BUSH🌳 vs CLINTON❓
Forums › General Discussion › BUSH🌳 vs CLINTON❓-
🔥💩 wrote:
Welcome to 🇺🇸New'Merica🇺🇸Because I suck at quoting I'll just say this: technically the American Government system is a Constitutional based Democratic Republic. Meaning some thing the individual citizen gets direct say, but many things we do not. But because we allow lobbyists, and corporations that have many many billions collectively and are now viewed in the eyes of our elected officials as individuals, what we really have now is an Oligarchy. Until we wake up as a whole and demand that corporations do not get access to our political leaders in ways that an individual cannot then nothing changes. The two party system is smoke and mirrors.
-
★★BЯOШИИOTΞ★★ wrote:
Weren't you lambasting me in your previous post for stating opinion as fact? That's all you've done here. At least I offered facts that bolstered my subjective position. All you offered to support yours was some opinion poll on Wikipedia, then whined about the data being biased.Even with all their concern for "official" metrics, it still boils down to nothing more than an opinion survey of people that didn't experience the first 36 presidents first hand.
So no, by ANY definition or bias, he is not the worst president in U.S. History.
Could we find some common ground and say that Bush Jr. was the worst president since Herbert Hoover?
-
Fdr? Carter? Clinton? Those rank way over bush imo
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Agreed. They were much better presidents than Bush. Well, Carter is a tough sell, but FDR and Clinton stand head and shoulders above either Bush.Fdr? Carter? Clinton? Those rank way over bush imo
-
jimmy big-balls wrote:
That's laughable but okay. All these presidents have forced their military might in some form or fashion. They ALL beat the war drums, and as stated earlier the two parties are not really two parties so one president being worse than the other is a tough argument.ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Agreed. They were much better presidents than Bush. Well, Carter is a tough sell, but FDR and Clinton stand head and shoulders above either Bush.Fdr? Carter? Clinton? Those rank way over bush imo
-
@Brown Note
There really is no such governmental system as 'political science'. It is a subject of study- and we use it as a tool- yes. So I'm not sure what you mean.
I brought up stem cells because in the U.S. (if you're old enough to remember the news 15 years ago) did in fact become a political debate. And because of that- we lost many years of valuable scientific research thanks to Bush and his religious views. And this extends to global warming etc.
As far as our 'democratic' system goes.
It's clear that that we live in plutocracy with a little bit of democracy thrown into the mix. -
Think my point was missed. Those listed were worse than bush. Somebody said bush was worst since Hoover. I was just showing the ones worse than bush. Obummer would still be number one though.
-
Does it really matter? The president is nothing but a hamstrung figurehead anyway.
-
Unfortunately I'm able to remember the news 40 years ago. None the less, stem cell research is not a left-right issue, now is it?
-
★★BЯOШИИOTΞ★★ wrote:
Sorry- 'remembering news' was put out there in the event you were in your 20's. I'm a little older and it seems like yesterday to me- (no insult intended.)Unfortunately I'm able to remember the news 40 years ago. None the less, stem cell research is not a left-right issue, now is it?
In any event, after Obama's election we have seen progress with stem cells, however the issue is still not entirely dead from those with conservative outlooks.
As a side note to our friendly debate: I would also add that economic booms always follow scientific innovation. At the very least... IMO that is one reason government should be funding scientific research.
Obviously, there a multitude of other reasons as well.
Unfortunately this is TW... and the limits of this board are not entirely conducive to detailed examples let alone big subjects.
But hey... It's fun.
-
If it's between them, Bush. I want Rand Paul.
-
I just want to keep driving my point here...
Conservative/Progressive as the primary political spectrum in America isn't a metric that is based in any kind of reality.
Why can't a republican be a pro-science, secular non-theist?
The very idea that republican has to fit a theocratic, conservative, free-market, expansionist, war-mongering, or capitalist mold is insane.
I think the limited party system has all but destroyed popular political intelligence, and left us bickering about such stupidity as FEDERAL FUNDING FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH and OIL PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION and WHOS CIGAR IS UP WHAT TWAT. In reality, candidate selection should center around more relevant metrics such as trade, market regulation scope, taxation, the even and fair application of law, and most importantly, leadership ability.
