|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
5th December 2005, 03:48 PM | #41 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The old Same place
Posts: 11,138
|
|
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie. |
|
5th December 2005, 04:38 PM | #42 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,319
|
(Yawn...) Straw man. Try harder next time.
ETA: I should add that I have said on this very board, for example, that I think roads should be paid for 100% by taxes on gas, cars, and car-related items, like car tabs and drivers licences. Even though that means that I would be paying more in those areas, that is fine. I would want that matched with, for example, buses to be paid for 100% by the bus fares. And nothing you list is a "social program". Except maybe public education. And I also have said on this board that I want publich education paid for 100% by taxes on childrens items. And a significant voucher if one wants to send their kid(s) to public schools. But its okay. I'll leave you to play with your straw man for a while. Looks like you two are having fun together. |
5th December 2005, 05:58 PM | #43 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
|
I think it was Calvin Coolidge who said "If you see ten troubles coming down the road, and you sit and wait, nine of them will fall in the ditch before they get to you". There is some wisdom in that. Lackadaisical and corrupt presidents have generally let the country go its own way. Buchanan may not have avoided the Civil War, but wasn't the equivalent inevitable? It was inherent in the Constitutional Compromise. Was it perhaps not better to get it over with in the 60's rather than the 70's? Sure, he could have brought it on in the 50's, but the Union might not have survived. As it happens, the 60's seem to have been the appropriate time. Masterly inactivity. As it turns out.
In the small-government, pre-Roosevelt days, corruption was small-corruption. Corruption post-Roosevelt, and more so post-WW2, is a much bigger issue. Bush Minor's presidency stands out in that regard. It's a presidency that's been corrupt and active - it wasn't the country that went to war in Iraq off its own bat, the White House persuaded the country into it. The country went to war in Afghanistan with a whoop and a holler, even Calvin Coolaid would have done that. Social Security does need serious attention - but what happened to the "political capital" required? (For "political capital" read "credibility".) I reckon history will mark this presidency down as the worst ever until now. The reason is that the US is over the peak and on the slide as a giant power. Victory over Iraq - it took two campaigns and a long blockade - is about equivalent to the Mexican War on the up-swing. In-between the US fought massive European and Pacific Wars simultaneously, and came out economically stronger than it went in, without even expanding into new territories. Also more socially cohesive. The edge of the plateau was reached around 1970. On the up-side of dominance, mistakes are buried by history. On the down-side, they're magnified. Absent something grossly aberrant (such as using nukes or going to war with China) down the line, this presidency will be seen as the one that threw away its reserves on a quixotic attempt to keep the world the way it was. |
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150 |
|
5th December 2005, 09:34 PM | #44 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The old Same place
Posts: 11,138
|
|
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie. |
|
5th December 2005, 09:42 PM | #45 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,319
|
How did I evade it? I answered that none of what you listed were social programs, and that I am in favor of 100% of the cost of something coming from taxes and fees that are directly related to the service being provided. Example: roads being paid for out of taxes and fees on cars. Fire and Police being paid for out of taxes on cars, property, and businesses. Education paid for out of taxes on childrens' items. What part of that was so difficult to understand?
And yes, when someone responds with the "WELL I GUESS YOU JUST DON'T WANT ANY TAXES ON ANYTHING, HUH?" answer, that is a straw man. |
20th April 2006, 09:17 AM | #46 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,264
|
|
20th April 2006, 10:17 AM | #47 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,434
|
Thanks for the link Zakur.
I have come to the consclusion that the Bush presidency has been a disaster by most measures, probably the worst of my lifetime. But I also speculate that it is my personal biases that have led to that conclusion. So I read this article with particular interest to see what a professional historian has to say about the issue. Of course, this is just one more person with his own particular set of biases speaking on the issue, but still he seems to do a pretty good job of putting forth an objective case for the idea that Bush presidency is one of the worst. One of the things that interest me about this whole situation is the degree to which a few of the forum participants have remained Bush supporters. Most of them are fiscal and economic conservatives and I see myself as that also, so I would have thought that I might have understood their defense of the Bush administration better than I do. But I don't. Even if one looks past the Iraq war issue and the issues of competence raised by Katrina this presidency looks like a complete disaster from the perspective of a fiscal and economic conservative to me. |
20th April 2006, 11:40 AM | #48 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
|
Er, you DO realize this is "Rolling Stone" magazine, don't you? The other headline article is "Pearl Jam--Best Album in Years". Call me skeptical, but...
|
20th April 2006, 12:07 PM | #50 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
|
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
20th April 2006, 12:08 PM | #51 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
|
That's strange. You didn't say that when the thread regarding the Rolling Stone article on Scientology came out.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...+Rolling+Stone |
20th April 2006, 12:08 PM | #52 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,079
|
Phi Beta Kappa? That's one of those party honor societies! I have one of those keys around here somewhere, but I don't bother to mention Phi Beta Kappa (or Tau Beta Pi) on my resume.
