It's on bitch! It's on!

[Malacite]

Re: It's on bitch! It's on!

^^ well it's good to find out that I may yet be able to apply for dual citizenship (I hope so... I both Canada and the USA. And only my father is American (born in Baltimore, later raised in Richmond V.A. where my grandfolks reside ^^b) and I really, really wish I could vote for Barrack.

Now this will sound weird as people generally stick to candidates from a single party, but if Barrack doesn't get it, much as I like Edwards (I'm not a big fan of Hilary really... LOVE Bill, not too big on Hillary) then I think the next best choice would have to be Mike Huckabee. To me, even though they have different bases it really seems like these two are on the same page in regards to change.

And it's refreshing to see someone running a "nice guy" campaign for once. Lord knows we're all sick of the negative BS and all the rhetoric.


As far as Bush goes, I think he and Dick are going to go down as an example of what not to do as President/VP. He'll leave a legacy all right, just not the kind he was expecting That asshole has lead the country down the path to ruin, I just hope that whoever wins this election can fix or at least stem the monumental damage the moron has done.

Oh yeah, and if at all possible, kindly remove corporate America's thumb from the Senate's ass. Fuck Big Oil, fuck all the asshole lobbyists, and revive the middle class. While I often find he's a bit over the top, Lou Dobbs is 100% right when he talks about outsourcing and China... all these jobs going to cheap foreign labor while America's once top-quality facilities and companies (most notable the big 3 - GM, Chrysler and Ford) are going to shit.


If you haven't read it already, I highly suggest picking up a copy this book




I'll be rooting for Obama and Huckabee in tonight's caucus ^^b

[Evion]

Re: It's on bitch! It's on!

Don't get me wrong, Bush has sucked. If he doesn't go down in history as the beginning of the downfall of the United States as the only Unilateral Hegemon, he'll at least go down as the worst speaker. However, I'm still Republican. I probably would have voted Democrat this time around for a change of pace if it weren't for the joke, that are the candidates...

[Murphie]

Re: It's on bitch! It's on!

First off I never said that we should be concerned about people in their 40's, I expressed concern for elderly people who are generally considered 60-65+. Ronald Reagan had a form of dementia while in office (Alzheimer's). It has happened and will happen in the future as long as we do not have an age cap. Even someone suffering from a mild form of dementia still wields too much power as the president.

40s was hyperbole on my part, but the point still stands. "Elderly people" is such a vague term that it doesn't really mean anything. One person can start to lose it as early as 40 or 50, whereas others are still sharp as a tack until 90 or higher. Just because one situation (Reagan), which was 20 years ago didn't go the way you might have liked, doesn't mean that we should put an arbitrary age cap on the presidency.

I'd sure as hell prefer someone in the office who had a considerable amount of experience in government, which can only come with time over some guy who is a likeable candidate in his 30s or 40s.

That "one old man" can change the course of history, determine if thousands of young men and women in the military live or die, influence our relationships with hostile nations, etc.......I'd call that pretty important and worth having an age cap just in case it would happen again.

Straw. Man. As I said, it's not like the president just has free reign to do whatever he wants. As Mhurron tried and failed to point out to you earlier, there are other people there monitoring the situation. It's not a valid concern.

I'm not sure what version of America you're living in, but in the one I'm living in, the President does not make these decisions alone. So, that "one man" is not solely responsible for the thousands of young men and women in the military living or dying, or our relationships with hostile nations, etc. Your argument is an illogical and emotional extreme that has no place in a discussion of this type.

[TheGrandMom]

Re: It's on bitch! It's on!

"Elderly people" is such a vague term that it doesn't really mean anything.

I thought I made that clear. I stated 60-65+. I really don't count that as being vague.

Just because one situation (Reagan), which was 20 years ago didn't go the way you might have liked, doesn't mean that we should put an arbitrary age cap on the presidency.

