View Full Version : If you had a magic wand...
...what would you change about the United States government?
One thing at a time, please; let's keep this orderly...
The first thing I would do would be to return to an original understanding of the Constitutional structure of the three branches of government with all checks, balances and limitations intact; this would include part-time legislature, and state's rights would reign supreme.
This does not mean that I would resurrect the odium of slavery, or remove rights which have been properly extended to women and racial minorities, among other things I'm sure you will try to hook me with over my inadvertant omission here.
Next?
vidcc
10-15-2005, 04:23 PM
state's rights would reign supreme.
I wonder if Roberts, Thomas and Scalia will take this stance on the doctor assisted suicide case being considered. A simplistic stance would mean they have to if Roe is to be overturned.
My mystical spell. (one at a time :angry: :P )
The pledge of allegiance returns to the original words.
orcutt989
10-15-2005, 04:28 PM
...what would you change about the United States government?
One thing at a time, please; let's keep this orderly...
The first thing I would do would be to return to an original understanding of the Constitutional structure of the three branches of government with all checks, balances and limitations intact; this would include part-time legislature, and state's rights would reign supreme.
This does not mean that I would resurrect the odium of slavery, or remove rights which have been properly extended to women and racial minorities, among other things I'm sure you will try to hook me with over my inadvertant omission here.
Next?
States rights reigning supreme? Sounds like a liberal to me. Dont worry, I agree with you, however US goverment teeters between the two sides of Liberal/Democrat(State) and Conservative/Republican(Federal). So what you are saying is that you just wish the government was just more liberal? That doesnt sound like a very different change then having a Liberal president and Liberal members in the branches of government. :shifty:
GepperRankins
10-15-2005, 04:54 PM
the head
vidcc
10-15-2005, 05:00 PM
We would get value for money on everything. Government contracts would no longer be a gravy train of overcharging.
...what would you change about the United States government?
One thing at a time, please; let's keep this orderly...
The first thing I would do would be to return to an original understanding of the Constitutional structure of the three branches of government with all checks, balances and limitations intact; this would include part-time legislature, and state's rights would reign supreme.
This does not mean that I would resurrect the odium of slavery, or remove rights which have been properly extended to women and racial minorities, among other things I'm sure you will try to hook me with over my inadvertant omission here.
Next?
States rights reigning supreme? Sounds like a liberal to me. Dont worry, I agree with you, however US goverment teeters between the two sides of Liberal/Democrat(State) and Conservative/Republican(Federal). So what you are saying is that you just wish the government was just more liberal? That doesnt sound like a very different change then having a Liberal president and Liberal members in the branches of government. :shifty:
I think I disagree with your current assessment of the State/Federal equation, but never mind that.
I think, very basically, that the removal from the states' milieu (going back to the Civil War and Lincoln's anti-secession maneuvering) of the ability/right of self-determination as established in our Constitution is the basis of citizen/voter apathy and feelings of helplessness in the face of big government that is so all-pervading today.
It has nothing at all inherently to do with either liberalism or conservatism-it is, rather, the appropriate source of empowerment for individuals and the best way to keep people engaged in matters concerning their country.
I don't think the Founders believed the citizenry ought to suffer the misapprehension of thinking the "health" of their government was not for their constant consideration.
At the time of the founding, Ben Franklin was asked by an onlooker, "What sort of government have you given us, sir?"
"A Republic", he replied, "if you can keep it.
He knew the Republic would suffer without the proper stewardship of the people.
vidcc
10-15-2005, 06:09 PM
We would get value for money on everything. Government contracts would no longer be a gravy train of overcharging. Government will also balance the books.
We would get value for money on everything. Government contracts would no longer be a gravy train of overcharging. Government will also balance the books.
We heard you the first time.
And balance the books, yes... :)
The next thing I would do would be to establish that the government adopt a stance of support for a free-market economy, starting with a hands-off approach and absolutely minimal regulation.
Competition would do the rest:
Manufacture safe, effective products that the public needs/desires at affordable prices.
None of these territorial entitlements, price supports/subsidies, tariffs, or any other such nonsense.
Wide...open...markets.
vidcc
10-15-2005, 06:40 PM
We would get value for money on everything. Government contracts would no longer be a gravy train of overcharging. Government will also balance the books.
