apathic voters tend to vote for people that they don't actually support (partly for lack of even knowing their position). At best this produces random noise in the election results, at worst it randomizes election results so that majority of voters that do (still) care about politics don't get the result they deserve and become apathic and disillusioned.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Three Hands on Jul 11^th, 2007, 8:50am

Well, the Australians have to show up and vote, or face a fine. I don't see them going to hell in a handbasket.

However, there is always the choice of spoiling the ballot paper, and so pro-actively abstaining. Personally, I prefer to have people show up to make their vote (or lack of it) on the basis that at least they are then fulfilling a responsibility within a democratic society, even if it is just to say "I don't think any of these candidates are any good".

But I can see where you're coming from, towr

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Jul 11^th, 2007, 9:52am

on 07/11/07 at 08:50:30, Three Hands wrote:

Well, the Australians have to show up and vote, or face a fine. I don't see them going to hell in a handbasket.

Very few countries at the moment, regardless of their governmental model, are going to hell in a handbasket.
Between democracies the different voting procedures will in practice not be much more than a philosophical distinction. And as such, I don't expect to ever get what I vote for. So I'm at a loss why I even bothered the last few times.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by SWF on Jul 15^th, 2007, 3:03pm

on 07/10/07 at 20:28:07, JiNbOtAk wrote:

Democracy is simply that, the decision is made by the majority.

The way president gets elected is based on the Electoral College, which is not the same as majority of voters in the country. For example, in 2000 Al Gore received more votes than Bush. If vote is divided such that no candidate gets more than half the electoral votes, the House decides the president, which makes it even less dependent on voters.

Towr gave good reasons for why people should be free to choose whether they want to vote, so I won't comment much on that question. Even members of Congress can and do abstain from voting or not show up.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Sameer on Jul 15^th, 2007, 10:36pm

Talking about voting, I came across this video... pretty hilarious.. please don't take it the wrong way ;)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=355241692625915095&q=florida+voting+machine&total=105&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Iceman on Jul 18^th, 2007, 2:49pm

If he will be Irish, then yes: leprechauns, clovers with four leaves, so little things, but so honest, warm and big in heart. As for the Statue of Liberty, well, that woman is a bit too large for my taste. I like them smaller than me, so I can look them women from above, not vice versa. Or, or, the president could be an Indian, smoking peace pipe, from which cowboys took his country away from him, just so they divide it into only 50 states. Who needs a president, when you have 50 congressmen? Circus, anyone? Sure! Who is the current clown!? My point is, that there is no need to go to extreme, whatever the subject was, white or black, pink or football, president or his wife. Give the man a break. He is trying. And nobody is perfect. This also means that USA is not that important, as you would like it to be. There is Coke in USA, but so is everywhere. There are nuclear weapons in USA, but even Liechtenstein has nuclear capabilities, thanks to Russians. There are cheeseburgers in USA, but in all other countries as well. Even Bushmen have Macdonald's. So why didn't you mention a president of some other country? What is so special about America, excepting Matrix? One should find a balance of his own, as the president cannot live your life instead of you. He can guide you in the right direction, it is plausible, but it is ultimately up to you to become somebody or nobody. As for an opinion, everybody has one, maybe even two. A lot of people are uneducated, even standing in breadline, which still exists regardless of the Green Revolution. My advice is that, if you want to chitchat like that, get back to riddles instead, even if they are bad. We need some solidarity here, and certainly not a president who might divide everybody, even riddlers here. I mean, the second you pressed the send button, you got more than 100 different opinions. The needs of many are more important than needs of one president. So much about presidents from my part, just in case you were interested in opinion 101 as well.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Sameer on Jul 18^th, 2007, 2:59pm

You mention Coke and Cheeseburgers... but aren't these American products? Why are they in the whole world? Why should they be in whole world? Does it feel familiar that Trade, economics and other aspects of your lives are run by decisions made in US? Doesn't that make the President of USA a definite topic of discussion?

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Iceman on Jul 19^th, 2007, 7:08am

You're right. Sometimes I talk rubbish. :-[ :-*

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by JiNbOtAk on Jul 22^nd, 2007, 7:09pm

on 07/18/07 at 14:59:24, Sameer wrote:

You mention Coke and Cheeseburgers... but aren't these American products?

Tea, coffee, paper, pizza..are these from America too ? ::) Reiterating what Icey said in his earlier post, what makes the USA so important ?

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by Sameer on Jul 22^nd, 2007, 8:45pm

on 07/22/07 at 19:09:54, JiNbOtAk wrote:

Tea, coffee, paper, pizza..are these from America too ? ::) Reiterating what Icey said in his earlier post, what makes the USA so important ?

Of course that was a very specific example, but the point is US influences mostly everything in the world and hence it is important!!!

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by JiNbOtAk on Jul 22^nd, 2007, 10:57pm

on 07/22/07 at 20:45:03, Sameer wrote:

Of course that was a very specific example, but the point is US influences mostly everything in the world and hence it is important!!!

