Obama Reportcard

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I dare say creating a situation that became a huge drain on the economy wasn't just failing to stop it, but making it a whole lot worse.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I would say that is a major conflict of interest.

and now you now just a small part of the story.
he, Berlusconi, entered politics back in 1994 just to avoid to be found guilty in an uncountable amount of trials.
recently, he proposed a law to bring to the 5 highest politics personalities immunity during their mandates.
obviously the law passed.
he was complaining about the fact of being unable to work, because he was always in the tribunal defending himself.
now, you should ask yourself why they are trying to put you in jail since...20 years. no?!

the silent majority of Italians seems to disagree with you.

if you ask Italians if they voted for him, they will answer "no way, no!", still he is there, reigning.
I don't even know what's wrong anymore, if him or us.
I mean, if you feel ashamed of voting someone and say you voted someone else, perhaps you shouldn't have voted him in first place.
then we could even consider if he actually had all those votes legally in first place, but it's a whole different story.

[LTSmash]

Clinton may have started the collapse, but Bush didn't do enough to stop it.

Kind of hard to do so when Senate shuts you down numerous times and PACs are all over I-banks asses.

Also: Senate's constant demonizing of hedgies and PE firms is killing the system. Everyone is pulling equity, so where the hell is the capital going to come from; oh, that's right the government will save us. Not that anyone here follows this, but you may want to know that not a single IPO has not taken off since Q4 2008. That is called job decrease. Your elected reps like Waters, Frank, and Dodd are only keeping this going; toss them the blame stick.

[Kitdy]

Kind of hard to do so when Senate shuts you down numerous times and PACs are all over I-banks asses.

Also: Senate's constant demonizing of hedgies and PE firms is killing the system. Everyone is pulling equity, so where the hell is the capital going to come from; oh, that's right the government will save us. Not that anyone here follows this, but you may want to know that not a single IPO has not taken off since Q4 2008. That is called job decrease. Your elected reps like Waters, Frank, and Dodd are only keeping this going; toss them the blame stick.

I understand next to nothing of what you just said. It all sounds very complex and yet so boring in a way.

EDIT: I was gonna mention that no one has given a letter grade so far like Colin did so I'll give Obama a an X because I don't know because I haven't followed anything since the election because the news presently bores me. Props for him visiting Canada first though - mad love/respect for that.

[LTSmash]

I understand next to nothing of what you just said. It all sounds very complex and yet so boring in a way.

The point being that the Bush administration was healthy for start-ups and small businesses. Far lefties are what's destroying this economic system.

[Kitdy]

The point being that the Bush administration was healthy for start-ups and small businesses. Far lefties are what's destroying this economic system.

Please don't buy into the classic right-wing our enemies are on the "far left" idea. We have discussed this before on the forums. Some Democrats may be far left for the American political compass, but in reality, if you look at who are closer to radicals, it'd be some members of the Republican party who are reasonably far right (I still wouldn't call many/any of them far right off the top of my head, maybe Ron Paul excepted).

So if you want to call Obama/Dodd/Pelosi far left, then do us a favour and call some of the Republicans far right or if you want to make it relative to many of the centrist/moderate left Democrats, then call these republicans the far right fringe radicals or something.

This language is divisive and as far as I'm concerned, inaccurate and silly. If you are gonna call someone something, call them by what they actually are and not some propaganda term offered by the enemies of who you are describing. I'm not a political science expert but I have a bit of a background in the field and I know that these so called "far lefties" ain't so far left as you think; and pretty much all of them in America are capitalists as well. The far left would not even be socialists; they'd be communists, and I can tell you with great certainty that although there may be a tiny amount of light socialists in the US federal political system (off the top of my head, Kucinich would be farthest left that I know and could qualify as a socilaist) there are certainly no communists in the system.

So stop this nonsense or refer to your own team using the same divisive language.

[blingbling]

Unless you kill many, many people to achieve the revolution.

are you saying this just to say this?

[LTSmash]

Please don't buy into the classic right-wing our enemies are on the "far left" idea. We have discussed this before on the forums. Some Democrats may be far left for the American political compass, but in reality, if you look at who are closer to radicals, it'd be some members of the Republican party who are reasonably far right (I still wouldn't call many/any of them far right off the top of my head, maybe Ron Paul excepted).