We heard you the first time.
And balance the books, yes... :)
:unsure: I didn't think I had actually posted the first time, I started the post but was called away by my daughter to deal with a spider emergency.
Ok. next one:-
The FDA will make decisions strictly on medical grounds when it comes to drugs.
We heard you the first time.
And balance the books, yes... :)
:unsure: I didn't think I had actually posted the first time, I started the post but was called away by my daughter to deal with a spider emergency.
Ok. next one:-
The FDA will make decisions strictly on medical grounds when it comes to drugs.
Spiders are not the concern of the government; they definitely fall into a father's bailiwick.
The FDA should be done away with entirely; it's current concerns are best dealt with by the free market.
How many people die from bad drugs?
A few, but not for long; word gets around, and people stop taking the drug.
Courts can resolve any residual disputes.
Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people have died waiting out the snail's-pace process that has become the FDA's hallmark.
This is not necessary.
If the free market were allowed to work, drug companies wouldn't dare ignore due diligence.
As an aside, if the media advocated for the citizenry (as it should) instead of big government, it would be a tremendous help...
vidcc
10-15-2005, 07:12 PM
The FDA needs (as does everything government) a boot up the backside and made to be efficient. However the thought of free markets deciding if a drug is safe is one of the most insane ideas I have ever heard. IF however it was the case all tort reform limiting lawsuits should be removed.
We should be allowed a free market in respect to being able to buy drugs from wherever we wish though.
Next:-
FULL healthcare will be available to everyone no matter their financial circumstance or illness. Nobody should have to lose their home to pay hospital bills. I don't care how this is achieved but it must be achieved.
peat moss
10-15-2005, 08:35 PM
Make the Rep's black and women ,see if they could do any bettter .
The FDA needs (as does everything government) a boot up the backside and made to be efficient. However the thought of free markets deciding if a drug is safe is one of the most insane ideas I have ever heard. IF however it was the case all tort reform limiting lawsuits should be removed.
We should be allowed a free market in respect to being able to buy drugs from wherever we wish though.
Next:-
FULL healthcare will be available to everyone no matter their financial circumstance or illness. Nobody should have to lose their home to pay hospital bills. I don't care how this is achieved but it must be achieved.
Why should we have to support (with our taxes) an agency whose activities would better be provided by the market dynamic of competition?
If you make a inferior/deadly product, the market itself puts you out of business by depriving you of it's product, which is it's money.
What better impetus could there be to avoid sloppiness in research and manufacture?
Companies are subjected to FDA penalties all the time, but any fines accrued go the government-each offended party must seek legal redress on his own, and at great cost.
Nobody ever goes out of business; no effective penalty is ever levied.
What good is that?
There should be a death-penalty for bad business.
An added benefit of getting the government (in the guise of the FDA, here) out of business would be removal of any impetus to lobby the government on behalf of that business...no money=no bribes=no favoritism-even better and more fair competition.
Neat, huh?
Go ahead and uncap damage amounts; in a truly free market, there would be precious few legal actions anyway.
BTW-what purpose would uncapped damages serve?
So someone gets $100 million instead of $10 million?
Explain the rationale. please.
Make the Rep's black and women ,see if they could do any bettter .
The hustings should be "free-market" also, peat.
Ideas compete, as they should.
The better one wins, period.
vidcc
10-15-2005, 09:06 PM
Why should we have to support (with our taxes) an agency whose activities would better be provided by the market dynamic of competition?
If you make a inferior/deadly product, the market itself puts you out of business by depriving you of it's product, which is it's money.
What better impetus could there be to avoid sloppiness in research and manufacture? I don't want the market discovering the bad product, I want it discovered before it gets there. Besides who would take up the case...those evil lawyers that are destroying our healthcare I guess. :rolleyes:
Companies are subjected to FDA penalties all the time, but any fines accrued go the government-each offended party must seek legal redress on his own, and at great cost.
Nobody ever goes out of business; no effective penalty is ever levied.
What good is that? Which goes against this how?
The FDA needs (as does everything government) a boot up the backside and made to be efficient.
There should be a death-penalty for bad business.
An added benefit of getting the government (in the guise of the FDA, here) out of business would be removal of any impetus to lobby the government on behalf of that business...no money=no bribes=no favoritism-even better and more fair competition.
