Washington Panics As Govt Shutdown Looms

[=sw=warlord]

The government is due to run out of money to operate at midnight on Friday unless a deal can be struck to keep it running.
It would be the first government shutdown since 1996 and would have huge political consequences in the midst of the recession. (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/US-Frantic-Negotiations-Are-Taking-Place-To-Avert-A-Government-Shutdown-Within-Days/Article/201102415942732?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article _Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15942732_US:_Frantic_Negotiations_Are_ Taking_Place_To_Avert_A_Government_Shutdown_Within _Days)



The only thing I can really say to that is :nom:

E: Holy shit 14 Trillion dollar debt? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt) and they're planning on saving a trillion over one decade...140 years before the government is out of debt?.
Damn...

[Kornman00]

Psst. No shutdown during a 'government shutdown' (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110224/ap_on_re_us/us_what_shutdown)

[paladin]

Don't worry, Obama's the prez.

[Patrickssj6]

E: Holy shit 14 Trillion dollar debt? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt) and they're planning on saving a trillion over one decade...140 years before the government is out of debt?.
Damn...

Don't worry. Part of the debt was bought from China so in about 50 years the Chinese will just take the American houses. Chinese overpopulation solved, they are geniuses :D

[TVTyrant]

Because the crazy American citizens won't just shoot them :P Don't you get it, we have our own continent. There's nothing they can do. We've defaulted on loans before and we'll do it again! /sarcasm

[Patrickssj6]

Maybe they'll take the Grand Canyon instead...after 20 years the canyon will then be decayed by all the flash lights.

[TVTyrant]

Yeah I could concede Arizona. Nothing but desert and crazies there anyways...

[=sw=warlord]

Yeah I could concede Arizona. Nothing but desert and crazies there anyways...

Arizona? you mean The Arizona? (http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?21192-Arizona-State-Immigration-Bill)

[Warsaw]

Don't worry. Part of the debt was bought from China so in about 50 years the Chinese will just take the American houses. Chinese overpopulation solved, they are geniuses :D

No, we'd just nationalize everything like they did when they were eyes-deep in debt. :downs: Also, China only owns roughly 25% of the debt, Japan just slightly under another 25%, and the rest is owned mostly by various European powers.

[TVTyrant]

Which doesn't make any sense since we rebuilt there countries following the second world war. Shouldn't they owe us money?

[Patrickssj6]

Also, China only owns roughly 25% of the debt, Japan just slightly under another 25%...
FYI that's a lot :P

[TVTyrant]

A lot they will never see :P I'm serious it does not matter. They will never get a dime from American tax payers, and there is nothing they can do about it.

[Bodzilla]

wow, what a compelling argument.

[Kornman00]

I know, isn't The Great Debate filled with high quality shit? Sans the high quality

[Bodzilla]

derpalerpa asherpa


BOdie got a full time job

whats this mean?

it's friday.
and im fuckign thirsty~

Where you been lately my Kornsef, come on Msn

[Warsaw]

@TVTyrant: They nationalized all the institutions that were paying off the debt so it would start turning a profit for them. They basically gave a big "fuck you" and defaulted. We should do the same to them.

@Patrick: Well, yes, it's a huge chunk. I'm just pointing out that it's not the majority of it. Everyone here (here being this country) seems to think that China owns the whole thing or close to it. As far as I'm concerned, though, we owe them nothing.

[SiriusTexra]

Oh look, the US is about to lose it's Reserve Currency status. This is happening earlier than expected...I would've thought they would've been at least 6 months away from defaulting on the interest.

*grabs popcorn*

All hail china.

Btw, you remember that meet and greet China Japan and Russia had recently? You know why china was/is dumping its us dollars for gold stocks?

Because pretty soon no ones gunna be trading in US dollars.

Merged currency, was predicted and motioned a long time ago. All part of the plan.

Enjoy paying the rest of the worlds prices for everything, America.

Debt is far more powerful than the dollar value. You have plenty of the former, and none of the latter.


i.e., look forward to savings and superannuation freezes. Taxes, crime and poverty beyond belief, and of course, the reaction and solution for you all.