So if you want to call Obama/Dodd/Pelosi far left, then do us a favour and call some of the Republicans far right or if you want to make it relative to many of the centrist/moderate left Democrats, then call these republicans the far right fringe radicals or something.

This language is divisive and as far as I'm concerned, inaccurate and silly. If you are gonna call someone something, call them by what they actually are and not some propaganda term offered by the enemies of who you are describing. I'm not a political science expert but I have a bit of a background in the field and I know that these so called "far lefties" ain't so far left as you think; and pretty much all of them in America are capitalists as well. The far left would not even be socialists; they'd be communists, and I can tell you with great certainty that although there may be a tiny amount of light socialists in the US federal political system (off the top of my head, Kucinich would be farthest left that I know and could qualify as a socilaist) there are certainly no communists in the system.

So stop this nonsense or refer to your own team using the same divisive language.

God damn, I'm not on any team. I'm just as liberal on certain idea's as I'm conservative. On economics I'm fairly conservative so I agree with more republicans on those issues. Since we're talking about the economy, I'm going to side with what I believe (which just happens to be what many republicans believe). "Far lefties" was implying to Dodd, Frank, and Waters on their economic ideas; which I will stand by that statement because they are harming capitalism, more so than other politicians. I never called Obama or Pelosi far left nor did I mention anything of socialism or communism. Far left was meant strictly on an economic standpoint directed at three people, maybe I should have made that more clear in former posts.

It is a fact that Dodd, Frank, and Waters' stance on economy is "far left." If you are distraught over the fact that I have not said "far right" to make things equal, please start a thread on religion, abortion, and gay marriage/rights, or any other social issue and I'll talk "far right" all you want.

To me, on the economy issue, republicans seem to be more in tune than the dems.

[Kitdy]

are you saying this just to say this?

No my point was many revolutions are extremely bloody and you may well be better off with the general malaise that you have before. In Iran (my favourite example), the CIA assisted overthrowing of Mossadegh made things worse pretty clearly with the Shah, and overthrowing the Shah brought us Ayatollah Khomeini and the happy characters in control of Iran today.

Were the revolutions worth it? What about the French revolution? IT eventually brought good things but how many died and how much of that probably woulda occurred via evolution anyways?

[henk4]

"Far lefties" was implying to Dodd, Frank, and Waters on their economic ideas; which I will stand by that statement because they are harming capitalism, more so than other politicians.

the harm done to capitalism by these people is considerably less than what capitalism has done itself. Do you still think it should be refurbished to how it was say three years ago?

[blingbling]

No my point was many revolutions are extremely bloody and you may well be better off with the general malaise that you have before. In Iran (my favourite example), the CIA assisted overthrowing of Mossadegh made things worse pretty clearly with the Shah, and overthrowing the Shah brought us Ayatollah Khomeini and the happy characters in control of Iran today.

Were the revolutions worth it? What about the French revolution? IT eventually brought good things but how many died and how much of that probably woulda occurred via evolution anyways?

if it is general "malaise" (i had to look this word up) then of course death is not worth it. it is when the bearaucratic/evolutionary/progressive process is TOO SLOW that a revolution must be necesitated to speed things up. iran's example of course is your favourite example of a revolution god bad. it is because of what you said, CIA intervention. unless it is made with only parties that agree towards a common goal (as in the case with the american, french, and russian revolutions) that would make it work. the french and russian ones took much longer to realize the "common goal" was and the aftermath's dust settling took a very long and bloody time.

but was it worth it? all those lives. very much so. the ends justfied the means in this case. this is not just revolutionary fever. it is the truth. many die, for the greater cause of accelerated progression.

[LTSmash]

the harm done to capitalism by these people is considerably less than what capitalism has done itself. Do you still think it should be refurbished to how it was say three years ago?

Before I answer that, tell me this; are you a believer of Krugman?

[Kitdy]

It is a fact that Dodd, Frank, and Waters' stance on economy is "far left." If you are distraught over the fact that I have not said "far right" to make things equal, please start a thread on religion, abortion, and gay marriage/rights, or any other social issue and I'll talk "far right" all you want.