"Didn't go the way you might have liked..." When did I say any disparaging remarks about Reagan's leadership? I didn't. I stated the facts, he was suffering from dementia while he was in office. That should be disturbing to anyone who understands what dementia is.

I'd sure as hell prefer someone in the office who had a considerable amount of experience in government, which can only come with time over some guy who is a likeable candidate in his 30s or 40s.

Someone who runs for president will have previous political experience at age 40 or 50. In fact, you have to have your foot in the upper strata at the very least to even consider running for president. As I previously stated, you must be connected to some powerful groups in order to get in to the higher political offices.

Straw. Man. As I said, it's not like the president just has free reign to do whatever he wants. As Mhurron tried and failed to point out to you earlier, there are other people there monitoring the situation. It's not a valid concern.

You fail to realize that a president wields a lot of influence. Only those closest to him would realize that he was suffering and they wouldn't make it known outside of their circle. (i.e. Mr. Reagan) So he would still have QUITE a bit of influence over other influencial people and that could lead to things that would make headlines.

I'm not sure what version of America you're living in, but in the one I'm living in, the President does not make these decisions alone. So, that "one man" is not solely responsible for the thousands of young men and women in the military living or dying, or our relationships with hostile nations, etc. Your argument is an illogical and emotional extreme that has no place in a discussion of this type.

I see that all you want to do is argue and not discuss issues so these are my last words to you on this subject. I'm not sure what version of America you're living in, but I live in the one where free speech is allowed and since this is a political thread and I'm talking about our "aging" political system, I'm quite on topic thank you. If you don't care to read what I have to say because you find it illogical and emotional, then please feel free to pass this thread up.

[Feba]

Re: It's on bitch! It's on!

Murphie: Veto power. If you honestly don't mind someone who is insane or senile having that, there is something seriously wrong with you.

[Murphie]

Re: It's on bitch! It's on!

Murphie: Veto power. If you honestly don't mind someone who is insane or senile having that, there is something seriously wrong with you.

You misunderstand. The chances of someone who is actually clinically insane, or mentally ill retaining the position for any period of time is slim to none. To date, it hasn't happened. Say what you will about the current administration, even (and I am seriously not a fan), the man is not insane. It's a stupid argument, because it hasn't happened, and likely never will.

[Murphie]

Re: It's on bitch! It's on!

I thought I made that clear. I stated 60-65+. I really don't count that as being vague.

Yes, you made your completely arbitrary designation of when a person starts to lose control of their faculties abundantly clear. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't make you right.

"Didn't go the way you might have liked..." When did I say any disparaging remarks about Reagan's leadership? I didn't. I stated the facts, he was suffering from dementia while he was in office. That should be disturbing to anyone who understands what dementia is.

Please provide some examples of how his dementia affected his decisions while in office. If you cannot, then it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Someone who runs for president will have previous political experience at age 40 or 50. In fact, you have to have your foot in the upper strata at the very least to even consider running for president. As I previously stated, you must be connected to some powerful groups in order to get in to the higher political offices.

At 40 you will have at most about 15 or so years of experience. Versus someone of 60 or 65 who will have three times that amount. In some cases, I'm sure that 15 years would be enough. But I'm not personally willing to hedge my bets like that when it comes to the presidency of the United States.

You fail to realize that a president wields a lot of influence. Only those closest to him would realize that he was suffering and they wouldn't make it known outside of their circle. (i.e. Mr. Reagan) So he would still have QUITE a bit of influence over other influencial people and that could lead to things that would make headlines.

I don't fail to realize anything. I'm not sure where you got this impression, or what could possibly lead to you saying something so willfully ignorant.

The man, and the office, does not exist in a vaccum. This hypothetical office that you're arguing where he can basically do as he pleases regardless of the consequences does not exist, and never has.

I see that all you want to do is argue and not discuss issues so these are my last words to you on this subject.

You've got it backwards. I'm not the one making emotional arguments with no basis in fact. I only want to discuss the issue. I take issue with the fact that your arguments have no basis in reality. I'm not trying to argue with you at all.

