Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Honey, I'm not being facetious - but the difference between those two statements is enormous. The first should be deeply offensive to every american citizen, in my opinion.

In the first instance, a judge is telling an american citizen he doesn't have the right to find out if a candidate is an american citizen. I think every american citizen has that right - and should want that right - just as we uphold every tenet of the constitution. This one guy paid his own money to investigate something, and paid the fees to have his day in court - and the judge said.. sorry an american citizen does not have that right.

This is VERY different than saying - your argument is fallacious and wrong, and it is hereby proved that Obama met the qualifications for office.

As for yours and other comments:

The best way to squash this would have been to provide a birth certificate to the court. Failing to do so only added fuel to the fire. The same suit has been brought in three separate venues.

Obama himself never had to appear in court - just like a traffic ticket, any representative could have presented the information.
Court fees are insignificant compared to the question - if it really was important, the prevailing party can seek to have the opponent pay ALL court costs (and expenses) for a frivelous suit.

For civil matters of this kind, there would probably not be a jury; this would probably be decided by a presiding judge, as it would be in both parties interests.

As for Gandalf's comment about the CIA: Call me an optimist. First, this as a jurisdiction matter would fall more under the purview of the Dept of Treasure (Secret Service), or the FBI than it would under the CIA, who by law would be enjoined from investigating it (foreign or counter intelligence only). Restating that, any cia agent investigating that would be subject to legal sanction.

So yes, I am optimistic that I don't believe the CIA investigated it. I also don't believe that ANY body actually has jurisdiction, which is why this is falling between the cracks. The party (as in party to a lawsuit) that does have presumptive jurisdiction is the democrat party, which is why it was name in the lawsuit.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Honey, you meant the comment flippantly. And you are not practising the tolerance you preached a mere two? posts ago.

First, Barrak is not the president of the United States, he's the president elect.

Second, this is the reason these kinds of things matter.

IF Barack was found not to be a natural born citizen (and no I don't think it will happen) it is entirely possible that his selection as President would be voided. His inauguration would not be legal.

And if you thought 2000 was bad, all hell would break loose. This is one of the reasons I thought these kinds of questions should have been resolved back in August.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Chrispedersen, lots of people aren't qualified to bring their arguments to the attention of others. There's nothing offensive about that notion, except to those very people who spend their time wasting the time, and patience, and good nature, of others, with their nonsensical-and at times malevolently motivated-flights of fancy.

We're forced to tolerate them, because our legal system is a benevolent one that acts to embrace and protect the broadest base of the population as possible, and because we're a generous and reasonable people who like to think of ourselves as open-minded. But it doesn't transform their trivial foci into anything grand or noble.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I'm tolerant, within reason. I'm not idiotic, or a floormat. You seem to be under the impression that I should embrace every idea, without a modicum of my own opinion or will or side, or else be damned a hypocrite. That's just not the case.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Hey, he brought up bush first, in a negative light, that wasn't the first time I made this comparison to what I perceived to be a hypocritical position. If you want all the facts please read all the posts, else you are merely cherry picking statements out of context.

Besides how do you know I'm not bush or a member of his family and HBs insults towards Bush personal attacks on me???

Seriously people, this is an OT thread on politics, if you can't take a little fire why are you here? Besides, does HB have an issue with my statement? If not does he need a nanny to 'protect' him?

Hell you want to express a strong opinion about bush or obama or whomever (again, in the context of THIS thread) and not be willing to have some back and forth?

I dunno, I don't see anything out of hand in this thread, though there have been some strong opinions expressed.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Hello:

I am quite pleased that Obama won. :)

However, I agree that our electoral system should be tweaked to foster the viability of political parties other than the two major parties. (I am satisfied with the overall system in the Constitution, with the three independent branches of government and the various checks and balances.)

To loosen the hold of the two major parties, I wonder if a simple change to the options on the ballot might help substantially. Here's what I suggest:

1. For each political office, the voter would get to vote for a first choice and a second choice. This would encourage voters to choose an "alternative" party first and then hedge with the second; and

2. The voter would also always have a third choice, which is "none of the above". If "none of the above" is chosen by the majority, then a new election is held and the previous candidates are excluded from the ballot.

I think there would be wrinkles to iron out, but I think these simple changes could have a profound effect.