[TVTyrant]

wow, what a compelling argument.

I know right? So awesome :iamafag:

Please, state your plan. I would love to hear it :allears:

[Bodzilla]

not merican, dont give a shit.

just call bullshit as i see it.

[TVTyrant]

Nice to know our most trustworthy allies love us so much lol.

Not kidding though. We have defaulted on loans from Britain and France before and they never complained. We will most likely do the same to China. Its not something I am going to enjoy to see, but I have come to accept that our credit score as a country is over negative 9000.

[Bodzilla]

but you cant just do that , wipe the slate clean and carry on, these things will catch up with you sooner or later.

[TeeKup]

Bureaucracies tend to do that.

[TVTyrant]

Bod: Really? When? After we tear down our government and separate into multiple Republics within 200 years? There will be a time when it will catch up to us, and by then someone else will be the dominant world power and our continent will be as unimportant as it was before 1914. We'll just tear it down and build a new group of smaller ones and almost no one would know the difference. Except whatever country was in control at the time, who won't be able to do a thing. Britain did it to us after WW2, just like we'll do it to China. If you disagree about the Britain thing, where did their empire go after 1945? It all split into separate countries under the alliance of the commonwealth. Same shit, different century.

TeeKup: Exactly.

[Warsaw]

China did it to us after WWII. We can do the same to them.

As for not being able to pay up, I blame the parties in power. They are all too concerned with their own pocketbooks and not the greater good. I solemnly believe we need a forced purge of the executive and legislative offices. Note that I don't mean a violent purge, I mean just tell them to get out or face jail time.

In toying with a new theory, I also believe that one should have a degree in engineering to run a country. Engineering gives you the tools to understand how things work and build systems. Law just gives you the knowledge on how to work the system to your advantage. Law graduates would make better advisors to the engineers than vice versa. Sad part is that our law holders don't even use engineers as advisors, they use scientists. Scientists don't do anything other than find out more knowledge. You need someone to implement that knowledge into a solution.

As for the dollar becoming a 21st century Mark, we'll see. As for paying the rest of the world's prices: we already do. We pay less than you for oil because we have huge domestic reserves that can offset the cost. Chinese imports cost the less for us because we don't tax them as we should. Everything else is just the European market marking things up for various reasons that don't apply to the US because we don't have the same system or buying power.

[Dwood]

Or an interview with 3 psychologists and declared sane.

[Warsaw]

No, because you can be sane and still be completely ignorant on how to design and operate a functioning system.

[Dwood]

No, because you can be sane and still be completely ignorant on how to design and operate a functioning system.
I don't blame our situation on not being able to design and operate the systems, I blame it on people not staying in bounds of the system.

[=sw=warlord]

No, because you can be sane and still be completely ignorant on how to design and operate a functioning system.

He was trying to be funny and failed.
Inception, Mal.

[Dwood]

He was trying to be funny and failed.
Inception, Mal.

It wasn't meant to be funny. :|

[Warsaw]

I don't blame our situation on not being able to design and operate the systems, I blame it on people not staying in bounds of the system.

The system was already designed ~240 years ago. The problem is that our officials focus so much on milking it for profit instead of using it to run the country. The tl;dr of the country is that NOBODY who is in office gets the big picture. As a result, we get run into the ground. Engineers are schooled in always understanding the big picture so they know how all the parts fit together.

[Patrickssj6]

Your idea with Engineers is pretty stupid. The problem right now already is that your system is way to inaccessible for everyone, having a degree in Engineering would make it even worse.

Your system is inaccessible for everyone because it is far easier (most of the time only possible) to win an election if you have million dollars sitting behind you. THAT should be changed, that everyone should have the possibility. Not based on some stupid degree in engineering.

You would be ignorant to think that they are not capable of getting the big picture. You cannot talk about yourself being better than any of them because once you are in a representative position, you will automatically join a new global system of corruption because it is the only way. In that new system there is not much space for movement and to get your big picture.

