magekillr

Increasing taxes is how we are going to end the debt. It's funny, people want to cut programs to end the debt, when the US really doesn't have that many programs as it is. We are pretty damned capitalist, in a major war, have little programs, and you want to CUT taxes??!!? Jesus crickey, talk about fiscal irresponsibility. Raising taxes will just make the recession even worse. Also, raising taxes does not always mean the revenue from them goes up. I'd rather reduce our debt and get out of the Iraq war, and risk making the recession worse, than cut taxes on people and further our debt. You are correct, but remember "does not ALWAYS". Many economists believe the US's taxes are FAR too low, and our revenue will increase a great deal. Remember Reagan's cuts in 1981 resulted in 3% less revenue. Jack, you're using Andrew Mellon, a criminal of tax fraud, as an example? lol... Coolidge's lack of doing anything while President is part of the reason for the Great Depression...I blame him, not Harding, for the Depression. Whatever, the market and the "Invisible Hand" (sounds almost like a religion) will guide the way right? Alaska is a Republican state. Glad you italicized the word might. Most Clinton supporters I know took it as an insult. Lol, sound the same because he changed his policies? May I ask, what policies you are talking about? Mind explaining how this is a fantastic choice? McCain is an idiot for picking Palin. The election isn't over, but it just made things a hell of a lot easier. Elections come down to independents, and to risk everything on the gamble that media-hyped disgruntled Clinton supporters will flock to him because she has a vagina is pretty laughable. I know Will Bower, and I know how big his support is. My friend has talked to him on the phone and I quote: However, here's my analysis on the pick: It's obvious to me that McCain [cabbage] his pants after hearing Obama's speech. He knew he had absolutely no shot at winning this thing, there was just no way in hell it could happen. I think he was waiting for our Convention to unfold to see if we would be united, or if we would be split. Had he seen a split, he would not have picked a woman, or perhaps not as conservative of a woman, because there would be no need to fan the flames of breaking the party in two. With the Democratic Party split, why the need for a woman on the ticket? They would perhaps flock to him, or not vote at all regardless of who he picked. However, what happened made McCain and all of his advisers see the reality that the Democrats are not split, but united. He is looking to make a divisive pick in Palin to make Hillary supporters remember that Obama "overlooked" Clinton, and flock them over for her vagina, while at the same time keeping his conservative base alive and well and happy (as they were not supportive of McCain from the get-go). So here's his goal: 1.) Douse gasoline on the Democratic "split fire" that has been stomped out by Hillary, Biden, Barack, and Bill, leaving just a few smoldering ashes. 2.) Bring his Conservative base together. 3.) Throw all his chips, dice, and other gambling devices on the table in an "all-in" move of desperation. He knows he had no shot, so when you have no shot, why not try everything you have with a huge gamble? Word is he only met with her once before this pick; to me he made the choice at the last minute. So much for putting country first? I mean I find that statement despicable in itself, but McCain cares nothing about America, and he showed it in his pick of Palin.

I'd choose someone who showed that they had good judgment and leadership because that's what they do, they lead. Furthermore, no one "owns" a company (I know you didn't say that, just saying). It's owned by a Board of Directors. People surround themselves with people who also show good judgment, and are perhaps more experienced than you. I hardly view this as leading a company, but I digress. I mean, the research has shown it, history has shown it...I don't understand what's not to get here, or why experience is more important than judgment and ideas, especially when you have the ability to lead your people. We are the change we have been waiting for, we just need someone to lead us that way. I wrote a keynote address for a group of 600,000+ people on facebook sort of hitting why there needs to be support for him, not sure if anyone would read it. My first speech, and it was like 1600 words.