They could probably be first instituted on a state level (e.g., state legislators and governors), perhaps by a citizens' referendum. In Maine, for instance, citizens can use a petition process to get laws passed by a referendum on the ballot and thereby circumvent the state legislature and governor. No doubt the two major parties would oppose these measures.

Pasha

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Chrispedersen: You're misunderstanding how the legal system works. It's not a matter a judge deciding what the American people have or don't have the right to know. It's a matter of who does or does not have the legal standing to bring a particular lawsuit in a particular venue. The guy who brought that suit didn't have the legal standing to bring it so it was dismissed.

Now...there are plenty of people who could have challenged Obama on this, who did have the standing to bring such a suit. I guarantee you that if the McCain campaign thought for an instant there was anything to this at all they would have been all over it. In fact, that extremely canny and aggressive campaigner, Hilary Clinton, would have nailed his *** three ways to sunday on it before he even got out of the gate if there was even a vapors wisp of a snowballs chance in the devil's anus that there was a legitimate issue here.

No one but the fringiest whack job tried to bring the suit, because no one but the fringiest whack job thought there was anything to it at all.

And now back to our regularly scheduled Monkey PD Monkey PD Monkey PD!

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Also, he's a gay muslim socialist.

I'm a completely partisan Democrat - if we had a real leftist party in this country, I'd be a complete partisan for them.

Since I'm a scientist (as in, the natural sciences), this is not surprising - I'd say that I'm easily in the leftmost 5% of the general population but not even in the leftmost quartile of scientists.

So yes of course I voted for Obama. I was also working for my aunt (who is progressive so far as mainstream democrats go) on her election campaign. It's a nail-biter - she's down by ~100 votes but there are thousands of ballots left to count.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Why on earth would you want to label most scientists as being democrats? and far left leaning democrats at that?

I can guarantee you that this is simply not reality.

Further with regards to the lawsuit...

Who does have cause to bring this lawsuit forward? I'd like to know if anyone actually has some facts to back their opinions or if its just everyone spinning their wheels.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I'm not misunderstanding in the least. This is exactly what I've represented from the start. The suit was thrown out for lack of standing... as I've said on at least two occassions.

I just disagree with it. As an american democrat, whose candidate *lost* he is an aggrieved party. As Obama took delegates in PA it seems a reasonable venue; under civil law one of the services of suit is the location where the incident occured.

As I said earlier - I believe every american should have standing.


The 'fringiest whack job' was formerly the deputy attorney general for the state of Pennsylvania. With more than 20 years in the successful practise of law. So I don't think you can actually characterize him as 'fringe whack job.' In fact a fringe whack job could be denied the ability to practise law under the 'good moral character' provision required in most states.

If you wish to argue that he is a political hack - thats another question.

However, the character of the person bringing suit, as well as their motiviations are entirely irrelevent to strength (or lack there of) of the case.

Look, multimember districts were ruled unconstitutional because they diluted minority voting rights - and they were challenged by a minority voter, because they *theoretically* disenfranchised minority candidates.

Bergs standing - as an allegedly actually disenfranchised voter is at least as strong.

I'm obviously Don Quixote here. Unless someone doesn't understand my points, or asks a question I won't respond further.
But these are my points:

1. Every american should have standing until a court or similarly designated agency has determined a candidates qualification.
2. No federal agency currently determines the qualifications for office, to the limit of my patience to investigate it.
3. I think some federal agency SHOULD determine qualifications. Just as some state agency should determine state qualifications (And in fact they do in some states). Currently their respective parties determine it, and I don't believe this honor system which may have worked 200 years ago, is appropriate now; which leads to
3b. Conversely, I believe it is incumbent upon every political candidate to affirmatively prove that he meets the qualification for the office sought.
4. I think as a political decision it is curious that obama sought to have the case dismissed on the basis of standing, rather than putting the issue to rest by providing a birth certificate.
5. I think it was a mistake of him to do so.
6. You are quite correct. I think that *if* there was any significant likelihood that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, that Hillary would have sued personally. (As a caveat, according to Berg, he only discovered the information by sending an investigator to Kenya.) But to me it is more a question 1. I think americans should have standing and 3b that every candidate needs to validate that he in fact does qualify.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Actually, I've heard this as well, and if it wasn't almost 1AM here, would be looking up the sources where it could be found, as I read it in some rather serious nonfiction not two weeks ago. Many of the attitudes found in the right, specifically those personified by Gov. Palin, don't seat well with the majority of scientests, nor do the many crusades some members of the right have fought against science. Seriously, most of the objections to the idea of global warming, stem cell research, evolution, environmental calamities in general etc have come from right (primarily the religious right at that, though big business has played its part at times).