Neat, huh?Why not make financial contributions from lobby illegal? (apart from the point that it is detrimental to tom delay's ethical behaviour)
BTW-what purpose would uncapped damages serve?
So someone gets $100 million instead of $10 million?
Explain the rationale. please. to remove the "financially worth taking" risk factor
Next:-
The president will be elected by popular vote
I don't want the market discovering the bad product, I want it discovered before it gets there. Besides who would take up the case...those evil lawyers that are destroying our healthcare I guess. :rolleyes:
The problem is that during the "before it gets there" phase is when people are dying for want of a drug the FDA has slowed to the marketplace by virtue of it's bureaucracy, vid.
Why do you think it takes so much cash to market a new drug?
The drug companies didn't pull that argument out of thin air, you know.
Companies are subjected to FDA penalties all the time, but any fines accrued go the government-each offended party must seek legal redress on his own, and at great cost.
Nobody ever goes out of business; no effective penalty is ever levied.
What good is that? Which goes against this how?
The FDA needs (as does everything government) a boot up the backside and made to be efficient.
Like this:
INEFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES SHOULD DIE THE SAME HORRIBLE DEATH AS BAD BUSINESS.
There is nothing sacrosanct about government agencies, nor should there be.
There should be a death-penalty for bad business.
An added benefit of getting the government (in the guise of the FDA, here) out of business would be removal of any impetus to lobby the government on behalf of that business...no money=no bribes=no favoritism-even better and more fair competition.
Neat, huh?Why not make financial contributions from lobby illegal? (apart from the point that it is detrimental to tom delay's ethical behaviour)
To make them illegal would require another ineffective government enforcement agency to suck up tax money.
Have you ever seen a regulatory agency (which this would definitely be, right?) our legislators couldn't get campaign money past?
Eliminate the need to do so, and it will not happen; whatever you may think of the practice of lobbying/contributing, the people who do it think they are getting smething for it from the government, and if the government has nothing to give, it will stop, and what's really cool is...we get to keep our money instead of giving it to the government!
BTW-what purpose would uncapped damages serve?
So someone gets $100 million instead of $10 million?
Explain the rationale. please. to remove the "financially worth taking" risk factor
I see.
What is the "financially worth taking" risk factor, please?
vidcc
10-15-2005, 09:41 PM
J2.
What is the point of having this magical wand that makes government work how we want it to if you are going to take the position that government can't be made efficient with this wand?
J2.
What is the point of having this magical wand that makes government work how we want it to if you are going to take the position that government can't be made efficient with this wand?
Government can be made efficient vid, by lopping off great flipping chunks of it that serve no purpose.
There is no rule, likewise, that states a "wand" cannot have a knife-edge.
Besides which, if we stop government working to our detriment, are we not making it "work how we want it to"?
Much as I welcome vid's participation here, is no one else willing?
vidcc
10-15-2005, 10:25 PM
Government can be made efficient vid, by lopping off great flipping chunks of it that serve no purpose.
. I propose a focused effective and efficient change. This means cutting red tape and sometimes ridding pointless agencies. It's what we decide serves a purpose that is the difference between us. Just because the present agency in reality is ineffective or bogged down in Bureaucracy doesn't mean that it has to be.
All governments in the real world need to be made efficient.
I agree with open markets and supply side economics but not as an absolute, because I also believe strongly that there needs to be a balance with consumer protections. Market forces don't always achieve this, nor does big government. Efficient, effective government can...which is where the wand comes in.
Of course there should be minimum regulation. Defining what the minimum should be is the trick.
I propose a focused effective and efficient change.
Politicians do this all the time; I cannot ever recall it working...can you?
This means cutting red tape and sometimes ridding pointless agencies.
Do you have the slightest idea how many "agencies" there actually are? Red tape is the nature of all bureaucracies, and I am not aware of any agency that is as critical as it would have you believe, and that includes the armed services. Have you ever been to the Pentagon? That building ought to be able to house our entire government by itself.
It's what we decide serves a purpose that is the difference between us. Just because the present agency in reality is ineffective or bogged down in Bureaucracy doesn't mean that it has to be.
Of course they don't have to be, but that is the nature of the beast.