I was put off by that Pearl Jam article and but the article really is worth reading. Don't judge the article by the magazine or even by its author. A skeptic is supposed to avoid ad hominem attacks as well as appeals to authority. Read it and judge it based on its own merits. |
20th April 2006, 12:24 PM | #53 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
|
That's true to a point, but... the problem is that being an ivy league professor, like being a Rolling Stone columist, means almost-automatic hatered of Bush, for various social reasons.
Let's put it this way: could you imagine a PRO-Bush--I mean really pro-Bush, not "he is not actually a monkey"-type article, being published by Ivy League professors--or by 'Rolling Stone' magazine? If not, I don't see why one should take this article more seriously than one should take, oh, Newsmax's (might be getting the name wrong--I mean the extreme right-wing paper) or 'The American Spectator''s pro-Bush articles--and many of the writers there have Ivy-league credentials as well. If I were taking the latter seriously and disparaging the former, you'd have a point; but I think both are virtually worthless sources for this issue. |
20th April 2006, 12:30 PM | #54 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 183
|
Oh, don´t be so hard on poor Bush Jr - he just want to be like his daddy: ease his buddys heavy tax-burden and start a fun little war! Let him show what a man he is! Let him make justice fair!
And he is not an easily duped president either - fool him once and... he... fooled twice... uuhhh... cannot be fooled again... kind of... And lets not forget his groundbreaking contribution to the english language! Hey... do not misunderrestimate his abilities, he is actually quite smrt... smart. |
__________________
"If one tells the truth, one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out" - Oscar Wilde "Qui in tempestate versatur púlvere non obdúcitur" -Magnus Von Platen |
|
20th April 2006, 12:37 PM | #55 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,444
|
Originally Posted by bjb
This article is trying to compare actions of past presidents who are no longer president with action of one who still has 2 years left on the job. And this is the type of job where you have to evaluate it in its entirety in order to be fair. Furthermore, one has to ask oneself: what is the reason for this article? And we can't simply throw out the cover; you can't ask a question and that put such a biased image next to it. Is Bush the worst President? I don't know and I won't know for at least another 2 years and unless you can see the future, you won't know either. |
20th April 2006, 01:09 PM | #56 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
|
Help me.
I've been struggling to understand a post made waaaaaay back on December 4th by peptoabysmal, citing a site called Grandfather Economic Report as a source. The claim was:
Quote:
Quote:
I made a little model to help me keep track of the money. General fund ------------ -10 (debt) Trust Fund ------------ +10 Siphon off the surplus and shift it to the general fund, and you have: General Fund ------------ 0 Trust Fund ------------ 0 They're both balanced, and the total debt *is* reduced. The debt was 10, now it is 0. The site also uses this illustration:
Quote:
I'm really trying to see all sides of it. Perhaps the surpluses are *needed* to operate the fund, in which case siphoning them off would be harmful. But that doesn't really help the problem, since then they couldn't rightly be called "suprluses". The analogy still doesn't work. It would be the equivalent of the son putting his retirement account *in debt* to pay off his credit cards. But that is what what they are alleging is happening. Economists... help me. This is not my field, and it's making my head hurt. I am legitimately trying to understand. |
21st April 2006, 03:18 AM | #57 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
|
|
21st April 2006, 04:36 AM | #58 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
|
Quote:
Just like you had to be a complete idiot not to agree with the Ivy League professors that the USSR's marxist experiment is a great success in the 1930s. Or just like you had to be a complete idiot not to agree with the Ivy League professors that the cold war is at least equally the USA's fault in the 1950s. Or just like you had to be a complete idiot not to agree with the Ivy League professors that Reagan's idea of actually winning the cold war is insane warmongering. (Etc., etc., etc.) I'm sorry, but the problem we have here is that Ivy League professors, and intellectuals generally--however eminent they might be as individuals in their particular field of specialization--have an extremely bad record of understanding, or appreciating, current political events. Their evaluations are almost invariably proven wrong. Why should I trust the Ivy League's abyssimal evaluation of Bush today to be any more accurate than their enthusiastic evaluation of Stalin in his day? |
21st April 2006, 06:48 AM | #59 |
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 46,328
|
"Worst Ever" is trying too hard. How can we know just how bad some past presidents were. How about a better category "Worst President in living memory". Tricky Dickie might given him a run for his money, but then Tricky did the hard things that Bush is just prepared to put in the too hard basket. So that makes Bush worse.