-
★★BЯOШИИOTΞ★★ wrote:
I just want to keep driving
Why can't a
The very idea that republican has to fit a theocratic, conservative, free-market, expansionist, war-mongering, or capitalist mold is insane.
I think the limited party system has all but destroyed popular political intelligence, and left us bickering about such stupidity as FEDERAL FUNDING FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH and OIL PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION and WHOS CIGAR IS UP WHAT TWAT. In reality, candidate selection should center around more relevant metrics such as trade, market regulation scope, taxation, the even and fair application of law, and most importantly, leadership ability.
You are intertwined with a smoke screen system.This is a perfect example of how the elites keep the majority, like yourself,in check with all of this republican democratic kim kardashian nonsense via the media.Truth is only visible to those who question what they have been taught to believe. -
"You are intertwined with a smoke screen system.This is a perfect example of how the elites keep the majority, like yourself,in check with all of this republican democratic kim kardashian nonsense via the media.Truth is only visible to those who question what they have been taught to believe."
I like that👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼👆🏼
I just want to touch upon one "meaningless" item mentioned above. If I may paraphrase a comment above... "Bush fucked scientific research with his righteous and religious republican values."
Bush NEVER intended to outlaw stem cell research. There is, was, and has always been private and international funding for research. He just felt that FEDERAL funding for stem cell research, that a very significant minority of this country finds immoral, should not be funded. There was significant private US funding for such research. Why? Because there was/is money to be made.
-
I mention this because a great amount of effort was made to ridicule him at the time because of his ideals regarding this issue. He ended up being right in the end.
1) Significant private and international funding for stem cell research exists without regard to his religious zealotry.
2) Federal funding for scientific research dwindled with or without his say.
3) Peripheral stem cell lines AT THE TIME were not perpetual. That WAS a huge issue. Only reproductive lines were such. We have since created perpetual lines using peripheral cells. We really don't need "immoral" reproductive lines. So this argument against Bush really is moot.
Thank privately funded science for that.
-
@Dr.Grunge (good name btw)
Bush couldn't outlaw stem cell research because the Jeannie was already out of the bottle.
But the fact is: he was against it. As you so pointed out, he wanted to withhold federal funding. I don't know what you call that, but to me it is the government retarding the progressive cause of science.
There's no candy coating that. Sure private development jumped in because it was the right thing to do and it was only inevitable but profitable as well.
In the end, no matter how the development of stem cells turned out- his position was fundamentally wrong.
-
@Brown Note
Conservative/Progressive dispositions are real. (With countless psychological studies to back this up.)
You are correct: The differences between left and right politics is not the same as psychological dispositions. Yes- there are overlaps. At its simplest,our political spectrum falls into socio/economic positions.
With our current system- we have taxes. Allocation of taxes determine where you fall into the spectrum.
Within our current system- we have laws regulating behaviors. How you feel about those laws determines where you fall into the spectrum.
Can a Republican be both pro-choice and against high taxes? Yes
Can a Democrat be both hawkish and support healthcare? Yes
Can a libertarian be both for legalized marijuana and the cutting of taxes? Yes
You talk about trading and market regulation as if no one is discussing these things. Hardly..
Democracy-(pick any kind) is about negotiating differences.
Unfortunately we have largely evolved into a plutocracy: money=say.
To be continued
-
BAH - I say, ESPECIALLY to goon, because your fundamental flaw is that you believe in "power classes". It's just paranoia plain and simple. It is your religion. "I have seen the light! I have been awakened! NWO/Satan controls the world!" BAH. Power in a society is given; not taken. Think about that seriously for a minute.
Mr. Lee is arguing for the system that created the very stupidity he is opposed to. Superstition will be the order of public policy when the majority of citizens are superstitious and we live in a democracy. You actually want a system where the elites rule. Only there will science trump religion. This is a fundamental contradiction for the "progressives" when they side with the "democrats".
The odds that one of the two parties fits ANYONE's reality is quite slim.
During election seasons, the ugliness in us comes out. Us vs. Them! The other half of the country is STUPID! It's all false, and it's counter-productive.
-
All i can say is:
Americans are "lucky" to have only 2 parties to choose from.
Im from belgium, dont ask me how many we have, because its way to many.
A year or two they were actually able to rule the country without an oficially elected governement for close to or even over a year. Why? This partie wanted this, the other one wanted that,...
