DescentBB

flip wrote:I never said singlehandedly. It's all 100 senators,435 representatives and 9 justices too =/. We can't touch the justices, the rest should be recycled regularly.

Most of them have very little real impact on economic cycles too.

Jeez man.

You know I was gonna just and move on, but I'm curious as to your point. How in the hell do those less than 600 people have little effect on economic cycles. Who else is there?

flip wrote:Honestly TC, who gives a **** what President Kennedy did or George Washington. It has nothing to do with the here and now and to keep going back like that is damaging to progress. Half the people here knew exactly what he did wrong when he did it. It's been done that way for God knows how long and to surmise that it might have been someone else's fault is ridiculous. Your support of the man borders on fanaticism. What exactly do you have invested in this particular president and wouldn't you like to have one that at least knew how to carry himself and project strength instead of appearing foolish every 3-4 weeks? I don't get why it HAS to be Obama.

You know, I don't understand why you think I'm fanatic for Obama. In fact, the opposite is true. I think he's just another politician with a corporate agenda and I wouldn't hesitate to vote for someone else if someone better came along. I voted for a Democrat and that's NOT what he's ended being.

What bothers me is that several of you are vilifying Obama for something all presidents have fallen victim to, plain old human mistakes. I was only pointing out that other presidents have made similar mistakes too. I wasn't trying to blame Bush for Obama's mistake either CUDA. At least Obama didn't vomit into her lap!

Will Robinson wrote:Like I said it's not a big deal but your response has me wondering...are you prepared to be consistent with the application of that shield?

Yes. Bush, HW and Reagan all made their mistakes because someone else didn't do the proper prep work. Being president doesn't mean one has the time or ability to do everything. That's why they have a cabinet, advisers, speech writers and other people to do a lot of the foot and grunt work for them. They aren't super human.

It's just I get tired of the conditioned response. It's exactly what they want. There's a small handful of them ramrodding their ideals down our throats and they have US cheering for them like their our favorite football team. I'm sure they sit around and chuckle to themselves abotu how fuckin easily led and gullible we've become. I wasn't picking on you in particular, it was just an opportunity.

flip wrote:It's just I get tired of the conditioned response. It's exactly what they want. There's a small handful of them ramrodding their ideals down our throats and they have US cheering for them like their our favorite football team. I'm sure they sit around and chuckle to themselves abotu how **** easily led and gullible we've become. I wasn't picking on you in particular, it was just an opportunity.

What ideals do you think are being "ramrodded" down your and everyone else's throats? Just curious to see what page you're on.

tunnelcat wrote:Yes. Bush, HW and Reagan all made their mistakes because someone else didn't do the proper prep work. Being president doesn't mean one has the time or ability to do everything. That's why they have a cabinet, advisers, speech writers and other people to do a lot of the foot and grunt work for them. They aren't super human.

And I'm sure Mr. Clinton the Only Democrat President in the last generation who you seem to have left off your List never Gaffed either

I think the biggest thing I 'believe' I see, is a small group of people systematically selling off America. Piece by piece. They have money one way or the other so no matter what ends up of America, they can just go live in Brazil if they like. To answer a very complicated question, simply and if it's not sufficient I'll sit down and really try and order my thoughts here, but this is what I see. All the rich and powerful that exist at this moment, creating a world wide oligarchy. In which they essentially can control all the worlds resources. I also honestly feel a change in currency is around the corner again.

I'd vote for Clinton if he ran again, and after thinking about his presidency maybe his wife too. He DID go out of his way to reduce our debt, no doubt knowing the future. Got publicly and completely screwed out of public office in a moment of weakness, but I do think he believed in America.

Addendum: I mean honestly, who keeps a cum stained dress

flip wrote:You know I was gonna just and move on, but I'm curious as to your point. How in the hell do those less than 600 people have little effect on economic cycles. Who else is there?

Um...the global economy itself? While Congress can pass laws that affect things like tax rates and business regulation, they don't directly control actual economic conditions and corporate/financial decision-making. The president has even less direct influence over the economy than Congress does, and the judicial system essentially none at all. If there's any one power in government that could be said to have some level of control, that would be the Federal Reserve. The root cause of the financial meltdown of the past few years was financial institutions pursuing intensely stupid loan policies for the sake of short-term profits, and while you can legitimately criticize Congress for not passing better regulatory legislation, they weren't the ones who actually created the mess.

According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve is independent within government in that "its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government." However, its authority is derived from the U.S. Congress and is subject to congressional oversight. Additionally, the members of the Board of Governors, including its chairman and vice-chairman, are chosen by the President and confirmed by Congress.