All governments in the real world need to be made efficient.
As opposed to the one in our fake world?
Why would we waste time on that?
I'm totally serious about everything I've proposed here, vid.
I agree with open markets and supply side economics but not as an absolute, because I also believe strongly that there needs to be a balance with consumer protections. Market forces don't always achieve this, nor does big government. Efficient, effective government can...which is where the wand comes in.
Market forces can't achieve consumer protections?
They worked fine until we undermined them way back when; no reason they wouldn't work now.
Of course there should be minimum regulation. Defining what the minimum should be is the trick.
No tricks necessary-re-start at zero and go from there.
zapjb
10-16-2005, 12:16 AM
First thing I'd change is give every eligible US citizen $100 to vote in a general (every 4yrs) election.
vidcc
10-16-2005, 02:14 AM
FFS Kev.
You offer a MAGIC WAND.
I shall repeat MAGIC WAND with which to change government.... A FANTASY SITUATION. Then when I attempt to with what I would like in an ideal you say that's not how political life works.
I give up as this wand has no magic.
clocker
10-16-2005, 02:59 AM
Market forces can't achieve consumer protections?
They worked fine until we undermined them way back when; no reason they wouldn't work now.
They did?
How to explain cocaine being sold as a general panacea, lead based paint, flammable pajamas....the list goes on?
Busyman
10-16-2005, 06:15 AM
FFS Kev.
You offer a MAGIC WAND.
I shall repeat MAGIC WAND with which to change government.... A FANTASY SITUATION. Then when I attempt to with what I would like in an ideal you say that's not how political life works.
I give up as this wand has no magic.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Took the words outta my mouth.
Kev will send the email or website link he read then you'll agree to make the thread go smoother (less rebuttals from Kev).
The multiple answers are
1. Let folks dick you around.
2. Survival of the fittest.
3. Who's on top stays on top.
4. I got mine, get yours.
5. Back door deals are fair (it's a wide open market).
6. Collusion is ok.
7. There is no corruption.
8. Some people died from this new food or drug....aww damn....that shit doesn't work.
9. Get enough of us on the same page and we can fuck rights into lefts.
10. You are wrong. Your answer didn't quite fit mine.
11. I'll sue....but can't win enough to hurt your business. However word'll get out and that's the clincher and stuff. Yeah uh huh..there ya go..GOTCHA!!!
12. I'm the state of Texas and I'm bigger than some European countries....hmmm...fuck it I'm the country of Texas. All youz otha beeeotchs fuck off!!
Biggles
10-16-2005, 10:54 AM
I don't know enough about the mechanics of US Government to suggest individual changes to operational procedures but... :)
as it is a magic wand, how about a spell to make all the politicians and officials compulsive truth tellers. Might not improve anything (might make some things worse) but it could be quiet interesting.
First thing I'd change is give every eligible US citizen $100 to vote in a general (every 4yrs) election.
Why?
FFS Kev.
You offer a MAGIC WAND.
I shall repeat MAGIC WAND with which to change government.... A FANTASY SITUATION. Then when I attempt to with what I would like in an ideal you say that's not how political life works.
I give up as this wand has no magic.
Quite right, I shouldn't be countering your wand-waving, as it wasn't part of my formulation.
Apologies, and please continue...
Market forces can't achieve consumer protections?
They worked fine until we undermined them way back when; no reason they wouldn't work now.
They did?
How to explain cocaine being sold as a general panacea, lead based paint, flammable pajamas....the list goes on?
Competition would have revealed these flaws.
As another aside, do you know how many children died from ingestion of lead-based paint or flaming PJs?
Cocaine would have gone by the wayside as a "wellness" remedy as well.
It is the special talent of the human mind to seek alternatives, and time has definitely weighed against cure-alls as pish and posh.
As vid has pointed out, I have marginalized your wands, and shall stop immediately.
Wave on!
I don't know enough about the mechanics of US Government to suggest individual changes to operational procedures but... :)
as it is a magic wand, how about a spell to make all the politicians and officials compulsive truth tellers. Might not improve anything (might make some things worse) but it could be quiet interesting.
Much as I'd prefer realism, I'd say that's a winner.
Busyman-
Do you actually think I need to continually prowl the web for material in order to post?
