The Obama Presidency

**Nash** · 03 Oct 2010, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Yoshi

... get board...

**Yoshi** · 03 Oct 2010, 12:52 PM

Damn, I've been bad about not looking at what I type this week.

**Error** · 03 Oct 2010, 01:48 PM

theres no way Reagan would have lasted six terms. He barely lasted 2 with that brain.

**Finch** · 03 Oct 2010, 05:29 PM

Zombie Reagan and Zombie Goldwater in 2012

**Drewbacca** · 03 Oct 2010, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Yoshi

She won't win the primary, thankfully. But she still wouldn't be worse than Obama. Jimmy Carter totally got bailed out of being the worst President ever by this ass clown.

Yoshi - she would be as bad for creating policy. The only thing she has going for her over Obama is the entire nation doesn't have a love affair with her. So sneaking through shitty bills won't be as easy. Bush was way worse than Obama - but Obama wasn't exactly the change he promised himself to be, either. With Bush people knew what to expect.

Originally Posted by Razor Ramon

Say that when it's a corporation underpaying and overworking its workforce.

Marxism at its finest. Not to say there aren't corporations doing this - but the state is to blame for allowing corporations to get in its ear and influence policy. It's also not technically exploitation when workers have a choice to move, or to create a new company, in a free market society. The system isn't perfect by any means - but you're trying to push it in the wrong direction.

If you sell me your laptop over eBay and I buy it for 800 dollars even though you're asking for 1500 am I exploiting you?

Originally Posted by Razor Ramon

We get better coverage and insurance companies are not only forced to compete but have a new, large consumer base.

You're smarter than this. You work hard, read, and are generally a positive contributor to society. I can't believe you would sponsor state enforced markets that dead lock individuals to large corporate bodies (medical, pharmaceuticals in this case). The only way to solve the healthcare crisis in America (and the world, therefore) would be public NPO's with full transparency. Because there is nothing to stand in the way of a healthcare provider denying coverage. NOT EVEN OBAMACARE. And now you're indentured to paying money every month towards it.

Originally Posted by Razor Ramon

Ask our politicians how it's being spent.

Congress did ask Bernake of the Federal Reserve how it was going to be spent. HE SAID NO. And then was Time's man of the year a few weeks later.

Originally Posted by Razor Ramon

You're now grasping at straws. The money was gotten from our federal government. There's no need to be cunty about the definition. Our government chooses how to spend the money it collects from us and if you don't like it vote out your representative.

Why would his vote matter any? Were you even paying attention to the whole bailout story?

The House DID VOTE NO. The Federal Reserve, private corporations, and the federal government met privately after that fact and pushed it through completely undemocratically. Nobody wanted the bailout except the banks and according to US law these companies should have gotten nothing.

Originally Posted by Gooch

The only realized way that taxpayers will see any profits (assuming there are any that are generated) is that the Detroit auto industry and AIG have to remain profitable.

Assuming they wouldn't have been anyway over a period of time through bankruptcy write-offs and organic market restructuring. There is no control in this experiment so it is impossible to garner any feasible hard results.

**Yoshi** · 03 Oct 2010, 05:48 PM

I mostly agree with that. Though she wouldn't have gone for the bail outs or health care, so the only major negative she has the potential of slinging is some religious shit.

**nocturne** · 03 Oct 2010, 06:02 PM

No Yoshi, Bush sucked donkey dick as anything but a coke snorting 32 year old playboy.

Heres a list compiled by some historians but since they are PHD's they might be too "elitist" and "liberal" to have a valuable opinion.

http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSu...l-Ranking.aspx

I believe Bush ranks in the bottom of the list.

Oh, and once Reagans personality cult subsided they would have realized his economics sucked and he had the largest deficit in history.

**Drewbacca** · 03 Oct 2010, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Yoshi

I mostly agree with that. Though she wouldn't have gone for the bail outs or health care, so the only major negative she has the potential of slinging is some religious shit.

Palin would absolutely have been for the bailouts just as Bush was (they're from the same establishment). She is not representative of small government or reduced spending. That is the same speech every candidate on the right gives without any meaning. Bush expanded the government more than ANYONE ELSE IN HISTORY with the NSA. Healthcare is just an expansion of that - and I'm sure Palin would squander your rights just as Obama has. Especially this new wave to neutralize free speech on the web. She would have to - her stupid party would question her resolve against terrorism be it any other way.

That's the difference between a libertarian and a conservative. A libertarian would not give up its right to freedom under guise of fear and security. Tea Party was originally a libertarian movement before the big red right usurped the conversation. Palin is a retard. Obama will win in 2012 because "ANYBODY BUT OBAMA" is not a campaign anybody cares about. As a politician any potential leader has to say why they'd be a good candidate - not why someone else isn't. Nobody wants to elect a default aka Jimmy Carter.