Seems they get to pick the players though. I wasn't referring to the global economy initially when I asked that question.

they weren't the ones who actually created the mess.

No, but they put just the right people in place and allowed it.

According to the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve is independent within government in that "its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government."

See, we actually became an oligarchy in 1913 but were still taught as children that we were a democracy, and even that wasn't entirely correct but it sounds the best

.

Bet51987 wrote:I never thought I'd ever see you use the fword Flip. Took me by complete surprise too but at least you're making a difference by helping Koolbear get the forum he always wanted, And, yeah, I know about the filter but I rather know the character of the people I interact with.

Hope you see this before I get booted out.

Bettina

Huh?

Bett, you hardly know me at all I guess. I'm far from perfect. I don't boast about it or deny it. You think that's bad? You should have seen me 20 years ago. I'm improving >: )

Lol, I should add that my swear filter has never been turned off

CUDA wrote:And I'm sure Mr. Clinton the Only Democrat President in the last generation who you seem to have left off your List never Gaffed either

For you CUDA, since I'm no fan of Clinton either.

CLINTON GAFF

flip wrote:I'd vote for Clinton if he ran again, and after thinking about his presidency maybe his wife too. He DID go out of his way to reduce our debt, no doubt knowing the future. Got publicly and completely screwed out of public office in a moment of weakness, but I do think he believed in America.

Addendum: I mean honestly, who keeps a cum stained dress

flip, I think Clinton had his problems too. He partied like there was no tomorrow while in office, obviously, and played kumbaya way too much with the Republicans to appease a Gingrich-controlled Congress. He's from a long line of presidents that didn't stick to his party's ideals when the boots hit the pavement. And guess who signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which probably set the stage for our recent banking crisis? Little Bill Clinton.

flip wrote:You know I was gonna just and move on, but I'm curious as to your point. How in the hell do those less than 600 people have little effect on economic cycles. Who else is there?

the other 310 Million citizens, plus consumers and producers the world over. I have always agreed with flip's sentiment.....politicians have nearly ZERO positive effect on economic trends, sometimes can trigger negative trends and overall have little effect upon cycle times.

tunnelcat wrote:several of you are vilifying Obama for something all presidents have fallen victim to, plain old human mistakes..... They aren't super human.

I would be less critical if large swaths of the media and large numbers of Democrats hadn't sold Obama as super-human during the election. We were all told that W was a dumb hick, but Obama was made of rainbows and unicorn giggles and MENSA brains.

It's satisfying to see him f-word* up every once in a while, and to see those who sold him as super-human scramble to cover for him. Not because it reflects particularly poorly on him, but because it reflects particularly poorly on those who pushed the "super-human" narrative.







* for bettina's benefit

personally, i find leaders using curse words their undoing. They're supposed to be setting an example for the rest of us... and when they resort to cursing, what kind of an example are they setting for us? Are they saying it's okay for us to fire off a few f bombs when things get difficult?

Lothar wrote:I would be less critical if large swaths of the media and large numbers of Democrats hadn't sold Obama as super-human during the election.

OK, but "large swaths of the media and large numbers of Democrats" is misrepresentative of the dbb.net audience. There may be some Obama worshipers here, but these kinds of threads just alienate the rest of us who voted for him in 2008 (and I doubt they have much positive sway on the worshipers too).

Words are used to get your point, feelings and frustrations across clearly to the reader. That's what words are for.

I have an immense amount of respect for you slick. A man who thinks fate shouldn't determine a man's fate.

callmeslick wrote:the other 310 Million citizens, plus consumers and producers the world over. I have always agreed with flip's sentiment.....politicians have nearly ZERO positive effect on economic trends, sometimes can trigger negative trends and overall have little effect upon cycle times.

so blaming obama, GW bush, et al for changes in the economy is futile at best, huh?

The fun part is that it's not a new phenomenon by any means. Presidents have been receiving praise/blame for economic changes during their terms for about as long as the country has existed, and by any reasonable standard, very little of it either way has been directly attributable to any of them.

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:You know I was gonna just and move on, but I'm curious as to your point. How in the hell do those less than 600 people have little effect on economic cycles. Who else is there?

the other 310 Million citizens, plus consumers and producers the world over. I have always agreed with flip's sentiment.....politicians have nearly ZERO positive effect on economic trends, sometimes can trigger negative trends and overall have little effect upon cycle times.

So I guess the dog food eating era of Carter ended because of a "cycle" and not because Reagan set a new tone?

Jeff250 wrote:

Lothar wrote:I would be less critical if large swaths of the media and large numbers of Democrats hadn't sold Obama as super-human during the election.