I could post off the top-of-my-head without doing any of the reading I do, indeed, without consuming any media at all, other than that which informs me of events, which I'm sure you will grant as necessary, and I'm quite sure you'd never know the difference.
I don't correspond with anyone regularly over issues, don't have an in-box full of propaganda and rhetoric, and couldn't imagine anything more boring than preaching to the choir, anyway.
In fact, the only reason I'm even here is to relieve you of your ignorance. :P
zapjb
10-16-2005, 02:06 PM
To answer your question j2k4 on pg3. To further my political ideals of course!
To answer your question j2k4 on pg3. To further my political ideals of course!
Ah, subversion of the process!
Good idea. ;)
Busyman
10-16-2005, 02:39 PM
I don't know enough about the mechanics of US Government to suggest individual changes to operational procedures but... :)
as it is a magic wand, how about a spell to make all the politicians and officials compulsive truth tellers. Might not improve anything (might make some things worse) but it could be quiet interesting.
Much as I'd prefer realism, I'd say that's a winner.
Busyman-
Do you actually think I need to continually prowl the web for material in order to post?
I could post off the top-of-my-head without doing any of the reading I do, indeed, without consuming any media at all, other than that which informs me of events, which I'm sure you will grant as necessary, and I'm quite sure you'd never know the difference.
I don't correspond with anyone regularly over issues, don't have an in-box full of propaganda and rhetoric, and couldn't imagine anything more boring than preaching to the choir, anyway.
In fact, the only reason I'm even here is to relieve you of your ignorance. :P
:lol: :lol: :lol: Thanks.
Know that some of us are mindful of what ails our government. Know that we some have it in our mind that you think Bush is a good President doing a good job. This very fact alone lends me to believe (I may be speaking for others too) that although you seem to exhibit some intelligence and vocabulary, the aforementioned fact irregardless to the President, knocks this intelligence down about halfway and makes the vocabulary somewhat irrelevant to what is being convey.
:dog: Run-On :dog:
That's at least the way I see it (maybe the way others do too).
Biggles
10-16-2005, 02:43 PM
Thought J2 was of the opinion that Monroe was the last decent President :ph34r:
Know that we some have it in our mind that you think Bush is a good President doing a good job.
You, of all people, should know better than that.
Nothing could be further from the truth; I think he's doing a job that warrants a description along the lines of half-assed, at best.
I give him a C- for his tenure in the Whitehouse.
I do feel he's had more on his plate (event-wise) than any President since FDR, and has spent commensurate time, therefore, on virgin strategic turf.
I am of the opinion that I have not, in my lifetime, seen a Democrat I'd trust to do a better job, however.
As I've said before, Republicans suck, they're just better than Democrats.
Busyman
10-16-2005, 05:26 PM
Know that we some have it in our mind that you think Bush is a good President doing a good job.
You, of all people, should know better than that.
Nothing could be further from the truth; I think he's doing a job that warrants a description along the lines of half-assed, at best.
I give him a C- for his tenure in the Whitehouse.
I do feel he's had more on his plate (event-wise) than any President since FDR, and has spent commensurate time, therefore, on virgin strategic turf.
I am of the opinion that I have not, in my lifetime, seen a Democrat I'd trust to do a better job, however.
As I've said before, Republicans suck, they're just better than Democrats.
Coooool. Best post I've scene from you...ever. Really.
I agree with you on the somewhat virgin turf doohicky (stepped up terrorism) but I still give him an F.
His decisions weren't in any way logical irregardless to what problems were placed before him. As far as his plate, he added those extra dinner specials so it can't used to excuse him if he has to eat it. He is kick ass if you were rich. Hell you got to keep a rack of money during a bad overall economy but a great real estate market.
You shouldn't say that you suck btw. Not a good picture for an eagle.
You shouldn't say that you suck btw. Not a good picture for an eagle.
Yet another mis-read.
I am not a Republican.
I am a non-isolationist Conservative, and not of the Neo- stripe, either.
BTW-I expect you to remember that last post of mine, too, and never pester me improperly about my allegiances again. :P
Biggles
10-16-2005, 06:29 PM
You shouldn't say that you suck btw. Not a good picture for an eagle.
Yet another mis-read.
I am not a Republican.
I am a non-isolationist Conservative, and not of the Neo- stripe, either.
BTW-I expect you to remember that last post of mine, too, and never pester me improperly about my allegiances again. :P
Like I said, Monroe :lol:
Yet another mis-read.
I am not a Republican.
I am a non-isolationist Conservative, and not of the Neo- stripe, either.
BTW-I expect you to remember that last post of mine, too, and never pester me improperly about my allegiances again. :P
Like I said, Monroe :lol:
For my purposes, that'll do.
I guess. :huh:
:)
Biggles
10-16-2005, 07:24 PM
Like I said, Monroe :lol:
For my purposes, that'll do.
I guess. :huh:
:)
:lol: Although, far be it from me to bounce you into choosing such a recent example of propriety and honesty.
For my purposes, that'll do.
I guess. :huh:
:)
:lol: Although, far be it from me to bounce you into choosing such a recent example of propriety and honesty.
I just can't get no satisfaction. :P
Busyman
10-16-2005, 08:50 PM
You shouldn't say that you suck btw. Not a good picture for an eagle.
Yet another mis-read.
I am not a Republican.
I am a non-isolationist Conservative, and not of the Neo- stripe, either.
Mmmkayyyy...a Republican then. :blink:
I am not a Democrat. I am of sound mind and logic. If a leader makes decisions that are stupid, he gets called on it. Make too many bad decisions coupled with what they're are based on, then I'll be totally against said leader.
Simple formula.
I'll never say any Democrat, Republican, or whoeverthefuck can't do the job properly solely on their party affiliation.
I'm curious though. You gave George W. Bush a slightly below average grade so far.
What is this grade based on? .....and is it on a curve?
Either work your way down or up.
He can either start with an A grade then tell me how he worked down to a C- or
He can start with an F then tell me how he worked up to a C-.
Yet another mis-read.
I am not a Republican.
I am a non-isolationist Conservative, and not of the Neo- stripe, either.
Mmmkayyyy...a Republican then. :blink:
I am not a Democrat. I am of sound mind and logic. If a leader makes decisions that are stupid, he gets called on it. Make too many bad decisions coupled with what they're are based on, then I'll be totally against said leader.
Simple formula.
I'll never say any Democrat, Republican, or whoeverthefuck can't do the job properly solely on their party affiliation.
I'm curious though. You gave George W. Bush a slightly below average grade so far.
What is this grade based on? .....and is it on a curve?
Either work your way down or up.
He can either start with an A grade then tell me how he worked down to a C- or
He can start with an F then tell me how he worked up to a C-.
If I'm a Republican, you're a Democrat.
A curve is impractical.
His domestic policies are only marginally useful, he lets the House spend money like a drunken sailor (apparently because his foreign policy is expensive and he feels guilty that the Dems don't get a proper chance to raid the piggy bank), he has not provided adequate stewardship of his "no child left behind" policy (a good idea poorly administered), his education bill was dumb (ironic, that), his drug benefit is a logistical nightmare as well as an economic disaster, his immigration policy is not a policy at all (BIG problems, there), he was slow off-the-mark in after Katrina (not to the extent that you think, though), and he has not made enough time for bitch-slapping stupid liberals.
His tax policy (on the other hand) is excellent.
No matter your view on his foreign policy, a Democrat might have done nothing at all (under which activity I include pushing U.N. sanctions and the like), or, if he/she chose to enact an aggressive foreign policy, it would have been more costly in money and lives.
A Democrat would have reinstated the draft, I'm sure.
In sum, a C-, as I said.
Busyman
10-16-2005, 10:01 PM
Mmmkayyyy...a Republican then. :blink:
I am not a Democrat. I am of sound mind and logic. If a leader makes decisions that are stupid, he gets called on it. Make too many bad decisions coupled with what they're are based on, then I'll be totally against said leader.
Simple formula.
I'll never say any Democrat, Republican, or whoeverthefuck can't do the job properly solely on their party affiliation.
I'm curious though. You gave George W. Bush a slightly below average grade so far.
What is this grade based on? .....and is it on a curve?
Either work your way down or up.
He can either start with an A grade then tell me how he worked down to a C- or
He can start with an F then tell me how he worked up to a C-.