It was like a bunch of kids fighting over candy.Most of the belgian people even started thinking why we are obliged to go vote if they pull off this kind of shit?
At least you guys can choose to go or not go vote -
Fuck Clinton, if she is elected we are all going to hell. All guns will be banned and crime will rise greatly. Yes, America will be doomed!!
-
@Lee
I am imperfectly pro-life for myself. I've made mistakes and continue to do so. I have no right to force my opinions on others, so you might consider me to be pro-choice.
That argument does not inherently cross over to stem cell research. IF IF IF we are, as a society, judged in the future for our decisions, we should be very cognizant of that possibility. Prior to 1800, many but not all felt that slavery was perfectly natural or acceptable, similarly servitude or those subject to aristocracy. None look backward now and argue successfully for slavery.
Our forefathers knew slavery was wrong, but needed the support of the south to face England. Sadly, their intentions to end slavery were delayed 80+ years.
-
To a significant minority in the USA, life begins at conception. I think that position is held less in Europe, but it is near universal in Asia.
Stem cell research, using reproductive cells, is inherently wrong if one believes that life begins at conception. It is no different than slavery; forcing a living human to a life of experimentation. A society or nation should not endorse or force those who believe such to endorse, directly or indirectly, that arguable life of slavery.
Being against reproductive stem cell research is not the same as the abortion argument. I do not want to be judged as an owner of slaves, nor do I want my country to endorse it.
-
Science was not held back. Federal funding for all science has been cut back, without regard to this argument. Privately funded research is is FAR superior to federally funded research, as long as it is held to appropriate standards of research (and it is). The private sector does not waste time on useless research, and we could point to countless numbers of wasteful federally funded research. One might argue that withholding federal funds actually forced the private sector to step up.
Indeed it did. Privately funded research worked itself around the need for reproductive stem cells. We now have indefinite lines of peripheral (skin, not humans) stem cells. Bush was steadfast in his belief. The future will judge his position, not you or me.
Reproductive stem cells (slaves to some individuals) are no longer necessary, yet the media, culturally elite, and staunch choicers will never acknowledge that evolution of science. Nor will they ever offer Bush the benefit of doubt.
That is sad imo.
-
@Brown - 😂 You have no idea what I believe in.You speak for others not knowing anything about them because you want to paint a negative image.Everything you speak of is part of the smoke screen system.You obviously believe in everything that is fed to you via the media and govt. The sad thing is that you eat it up for breakfast lunch and dinner.
Notice that I am not the one blasting others because they don't believe in what I believe in, that's you.You are so passionate about what you believe in that it actually blinds you from seeing what is really going on. Your paranoia and fear derives from you not being able to accept the fact that your entire life may be based off of lies.Perhaps that's why you resort to forums and the internet, so you can attack and defend your beliefs.
There is nothing wrong with a little debate but damn man, no need to be so immature about it 😃
-
Goon, I am one pay grade from SES. The government doesn't feed me smoke and mirrors. I'm in it, and I'm not down at the bottom. Who should we believe here? Someone that has spent his entire career in military and government or a paranoid delusional that insists the shadow lords are putting drugs in his rice crispies?
-
Man I love this thread! The gang's all here! Wait... Where's Shush?
-
Grunge, Newsweek poll 3 weeks ago say 63% of Americans believe life begins at conception. That's a lot more than a slim majority.
-
Meant to say that's more than a significant minority.
-
★★BЯOШИИOTΞ★★ wrote:
It's weird right?Man I love this thread! The gang's all here! Wait... Where's Shush?
-
@Dr.Grunge
Thank you for your coolheaded remarks. I always appreciate those who understand the difference between a debate and an argument.
Yes- the stem cell debate has been contentious since day one- I will agree. And it is a sensitive issue and one that can forever loop around and around.
Paralleling the morality between stem cell research and slavery is... interesting... but in my book it doesn't wash. Let's just leave it at that before we go down the rabbit hole. We are obviously steadfast in opposite camps.
As for Bush and his defunding of research: we are VERY fortunate that the private sector jumped into rescue.
However, I deeply disagree with the notion that government dollars are a waste when applied to scientific research. In most cases it's a symbiotic relationship between the private sector and the government working together. The benefits are too immense to list here.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC