Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 1093 Next >>
Topic: US Presidential Election (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Michael Huber
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 August 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3338
Posted: 20 September 2008 at 1:25pm | IP Logged | 1  

And of course, the winner is following the worst president in US History.  That's kinda a plus.

Okay, Steven, putting you in the drama category, not pronne to unsubstantaited overexageration are we?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Retour
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 932
Posted: 20 September 2008 at 2:27pm | IP Logged | 2  

Steven I agree with you on the FDR analogy but I don't think the two candidates are in the same category as Roosevelt was.  Perhaps once the winner gets in he will change and rise to the occasion but whomever it is shall inherit some awfully big crises.  I also agree they should sit down and discuss the plans to get us out of all of this.  Doubt that will happen but I'd sure like to see them put aside politics and do it for the nation. 

Mr. Huber you think Bush did a fine job?  I don't see Steven's comments as dramatic.  The situation is dramatic and he just stated the obvious.

How does one prove Bush was the worst president in history?  Well, you would have me there.  How do you rate him?  Average?  Best? 

Anyone following Bush will get some sort of honeymoon from the American people.  You would.  That honeymoon will only last so long.  The new president will have to deliver.  By November things around the world could be vastly different. 

I am not really committed to voting Democrat or Republican.  I vote for the person and their policies.  I would have voted for Lincoln and FDR and JFK and Reagan over Carter. 

My wife was elected to a Democratic Party post once and the big boys ran the party like something you'd stereotype as being out of the USSR.  Now, in Los Angeles, that has changed but it sure took some work. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
Posted: 20 September 2008 at 4:41pm | IP Logged | 3  

No change perhaps. But also no new Evangelical Supreme Court members.

I can live with that.

This being very important.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Ray Brady
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3737
Posted: 20 September 2008 at 4:42pm | IP Logged | 4  

Is it really an exaggeration to claim that Bush was the worst president? After
all there have only been 43, any given president has a 2% chance of being
the worst just by luck alone. Surely there can't be THAT many who were
worse than him?
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 18277
Posted: 20 September 2008 at 4:49pm | IP Logged | 5  

I have found myself here in Indiana saying thus: "I'll admit Gore would have been the worst president ever if you'll admit Bush is the worst president ever."

I think Bush had significant help from the worst Congress ever.  The TWO worst Congresses ever, in fact.

edited for flow



Edited by Kevin Hagerman on 20 September 2008 at 5:29pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 20 September 2008 at 5:06pm | IP Logged | 6  

But the point Tom was making wasn't that Dems don't benefit from special interest groups, but that McCain is making it his mantra to stop lobbyist influence as well as that of big business...all the while having many of them in positions of power in his campaign.

Who you have to surround yourself with to get elected isn't the same thing as who you'll surround yourself with after you get elected.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36446
Posted: 20 September 2008 at 5:43pm | IP Logged | 7  

Doesn't matter, does it?  So he'll surround himself with lobbyists while proclaiming that he'll take them all down just to try and win?  That's somehow better than having them in his actual cabinet?  Yeah, not following that train of logic.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
Official JB Historian

Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10927
Posted: 20 September 2008 at 6:53pm | IP Logged | 8  

Who you have to surround yourself with to get elected isn't the same thing as who you'll surround yourself with after you get elected.

Good god, don't let Sean Hannity hear you - you've just poked a hole in his whole arguement...!

Back to Top profile | search
 
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
Posted: 20 September 2008 at 8:16pm | IP Logged | 9  

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN195306602008 0919
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
Official JB Historian

Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10927
Posted: 20 September 2008 at 9:21pm | IP Logged | 10  

Polling Data

Poll Date Sample Obama (D) McCain (R) Spread
RCP Average 09/09 - 09/19 -- 47.6 45.3 Obama +2.3
Gallup Tracking 09/17 - 09/19 2756 RV 50 44 Obama +6
Rasmussen Tracking 09/17 - 09/19 3000 LV 48 47 Obama +1
Hotline/FD Tracking 09/17 - 09/19 922 RV 45 44 Obama +1
Battleground Tracking 09/11 - 09/18 800 LV 47 47 Tie
CBS News/NY Times 09/12 - 09/16 LV 49 44 Obama +5
Quinnipiac 09/11 - 09/16 987 LV 49 45 Obama +4
Pew Research 09/09 - 09/14 2307 LV 46 46 Tie
Reuters/Zogby 09/11 - 09/13 1008 LV 47 45 Obama +2

 

Sean Hannity just isn't working hard enough! 

Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
Posted: 20 September 2008 at 9:26pm | IP Logged | 11  

I read all this talk about laissez-faire capitalism and "bailouts", why? There has never been a truly capitalist country in the laissez-faire definition.  Capitalist mixed economies, like that of America, are the dominant capitalist system.  In such an economy, by definition, the state has *always* intervened in market activity.  And, even by their mixed nature, such economies are still cyclical and involve BOTH expansion and contraction.  Given that unavoidable fact, just how perfect does it all have to be?

Have we become so weak-kneed that threat of a recession induces tremors in people?  Is America that soft; had it that easy?  A recession is, by definition, a set period of contraction in the unavoidable business cycle.  In my lifetime, alone, we've so far experienced four distinct recessions; and, in the history of America, there have been 32 such business cycles involving recession.  Examples from other parts of the world are too numerous to inventory.

Did society unravel or America collapse?  Hardly.  

Here's an article in the Comment & Debate section of The Guardian, written by someone seeming not overly sympathetic to capitalism, and I thought it served as a decent good reminder:  

predicting revolutions can be a frustrating business

"I'm not so sure. The uncomfortable truth is that capitalism - assisted by a pliant state - has historically managed to extricate itself from similar crises and emerge ever more virulent. Marx died trying to explain away precisely such incongruities, while Engels chose a different route: building up a remarkable stock market portfolio while complaining about tax on his dividends..."

Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
Posted: 20 September 2008 at 9:28pm | IP Logged | 12  


 QUOTE:
Tremonti wasn't running for office further research shows.  He is appointed.


Further research?  No, the ministerial position is an appointment, but Tremonti, a former tax attorney and law professor, is a member of the Italian People of Freedom coalition and was campaigning in the April elections in support of the People of Freedom as that coalition list's potential Minister of Economy and Finance.  Elections in coalition government's aren't like running for mayor of Denver.


 QUOTE:
In discussions yesterday, Lyndon LaRouche...


Michael, you've been regurgitating nothing but LaRouche from the start.  Why not be proud about it?  



 QUOTE:
To this end, LaRouche specified four necessary steps:


Or, to sum it up, Fascism.  'Bad enough, but the nonsense you listed is just nutty from ANY economic standpoint.  If you think otherwise, then overcome the obvious economic objections already outlined.  1658 Peace of Westphalia?  Wholesale government reorganization on the *global* scale?  Elimination of a globally entrenched monetary system, in favor of the introduction of a world wide credit-based system?  Good luck.

Transporter room?  One to beam up!





Edited by Michael Myers on 20 September 2008 at 11:50pm
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 1093 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login