If I'm a Republican, you're a Democrat.
A curve is impractical.
His domestic policies are only marginally useful, he lets the House spend money like a drunken sailor (apparently because his foreign policy is expensive and he feels guilty that the Dems don't get a proper chance to raid the piggy bank), he has not provided adequate stewardship of his "no child left behind" policy (a good idea poorly administered), his education bill was dumb (ironic, that), his drug benefit is a logistical nightmare as well as an economic disaster, his immigration policy is not a policy at all (BIG problems, there), he was slow off-the-mark in after Katrina (not to the extent that you think, though), and he has not made enough time for bitch-slapping stupid liberals.
His tax policy (on the other hand) is excellent.
No matter your view on his foreign policy, a Democrat might have done nothing at all (under which activity I include pushing U.N. sanctions and the like), or, if he/she chose to enact an aggressive foreign policy, it would have been more costly in money and lives.
A Democrat would have reinstated the draft, I'm sure.
In sum, a C-, as I said.
You must have started from the A end. :huh:
You missed the mark slightly. Talking about what a Dem might have done speaks nothing of what should have been done. If a Dem had done the same shit, I'd call it a fuck up. People's lives man....not politics.
How the fuck more aggressive can you be? Attack Iran and NK?
So Bush gets saved from an F due to Afghanistan, Iraq, saving rich people a rack of money which was in turn used to hire more people....and you forgot to mention a steadfast Christian (I know you meant to) and cronyism to a fault. :unsure:
Fair enough. :)
I do applaud you for, at the very least, coming out with some of the obvious bad decision he's made. 'Bout fucking time. I used to tire a folks defending some those one's you mentioned when they are obvious fuck-ups.
However, you are a Republican...almost a hardliner in fact. You Dems and Repub like it's us against them and liberals like a disease. You'd never vote anything but Republican. The thought of such an idea is foreign to you.
You'll get it one day and hopefully most of America.
Where do you get me being Democrat? What view of mine gives that impression?
You must have started from the A end. :huh:
Indeed I did.
Had I been grading a Democrat, I would have gone the other way.
You missed the mark slightly. Talking about what a Dem might have done speaks nothing of what should have been done. If a Dem had done the same shit, I'd call it a fuck up. People's lives man....not politics.
How did I miss the mark?
Every time I post, I hit the fucker dead center, just like you do.
How the fuck more aggressive can you be? Attack Iran and NK?
Every Democrat getting ink these days swears he/she would never have gone into Iraq, or beyond Afghanistan, at any rate.
I meant more aggressive than another Democrat.
Thought that would have been clear...sorry.
So Bush gets saved from an F due to Afghanistan, Iraq, saving rich people a rack of money which was in turn used to hire more people....and you forgot to mention a steadfast Christian (I know you meant to) and cronyism to a fault. :unsure:
Why would I mention his "steadfast Christianity"?
Isn't that illegal or something? :dry:
BTW-cronyism is the way of the political world, and is not peculiar to the Bush administration.
If either of us were President, we'd do the same thing-if you've lived a political life, you've spent it surrounded by those types, and that is what you have to pick from when comes the time.
I'd be damned if I'd hire strangers, and so would you.
It does make sense to appoint appropriately, however.
Clinton did the same thing, perhaps to an even greater extent, but was certainly no better at it.
Fair enough. :)
I do applaud you for, at the very least, coming out with some of the obvious bad decision he's made. 'Bout fucking time. I used to tire a folks defending some those one's you mentioned when they are obvious fuck-ups.
However, you are a Republican...almost a hardliner in fact. You Dems and Repub like it's us against them and liberals like a disease. You'd never vote anything but Republican. The thought of such an idea is foreign to you.
I'll say it again:
If I ever see a Democrat with the right ideas, I'll consider him/her.
Nothing more need be said.
You'll get it one day and hopefully most of America.
Where do you get me being Democrat? What view of mine gives that impression?
Well, for one, you've called every Republican of your lifetime poison, more-or-less.
If it's enough for me, it's enough for you, pal.
Wizard_Mon1
10-16-2005, 11:51 PM
good to see that your all still getting on so well........... takes me back lmao. sup people long time no discuss (argue) :)
and also on the topic i've got a magic wand and i don't do shit with it... lol
Busyman
10-17-2005, 12:03 AM
You must have started from the A end. :huh:
Indeed I did.