I'm not upset really, I am annoyed at this mischaracterization. I don't know as much about US American politics as you, but I still don't think that these people are members of the far left. Were they, they would be in support of the nationalization of resources, near-complete control of the economy by the government via something akin to five year plans in the Soviet Union, widescale wealth redistribution programs of the kind not seen in the modern world, and the abolishment of private ownership. Upon this assessment, do you really think that these people would fit into the mould of the far left (ie, communists?)? I certainly would be very doubtful of this. Maybe, at most, they are socialists - which as I mentioned before, I doubt - but a socialist is not a member of the far left.

henk, I need assistance.

I also apologize to say you were part of "their team" and I now remember you saying you were more left wing (or bottom wing if we go by the trusty political compass) when it comes to social issues - I was referring to you being on the team of the more free-market capitalists.

OK, I reread your post and am now a bit perplexed. You say that you refer to that trio as having far left economic ideas but if you check and see what members of the far left are, they are typified as communists. I mean, communism exists in many different forms and maybe you don't think of them as the Soviet kind which is why we have this misunderstanding but the views of the far left which I listed above in the top paragraph are what typify the far left. Do any of the three hold those views?

Wikipedia sums it up well:

In the 2000s, in countries where communist or socialist parties are not part of the political mainstream (such as the United States), the term far left can simply mean to the left of the most left-wing member of the legislature. For much of the English-speaking world - especially Australia and the United States - far left is sometimes a pejorative term to indicate that a person is extreme or on the fringe in their left-wing views. Commentators like Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck often refer to politicians like John Edwards and organizations like Media Matters for America and MoveOn.org as "far-left".

All said, these members in your system are about as far left as they go, but that does not make them far left - at least on my eyes. This of course does depend on one's own definition of far left but that is a bit more grey, and as I mentioned before, if Barney Frank is far left, then guys like Bush and Ron Paul would be off the chart to the right economically. You say they harm capitalism, but this could sheerly mean they are less capitalistic than other members of the US political system and still does not mean they are on the far left.

Also this is good, we are actually once again having a civil debate here I think - I just hope I didn't anger you too much with my initial post.

[Kitdy]

if it is general "malaise" (i had to look this word up) then of course death is not worth it. it is when the bearaucratic/evolutionary/progressive process is TOO SLOW that a revolution must be necesitated to speed things up. iran's example of course is your favourite example of a revolution god bad. it is because of what you said, CIA intervention. unless it is made with only parties that agree towards a common goal (as in the case with the american, french, and russian revolutions) that would make it work. the french and russian ones took much longer to realize the "common goal" was and the aftermath's dust settling took a very long and bloody time.

but was it worth it? all those lives. very much so. the ends justfied the means in this case. this is not just revolutionary fever. it is the truth. many die, for the greater cause of accelerated progression.

So, you think that the Russian Revolution was worth it? The decades of tyranny, millions of deaths due to the rule of the CPSU was a good thing? Similarly in France, how many died? The Americans revolted because of the massive oppression of tax?! Canada seemed to do pretty dang well just evolving outta Britain. Forget the revolution of the Shah, that was more a coup, but what about when the revolution in '79 happened? That wasn't any good either. Revolutions tons of times just lead to another repressive dictatorship or something of that ilk. I'd say that in a vast majority of practical circumstances, the best way is a slow evolutionary change to the ideals of the people of the nation, or, at least a peaceful revolution like the Carnation Revolution.

Before I answer that, tell me this; are you a believer of Krugman?

I didn't know who this was until I looked him up and saw he was a winner of the bastard/fake Nobel prize.

[Ferrer]

So, you think that the Russian Revolution was worth it? The decades of tyranny, millions of deaths due to the rule of the CPSU was a good thing? Similarly in France, how many died? The Americans revolted because of the massive oppression of tax?! Canada seemed to do pretty dang well just evolving outta Britain. Forget the revolution of the Shah, that was more a coup, but what about when the revolution in '79 happened? That wasn't any good either. Revolutions tons of times just lead to another repressive dictatorship or something of that ilk. I'd say that in a vast majority of practical circumstances, the best way is a slow evolutionary change to the ideals of the people of the nation, or, at least a peaceful revolution like the Carnation Revolution.

Sometimes revolutions are needed in order to change things that need to be changed.

It's sad, but violence gets things done. Wheter those are good or bad is another story probably.