Add to that the fact that scientests, as a whole, tend to be very irreligious, and they tend to step even further away from the right on many issues.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Well, it is over folks. Let us try and work together now. There are a lot of problems in the old US.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Ok -- I was misunderstanding your point. I was under the impression that you were promoting the theory of Obama's non-native-citizenship. If you're focusing on a procedural issue, ok, it probably would be better to have a set-in-stone credentialing process, if only to avoid circus sideshows like these lawsuits.

My 'whack job' assumption was on the basis of the "obamacrimes" website. The name of the site alone screams 'truthie' and beyond that it has the perpetually outraged tone of the most hardened conspiracy theorist. "Learn the truth about Obama's assault on the constitution!" Please. His supporter Lan Lamphere's site suggests that Rahm Emanuel is "the new face of Ernst Röhm." (Godwin, are you listening?) Berg may have at one time been on his rocker. Now, he ain't. Now he associates with people who can say "patriot brigade" with a straight face.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

What does being irreligious (though even that is an exaggeration) have to do with being a democrat?

I do believe that you are falling for the 'I saw a black bird, therefore all birds are black' fallacy.

Scientists may well have educated opinions on global warming or evolution, but that doesn't make them necessarily far left, other than if you want to stick that stupid spectrum individually on every issue.

Indeed, I have found most scientists outside of academia to be far more conservative with respect to issues of the economy or foreign policy than the average non scientist, but again, that doesn't necessarily place them by default into any one group.

Hell I work at a national lab in a community where the majority of people have advanced degrees in a natural science (as do I) and the electoral split is almost 50/50 for the county.

I've been at universities, and within the departments I was affiliated with the split was still not as extreme as is being touted. My observations showed that it was not those in the natural sciences who were left leaning, but rather the faculty in the social sciences and arts. That's not terribly surprising I think, but it doesn't support the assertion that a majority of scientists in this country are far left.

Most scientists know a far right nutter when they see one, and when topics such as ID come up they deal with that topic, not entire platforms of parties, but individuals within a party who may be promoting some agenda they disagree with.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

This Left-right discussion is interesting. Many people here (in sweden) would consider both republicans and democrats to be more or less right wing. Our Right wing goverment that we have right now is much closer to the democrats than to the republicans.

What we call leftist would be those parties left of the social-democrats (which we consider in the middle, and who stand a good deal left of the US democrats)

That would include the Left-party (yes thats the actual name!), and the various communist parties. While the greens fall in their own category.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

con·ser·va·tism (kÉ™n-sûr'vÉ™-tÄ*z'É™m) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

I hardly see how this makes him a saint. According the dictionary, this sort of outlook borders on fascism. As far as fiscal conservatism goes, I have a hard time fitting someone into that ideology, who had the voracious ability to spend, as he did. Let's make this very clear - Carter, whom you seem to want to demonize, overspent to a FAR lesser degree than Reagan. In fact, even though fiscal conservatism is all about "minimal government", in such a capacity as the intent is to make government smaller, to make the government financial drain smaller - Reagan seems to have failed utterly miserably. Fiscal conservative policies in America are as old as the nation itself. Originally the idea was to have a federal government that intruded as little as possible on the lives of Americans, that maintained a minimal military and as such, spent as little as possible at all times, thus keeping us free from the temptation to use a bloated military offensively, yet leave us able to rapidly expand the military, should the need arise. So in the terms of classical conservatism, Reagan falls flat. He may be a hero to the neo-cons, but judging by their political methods, they are a gross abomination of American ideals.


The USSR was forced to collapse, through political intrigue most of all. Unfortunately, our method of causing this, was by convincing OPEC to increase oil production. The resulting increase in supply caused the price of oil to plummet dramatically, and due to the USSR sustaining its economy on oil exports, it ended the cold war, and caused all of the nifty things we associate with that. Unfortunately, it did also cause a lot of destabilization in the Middle East. So indirectly, mister Reagan is partially responsible for the debacle we face now.