|
__________________
We do these things not because they are easy, but because we thought they were going to be easy. Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. “Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos |
|
21st April 2006, 06:57 AM | #60 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,515
|
Energy prices soaring out of control, threatening several huge industries (like airlines and agriculture) and Bush does nothing. What else to you need to know about him?
|
21st April 2006, 07:26 AM | #61 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
|
...of course, if he did something, you'd claim that he only does so to help his friend in big airline companies and "big agriculture", and that somehow (say) subsidizing the price of fuel (or whatever) would "benefit the rich at the expense of everybody else".
That's the problem with Bush criticism. If he does anything, the critics claim he is doing wrong, but if he does nothing, that, too, the critics claim, is wrong. Irnoically, however, the Bush critics are suffering the consequences of their own actions in "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome. After having heard for the last six years that Bush is anything from a chimp to a Hitler, then even if their criticism were correct this time, how does one tell? Remember, for instance, how the USA was going to become "a theocracy" any day now? Or how Bush is going to "steal" or "cancel" the elections of 2004? Or how, by now, the Constitution should have long ago been cancelled due to the fascistic "Patriot Act" and all who oppose the president put in Gitmo? Well, somehow, we don't hear these criticisms any more (nor, of course, do we hear any apologizes from those who promoted them for having made such wild charges without evidence in the first place). Now, we keep hearing the more mature--comparatively speaking, that is--criticism that "Bush SUCKS as president!". Somehow, however, "he's not doing anything about high oil prices" doesn't have quite the urgency of "he will declare a dictatorial theocracy!". So pardon me if I do not see why to treat reason #354,554 to hate Bush as any more credible than the previous ones. |
21st April 2006, 08:12 AM | #62 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,515
|
So...Bush doesn't need to do a bloody thing about the energy prices because we all hate him anyway? You Bushies are getting pretty desperate in your defense of this incompetent fool.
And I am glad you are so comfortable with his attempts to thwart the Constitution...I'm sure you sleep much better than I do. Btw, I don't know a single person (certainly not on this board) who ever said, "he will declare a dictatorial theocracy!". So if irrelevancies don't help draw away criticism of your hero, perhaps out and out lying will? Nice. (Use of quotation marks indicates...surprise...you are quoting someone.) |
21st April 2006, 08:41 AM | #63 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 15,892
|
|
21st April 2006, 08:48 AM | #64 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,079
|
So Skeptic, now that you've read the article, what did you think of it? You've given your reasons for ignoring the article so now is a good time for you to refute the author's claims.
|
21st April 2006, 09:07 AM | #65 |
Briefly immortal
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 43,587
|
Here we disagree. Energy prices are soaring into what would be considered low-to-normal range for Europeans, forcing Americans to reassess their lifestyles and perhaps their choice of vehicles. If anything, Bush should slap an additional tax on energy users to force them to cut back.
|
21st April 2006, 09:14 AM | #66 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,189
|
I'm not sure what the PResident CAN do about energy prices short term.
Long term he can open up ANWR but Democrats oppose that. Sure the ANWR oil does not solve any problem but every little bit helps. Lurker |
21st April 2006, 09:20 AM | #67 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
|
Lots. Not burning oil to conduct a useless war and therefore reducing world demand would be an easy step.
Not threatening war with Iran (another major oil producer) and thereby spooking the markets, resulting in price rises would be another easy step. Publically instructing the US Attorney General to investigate the oil industry for possible price-fixing and violations of the various anti-trust acts would be a third. |
21st April 2006, 09:45 AM | #68 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,434
|
Bushco didn't sit idly by and watch the rise in energy prices happen. Bushco created and supported programs to make the country more dependent on foreigh oil. The tax break/subsidy for small trucks and SUV's, the high tariff on fuel alcohol imported from Brazil and the efforts to prevent the imposition of any meaningful fuel economy standards were part and parcel of that strategy.
At a time when the stability of the American economy was likely to be threatened by the inevitable increase in world energy prices Bush and his cronies worked on making the situation worse. Then in one of the grossest pieces of hypocrisy of all time Bush in the sixth year of his presidency said that dependence on foreign oil was bad and that he was going to do something about it. What he was doing about it was firing people in the federal bureacracy that were working on alternative fuels. This man is a corrupt buffoon and I think it speaks volumes that the only thing his defenders are left with is attacking his critics. |
21st April 2006, 10:02 AM | #69 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,074
|
For the record, according to Wikipedia which lists the various polls which asked historians to rank presidents, the worst presidents so far are Warren G. Harding, Franklin Pierce, Andrew Jackson and James Bucchanan. Two of which are blamed for leading to the civil war, one for screwing up reconstruction, and one for just having a flagrantly corrupt administration.
|
21st April 2006, 10:02 AM | #70 |
Wag
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,760
|
I'm with Tricky on this as well. I don't blame Bush (entirely) for the huge gas cost spike. I do agree he can do something about it via taxing either gas and/or gas guzzlers or tax breaks to alternative fuel vehicles.
I think one of the big reasons for the gas crunch is those inscrutable Chinese. With their burgeoning middle class demand for cars and their expanding import of oil, it's really an ecomonics 101 cause and effect. Perhaps Bush should look to bombing China. After all, they do have WMD's for sure and they keep using "our oil" .... Charlie (kidnap Hu while he's here) Monoxide |
__________________
Major General Wag of JREF |
|
21st April 2006, 10:25 AM | #71 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,434
|
I also agree with Tricky and Charlie Monoxide about Bush not being completely responsible for the rise in oil prices. I think that in general the best approach here is to let the free market deal with this issue.
I also thought that preventing the ANWAR drilling had more to do with Democratic politics than any kind of common sense. Despite the above I think drkitten's and my criticism of Bushco on this subject were warranted. We are more dependent on foreign oil today than we would have been without Bushco actions. And most significant to me is that some of those actions were conceived purely for political benefit without any consideration for the harm done to the country as a whole. |
21st April 2006, 10:34 AM | #72 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 5,444
|
|
21st April 2006, 10:41 AM | #73 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,079
|
I didn't know oil prices were the only standard that defined the success of a president. From a historical point of view, I don't know that future generations are going to care how much we paid to fill up the tanks in our Hummers. I would hope they would be more concerned with George Bush's abuse of power and his subversion of the U.S. constitution. Bush is trying to redefine the power of the president and this is something that has always been of interest to historians.
|
21st April 2006, 11:54 AM | #74 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
|
They're not, but they have the advantage of being quantifiable -- and the negative effect of high oil prices on the economy as a whole is well-understood. How well the economy as a whole does is generally considered to be a major factor underlying the success of a president; economic issues (and the failure to successfully deal with them) are among the main reasons that neither Carter nor Hoover are/were well-regarded as presidents, despite their demonstrable success at foreign affairs.
I'd be much more sanguine about oil prices if I had reason to believe that they were somehow separated from the rest of the US (and world) economy. I'd be much more sanguine about the economy if I could see what other benefits Bush has provided the United States or the world by driving the economy into the toilet. High oil prices by themselves aren't a problem. But tell me what we've got to show for them? |
21st April 2006, 12:02 PM | #75 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,189
|
Do you really think the oil burnt here amounts ot more than 1% of our consumption? I would guess less than 0.1%, probably less than 0.01%.
Quote:
Quote:
Lurker |
21st April 2006, 12:07 PM | #76 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,189
|
|
21st April 2006, 12:27 PM | #77 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
|
[quote=Lurker;1590412]
I consider this a valid point albeit minor. I doubt the market is paying tooo much attention to our empty threats.[/QUOTE} The financial press disagrees. From today's CNN:
Quote:
Quote:
If McDonald's was making record-setting proftits despite a world-wide beef processing capacity shortage-- yes, I would investigate them as well. I'm sorry to interject a bit of real-world economics into your fantasy world. But I'm sure any discomfort it causes you will be short-lived. |
21st April 2006, 12:32 PM | #78 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The old Same place
Posts: 11,138
|
|
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie. |
|
21st April 2006, 03:45 PM | #79 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 25,102
|
|
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150 |
|
21st April 2006, 03:51 PM | #80 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,515
|
I never said I blame Bush for it happening. I blame him for sitting on his hands and doing nothing to help.
Guess what? The idea that we cannot wean ourselves off gasoline is a HUGE lie:
Quote:
But maybe their president does not come from a rich oil family. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|