OK, but "large swaths of the media and large numbers of Democrats" is misrepresentative of the dbb.net audience. There may be some Obama worshipers here, but these kinds of threads just alienate the rest of us who voted for him in 2008 (and I doubt they have much positive sway on the worshipers too).

so we shouldn't criticize the ridiculous level of praise heaped upon him by some because that makes all his supporters feel bad? I would think you not-zealous supporters wouldnt need that kind of special consideration

[ Post made via Android ]

Not, if the targets are the supporters.

Duh…stupid board, this post belongs below the one beneath this one.

Will Robinson wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:

Lothar wrote:I would be less critical if large swaths of the media and large numbers of Democrats hadn't sold Obama as super-human during the election.

OK, but "large swaths of the media and large numbers of Democrats" is misrepresentative of the dbb.net audience. There may be some Obama worshipers here, but these kinds of threads just alienate the rest of us who voted for him in 2008 (and I doubt they have much positive sway on the worshipers too).

so we shouldn't criticize the ridiculous level of praise heaped upon him by some because that makes all his supporters feel bad? I would think you not-zealous supporters wouldnt need that kind of special consideration

Completely missing the point. Attacking the majority of Obama's supporters is little more than attacking a strawman. You set it up and knock it down.

The fun part is that it's not a new phenomenon by any means. Presidents have been receiving praise/blame for economic changes during their terms for about as long as the country has existed, and by any reasonable standard, very little of it either way has been directly attributable to any of them.

And yet we still have these stupid ass questions about who would be the best President, all the while ignoring the real power structure. I don't get it. Adapt mofo's

null0010 wrote:...

Completely missing the point. Attacking the majority of Obama's supporters is little more than attacking a strawman. You set it up and knock it down.

Pointing out that he doesn't live up to the ridiculously high level of praise assigned by some is NOT attacking the majority of his supporters, unless the majority of his supporters hang their support for him completely on ridiculously high levels of praise...

Will Robinson wrote:so we shouldn't criticize the ridiculous level of praise heaped upon him by some because that makes all his supporters feel bad? I would think you not-zealous supporters wouldnt need that kind of special consideration

No, I'm saying that when you intentionally use pedantic arguments to irk zealous people who for the most part don't even post here, your general case against Obama looks weaker to everyone. It waters down your argument. Show us the meat.

Jeff250 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:so we shouldn't criticize the ridiculous level of praise heaped upon him by some because that makes all his supporters feel bad? I would think you not-zealous supporters wouldnt need that kind of special consideration

No, I'm saying that when you intentionally use pedantic arguments to irk zealous people who for the most part don't even post here, your general case against Obama looks weaker to everyone. It waters down your argument. Show us the meat.

ahh! Sorry my bad I made a bad assumption.
For my part I already qualified my concern with a I-don't-think-there-is-much-to-it......but that doesn't mean I wont tweak the zealots if they do jump in and go partyline on it.

That shouldn't be too offputting for the average Obama supporter.

[ Post made via Android ]

Ferno wrote:

callmeslick wrote:the other 310 Million citizens, plus consumers and producers the world over. I have always agreed with flip's sentiment.....politicians have nearly ZERO positive effect on economic trends, sometimes can trigger negative trends and overall have little effect upon cycle times.

so blaming obama, GW bush, et al for changes in the economy is futile at best, huh?

correct, IMHO. One can blame politicians for setting a tone that may have repercussions far down the road, in the form of trends and such, but for a politician to either take credit for a boom, or to blame a politician for being 'responsible' for a sluggish economy is simpleminded. What upsets me at times with the Obama camp is that none of them seem to have the political will(or balls) to come out and tell the unvarnished truth: So long as we do nothing, as a nation, to improve our competetive and innovative position within the world economy, we are not going to 'grow jobs', and that what is required to get those improvements is a series of actions by both government and private entities that is going to be costly, slow and require real work and sacrifice, possibly for a generation. I still have some faith that the US public contains a plurality who is adult enough to grasp that idea, and find the will to pitch in.

woodchip wrote:So I guess the dog food eating era of Carter ended because of a "cycle" and not because Reagan set a new tone?

yes, the upturn had absolutely NOTHING to do with Reagan. In fact, one can(and many do) cite Reagan as the perfect example of the long-term negative impact of 'setting a tone'. Reagan tirelessly played cheerleader for an American that was rooted in over-consumption, greed and selfishness. Ultimately, Reagan can be seen as the person who contributed the most to the mindset that has brought us much of the economic misery of the past decade(shrinking domestic employment opportunities, outlandish executive compensation, loss of worker's rights and perks, etc.).