I'm not sure what version of America you're living in, but I live in the one where free speech is allowed and since this is a political thread and I'm talking about our "aging" political system, I'm quite on topic thank you.

Are you kidding me? Who said you couldn't say it? I'm not infringing on your right to free speech. I'm saying that your argument is baseless and irrelevant. If you can't tell the difference between the two, I'm not sure what you're doing in a discusson of this nature.

If you don't care to read what I have to say because you find it illogical and emotional, then please feel free to pass this thread up.

So, I should pass up a thread because you don't know how to construct an argument based in reality? That's some super duper logic there.

[Feba]

Re: It's on bitch! It's on!

the man is not insane.

Perhaps he has not been found to be legally insane but that doesn't mean he isn't batshit crazy.

[Patchinko]

Re: It's on bitch! It's on!

Just because one old man is senile doesn't mean that they all are, and basing an argument around it is little more than straw-manning.

Actually, that's pretty much nothing like "straw-manning".

Maybe you meant "it is little more than a false dichotomy", as if the only alternative to an old senile man is a young man when, in fact, another viable alternative is an old man who isn't senile.








(See my huge balls when I threw my hat into the semantic argument ring? Massive.)

[Olorin401]

Re: It's on bitch! It's on!

Short-sighted? Try all-encompassing. If you don't see this, then you're blind...

I was trying to be nice with my words. If you prefer, I'll say bigoted.

[Theyaden]

Re: It's on bitch! It's on!

Five years after leaving office Mr. Reagan announced he had Alzheimer's. Do you believe that you just wake up one day with Alzheimer's? Mr. Reagan had this genetic disease while in office and it effected his daily decisions.

A lot can cange in a persons health in 5 years. As far as waking up and having it there is a set point you discover any illness usually after routine medical checks when your doctor finds it or you notice minor simptoms prompting you to have an unscheduled checkup. I saw no evidence of him having a diminished capacity while in office if you are aware of any evidence I am very curious to see a link or something demonstraiting it within his time in office. We have a Vice President in case anything does render the president unable to perform his duties and is one of the the built in safeguards against the US becoming leaderless.

Luck? Oh what the hell, let's just hope we get lucky with this old fart! {No, thanks!}
Genetics? Well we'll never see a law where you have to be genetically tested before entering any political office thats for sure!! There has been so much inbreeding in the "upper crust" that runs this country that nearly every single top end politician would fail it! LOLOLOLOLOL And as for taking care of yourself, you have to start that when you are young and carry it through till you are older. I know this for FACT! How many people actually do that? So here's to hoping that some elderly politician has luck, good genetics, and common sense to not abuse their body....that's really a long shot. Why would we want to take that risk?

We've never had a situation where we were left leaderless over the concerns you are voicing. When Regan was disabled by being shot rather than mental difficulties you mention we had his backup to mind the store while he recovered and if he had died or been left unable to perform the vp becomes president and selects another VP in case he dies exc. I would say the last 231 years indicates this system works without needing to trim the qualified applicats with an age cap so that only those with less experience may run.

I am mearly pointing out the factors that we all deal with not just presidental hopefuls. Can you honestly say luck and genetics have no play when one man can die of a heart attack at 40 while another dies at 90, one dies in a car crash while another never breaks a bone in his life? I would be sincerly scared if we ever had a law requiring genetic testing on our canidates. The campain trail itself works rather nicely to insure a canadate has to have some life left in them just to survive the stress of the campain trail.

Arguing that any canadate over a certain age is likely to slip into dementia once elected so why take the chance does not seem a very responsible reason to create a new statute restricting who the people are allowed to elect.

Sidenote: I personally think anyone who wants the position of president must enjoy pain. Who wants to have everything in your life picked over looking for ways to attack you, needing guards to avoid being shot by some random lunitic, and sometimes having your children politically attacked by your rivals to get to you. Personally no thanks on the whole thing.

[Yellow Mage]

Re: It's on bitch! It's on!