Absolutely and patently false. According, once again, the government report on the economy, Reagan almost broke the 10% unemployment mark, and had the highest unemployment rate recorded (probably only surpassed by the Great Depression). In fact, LBJ had about the lowest unemployment possible (~3%), which stabilized under Nixon and Carter to more moderate levels, and then skyrocketed under Reagan. Bush Sr managed to still give Clinton a 7.5% unemployment rate, which he pushed down to 4%, just in time for it to start growing again under Bush Jr (while we've started cutting off people's benefits, and thus not considering them unemployed once their benefits end - whether they are working or not).

Inflation is a more complicated issue, as while the average citizen has many reasons to hate inflation, our contrived method of finance requires a certain level of inflation in order to function smoothly. Therefore, unless you have studied this effect in full (for example, 2% inflation is called a "recession", even though the economy is technically still growing), then it is hard to argue which President actually has the healthiest levels of inflation while in office (though most would agree it seems Carter had too high inflation, and Bush Jr had too low, what falls between is not clear cut, plus Republicans seem to want to blame GW's woes on Clinton, why can't we blame Nixon for some of Carter's tribulations....?).


Public opinion does not alter the facts of the matter. Honestly, I care much less for what people think, than I do about what actually achieves desirable results. Unfortunately, we have been proving time and time again in this country that people will act from a basis of opinion, rather than fact, and that it often provides us with undesirable results.


Say what you will about the man as a diplomat, perhaps that was his shining value to the world (I hesitate to say nation, because we had such a profound effect on the world at that time, it's nice to think SOME of it was positive), but then again, it seems readily apparent that Clinton/Gore were even more loved and respected by the world community, but since you like to downplay that contribution, I don't think you value it highly as anything more than as a tool to try to prove your other points.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

(Sorry for poor quality)

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

OMG..... Who knew he was actually a Dom10, D9 Prince of Death?!

Hurry, someone build The Ark before he gets to Cons8. :shock:

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

It's too late anyway Jim. The "H3 priests" are around doing THIS:

http://imgboot.com/images/Tifone/godhates4.jpghttp://imgboot.com/images/Tifone/godhates2.jpghttp://imgboot.com/images/Tifone/godhates1.jpghttp://imgboot.com/images/Tifone/godhates5.jpghttp://imgboot.com/images/Tifone/godhates3.jpg

So now they're busy, the undead walk the earth and we are screwed. Aren't you happy? :hurt:

(All the images, even the ones with children, are of public domain and uncensored, so no privacy issues with the pics)

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Jim, once again someone in here throws out the term of fascism. Once again I will throw out the definition of fascism, and ask you not to not to bandy about such insulting terms.

from dictionary.com "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

a CONSERVATIVE, with a *distrust* of government is the *opposite* of a fascist who wishes complete government control of industry, commerce, etc.

Calling a conservative fascist because they dislike sudden change is like calling our founding father communists because they both had an abiding love of their country.

Why is it Jim that those on the opposite side feel free to bandy about such offenseive terms. How would you feel about it if I said we were closer to a fascist state now that Obama your saviour is in power, since we now have a monolithic congress and presidency- and since we will certainly have more government programs and controls.


I have no need to demonize carter. He was such a miserable president that the republicans won the biggest landslide ever after him, scoring 525 electoral college votes in 1984.

Jim, again I don't see why you can't disagree without being disagreeable. I don't call liberals abominations. Clinton used the IRS to investigate his political opponents - that doesn't make all democrats abominations.

We all hopefully share a love of country, and desire everyone in our nation to prosper. We all have different ideas on the best path to that. I would be *MORE* than happy to allow a lot of experimentation in government programs *if* they were allowed to fail if they achieved no results. Ie., you want a program to increase literacy? Fine. Lets pilot test it. And if it works, and is more cost effective than other programs -we'll expand the program. But if it doesn't work.. it *dies*. No further funding. Clearly defined goals. Clearly defined targets. Clearly defined success or failure.

I think liberals believe that the goernment is or should be the shining focus of what america is. America is great because we have laws against wiretaps, america is great because we spend 1 trillion dollars on welfare programs.

Whereas I believe that government is a necessary evil. The strength of america is in its people, is in its economy, is in its generosity. We have 300 million people living and working - and much that is good in this country has *nothing* to do with government.


Uhuh.

Exactly when were you calling the middle east stable..
during the arab israeli war of the 60's? The oil embargo of the 70's? The Kuwait/Iraq/Iran wars of the 80s? The Israeli/palestinian intidefada?

See, if you read Kissinger's book diplomacy, it documents instability in the area dating back - oh well long before Reagan.

According to the the son of the last shah of Iran's book. It was Jimmy Carter's pressure on his father that caused him to abdicate. Leading to Khomeini, the capture of the american embassy, and the world facing the imminent possibility of Iran with nuclear weapons.

Reagan did almost break the 10% unemployment , here is the link to the Bureau of labor statistics.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Surv...ds=Annual+Data

Jim you may be too young to remember it - but the term the misery index was coined during the carter years because of how crappy the economy was doing. Unemployment + inflaction of 20.7 percent.

Yes, regan inherited a crappy situation - but at the end of his first term, the misery index was 11.8 - and lower at the end of his second term. When he arrived in office unemployment was 7.2% - when he left it was 5.5%.

I'm not going to respond to every fallacy, but .. where do you have the idea that people are not considered unemployed once their benefits end?

I mean factually, our benefits were always supposed to end. When they were originally passed collecting unemployment was called the 5240 club - you could collect 40dollars for 52 weeks.
Unemployment was supposed to help you get through a tough spot - not be a lifestyle choice.

And generally americans support the idea of helping people through tough spots - were just not keen on the idea of you subsiding on welfare indefinitely.

Lastly, there are thousands of articles written on people that are un or under employed but have given up looking. No one I know considers them employed. No one I know has accurate figures for the number of these people, including you.


If you read my actual previous quotes I believe that trends certainly last beyond presidents. Its one of the many reasons I am opposed to the statistics you tried to use to establish that democrats were better than republicans.

I certainly do believe that carter inherited some of his problems - but I also think that carters poor handling of the economy, poor handling of the oil embargo, poor handling of the shah of iran - and hundreds of other problems qualify him as a poor president.



Only because there are many ways to interpret fact.
Right now we have 4.7% unemployment, 3.1% inflation. Would you seriously try to argue that things are good? But thats what you tried to do with the statistics before. People may not be able to quote facts and statistics - but they know when a country is doing well.

Being liked or respected is not the objective, nor the measure of our leaders, but it can be a side effect of being an effective politician.

I believe that clinton was an incredibly skillful politician. But I don't see what his lasting contribution will be. What accomplishment will he be remembered for? I think he will be generally remembered for a good economy, refurbishing the democratic image, monica lewinsky and being impeached.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

...

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Quite.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Invaluable for assessing the reality of those specific situations individually, but limited anecdotal evidence is poor for making sweeping generalizations.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I said "borders on", not "equates to". The relationship is not direct, but there are similarities in the methods, and in the speeches of our right-wing politicians, and others who are blatantly fascist.


Well it just feels like you intentionally misunderstood my statement, and now are using that misunderstanding to try to upset me. Well it won't work, because first, if you call Obama -my- savior, then it just makes me feel like you aren't paying attention, as I've stated multiple times that I don't think Obama has "the answers". However, I feel that math alone shows that McCain can not be trusted with the Presidency, especially in such a difficult time as Georgie Bush has led us to.


I'm pretty sure that Reagan defeated Carter in 1980..... Mondale wasn't cut out to be President, I'm certainly not going to defend him.


The neo-con movement tries in a multitude of ways, to subvert the spirit of America, while denouncing anyone who disagrees as "unAmerican". I'll go into more detail if you wish to share that you claim yourself as neo-con, and maybe we can discuss the relative merits of the movement. From what I can see now, it is truly poisonous to the prosperity of America, and it leads to Presidents like Bush, and the idolization of said Presidents.


Hey, it's a good point. Unfortunately, our governmental system doesn't support that sort of empirical testing of programs. No President is guaranteed to be in office for more than 4 years, so if they want to accomplish something, that's how long they have. If it takes 1 year to plan out the initiatives, you are looking at a maximum of 3 years to implement the plans, gather data, interpret the data, and then plan and implement the final program. Given a guarantee of 8 years it would be more simple, but no one is going to win a re-election off of "well organized testing". That is to say, if those pilot projects are still in progress, and no final determination has been made, no plans set before Congress, and nothing actually substantial accomplished - the American people will likely want someone new.