Of course, according to the Americans..try selling that idea to, oh, I don't know, the Vietnamese ? Or maybe the Iraqis..

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Jul 23^rd, 2007, 12:34am

on 07/22/07 at 22:57:08, JiNbOtAk wrote:

Of course, according to the Americans..try selling that idea to, oh, I don't know, the Vietnamese ? Or maybe the Iraqis..

I don't think any of them would object that America is an important actor on the international stage. They might have something to say about how positive a role it plays though..

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by martincroe on Feb 13^th, 2012, 2:57am

i think after Abrahim Lincoln no body is the honest president..

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by jordan on Feb 2^nd, 2014, 1:10pm

USA has quite good presidents. If you are not happy about USA presidents look at Europe countries presidents

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Feb 2^nd, 2014, 10:32pm

on 02/02/14 at 13:10:13, jordan wrote:

USA has quite good presidents. If you are not happy about USA presidents look at Europe countries presidents

In many European countries the political power lies with the prime minister, so the president (if they have one) is not equivalent to the position of president in the US.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by jordan on Feb 3^rd, 2014, 12:26pm

okay, what about Italian prime minister Berlusconi? :)

If you are from USA, then I guess you don't know a lot about small countries presidents and prime ministers. Sometimes it is impossible to understand how did they get this position

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Feb 3^rd, 2014, 1:17pm

I'm from the Netherlands.
Though I'm sure that in a large country as the US there are plenty of people (well, some, at least), that have a decent understanding of smaller country's politics.

From the Netherland's perspective, of course, Italy is not a small country; it's several times our size in area and population.
I don't really find it surprising that someone who controls much of the country's most important media might rise to a position of power he's unsuited for; repeatedly. Fortunately Berlusconi is not prime minister any more, and the past seems to have somewhat caught up with him. But he was a good example of how a prime minister is more important politically than the president.
The only European country I can name off the top of my head where the position of president is somewhat equivalent to the US one, is France. (But then, most other countries where I have some idea of the political landscape are monarchies, so they wouldn't have presidents. I suppose there's also Russia, but that's more a Putinocracy -- political power lies with Putin, regardless of whether he's president or prime-minister.)

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by JiNbOtAk on Apr 20^th, 2014, 9:53pm

on 07/11/07 at 02:40:32, towr wrote:

Why not? I'm not saying to should be urged not to vote. Just give them the choice, the means, and let them figure out for themselves whether it means enough to them to get out there and vote.
They should not be pressured to give up their right not to care about politics.

How isn't it? Essentially people get an extra choice. Urging people that don't want to to vote, is a few steps removed from making a law forcing everyone to vote. People need to take that responsibility themselves.

There should only be 100% turnout, if 100% of people want to vote. If they do not want to they should not be badgered or forced to. If the will isn't there democracy has already failed, and making them vote anyway only makes it worse.
One way in which it is worse is that apathic voters tend to vote for people that they don't actually support (partly for lack of even knowing their position). At best this produces random noise in the election results, at worst it randomizes election results so that majority of voters that do (still) care about politics don't get the result they deserve and become apathic and disillusioned.

Revisiting this topic after almost 7 years made me realize that opinions do change over time. I have to admit towr, after having a more in-depth experience with elections and the electoral process, I've arrived at a similar conclusion; Freedom of choice is an intergral component of democracy. Even when that choice is not to choose. Though I'd prefer Three Hands' suggestion of actively abstaining, I've come to realize that everyone's choice matter. Even if I think they're sh!tty choice(s). ::)

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by rloginunix on Apr 21^st, 2014, 2:29pm

I'd side with Icarus - correlate raw intelligence with a profession carefully. Example: the proof of the Pythegorean theorem found by the 20th President of the United States James Abraham Garfield:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBAttachments/rlu_jagpt.png

There's more to J. Garfield's fascinating story. Shot twice by an assassin he was treated by doctors with unsterilized hands and, after the doctors failed to locate the bullet, by Graham Bell with a metal detector which instead of a potential bullet had detected a metal mattress spring. Three months after receiving the wounds J. Garfield passed away and an autopsy revealed that the wound was not fatal. Still, the doctors have sent the bill to Congress and got paid ...

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by rloginunix on Apr 21^st, 2014, 3:07pm

Can't help it but I just Love the way the Swiss do it - binding referendums. "The people have spoken, and the people is right". The German dictionary lacks the word frequented by the Swiss newspapers - "the threat of a referendum". Man, that's awesome. To the best of my knowledge since its inception in 1848 Switzerland held more than 400 national referendums. And if you add the cantonal and city level referendums that number will likely be close to or more than a thousand. Just recently the Swiss said "hell, no" to EU immigration.

I'd prefer referendums to a system where a small number of law making individuals whose pockets are waiting to be lined with cash supplied by the highest bidder decide the fate of the millions. The same small number of law making individuals who very cleverly exclude themselves from being on the receiving end of the very laws they make.

