Campaign Finance Reform: No, he can't

[Mystiqsoulchild]

Re: Campaign Finance Reform: No, he can't

your president doesn't have control over the economy, always mind the man behind the curtain.)

I agree with your whole post, but I agree with this the most, a lot of things that the president gets done is not really what he wanted to do. A lot of people just seem to think the president does everything. He doesn't have the time of day to do everything, his people might screw up, and some of his bills or things that he wants to get done have to pass over to congress before it will even go into effect. A lot of people say Bush didn't do this didn't do that, how the hell do you know he didn't try? Do you know what it is like to be President? There is a lot more shit that goes into it then people think, a lot of people just think he does everything and passes everything, and all his decisions are his fault etc...

In other words yeah the president might do a lot, but there are some things that the president cant control, that is A) the government. B) Congress, and C) the Economy.

Its like Bush wanted Fema to go to the aid of those that got hit by Katrina, he has to propose that to congress and ask them if he can do that before he is even aloud to even get started on that. That is why it took so long, because they had to think about it, get back to him, and then in the end maybe say no. The Government and Congress rule the president, it might be stupid but its true, everything has to go threw them before it will gain some kind of effect.

I just don't understand why people don't think about what goes into being president, all they think about is what kind of job he is doing when something critical comes up.

[Cometgreen]

Re: Campaign Finance Reform: No, he can't

Can you read? Do you know what's been happening for the last 30 years?

I think I provided a nice summary of what's been happening for the last 30 years. The government has exploded in size. I can't think of one program that has shrunk, even when Presidents ran on platforms calling for it.

We have, as I thought I clearly stated a mildly socialist government and Libertarian economics - thanks to Alan Greenspan, an open and loud libertarian.

Libertarianism is a political ideology. It inherently deals with the operations of the government. All government action distorts the economy, and 'libertarian economics' requires as little government action as possible. If we have had a socialist government, then we cannot have had a properly functioning free-market. Since I'm not as lucid as last night, I'll let this article explain further.

Free-market economists have been saying this would happen for years now. Some of them even predicted 2007-2008 as when the housing bubble would burst and usher in another recession, back when people were denying there was even a housing bubble.

And Greenspan, who does share much of the blame for the housing crash and the current depression through his non-libertarian actions, was not in charge of Congressional spending. The Fed, by its nature, encourages gross spending, but he did not create welfare programs or declare wars or enact regulations.

And you want to do away with all social services? Education? Social Security? You must be rich and safe - lucky you - and well-armed and ready to shoot - Lucky Us - I guess you also feel no obligation to help your fellow American out. Why bother? nothing in it for you? right?

I'm neither rich nor armed, and my future career is dangerously up in the air. And I didn't say I want to do away with education, but with public education. And no, I have no obligation to help anyone out, because I am not responsible for their problems. I am free to give them what I want, and I give to others when I can.

Soul-less man.

I don't want anyone to suffer; I want people to give money and time of their own free will. I am not calling for anyone to do anything against another human being. You, on the other hand, want to steal from me to provide someone else with an inferior service.

Witless thief.

Malacite, do you think you could respond to my earlier point? I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts:

To be clear about what you've said: A person has legitimately acquired a lot of money. This person really wants something; like, really wants it. Since it's his money, he feels there's nothing wrong with spending it as he wants, and he's willing to sink a lot of this money into achieving his goal.

Now, if the above concerns Obama's run for president, it's not a big deal. It's a drop in the fucking bucket. Does the same apply to a wealthy businessman? Say, a man earning more than $250,000 a year? We shouldn't care how much Obama is spending, and we shouldn't try to stop him from spending it, so clearly we shouldn't interfere with the businessman's bank account, right?

I still think Huckabee should be the nominee, he is the only one willing to take on the federal reserve, which is the mastermind behind the whole ecconomic downturn

...Either you mean Ron Paul, or something's screwy with your brain. I don't recall Huckabee ever mentioning the Fed, certainly not in debates. Even if he has talked about it, he hasn't been aggressive enough to be characterized as 'taking on the Federal Reserve.'

[Feba]

Re: Campaign Finance Reform: No, he can't

something's screwy with your brain

I see you haven't yet met MrMageo.

[MrMageo]

Re: Campaign Finance Reform: No, he can't

I see you haven't yet met MrMageo.

Heh coming from you?

...Either you mean Ron Paul, or something's screwy with your brain. I don't recall Huckabee ever mentioning the Fed, certainly not in debates. Even if he has talked about it, he hasn't been aggressive enough to be characterized as 'taking on the Federal Reserve.'