I'm a "standing on the shoulders of giants" type of guy, in such things. We have numerous socialized/universal health care programs in active use in different countries, that are for the most part far larger than any test group that we would organize. In this particular case, I agree with (was it ICH?) whoever it was that said we could probably look at these systems, and use that knowledge to build our own system, far faster than if we reinvented it from scratch.


I suppose I can see how you might feel that way - but it makes me wonder how many liberals you know in person? The way that I look at it, is this - the larger any collection of people becomes, the larger their logistical problems become. Say we have 100 people licing on an island, and 1 is a doctor. Well, you have a problem, you walk over and talk to the doctor. He doesn't complain about pay, because he is clothed, and fed, and supported. He does his job for the community, and everyone does what they do, and take care of eachother. Expand that to 1000 with 10 doctors. At this point, you probably want to make an appointment before you visit the doc, maybe call around and see if one isn't busy. At this point, he has to do the same thing as well, he has to go chasing after the things that he needs, to make sure he isn't lost in the shuffle. Now, extrapolate that out to a population of 300mil+. Our world is insanely complex and impersonal. The only way that we can achieve any level of efficiency in a system this large, is to organize it. Granted, there is always going to be a tug-of-war between the efficiency gained from organizing a system, and the efficiency lost in creating larger and larger infrastructure to handle the load.

It is because of that coefficient, that I actually believe states should handle most things. But the Federal Government is very pervasive, and intrudes on my life in many ways, and demands an awful lot of money. It is my feeling that if the government is going to be so voracious, that it needs to learn how to perform tasks worthy of that sort of investment - otherwise, we would be better off in many ways, without such a large nation (that is to say, at our government's current level of efficiency, I very much feel that Oregon's 3 million people would have a higher standard of living as a sovereign nation-state).

Yes, our government is quite corrupt, and irresponsible. I honestly do not think that either of the dominant political parties is on the right track as to how to fix it - possibly because so many of them are corrupt, why would they WANT to fix it?


Look, I didn't say that the Middle East was stable before Reagan. However, of significant note, we did aid Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. We will never know if we might have had better luck negotiating with Iran now, had we not made that choice, nor will we ever know how much weaker Iraq might have been, and thus perhaps not looked like someone we needed to spend a trillion dollars to occupy.....


Reagan did almost break the 10% unemployment , here is the link to the Bureau of labor statistics.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Surv...ds=Annual+Data

Jim you may be too young to remember it - but the term the misery index was coined during the carter years because of how crappy the economy was doing. Unemployment + inflaction of 20.7 percent.

Yes, regan inherited a crappy situation - but at the end of his first term, the misery index was 11.8 - and lower at the end of his second term. When he arrived in office unemployment was 7.2% - when he left it was 5.5%.[/quote]

Carter's highest unemployment was 7.7%, Reagan's was 9.7%. The spike in inflation rate http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp clearly began under Ford. While I will cut Carter little slack for being unable to bring it under control (neither did the voting public), it is obvious that he did not cause the problem, he simply failed to solve it. Oh and a footnote, the Misery Index was devised before Carter, he referenced it during his campaign, to shift public opinion away from Ford.


Our measure of unemployment was "refined" such that it only tracks people who are currently receiving unemployment benefits. If somehow you manage to make it to the end of your 6 months, you are no longer counted by the system.


Yes, "helping people through a rough spot". I would consider it a pretty rough spot when we elect Presidents who give tax breaks to companies who outsource labor, and leave us in a situation where we are steadily losing jobs, while creating more workers. Yet, we do not account for this in any way with our "aid".

And yes, we know very well that there is not an adequate way to measure the number of discouraged or underemployed workers in America. As long as it benefits those in power, to keep it that way, it will likely remain that way.


If you noticed, the table of compiled data in that article has a tab labeled "1 year shift", which attributes the first year of a President's numbers, to the preceding President. While this does in fact manage to narrow the gap a little bit, there is still a clear disparity.

Yet again, I don't hold Carter in particularly high regard as an executive officer. Great guy, poor President. A lot of people feel the same way about GW right about now.