[TVTyrant]

So what would your suggestion be? Who should be able to become president? What are your parameters? Ours already exclude a large number of people in the US.

[Dwood]

So what would your suggestion be? Who should be able to become president? What are your parameters? Ours already exclude a large number of people in the US.

People not born as citizens, which is understandable imo.

[=sw=warlord]

I personally think the idea of engineers being given more word in the decision making is a great idea.
Engineers have to study about problem solving as well as seeing "the big picture" a lot more than politicians seem to be.
The issue at the moment is most politicians get into power because of money, money and vested interests which ends up leading back to money again.
If you were to get people involved who actually knew what they were talking about and the people being represented were done so by people who had a iota of what's going on thing's would be done a lot faster and a lot more effectively.

[TVTyrant]

There are some like that in the US. Mostly they are in the House rather than the Senate though.

[dark navi]

Which doesn't make any sense since we rebuilt there countries following the second world war. Shouldn't they owe us money?


Aren't graphs fun?
http://mungee.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/bailout.gif

[Cortexian]

Good luck with that.

[Warsaw]

Your idea with Engineers is pretty stupid. The problem right now already is that your system is way to inaccessible for everyone, having a degree in Engineering would make it even worse.

Your system is inaccessible for everyone because it is far easier (most of the time only possible) to win an election if you have million dollars sitting behind you. THAT should be changed, that everyone should have the possibility. Not based on some stupid degree in engineering.

You would be ignorant to think that they are not capable of getting the big picture. You cannot talk about yourself being better than any of them because once you are in a representative position, you will automatically join a new global system of corruption because it is the only way. In that new system there is not much space for movement and to get your big picture.


:downs:

You added a layer onto what I said that I never intended to be added. Financial backing is a whole separate issue. I think we should have a 30 day campaign race to office that way those who get billions in contributions have very little advantage over those who only make a few millions. I believe the UK does something like this, am I wrong? As for accessibility: I don't want any schmuck to be able to run for office. I want it to be exclusive. However, I want it to be exclusive to those who know what they are doing, not to those who have money and popularity. Not everybody is fit to run a country.

[Patrickssj6]

Of course not everyone is suppose to run a country and they are usually automatically filtered by the public. But in America you have about 4 candidates running and all of them live in the top 2% high society, of course they will never get a bigger picture if they have lived all their life in a special world. This doesn't only add a financial level to it as you have stated, it adds a whole lot more.

To be able to run as a candidate there should be NO restriction except to have a US citizenship. The rest is done by the public. This is called democracy and not "making it exclusive for billion dollar candidates".

[TVTyrant]

Well look at our most successful presidents. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, the Roosevelts, Eisenhower, Johnson, most of them had extremely wealthy roots. Other than Lincoln I think they all were born into some wealth. And the way our modern media system works, you have to be able to advertise in order to get elected. Its kinda a bs system because of how many Americans are either glued to their TV or just don't vote.

[Warsaw]

Which is why I say we limit the time a candidate has to campaign. Let's say the cost of heavy advertisement around the United States for 30 days is around 4 million dollars. One candidate with only a $100,000 bank account rakes in 5 million and the other rakes in 60 million and has another 4 million of his own to spend. The wealthier one has zero advantage here because the underdog can still afford to advertise just as much. Now, if you start campaigning ahead of time, the less wealthy candidate is at a severe disadvantage because he has to stretch his budget over a greater time period, resulting in a diluted distribution of his name.

As for everyone being able to run: bad idea. All men are not created equal, some have greater vision than others. The rest is NOT done by the public because the public mostly votes based on a candidate's character, age, and which party they direct their anger toward more. No, most of the public is not fit to vote. I wouldn't take away their right to vote, but I can't say they know how to exercise it wisely.

[Patrickssj6]

As for everyone being able to run: bad idea. All men are not created equal, some have greater vision than others. The rest is NOT done by the public because the public mostly votes based on a candidate's character, age, and which party they direct their anger toward more. No, most of the public is not fit to vote. I wouldn't take away their right to vote, but I can't say they know how to exercise it wisely.