What do these article show? 1. Presidential greatness is more about what happens during the presidency and much less about political experience. 2. 66% of the variance in Presidential effectiveness (a huge proportion by social science standards) is predicted by motives, charisma, crises and length of time since George Washington. This is regardless of the power of the media, tradition, and public opinion. 3. Proactivity as a personality trait and charisma as a leadership behavior are highly related, and strongly predictive of presidential performance. 4. In elections, peoples perception of charismatic and transformational leadership is very predictive of the winnerbut only when mediated by trust in the nominee. NO RESEARCH shows that amount of experience in politics prior to election predicts any sort of presidential performance. ------------ ARTICLES AND ABSTRACTS ARE BELOW, in case you are curious. Simonton, D. K. (1981). Presidential greatness and performance: Can we predict leadership in the White House? Journal of Personality, 49, 306-322. Two related questions regarding presidential leadership are addressed. First, what are the principal determinants of the rated greatness of American presidents? Second, can presidential performance be predicted using preelection biographical variables? Reliable measures of greatness and performance were operationalized for the 38 presidents of the United States, along with numerous potential predictors suggested by past literature on leadership, achieved eminence, and presidential popularity and greatness. About 75% of the variance in presidential greatness can be predicted using administration duration, number of war years, unsuccessful assassination attempts, scandals, and prepresidential publication record. Family background, personal characteristics, education, occupation, and political experiences provided few if any viable predictors of presidential performance, although succession to office through the vice-presidency exerted a rather general negative impact. House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: a psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 394-396. A study of U.S. presidents tested the hypothesis that presidential effectiveness depends on personality and charisma and not solely on control over bureaucratic structures. The general model of leader effectiveness utilized included personality characteristics, charisma, crises, age of the institution of the presidency, and leader effectiveness. The final sample size was 31 presidents, and the data were restricted to presidential first terms of office. The results indicate that as much as 66 percent of the variability in a measure of direct presidential action may be explained by motives, behavioral charisma, institutional age, and crises. This is surprising, given the number of constraints on American presidents such as checks and balances, party realities, public opinion, the power of the media, and tradition. Thus, the study demonstrates that personality and charisma do make a difference in U.S. presidents. The implications are discussed. Deluga R.J. (1998). American presidential proactivity, charismatic leadership, and rated performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 265-291. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of American presidential proactivity (i.e., a sta- ble disposition to influence the environment) with charismatic leadership and rated performance. Using historiometric procedures, raters measured proactivity in unidentified profiles describing 39 American presidents. Archival sources were exploited for two presidential charisma and five performance assess- ments. Hierarchical regression analyses generally supported the predictions that presidential proactivity would be positively associated with charismatic leadership and rated performance. Limited support was observed for the idea that proactive behaviors are an essential, yet partial explanation for the effectiveness of charismatic leadership. The results are discussed in terms of how proactive features such as actively identifying opportunities and functioning as a powerful force for change facilitate the understanding of presidential charismatic leadership and effectiveness. Rajnandini Pillai, R., Williams, E. A., Lowe, K., & Jung, D. I. (2003). Personality, transformational leadership, trust, and the 2000 U.S. presidential vote. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 161-192. This study of the 2000 U.S. presidential election replicates and extends Pillai and Williams' [Leadersh. Q. 9 (1998) 397] study of the 1996 presidential election. Data were collected at two periods from respondents across three regions of the United States to yield 342 matched sets of preelection variables and postelection measures. Transformational leadership and attributed charisma were strongly associated with reported voting behavior for candidates Bush and Gore beyond party affiliation. Important extensions to earlier findings are that perceptions of candidate proactive behavior, empathy, and need for achievement were shown to be related to transformational leadership and attributed charisma, with trust in the leader an important mediating variable between leadership perceptions and voting behavior. Implications of the findings for future research are discussed

[hide=][/hide] It's always worked for Sean Hannity, so why not? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx3aaOyVU5A

Generally, I wouldn't hit a female. If she hit me first and was going to continue, I would probably try and restrain her before hitting. Hitting would be a very very last resort, and I'd need a damn good reason to do so. There's no reason to hit her if you can restrain her.

No other person in US history has lowered taxes during war, ever. It is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. I thought we were in a Mental Recession? FDR brought us out of the largest depression we have ever seen... :roll: Furthermore, McCain is following Bush's failed policies, which, erm, led to the recession?

Increasing taxes is how we are going to end the debt. It's funny, people want to cut programs to end the debt, when the US really doesn't have that many programs as it is. We are pretty damned capitalist, in a major war, have little programs, and you want to CUT taxes??!!? Jesus crickey, talk about fiscal irresponsibility.

Best choice he had other than Mark Warner; who is running for Senate and did not want the job at all. No matter who Obama picked, he was going to get attacked. No matter who it was, they were going to mine through their statements, dig through their past, etc. Obama knows this, it is what the vetting team was about. Joe Biden is going to rip Mitt Romney to shreds when McCain picks him, I cannot wait. If Obama loses, it would almost be worth it just to watch that slime wither. Anyway, McCain is not winning lol, it ain't happening. I won't let it. All Obama needs is Kerry's map/Iowa (which Iowa is guaranteed to go Dem this year) + Virginia, and as a local resident of Virginia, I'm going to make that happen. Obama's ground team >>>>>> McCain's. All these new registered voters are almost all for Obama. It's all about getting people energized, and Obama/Biden does that. Another good thing about Biden, 1/4 voters don't know who he is, and another 1/4 don't know anything about him. Shows he has a clean record, and has kept his nose clean. Although unless someone is running for President as a major contender or has been involved in a sex scandal, I don't expect the American public to know "who they are".

People need to re-read Ginger's post...over, and over, and over again...

Kriegsmier, history has been changed since the Cold War in both fronts; the East claims they had a much larger contribution to winning the war, while the West claims they had a much larger contribution to winning the war. The fact is, neither would have won anything without the other, and both contributed just as much on their respected fronts.

I really don't feel like getting into this, as it appears I'm in the minority here...so I'll be brief. This is a completely ridiculous premise, because every month is European History month. If you find yourself being guilt tripped, well that's your issue.

You know the majority of the War was fought on the East side, right? Alas, one forgets that Russia had an equal hand in winning WWII with the United States, and endured far more casualties than the United States, Germany, and Japan combined. Bravo with the typical "America won the war for the world" propaganda though. =D> edit: I should say the USSR lost that many casualties, but I digress. I think what a lot of people fail to realize is that if Russia had an organized army instead of just a mass amount of soldiers with no training they would have done better. All Russia did was burn a city to the ground and retreat further into Russia on the grounds that they had more people and would outlast the Germans, which they did. A lot of those casualties were their own fault. Sure they were untrained and the casualties were their own fault, but you still cannot ignore the massive impact they had on winning the war, that was my point.

You know the majority of the War was fought on the East side, right? Alas, one forgets that Russia had an equal hand in winning WWII with the United States, and endured far more casualties than the United States, Germany, and Japan combined. Bravo with the typical "America won the war for the world" propaganda though. =D> edit: I should say the USSR lost that many casualties, but I digress.

Well I'm not a moderate, I'm a radical fringe socialist with some government intervention among things like free speech, and I believe in diplomacy. The point is, America has no diplomacy, and it's been extremely evident with this whole debacle how ineffective American diplomacy that doesn't involve direct military intervention truly is.

It's from the Guardian, what do you expect? Of course it's going to seem biased in the American people's eyes...but not to someone in Britain or anyone else in the world who sees a brokered American foreign policy.

Best Article I've seen yet about the missile defense: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... icy.russia

That's the thing that gets me. Why is it only in gymnastics that we have this rule? Because children are far more limber and nimble at younger ages. Your flexibility decreases a great amount as you age, especially in that particular age-bracket. Normally I would be like "Well, who really cares?", but in gymnastics it is quite a big deal. :| edit: Hmmm...interesting 1_man_army.

Russia has to threaten with Nuclear weapons because its conventional forces are pretty old. The majority of it tanks are T-72 with a few newer models. It has no 4th generation fighters and does not have stealth bomber capabilities. I agree with l0l0lpur32.

That article is incredibly immature, baised and twisted, to be honest. Plus that's about the only medals table I've seen which puts number of medals above gold medals won. In every other medals table, even without the events where judges are involved, China is still beating the US. It just reeks of sour grapes. Can't you guys just enjoy the sport on show instead of whining because you don't get Gold whenever China beats you? No, because like I said before, the Olympics are just a political spectacle; an act of going to war without going to war. It's been like this for decades.

Sorry, Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive terms. Try looking up the definitions sometime, the USA is both. Are you people seriously reducing what the KKK advocates to physical harm?

Well, the only problem with that is how do we determine what is beneficial discussion. Many of the great and revolutionary ideas in history have had very little support in the beginning and were often deemed harmful to society.

I'm playing the Devil's Advocate here because 99.9% of the time I agree with what Ginger says, so here goes: Well you said you are intolerant of intolerance to the extent that you would make illegal certain forms of hate speech. Now that suggests on some level that you are in support of protection freedom of speech because it helps society to have an open exchange of ideas, but only speech that would help this exchange should fall under this protection, and intolerant speech actively harms this exchange of ideas. Is that what you believe, more or less?

Hmmm...few things. Exactly what does "inciting racial hatred" mean? Why should it be codified into our legal system? There are already laws against promoting violence, so I'm just trying to see where you're coming from.

Anytime Bari, I knew it was only a matter of time before you replied to this topic. Even though you haven't been around, I knew it wouldn't escape you.