Economic indicators will always trail behind noteworthy events, if for no other reason that the time it takes to tabulate them accurately. Obviously those economic indicators will not look so favorable over the next several months, as the fallout of recent events is realized - but you're not going to get accurate current rates of inflation and unemployment when our stock market scare is barely a few weeks old.


Well I never said that Clinton accomplished much of anything profound. Oddly, it seems that most other countries measure their leaders on 2 factors first - their ability to build and maintain favorable foreign relations, and their ability to not ruin the country. Beyond that, many people seem to understand that not all leaders are outstanding. I mean, what is Bush Jr going to be remembered for? I can tell you, it's a no-brainer which Wikipedia entry I'd rather have my name on. ;)

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

ROFL, I can't believe this thread swelled into almost 30-pages!

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Republicans may be Ferrengi, but the Democrats Federation??? :rolleyes:
You think way too highly of the Democrats to know the details of what's going on in government.
I'd say they're closer to being The Borg.

On a side note the Democrats own the presidency, the majority of the Congress and the majority of Governors... let's see what happens. I'll revive the thread in 3 years so we can examine what they've done now that they're in full control.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Mmh, sounds like an "Admitting defeat with class FAIL" :re:

Oh btw, as it didn't come out in the discussion till now, I'd like to point out what a great speech was MacCain's conceding one that night. Very proud, very American, he showed a class act really. :)

Pity for those nasty booers while he was saying with dignity that Obama is now *his* president too and the USA should go on unified, as a whole. But some people should just remain into their closet. :down:

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

You probably think too high of the Federation, is all. ;)

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Which is odd, since they seem to be a highly Communist heirarchy..... < ducks >

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I think the Dems are more like the Bajorans.
Oh look at the adorable nose fringes.
Oh wait, oh crap, they can fight!

Deep cuts. Nerd cuts.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

If you want to whats really going on, research UN agenda 21. I think you will be rather dismayed. Our local dear leaders have started implementing it here and our ability to rebuild on our own land is being held up by non-issuance of building permits.

After all owning a home in the mountains is not a sustainable development. They want to build a Stalinist housing complex that is connected to mass transit. no need for cars, thats not sustainable. Our little community is a test project for this agenda, And I think it stinks.


I think I'm gonna follow Albert Einsteins example, split before they close our borders. They (the government) have been allowing the construction of private owned prisons, quite a growth industry. I wonder who they intend to populate these complexes with. If you want more info on this look up corpwatch.

Those who don't remember history are bound to repeat it. I hope I'm proven wrong in these fears. Truly I do.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I'm no Star Trek expert, but Wiki has the Federation as a form of a liberal democracy and constitutional republic.

/yes, I know you ducked....

The Cardassians brutally enslaved them for over 40years until the Cardassian civilian leaders decided to leave.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

"And I, for one, welcome our new insectoid overlords." :D

That seems a little apocalyptic to me, Bwaha :) Sen. Obama elected president 3 days ago, and already your community is part of a giant stalinist civilian-imprisoning secret conspiracy? :eek: Wow, that guy is fast :shock: I hope he solves the global warming with that speed too :re:

(Great that at least they're letting you denounce the conspiracy here on the board before the imprisonment ;) )

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

As a side note, private prisons primarily benefit from draconian drug laws that were passed under the Reagan administration... the majority of inmates are minorities, and most of them are in for drug related crimes. Obama's election is probably bad news for the industry for several reasons. Also private prisons do not allow employee unions at their facilities. Quite honestly, while Democrats have the reputation for "big government" because of their pattern of social spending, they are more libertarian in their attitude towards throwing people in prison for minor crimes, and they are less likely than republicans to pass laws dictating the private behavior of people in their own bedrooms.
In the interest of full disclosure, I was a corrections officer at a private prison for two years.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

"The full text of Agenda 21 was revealed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro on June 14, 1992, where 179 governments voted to adopt the programme. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation and negotiation, beginning in 1989 and culminating at the two-week conference."

Looks like this must have been signed on behalf of the US - by Bush Sr.


"In 1997, the General Assembly of the UN held a special session to appraise five years of progress on the implementation of Agenda 21 (Rio +5). The Assembly recognized progress as 'uneven' and identified key trends including increasing globalization, widening inequalities in income and a continued deterioration of the global environment. A new General Assembly Resolution (S-19/2) promised further action."