I speak from direct experience. Those who live in US know that on that fateful day of October 22, 1986 Congress passed the "Tax Reform Act of 1986" which had a "Section 1706" added to it by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat from New York. That section had (and still has) a devastating effect on computer programmers - we can't work as independent contractors, we can't be entrepreneurs, we can't set up freelance businesses: one-man shows are not allowed. We take home half of what we could otherwise.

Why is that? Which law in this Universe says that an electrician or a plumber can be an independent contractor and I can't? You put that question into the Congressional abyss and all you hear back is a deafening silence. You put that question on a referendum ballot and I'm sure all the programmers 1) would vote, 2) would vote a resounding "there's no such law".

Which is why people infinitely more smarter than me spoke on (and settled, for me at least) this matter. In "The Ultimate Quotable Einstein" by Alice Calaprice, ISBN 978-0-691-13817-6, on page 302 we find:

"It is a happy fate to remain fascinated by one's work up to the last gasp. Otherwise we would suffer too much from the stupidity and madness of man as manifested mainly in politics".

And on page 308:

"One must divide one's time between politics and equations. But our equations are much more important to me, because politics is for the present, while our equations are for eternity".

Riddles anyone?

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Apr 21^st, 2014, 10:41pm

on 04/21/14 at 15:07:41, rloginunix wrote:

Can't help it but I just Love the way the Swiss do it - binding referendums. "The people have spoken, and the people is right".

If only the people weren't myopic, easily scared, easily swayed by demagogues, etc. People suck. Especially other people.

Quote:

I'd prefer referendums to a system where a small number of law making individuals whose pockets are waiting to be lined with cash supplied by the highest bidder decide the fate of the millions. The same small number of law making individuals who very cleverly exclude themselves from being on the receiving end of the very laws they make.

I don't know whether it'd make a lot of difference. It's mostly a matter of were you spend your money to get what you want, whether on lobbying to politicians or marketing to sway the masses.

Quote:

I speak from direct experience. Those who live in US know that on that fateful day of October 22, 1986 Congress passed the "Tax Reform Act of 1986" which had a "Section 1706" added to it by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat from New York. That section had (and still has) a devastating effect on computer programmers - we can't work as independent contractors, we can't be entrepreneurs, we can't set up freelance businesses: one-man shows are not allowed.

Wikipedia is a bit short on that section, but I don't see it. It seems to say that a third-party intermediary has to pay taxes if you're working for all intents and purposes as an employee.
A favorable reading of that would be that a company that employs you can't tell you to become an "independent" contractor so they can enjoy tax-benefits. (Something which, if I recall correctly, has been a bit of a problem around here in construction.)

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by rloginunix on Apr 22^nd, 2014, 10:43am

Not really sure why Wiki is a bit short on that issue. May be because it's such a niche: only IT and only in US.

The bottom line is this - it's all about money (what else is new?). Theoretically and technically - on paper - no one is stopping or preventing you from being independent - go right ahead. However, the magic words "trouble with IRS" is all it takes for people to not wanting to touch you with a 10-foot pole. IRS uses a list of 20 questions, which are nothing more than an ambiguous nonsense, to "determine" if you are a "real" independent contractor or not. And if you are then they come down hard on you and possibly the company that hired you. Guess what most companies prefer to do - either convert to a full time employee or walk.

This gave birth to a miniature industry known here as "consulting companies" or a man in the middle. The closest you can come to an IRS worry-free "independence" is by working as a "consultant" for such a company. Company A hires a "consulting company" B which, in turn, hires you, a "consultant" C. So technically, on paper, you are a full time employee of company B but you do the work for company A. You get very little tax breaks and you make less. Company B does pretty much nothing. It collects the pay for simply being a man in the middle.

The "rationale" behind all of this is the following. IRS reasons that it is much easier for them to collect taxes from full timers because there's not much room to cheat and it is much more difficult to collect taxes from independent contractors because they are given lot's of tax breaks and it's easier to cheat. However, independent people, by the virtue of making more, would've paid more taxes. So IRS chooses to collect less from those who cheat less instead of collecting more from those who may cheat more.

Not sure if it all makes sense. Politics. Waste of time.

Links go stale quickly so read this article quickly (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/27/business/how-a-tax-law-helps-insure-a-scarcity-of-programmers.html), may be it will clarify things somewhat.

If it's not there the string I used to search duckduckgo is "archives programmer independent Moynihan". Above article came up first. But I'm sure there are plenty of others.

P.S.
And, oh, yes. Almost forgot. The sole reason this "Section 1706" thingy came into place was because of IBM. Through some miraculously mysterious orchestration of events IBM "got" a tax break for their overseas operations. According to the law Congress must balance its budget. So they lost money on IBM and guess who is paying for it - you.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by towr on Apr 22^nd, 2014, 12:20pm

Sometimes the American dream is very very trippy indeed.

Title: Re: Presidents
Post by JiNbOtAk on Apr 28^th, 2014, 7:30pm

on 04/22/14 at 12:20:21, towr wrote:

Sometimes the American dream is very very trippy indeed.

Ya think ?

Perhaps America is not so cool.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjMqda19wk)