Worst Presidential Candidates

[SuperJerk 0]

And how does "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry" not fall under the "anything that moves away from a laissez-faire economy" definition?

 

 

You are arguing because X (socialism) is part of Y (any move away from pure capitalsim), then X = Y.

 

Yes, socialism is moving away from pure capitalism, but that does not make ANY move away from pure capitalism the same thing as socialism.

 

Socialism is a very specific thing, and pure capitalism is a very specific thing. But there are many other economic systems which are neither of the two.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz (My response to all of these interminable discussions of conservatism, socialism, capitalism, etc.)

 

I do have one question. Since one of the Republicans' biggest strategies in the election was to call Obama a socialist, and Obama kicked McCain's ass, does that mean we have a mandate for socialism? And if "socialist" is the new hate word for lefties, does that mean it's cool to be "liberal" again? Or do they just equate the two words?

[EricMM 0]

Yes, socialism is moving away from pure capitalism, but that does not make ANY move away from pure capitalism the same thing as socialism.

We have reached, I think, the crux of the argument.

 

PS Many industries have gotten subsidies for decades. Have never been completely capitalist, ever. Come on.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well couldn't you argue that our military, police force, firestations etc etc are socialist organizations?

 

So in some regards you could argue we are a mixed economy, and maybe one in which more "commons" such as healthcare should be more socialist then for-profit.

 

Oh and Thom Hartman does his show from CPAC every year and he had that 13 year old kid on, and the kid basically repeated that speech, but then starting going on a tangent about terrorist cells in america that Obama is letting happen, and he claimed because he read a website about it, it was true. Needless to say that was a slip-up and he was destroyed for it. The kid is going places though, I agree with whoever said, he will probably turn out to be a speechwriter.

[bob_barron 0]

I'm an econ major, dude, I know how the US economy looks. You don't have to tell me what I already know.

 

Thanks, Popick.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

President Barack Obama's tax proposal -- which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more -- has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it's just by a dollar.

 

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law. [...]

 

"We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.

 

"We have to find a way out where we can make just what we need to just under the line so we can benefit from Obama's tax plan," she added. "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?"

 

The attorney says that in order to decrease her income she'll have to let go of clients, some of whom she's been counseling for more than a decade.

 

"This means I'll have to tell some of my clients we can't help them and being more selective in general about who we help," she said. "I hate to do it."

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/Sto...5547&page=1

 

 

This lawyer is really, really, really fucking stupid. Her working less is probably a favor to her clients.

[Big Green 0]

President Barack Obama's tax proposal -- which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more -- has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it's just by a dollar.

 

A 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law. [...]

 

"We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.

 

"We have to find a way out where we can make just what we need to just under the line so we can benefit from Obama's tax plan," she added. "Why kill yourself working if you're going to give it all away to people who aren't working as hard?"

 

The attorney says that in order to decrease her income she'll have to let go of clients, some of whom she's been counseling for more than a decade.

 

"This means I'll have to tell some of my clients we can't help them and being more selective in general about who we help," she said. "I hate to do it."

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/Sto...5547&page=1

 

 

This lawyer is really, really, really fucking stupid. Her working less is probably a favor to her clients.

 

 

Here's a funny "rich people hate paying taxes" story. I remember when I volunteered for the Obama campaign, I had to register people to vote. The problem with this was that I had to essentially walk groups of people to town hall to register because New Hampshire state law says that you MUST register to vote in the presence of certain town officials. Because of the extended amount of time that I had to spend with these people, I was subjected to some of the most inane ramblings ever including one girl who was pissed that her parents had to pay $100,000 of their $1,000,000 per year income in taxes. Her reasoning was that her successful parents shouldn't have to subsidize poor people. I'm not familiar with the tax code but I would've assumed that they would've had to pay MORE in taxes than that.

 

Fiscal conservatives (with money) are hilarious to talk to. They're convinced that the government is socialist because of welfare programs and that everyone could be as successful as they are, if they just weren't so damn lazy.

 

(Luckily, our campus isn't like that for the most part. We went like 85-15 for Obama.)

[Art Sandusky 0]

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz (My response to all of these interminable discussions of conservatism, socialism, capitalism, etc.)

 

I do have one question. Since one of the Republicans' biggest strategies in the election was to call Obama a socialist, and Obama kicked McCain's ass, does that mean we have a mandate for socialism? And if "socialist" is the new hate word for lefties, does that mean it's cool to be "liberal" again? Or do they just equate the two words?