Oh yeah, and if at all possible, kindly remove corporate America's thumb from the Senate's ass. Fuck Big Oil, fuck all the asshole lobbyists, and revive the middle class. While I often find he's a bit over the top, Lou Dobbs is 100% right when he talks about outsourcing and China... all these jobs going to cheap foreign labor while America's once top-quality facilities and companies (most notable the big 3 - GM, Chrysler and Ford) are going to shit.

If there's nothing else to Thank in that post, it's this entire paragraph (well, sans the cursing, of course, though it may actually be appropriate in this case; I was never a big fan of profanities).

[Murphie]

Re: It's on bitch! It's on!

Actually, that's pretty much nothing like "straw-manning".

Maybe you meant "it is little more than a false dichotomy", as if the only alternative to an old senile man is a young man when, in fact, another viable alternative is an old man who isn't senile.

Thanks for your awesome correction. That doesn't make TGM any less wrong, but I suppose it doesn't matter at this point since I'm pretty sure she has taken her ball and gone home.

[Murphie]

Re: It's on bitch! It's on!

Perhaps he has not been found to be legally insane but that doesn't mean he isn't batshit crazy.

If you're not going to be reasonable, then there's really no point in continuing to discuss it Feba. We're not talking about subjective crazy, we're talking about clinical crazy.

[Telera]

Re: It's on bitch! It's on!

While I often find he's a bit over the top, Lou Dobbs is 100% right when he talks about outsourcing and China... all these jobs going to cheap foreign labor while America's once top-quality facilities and companies (most notable the big 3 - GM, Chrysler and Ford) are going to shit.

Nothing but pure win there.

The government giving tax breaks for outsourcing was the first step to us being fucked up the ass prison-style. We are now China's bitch.

The government clearly thinks everyone in America can and wants to go to college, can and wants to get business degrees, and can and wants to sit in some high rise for the rest of their biological life. It can't be called actual living, that's for damn sure.

Humanity are not cut out to be servants. That is why slavery is bad. Being in retail, or the corporate world in general, is a life of servitude. Sure, it's nice to 'serve' others now and again, but years upon years of it grates on the human psyche. There's only so much 'bend over, take it, and keep smiling to keep customers' attitude a human can endure.

Like I've said before, the verbal and emotional abuse people in the corporate world take would be enough to get the offender jailed if they were a spouse or domestic partner. But since they're a customer, it's just peaches and cream.

No. It is high fucking time:

1. America stands the hell on its own and stops fucking outsourcing. Not everyone is smart enough for college. We *need* factories for those who can't go, or don't. Or just for those who do and can't seem to get into their field. Not everyone in the world has the same aspiration or desires. America used to be a production nation. Now it relies more on importing what it had made overseas. This is not a good trend. The places for the 'working class' to fill are getting small. Unless, of course, you think we all must have a boner for working in the corporate world. Which they clearly must.

2. Corporations stand up for their employees. You want your employees to care about your bottom line? Then care about them. They're scared to death for their jobs with all the lay offs, and heaven knows they can't get one in a factory. Why? Because your producers just shipped it all to China and Mexico. Oh, and that illegal alien making 4x what we do? Yeah, that's not good for morale.

3. Companies in general stop letting people walk all over their employees. Sure, if the employee was out of line, rectify it. But if you've got some anal-retentive person trying to get someone in trouble for following the rules you told them to follow when you hired them then grow some balls and stand up for your company policies and your employees. Don't be giving out free Gift Cards. That's half of WHY people do this. For free shit.

If America isn't already fucked from all this cheap-labor nonsense, it soon will be. I think the most sickening thing I have ever read in my life, was someone justifying cheap labor and illegal workers in an editorial.

'They're willing to work for less and don't demand vacations.'

...so... it's wrong for Americans to demand our vacations? That makes it somehow our fault? No, my dear, that's your fault for being so greedy that you can't appreciate the human element in your production. The fault lies with you.