Nope it was Huckabee, search for past interviews of him on the colbert report that is where I first heard him talk about both income tax reform, and putting controls on the fed. Also search for a speach he had in florida near the end of his run, he spoke about it again there as well.

Ron Paul is a tool, he wants to completely dismantle the Fed which is not what needs to be done. The Fed needs to be publicized, and have limits on what it can do just like other central banks in the world (I.E. Canada whose central bank is publicly controlled and is the head of the strongest banking and economic system in the world at the moment.) While the fed remains privately owned by a handful of people, (including the rothchilds and other rich banking intrests) the economy can not be rectified because it is manipulated by greed. Huckabee wanted to reform the Fed into a public organization just like every other branch of the government, he did not get support to his ideas because the fed said we will lose money so here is some money for the lot of you now go pick us someone we can work with.

So no my head is not a little screwy thanks, just more well informed then you I guess.

[Feba]

Re: Campaign Finance Reform: No, he can't

Heh coming from you?

yes.

I'm batshit insane, but I'm upfront about it.


Also, I don't believe that the Illuminati are conspiring behind the scenes to do everything that's wrong with the world to gain power, so I'm at least somewhat less batshit crazy than you.

[Mystiqsoulchild]

Re: Campaign Finance Reform: No, he can't

Can't we all just get along? Seriously, we all have our different points of view, some of us want different things done in the US then others, so why cant we all just agree to disagree or something of the sort?

[Sylvane]

Re: Campaign Finance Reform: No, he can't

Can't we all just get along? Seriously, we all have our different points of view, some of us want different things done in the US then others, so why cant we all just agree to disagree or something of the sort?

coming from the one who outright said they were baiting others.

[Mystiqsoulchild]

Re: Campaign Finance Reform: No, he can't

coming from the one who outright said they were baiting others.

I debated yes but I did it because I was stating my own opinion I was not trying to be ugly, I was only ugly when people were flaming me for stating my own points of view. But, I guess we cant live in a world ware everyone agrees. *sigh*

[Sylvane]

Re: Campaign Finance Reform: No, he can't

I debated yes but I did it because I was stating my own opinion I was not trying to be ugly, I was only ugly when people were flaming me for stating my own points of view. But, I guess we cant live in a world ware everyone agrees. *sigh*

7 dictionary results for: debate
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This de·bate /dɪˈbeɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-beyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing. –noun
1.a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.

2.a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

3.deliberation; consideration.

4.Archaic. strife; contention.

–verb (used without object)
5.to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.

6.to participate in a formal debate.

7.to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.

8.Obsolete. to fight; quarrel. –verb (used with object)

9.to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.

10.to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.

11.to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.

12.to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.

13.Archaic. to contend for or over.

Your usage is both archaic and obsolete apparently. A good debate doesn't involve trying to anger someone else, so much as argue your stance. you were just trying to piss off Feba.

[MrMageo]

Re: Campaign Finance Reform: No, he can't

Who said anything about Illuminati feba? You are batshit insane.

I am talking about true documented 100% undeniable facts. The Federal Reserve controls the economy, and they can alter it anytime. Go look into it.

Also on the spirit of the current discussion I find it very childish of you to berate other peoples opinions, but want yours intact. Did you even read my post a few pages back in regards to how juvenile you sound. From what I can tell you know nothing of politics, and jump on the media train with the rest of the Obama fan boys.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that is what makes a free society. Even your opinion is valid. Even if it is based off polls (that mean jack shit).

From a purely political stand point one of these things needs to happen.

1. McCain wins preventing full control of washington by the dems
2. Obama wins but repubs take control of another section preventing control by dems

You do not want a single party to control every facet of government. It is bad in a recession.

What really needs to happen is for the whole system to be reformed. It is idiotic to have one man with the ability to veto anything (based on his judgment). It is not representation of the people, it is representation of one persons opinion on what would be best for their potential election at a second term.

What ever is voted at the house of representitives should be what stands always. They are the people who are appointed by the majority of voters, not some guys opinion of what individual states are worth in the electoral college. You can not fix corruption when the system itself is corrupt from day one. if 60% of the population thinks obama should be president then he should be, not losing it because the majority of voters come from states that are worth less points then a florida, or ohio. This is why polls are misleading and worthless. Sure 65% might think so and so's parties idea of economics is better but that means jack shit because it is a popular opinion and not based on the stupid outdated electoral college.

I don't know maybe it is my slated opinion being canadian, where I know my vote is acctually worth something, where I know when something is passed it is not getting veto'd. Seems to be working here since we are the #1 economy among the G8 nations at the moment (and probably for some time to come).

But my point is, you can't go beating on peoples opinions, when admittedly yours is based off of polls. You need to grow up.