I know some older people (50s, early 60s) around where I work who have started calling themselves liberals since the election and actually ended up voting for Obama after they promoted the McCain ticket earlier in the campaign. As one put it, "I'm all for socialized medicine! I need it!" These are mostly bright people too, with understandings of how history works thanks to our jobs as city tour guides. In SOUTH CAROLINA. There's still a lot of hesitation regarding the spending going on, but it would appear limited socialism is being given a real shot and "liberal" is closer to the center than it used to be, like it's already been in Europe for years.

[At Home 0]

In modern society, a country IS socialist is a majority of industries are owned. I would argue that there are no textbook socialist countries out there though, just as there are no textbook capitalist countries out there.

 

Yes! Good, those are exactly the words that I wanted you to use. "In modern society," no "textbook socialist countries," so you'll agree that these definitions change and it's not realistic to say that a socialist government is one that HAS TO TAKE CONTROL OVER EVERY INDUSTRY OR ELSE IT'S CATEGORICALLY NOT SOCIALIST. Like I said before, that's just part of the equation, and we haven't even begin to touch upon social benefits, and what have you. Furthermore, I'm absolutely sure that even the "majority" part of your original sentiment could be broken down further: you'll get different responses to what a socialist country is when you talk to John Adams, Milton Friedman, or John Keynes.

 

And how does "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry" not fall under the "anything that moves away from a laissez-faire economy" definition?

 

 

You are arguing because X (socialism) is part of Y (any move away from pure capitalsim), then X = Y.

 

Yes, socialism is moving away from pure capitalism, but that does not make ANY move away from pure capitalism the same thing as socialism.

 

Socialism is a very specific thing, and pure capitalism is a very specific thing. But there are many other economic systems which are neither of the two.

 

Here's where your logic gets confused. In the x = y equation, you substitute my definition for your definition. Let's take look at that with my allegory of martyrdom. X is martyrdom, and Y is a religious act. X falls under Y, so X = Y, or that martyrdom is a religious act. Now when you say socialism in that equation above, you're using your construct of socialism. The equation should have read, "X [as an individual act] (anti-trust regulation) is part of Y (any move away from laissez-faire market systems), then X = Y," or that anti-trust regulation is a move away from laissez-faire market systems. Your line of thinking up there isn't coherent and you intermittently switch our definitions, so the whole thing falls apart anyways.

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

I've already given you a dictionary definition, and a logical equation that demonstrates your error. Next am I going to have to draw you a picture?

 

[Nightwing 0]

So how about that Michael Dukakis?

[Guest Czech please!]

I'm an econ major, dude, I know how the US economy looks. You don't have to tell me what I already know.

Great, now we have fucking Popick Junior.

 

EDIT: Oh, Barron beat me to it. hm.

[Big Green 0]

So how about that Michael Dukakis?

 

Al Gore should've been the 88 nom, he could've beat Bush

 

Of course, Tsongas should've just run in 88. We need to get a Big Green in the Big White House.

[SuperJerk 0]

I bet Mario Cuomo still kicks himself for not running in 1992.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

ultimate communism

 

[Big Green 0]

I bet Mario Cuomo still kicks himself for not running in 1992.

 

I actually wonder what a Cuomo Administration would've looked like and how it would've differed from Clinton. I don't know enough about Cuomo to even speculate on that.

[snuffbox 0]

I spend far too much of time thinking about such alternate-world Presidents.

[SuperJerk 0]

Is Rudy anything but hubris?

 

For the record, he was the answer to this thread's question. Worst ever.

 

There might be a future challenger to his crown.

 

Newt Gingrich eyes possible White House run in 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

منذ حوالى شهر تقريباً

ومارى تتعرض لوعكة صحية كبيرة

وقد دخلت الى المستشفى لاجراء جراحة فى الرئة

ومنذ هذا الوقت وهى فى غيبوبة تامه الا من بعض اللحظات

اجمع الاطباء على انه لا جدوى من نقلها الى خارج المملكه

صلوا للرب من اجلها

كم كانت جميلة ورائعة وحبة للخير لل......جميع

 

 

يا رب انا لست ساخطاً على ما تفعله

اعرف انها ان رحلت ستكون معك وهو احسن لها من ان تكون معى

 

اعرف انها ليست بحاجه اللى ولكنى انا من سيكون فى امس الحاجة الى يدها الحنون تمسح عنى عناء الطريق

 

 

 

اشكركم جميعاً يا احبابى واحباب مارى فقد اخبرتنى انها تحبكم جميعاً

اشكر كل من رسالنى او اتصل بى هنا

اشكر حبيبى عماد عزيز وان كان الشكر مش كفاية فعلاً نعم الاخ والحبيب يا

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

Ted Cruz, so far.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I wouldn't even vote for Ted Cruz

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

Holy shit. Trump.