How dare they oppose globalization, inequality, and deterioration of the global environment. Those Stalinist cads!

:re:

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

If anyone is interested, as every time "socialism" is mentioned someone asks his wife for the pirchfork and the flaming torch, I found around this pretty interesting video about the famous Joe the (unlicensed) Plumber.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnK84mM5N-o

Looks like Republican party's hero has benefitted being on welfare 3 times, but suddenly he has horror of "spread the wealth" politics because now the things are going well for him and he doesn't apparently want to return the favour he received from society when in need, for less fortunate people.

Selfishness and opportunism brought to a whole new level.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I believe these plans are a long term program. It has gone thru 3 administrations without opposition or acknowledgment. Maybe what I'm seeing is purely a local situation. As I said, I hope I'm wrong. I hope that our new messiah, oops president will put a stop to this. :D


PS. I wonder if Obama will recind the Patiot Act, If he does I will take a deep breath and relax.:D

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I'm basically Republican at heart, but I do think Obama is somewhat more likely than McCain would have been to dismantle the (thoroughly-useless) TSA in favor of proactive HUMINT. And if the Republicans in Congress try to exploit that to further their careers they deserve another thumping.

-Max

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Stalinism! :shock: And here I was always building mass transits like crazy in Civilization, thinking that all that they do was reduce pollution from population. Never did I imagine that they'd invite Stalinism through the door. BRB, I have to demolish a few buildings - traffic-choked streets sound far better than open communism, what was I thinking... :sick:

Hmm. Maybe those detainees from Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp and from those illegal CIA prisons that need a new home?

Nothing comes of history but history. Fear is the mind killer? :)

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

In effect, the mass public transport thing seemed everything but evil to me too.

It's ages we know that efficient, fast, sure, eco-friendly mass transit can kill the pollution, greatly help the environment and raise the quality of life - sorry, employees of car factories, but we have to save our lungs, and mass transits require lots of employees anyway (hey, soon there will be the magnetic levitation bus - I mean, how cool would be to drive that one?? :) ).

You can make an argument about how terribly communist is to turn lots of "free market companies" jobs into state-owned companies ones, and that the American Dream is the freedom of one's own muscle car or monster truck or Canyonero (Simpson ref. of course :D )... but the truth is that we all fear what can happen in 100 years if we don't stop pollution and global warming now.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I think a fair few Americans actually don't fear what can happen in 100 years if we don't stop pollution and global warming now, because they don't believe in global warming. Apparently a mass conspiracy of scientists all over the world is a more likely/convenient explanation.

Edit: Obviously I understand this is a minority (or I hope so!), and that the same controversies exist to some extent in all countries, just rarely to the same extent.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

For a spotlight figure who believes that global warming is not man made, if real at all, you can look at Sarah Palin. Look at her VP debate with Joe biden.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

She also apparently thought that Africa was a country, not an actual continent. >.>

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

I'm pretty sure she knows that it is a continent. She just thought that they would be organized as the United States of Africa, or U.S.A. in short. Wait a minute... :confused:

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Exactly. A future where money means nothing, everyone has a job, everyone has health care, etc etc etc. Sounds like a utopian communistic image of the democratic party extreme.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

But, to be fair, healthcare in the federation does just involve waving a little penlight looking thingy over the hurty bits while looking concerned.

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Dammit Jim, she's a politician, not a cartographer!

...and all references are as one...

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

There was also a nice wisecrack about her around in Italy in the campaign days... :smirk:

"She's pro-war, anti-abortion, pro-creationism, pro-abstinence only education, pro-hunting, pro-guns, pro-drilling, pro-nuclear, anti-renewable energies, pro-death penalty.
Think of an horrible thing. She's in favour" :D

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

*cough*berlusconi*cough*

;)

Re: OT: US President (US Dom Players only)
 

Plz don't mention...
There's just nothing too bad you can say about this man and all his (proven) fascist/dishonest/liers/racist/mafiosi lackeys and friends, who brainwashed and govern my people.
I'm gonna emigrate as soon as I finish University, like the most of the young "brains" are doing. My country's a sinking boat.

If Obama really manages to make USA an even better place, someone prepare a room for me in four/five years please :D