Had I been grading a Democrat, I would have gone the other way.
Actually I thought you would go from an A. You would then mention the fuck ups, which are easy. Going from an F however, and you have to mention the accomplishments. Now I know you mentioned taxes and foreign policy, but that isn't worth 20 points. I mentioned the curve before due to "level of difficulty".
You missed the mark slightly. Talking about what a Dem might have done speaks nothing of what should have been done. If a Dem had done the same shit, I'd call it a fuck up. People's lives man....not politics.
How did I miss the mark?
Every time I post, I hit the fucker dead center, just like you do.
Nah. You missed Iraq. The most obvious fuck up (but you did hit on Medicare/Prescription Drug Benefit..kudos).
How the fuck more aggressive can you be? Attack Iran and NK?
Every Democrat getting ink these days swears he/she would never have gone into Iraq, or beyond Afghanistan, at any rate.
I meant more aggressive than another Democrat.
Thought that would have been clear...sorry.
So Bush gets saved from an F due to Afghanistan, Iraq, saving rich people a rack of money which was in turn used to hire more people....and you forgot to mention a steadfast Christian (I know you meant to) and cronyism to a fault. :unsure:
Why would I mention his "steadfast Christianity"?
Isn't that illegal or something? :dry:
No, just kinda dumb when your decisions are based from what God tells you and the country knows it...a country of multiple religions. But hey, it got him elected...now for the rapture.
BTW-cronyism is the way of the political world, and is not peculiar to the Bush administration.
If either of us were President, we'd do the same thing-if you've lived a political life, you've spent it surrounded by those types, and that is what you have to pick from when comes the time.
I'd be damned if I'd hire strangers, and so would you.
It does make sense to appoint appropriately, however.
Clinton did the same thing, perhaps to an even greater extent, but was certainly no better at it.
Hell yes he was better at it. His cronyism wasn't as overt and CaptainObvious. Didn't hear much about shit hitting the fan as much either.
Bush is picking his cleaning lady ffs, for a lifetime judicial appointment. I've always thought her as a Republican throwaway though for the conservative's real pick.
Also, this is about running the country not friendship. Can't do the job, fuck off. Your appointments may bite you in the ass.
Fair enough. :)
I do applaud you for, at the very least, coming out with some of the obvious bad decision he's made. 'Bout fucking time. I used to tire a folks defending some those one's you mentioned when they are obvious fuck-ups.
However, you are a Republican...almost a hardliner in fact. You Dems and Repub like it's us against them and liberals like a disease. You'd never vote anything but Republican. The thought of such an idea is foreign to you.
I'll say it again:
If I ever see a Democrat with the right ideas, I'll consider him/her.
Nothing more need be said.
You'll get it one day and hopefully most of America.
Where do you get me being Democrat? What view of mine gives that impression?
Well, for one, you've called every Republican of your lifetime poison, more-or-less.
If it's enough for me, it's enough for you, pal.
No I like alot of them. However, just like everyone else there could be something I don't know that comes to light change my mind. Alan Keyes comes to mind.
I do like John McCain and always have. There are others.
vidcc
10-17-2005, 03:31 AM
I meant more aggressive than another Democrat
Remind us of the brave military service of the prominent Republicans, I can't seem to recall and their records don't appear to be on google. :lol:
JunkBarMan
10-17-2005, 05:01 AM
Make the Rep's black and women ,see if they could do any bettter .
This is so fucking racist, it's at the very core definition of racism. So let only the black women run for office and fuck everyone else then?
Why in the world would people fight and die for equal rights, to only turn around and do exactly what has been done to them for so long?
You fight for your rights and freedom and when you get it, those are the spoils you cherish. Revenge is not a justifiable crime.
As for the topic at hand, with my magic wand I would make it so the American Public would receive more unbiased information about the candidates, and really and truly have more then just 2 options for their elected officials.
I hope that people would really be able to decide if that guy or girl is really qualified to run a nation, and not just run a party's agenda.
On a side note, can anyone tell me where the hell is all this faith-based iniative money going to, and how much? My son can't say prayers in school, but some damn church is getting millions of our tax money to do what with?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.