Final Fantasy Hacktics

Well usually i am never into Politics ever. But for school i had to do a 40 page Essay on my top 10 selective presidents.. and ehhh well


It doesnt matter if your into politics or not who was your favorite president?

[attachment=0:2vo407jq]obama_yes_we_did.jpg[/attachment:2vo407jq]

No... Barack's a weak pussy who always plays patty-cakes with the republicans and sucks the dicks of the people at fox news because they yell at him whenever he passes legislation they don't like (i.e. ^'s in taxes for the rich from 36 to 39%).



Thomas Jefferson baby.

"Dissension is the greatest form of patriotism"


Unfortunately, we don't have that today. Look what happened to Mychrystal just because he disagreed with the president on Afghanistan.

I better be out of the USA in two years up in Canada where the Maryse Ouellet's and Trish Status' are or I'll be pissed.

That may be Wizzy, but remember he has to clean up the mess that Bush left for him. His job right now is incredibly tough, I would call him anything but a "weak pussy". What would you do if you had to fix a fucked up economy and repair the damages that war causes? And I am not only talking about America here, now he has to watch what and how he performs for the whole world. I think in a sense this is the hardest job on the planet.

Teddy Roosevelt

QuoteWhile Roosevelt was campaigning in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on October 14, 1912, a saloonkeeper named John Schrank shot him, but the bullet lodged in his chest only after penetrating both his steel eyeglass case and passing through a thick (50 pages) single-folded copy of the speech he was carrying in his jacket. Roosevelt, as an experienced hunter and anatomist, correctly concluded that since he wasn't coughing blood, the bullet had not completely penetrated the chest wall to his lung, and so declined suggestions he go to the hospital immediately. Instead, he delivered his scheduled speech with blood seeping into his shirt.  He spoke for 90 minutes.

Also for the whole establishment of national forests/parks, progressive laws for health/safety, and one hell of a navy.

Canada is one of the signatories in ACTA, which will outlaw free software and media, by making it illegal for free software to use proprietary media.  Like, you couldn't play an mp3 in a free music program.  It has plenty of other things going on too, but it's basically a way for establishment corporations - even ones with liberal philosophies like Google - to shut out user-generated media and social networks, which are eating into their profit margins.

The whole anti-piracy thing is an excuse.  They can't compete, so they're changing the legal battlefield so it favors them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Count ... _Agreement

Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States are negotiating it.  So you can't expect any internet freedom in any of these countries once this thing passes.

So who wants to team up and move to Brazil, or South Africa, or some other country which respects and needs innovation?

Neither Bush the Younger nor Obama released the actual text of the negotiations, so they're basically the same president to me.  They say it would violate national security.  Fuck that.  Between the Tea Party guys who want to remove all environmental protections, infrastructure, social services, and taxes for the wealthy, and the software giants and media companies that want to destroy their competition, there is no way this country will ever get better.  At least not until it hits bottom.

Favorite President = Tommy Jefferson, or TJ Jazzy Jeff as I call him.  Favorite founder is Ben Franklin.

Mine is Bush, because of the lulz he left behind ( my serious one is lincoln )[attachment=0:hbxyhf9h]WHOSE RESPONSIBLE THIS.jpg[/attachment:hbxyhf9h]

George Washington. Not because he was the first, but because of who he was as a person. There's a reason why people followed his suit. He was flipping amazing.

Also, his job is much more difficult than whoever our current president(who spends more time golfing than problem solving) is... can't remember his name. Probably because it's on almost every billboard and every other TV commercial. Yeah, he didn't have to worry about who knows how many trillions we are in debt (including that which he contributed himself to try and get us out of it which horrible failed at reducing unemployment), but he had to deal with a newly founded nation, having next to no allies, only of which we had France, really..., and he had to unify the nation which barely got ratified due to some disagreements.

As a man of dignity, he would've bowed to no one. As a man of honour, he was country first, then himself. As a man of power, he didn't let it consume him and took it humbly. As a man of responsibility, he didn't put off issues for later, but dealt with them as readily as possible.

That is a great president and a great man.


Also, I'm 100% sure that the fact that the Tea Party doesn't push environmental issues doesn't mean they want it to die. I'm also 100% sure that the tax cuts on the wealthy would also apply to everyone else. Progressive Taxation is robbery. It's all about Flat tax. Remove all infrastructure? Sounds like you're making things up. Social programs? Most of them do more harm than good. The money would better spent lowering the national debt. The key to at least slowing down this increase of debt is sensibly lowering taxes so people can still spend to help the economy while spending less so that more of the tax money can go to the debt. You get nowhere by spend spend spend. Pump priming is a horrible idea when put into practise. Theory =/= Reality.

If you're going to mock something, try the Coffee Party, the counter-group. They attracted a HUGE crowd of a few hundred or so to the Galt House(very ironic, if you know what I mean).

Quote from: "philsov"While Roosevelt was campaigning in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on October 14, 1912, a saloonkeeper named John Schrank shot him, but the bullet lodged in his chest only after penetrating both his steel eyeglass case and passing through a thick (50 pages) single-folded copy of the speech he was carrying in his jacket. Roosevelt, as an experienced hunter and anatomist, correctly concluded that since he wasn't coughing blood, the bullet had not completely penetrated the chest wall to his lung, and so declined suggestions he go to the hospital immediately. Instead, he delivered his scheduled speech with blood seeping into his shirt.  He spoke for 90 minutes.

this has no rebuttal

must agree

Quote from: "Zaen"I'm also 100% sure that the tax cuts on the wealthy would also apply to everyone else.

what

QuoteProgressive Taxation is robbery. It's all about Flat tax.

what

QuoteRemove all infrastructure? Sounds like you're making things up. Social programs? Most of them do more harm than good.

what

QuoteThe key to at least slowing down this increase of debt is sensibly lowering taxes

what

Quotepeople can still spend to help the economy while spending less

what



Anything I didn't quote has some sense of logic behind it, but seriously, what the fuck



On topic, Clinton was pretty cool. Dunno if I'd call him my favorite, though. Also, there are a lot of non-US presidents out there. I'm not versed well enough in world history to tell which is the awesome-ist.

In response to quote 1 and what #1, that links to quote 2 and what #2. Flat tax is when everyone gets an equal % of taxation. Progressive tax is when it scales to amount of wealth. For example, poor get taxed 15%, middle class 27%, upper class 35%. How can it be anything other than robbery? And most of it goes to paying the crooks that are using the tax money to increase the National debt more and more each passing day: Senators and Congressmen, both of who make a living off of that.  
So that is why the wealthy wouldn't be the only ones getting a tax break, because they're already at near 40% taxation, but it would apply to everyone at a FLAT rate. Say 15, 20%.

In response to quote 3 and what #3. Social programs such as welfare may help out in the short term, but allowing them to go on indefinitely is only promoting lechery. This isn't the case for all people, but when people get into a habit of not having to work and still being able to get by, they stay in that. Giving people free stuff doesn't help them get out of the rut they are in. It promotes staying in the position they're already in. It's like training your pet to sit by giving it a treat. Someone is out of a job, you give them unemployment and welfare, food stamps, etc for being in a low enough bracket. By giving this person free stuff, it's like rewarding them for something. Pavlov's law. Classical conditioning. It doesn't just apply to your pet. It applies to everyone. Not only do these programs hurt the people receiving them in most cases, they also hurt those who have to pay for them.

For quotes 4 and 5, you are splitting apart one single thought. That's what the media does. It's called taking things out of context. Now, I said
"The key to at least slowing down this increase of debt is sensibly lowering taxes so people can still spend to help the economy while spending less so that more of the tax money can go to the debt."
This was not the most clearly stated statement by any means. The key to lowering debt increase while also stimulating the economy to help companies stay alive. When companies aren't downsizing, they can hire more people. When more people are hired, more people make money. When more people make money, more money goes to taxes, regardless of how high the tax rate is. When tax rates are lower, people are happier and keep more money. When people have more money, they spend more. This helps the companies grow.
Also, linking this back to spending less on social programs, when we spend less on social programs, we have more money to put towards the debt.

Does that make more sense now that I've went through it slowly and in detail?

Quote"The key to at least slowing down this increase of debt is sensibly lowering taxes so people can still spend to help the economy while spending less so that more of the tax money can go to the debt."

No, that's now how debt works.  

To lower the debt, you either increase taxes and/or reduce government spending.  Calling for both a tax reduction and a reduction in debt is wanting your cake and eating it too, or simply calling for a ludicrous cut in spending.

QuoteThe key to lowering debt increase while also stimulating the economy to help companies stay alive. When companies aren't downsizing, they can hire more people. When more people are hired, more people make money. When more people make money, more money goes to taxes, regardless of how high the tax rate is. When tax rates are lower, people are happier and keep more money. When people have more money, they spend more. This helps the companies grow.

Again, no.  

When money is in the hands of individuals, they save money.  When the country is in a recession and they're likely to lose their job, they on average, in general, do not spend money.  Did you not learn about the marginal propensity to save in economics class? If money is in the hands of a company, then in the midst of a recession they are less likely to pursue risky investments.  If the key to lowering debt is to actually get money out and in circulation, then the most efficient manner is disgustingly in the hands of the government.

QuoteAlso, linking this back to spending less on social programs, when we spend less on social programs, we have more money to put towards the debt.

Of course.  Same with medicare, social security, and dept of defense if we're going after the big dogs.

(I'm not touching the tax argument because flat taxes are by definition also regressive, and I do agree that welfare could use some reform.  I'm not ignoring them, there's just not much to comment on)

First, there is a LOT of stuff that can be cut from spending that is completely unnecessary. Just by getting rid of retirement benefits for government officials, you save tons already.
Tax cuts are what come after you have had spending cut. Like you said, you can't change both at once.

Ok, that's true in a recession. But what's the key to getting out of a recession? Lower corporate taxes. Eventually, they can save enough money to start hiring more employees. The more people that have jobs, the better, to an extent. Once more people have jobs, say around a 6-7% unemployment rate (which is more healthy), then the recession is, in effect, over. Now not only will people worry less about financial security, but corporations will feel more secure in taking risks.

Regardless to how exactly it is handled, it's finding the balance between Protections and Freedoms, preferably as much freedom with as few protections as possible so as not to screw over anyone who loses a job and to not take as much money away from the people who are doing fine(via Welfare).

On the last portion before the tax and welfare reform, Social Security is pure insanity. Basically 50% of our national debt is to ourselves trying to cover Social Security. We could possibly save ourselves, or at least recover ground by just dropping it. People will complain for a few years, but eventually will adapt. After all, there could be the option of people setting aside their own money for retirement. I, for one, do not look forward to paying off not only my college debt, but also paying others' retirement? Tell me one good reason why other people are entitled to what I have earned. It frustrates me greatly.

Quote from: "Jon"[attachment=0:3g2jgaoe]obama_yes_we_did.jpg[/attachment:3g2jgaoe]

I never understood what "Yes we did" actually meant. I recall seeing these shirts out within the first week of him being elected, and we didn't do anything. Anyways, my favorite was George Washington, no doubt.

EDIT:

Also, to differentiate my post from Zaen's post:
The Precedents George Washington ordered were incredibly genius, but also common sense.

My favorite Precedent is "Neutrality in Foreign Affairs." This could have saved quite a few lives over the years.

Also, I believe one of the Precedents was NOT to accumulate debt. Spend on what you need to, then pay off before you spend more. Which could have saved our economy.

The "Yes we did" thing is in response to the chant he used to get elected, "Yes we can!" Which in itself makes no sense whatsoever. The reality is, he ran on a platform similar to Bush economically, and so did McCain.  The difference in the race was how they flavoured their stances and in social issues.

YES WE CAN!

I've almost gotten 100% (like off by one note). That was a long time ago like three years ago though =p

Quote from: "Zaen"The "Yes we did" thing is in response to the chant he used to get elected, "Yes we can!" Which in itself makes no sense whatsoever. The reality is, he ran on a platform similar to Bush economically, and so did McCain.  The difference in the race was how they flavoured their stances and in social issues.

The thing that gets me is: How did he get the Nobel peace prize? If you ask me, that makes no sense. Furthermore, I completely agree that the "Yes we did" is outlandish.

P.S. His speeches give me Insomnia.

Quote from: "Zaen"On the last portion before the tax and welfare reform, Social Security is pure insanity. Basically 50% of our national debt is to ourselves trying to cover Social Security. We could possibly save ourselves, or at least recover ground by just dropping it. People will complain for a few years, but eventually will adapt. After all, there could be the option of people setting aside their own money for retirement. I, for one, do not look forward to paying off not only my college debt, but also paying others' retirement? Tell me one good reason why other people are entitled to what I have earned. It frustrates me greatly.

Really? I thought Social Security was solvent until at least the 2030's. I also thought most of our deficit was the result of two tax cuts that haven't been paid for and two wars which also aren't being paid for.

Isn't Obama planning on making social security cuts? I thought they were trying to make the age to receive it higher.

Quote from: "Dominic NY18"Really? I thought Social Security was solvent until at least the 2030's. I also thought most of our deficit was the result of two tax cuts that haven't been paid for and two wars which also aren't being paid for.

Social Security's fine for a long ass time and here's some confirmation.

Quote from: "ffta707"Isn't Obama planning on making social security cuts? I thought they were trying to make the age to receive it higher.

Nope, John Boehner (R) the minority leader in the house proposed this idea. He's a sick f*cktard who wants to continue the Bush Tax Cuts which is primarily for the wealthiest 1-2% in the country. In other words-- TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH is what the Republican party today (one of them I know of is an exception) is known for. And Democrats as you'll learn in Government 101 (AP Gov for me) are associated with BIG GOVERNMENT and socialistic properties.