NationStates

Ceannairceach wrote:Both Bush's were idiots.

No, George H.W. Bush was a pretty good president. He's definitely not in the same league as his son...

Dakini wrote:

NERVUN wrote:Dakini, I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but majority leaders in Congress do NOT have the same party control over their members that various assemblies run under the Westminister system do.

A majority in Congress just means you might have an easier time of passage.

Well, for the sane parties here it isn't always necessary to vote with the party (usually) either. The mace in parliament is just ceremonial now and the party leaders don't get to beat dissenters with it anymore (which would probably have hurt a lot since it looks really big). If Mr Obama could have just met with his own party and got everyone in his party to agree on laws (and negotiated with them prior or as he introduced the laws) then he could have just powered them through, no? That would have been much easier than reaching across the aisle.

It's not the same though. If I understand the system that you guys got in Canada, party leaders (The front benchers) can strip party status from the back benchers. The whips do actually have power in keeping their party in line, which makes a revolt from the party unlikely unless enough of the back benchers get together to force the change.

The US party system on the other hand does not do so. Candidates do not have the party support that they do in the Westminister system (Where, honestly, most MPs are empty suits for the party and switch around rapidly). The whips here have a much harder time getting party members to toe the line when it comes to bills that the memmbers know will haunt them come election time. That's what all the talk about the Blue Dog Dems and the Tea Party has been about. The Dem majority then had to work around a number of members who knew they would be hung out to dry if they voted yes and the GOP majority now has to contend with the Tea Party that is refusing to play nice unless it get what it wants.

Sibirsky wrote:

Jedi8246 wrote:There are a few legitimate GOP candidates.

Mitch Daniels and Ron Paul for example.

And Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson is awesome as well. I had forgotten about him. He is another one of my favorites.

Jedi8246 wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:
And Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson is awesome as well. I had forgotten about him. He is another one of my favorites.

Gary Johnson? Haven't heard of him yet, or at least not much to make him stick in my brain. What's his platform?

Pirate Girl wrote:51% of goverment funds go to unemployment,welfare,and other stuff.

This is truly a fantastic sentence. Thank you for brightening my day by writing it. It's right up there with those ads that tell me I could "save up to 15% or more."

Ceannairceach wrote:

Jedi8246 wrote:Gary Johnson is awesome as well. I had forgotten about him. He is another one of my favorites.

Gary Johnson? Haven't heard of him yet, or at least not much to make him stick in my brain. What's his platform?

Basically, antiwar, anti-Fed, pro-personal liberties, slash-government-spending candidate.

To quote: "...speak out on issues regarding topics such as government efficiency, lowering taxes, ending the war on drugs, protecting civil liberties, revitalizing the economy and promoting entrepreneurship and privatization"

Ublakeistan wrote:Worst President fucking ever

Hmm... no.

Besides, he had some interesting social policy that he failed to deliver on...

In any case, there are worse. Bush didn't even THEORETICALLY advocate liberal social policy, and his economic policy is similar to Obama's (and essentially every president in the last 100 years, barring a few... like Coolidge and Harding... sorta').

FDR, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, etc. are all worse BY MILES. If you take away the common perception of Reagan as a "Warrior of Capitalism" (he raised taxes during his administration... though there is truth in the war-mongering "warrior" part), he sucked too.

OP is a 3/10

Augarundus wrote:

Ublakeistan wrote:Worst President fucking ever

Hmm... no.

Besides, he had some interesting social policy that he failed to deliver on...

In any case, there are worse. Bush didn't even THEORETICALLY advocate liberal social policy, and his economic policy is similar to Obama's (and essentially every president in the last 100 years, barring a few... like Coolidge and Harding... sorta').

FDR, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, etc. are all worse BY MILES. If you take away the common perception of Reagan as a "Warrior of Capitalism" (he raised taxes during his administration... though there is truth in the war-mongering "warrior" part), he sucked too.

way to be a party pooper so now everyone sucks?

I takes several years before economic policies take effect. It's why our economy didn't reach its shittiest until Bush's last years. Change won't occur within his first term, and though I don't agree with him on everything, I believe he can help us get out of this mess. If Clinton and FDR have proved anything, Democrats understand how the economy works.

Ceannairceach wrote:

Jedi8246 wrote:Gary Johnson is awesome as well. I had forgotten about him. He is another one of my favorites.

Gary Johnson? Haven't heard of him yet, or at least not much to make him stick in my brain. What's his platform?

Nothing official yet, other than balance the budget. That's his big thing. In NM he reduced spending, vetoed more bills than the other 49 governors combined and tried to push medical marijuana.

Augarundus wrote:

Ublakeistan wrote:Worst President fucking ever

Hmm... no.

Besides, he had some interesting social policy that he failed to deliver on...

In any case, there are worse. Bush didn't even THEORETICALLY advocate liberal social policy, and his economic policy is similar to Obama's (and essentially every president in the last 100 years, barring a few... like Coolidge and Harding... sorta').

FDR, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, etc. are all worse BY MILES. If you take away the common perception of Reagan as a "Warrior of Capitalism" (he raised taxes during his administration... though there is truth in the war-mongering "warrior" part), he sucked too.

Reagan had more tax cuts than raises. But otherwise, I agree with your other worst by miles list.

Sdaeriji wrote:

Ublakeistan wrote:Worst President fucking ever

Well, that's a lie.

It's actually called an opinion.

Obama was a disappointment from the start and he gave out so much hope, that he possibly couldn't accomplish the change he spoke of. Now he is paying for it. I don't think he is the "worst" president ever, but he ain't great, or even a good one.

The Norwegian Blue wrote:

Pirate Girl wrote:51% of goverment funds go to unemployment,welfare,and other stuff.

This is truly a fantastic sentence. Thank you for brightening my day by writing it. It's right up there with those ads that tell me I could "save up to 15% or more."

100% of government spending goes to "stuff government spends money on."

I know. I am just as shocked as you are.

Pirate Girl wrote:As the start of a so called "Change" for the U.S..Nothing has happened,what i saw yesterday said that more people are relying on the goverment for services.51% of goverment funds go to unemployment,welfare,and other stuff.What are your thoughts obama a bad idea or no?

Funny... haha. I might take this slightly more serious if the grammar was right and if there were sources.

(But of course, even then I wouldn't take it serious. Obama inherited a sh*t pile from Bush and for Republicans, uneducated, people to say he's a bad choice and hasn't doen anything for America (or to go as far as to say that he crated the problem) disgusts me).

Sibirsky wrote:

The Norwegian Blue wrote:
This is truly a fantastic sentence. Thank you for brightening my day by writing it. It's right up there with those ads that tell me I could "save up to 15% or more."

100% of government spending goes to "stuff government spends money on."

I know. I am just as shocked as you are.

I have now been educated. Thank you, Sibirsky, for lifting my ignorant mind out of darkness.

Also, that post is now signature-worthy. Congrats

Pirate Girl wrote:As the start of a so called "Change" for the U.S..Nothing has happened,what i saw yesterday said that more people are relying on the goverment for services.51% of goverment funds go to unemployment,welfare,and other stuff.What are your thoughts obama a bad idea or no?
Pirate girl

A man who come into office with commendable hopes and ideas. But the reality of politics crushed him.

Jedi8246 wrote:

Augarundus wrote:
Hmm... no.

Besides, he had some interesting social policy that he failed to deliver on...

In any case, there are worse. Bush didn't even THEORETICALLY advocate liberal social policy, and his economic policy is similar to Obama's (and essentially every president in the last 100 years, barring a few... like Coolidge and Harding... sorta').

FDR, Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, etc. are all worse BY MILES. If you take away the common perception of Reagan as a "Warrior of Capitalism" (he raised taxes during his administration... though there is truth in the war-mongering "warrior" part), he sucked too.

Reagan had more tax cuts than raises. But otherwise, I agree with your other worst by miles list.

He only had one major tax cut, and raised them six times even then he ran high deficits with his out of control spending. Not to mention is whole lack of morals in funding death squads in South America, selling bio/chemical weapons to Iraq and Iran, and the whole ignoring aids.

Is it alright if I want to shoot all politicians in the face?

Xanicea wrote:

Sibirsky wrote:100% of government spending goes to "stuff government spends money on."

I know. I am just as shocked as you are.

I have now been educated. Thank you, Sibirsky, for lifting my ignorant mind out of darkness.

Also, that post is now signature-worthy. Congrats

Haha. I love the "other stuff" qualifier.

The American Guilds wrote:Is it alright if I want to shoot all politicians in the face?

Generally not advisable but not considered abnormal. You're ok as long as you don't act on those desires.

NERVUN wrote:... I'm still not sure just what people expected. I mean, did you honestly think the president can wave a magic wand and change what he likes in the government?

As for the services, we've kinda had this small economic problem you might have heard about, sort of causes people to fall back on the safety nets more...

Civil liberties,Iraq,Afghnaistan,moving to the centre thereby leaving the poor with nobody to turn to,his speeches sound like Republican ones. He failed to live up to the hype. In a 2 party system he isn't much different to the other party,that's a problem for democracy. Of course he inherited a tough situation but this especially is not the time for weak leadership.

Jedi8246 wrote:

The Andromeda Islands wrote:
He's better than the freak show the GOP's putting forward.
They better put Charlie Sheen on their ticket, because that's the only winning they'll see in 2012.

There are a few legitimate GOP candidates.

Mitch Daniels and Ron Paul for example.

Mitch Daniels, yes he is a good GOP canidate.

Ron Paul, just no.

Ron Paul doesnt believe in the seperation of church and state......ummmm.....thats agaisnt our COnstitution isn't it?

Siorafrica wrote:Civil liberties,Iraq,Afghnaistan,moving to the centre thereby leaving the poor with nobody to turn to,his speeches sound like Republican ones. He failed to live up to the hype. In a 2 party system he isn't much different to the other party,that's a problem for democracy. Of course he inherited a tough situation but this especially is not the time for weak leadership.

He sounds like a republican cuz republicans and democrats arent really that different! One is just a little right and the other is a little left. Then of course there are groups that consider themselves repubs or dems but have farther right or left views. But for the most part, they don't get elected, most people who get elected are traditional near-the-middle politicians, who all get funded by the same damn companies.

Ronald and Pennywise wrote:way to be a party pooper so now everyone sucks?

I'm an ancap, so I don't approve of the office of president (or any other statist institution).

One could argue that Thomas Jefferson was the greatest LIBERTE president. Beginnings of French Revolution were more LIBERTE to my tastes, however (Note: the way beginning... as in, the ROOTS of the revolution... though de-Christianization was pretty awesome).

Jedi8246 wrote:Reagan had more tax cuts than raises. But otherwise, I agree with your other worst by miles list.

1) Any tax raises are anti-Liberte.
2) I'd question that... to my knowledge, he raised taxes more often than not.
3) He also raised taxes moreso on the poor than the wealthy. Class-targeted taxation isn't too great (not saying reducing taxation on the wealthy doesn't benefit the economy or anything - I want the abolition of taxation, the state, and coercion-, but taxation of anyone is bad... including the poor).

The reason that he sucked was mostly because of imperialist foreign policy and social conservatism, in addition to being not-too-laissez-faire (actually, a pretty moderate presidential economic policy).