The rest IS done by the public, just because they don't vote the guy you want it doesn't mean they are not fit to vote. Your gun love makes me want to take away your right to vote. Am I entitled to? No. Should I just because you have a different opinion and might go after some stupid nationalist? No. The Volk doesn't vote for the best candidate, they vote for the person that best reflects the public. In modern times they reflect stupidity, it is that simple.

The special thing about America in terms of voting is that the campaigns are a lot of tralala $$$ along with a lot of patriotic "yes we can", flag waving behind the black guy who rose from the ashes like a Phoenix.

[=sw=warlord]

For once I'm going to agree with Pat on this one.
Just because the public doesn't sway it's opinion to align your own doesn't mean they're any less capable to vote according to their own agenda as you are to your own.
Personally I think anyone who has a firm grasp of what is required to run a country should be given the chance to do so, be it their birthplace or not.
If one person from a different nationality that has moved over and is more capable to run the system than someone who may not be so capable but naturally born, I think the more capable person should be given the chance.
Flat out denying any chance purely because of birthplace is as stupid as buying products from one brand purely because they're from your local shop and made in a local factory when you could get a much more polished and better product else where.

[TVTyrant]

The Volk doesn't vote for the best candidate, they vote for the person that best reflects the public. In modern times they reflect stupidity, it is that simple.

So says you. Isn't that the big question? We all think people who think differently are stupid because they have had different experiences. The American vote isn't as "stupid" as you think. The majority of the idiots don't vote at all. "I don't give a shit about politics" is there usual tag line. People like Warsaw and myself who at least put thought into the election process are the kind of people who vote.

WarLord, I totally agree with your sentiment. Except for the birthplace thing. I firmly believe that people born on US territories like Guam should be able to be elected. But immigrants from other countries should not be. If you removed just that criteria it would allow people like Schwarzenegger and even some political refugees to run for president. Maybe if they immigrated before school age, but adults who have simply lived in the US for the right amount of time and become citizens? Why would we?

[=sw=warlord]

WarLord, I totally agree with your sentiment. Except for the birthplace thing. I firmly believe that people born on US territories like Guam should be able to be elected. But immigrants from other countries should not be. If you removed just that criteria it would allow people like Schwarzenegger and even some political refugees to run for president. Maybe if they immigrated before school age, but adults who have simply lived in the US for the right amount of time and become citizens? Why would we?
As clarification to what I said.
Say for instance someone has spent a large period of their life in the country for instance 1/4th+ then they should have some ability to be involved, my point was that those who are better suit to the job should be given a better than someone who doe's not have a clue and yet are eligible purely because of the ground they were born on.

[Kornman00]

I firmly believe that people born on US territories like Guam should be able to be elected. But immigrants from other countries should not be. If you removed just that criteria it would allow people like Schwarzenegger and even some political refugees to run for president.
So uhh, when did Austria become a US territory?


The special thing about America in terms of voting is that the campaigns are a lot of tralala $$$ along with a lot of patriotic "yes we can", flag waving behind the black guy who rose from the ashes like a Phoenix.
ujelly?

[Warsaw]

For once I'm going to agree with Pat on this one.
Just because the public doesn't sway it's opinion to align your own doesn't mean they're any less capable to vote according to their own agenda as you are to your own.
Personally I think anyone who has a firm grasp of what is required to run a country should be given the chance to do so, be it their birthplace or not.
If one person from a different nationality that has moved over and is more capable to run the system than someone who may not be so capable but naturally born, I think the more capable person should be given the chance.
Flat out denying any chance purely because of birthplace is as stupid as buying products from one brand purely because they're from your local shop and made in a local factory when you could get a much more polished and better product else where.


Once again you are completely dancing around the point. You are responding to things that I never said. Why are you bringing up birthplace? I don't give a shit where somebody is from if they want to run, so long as they can speak English reasonably well. All I care about is if they are capable. Guess what? Law graduates are not capable. Scientists are not capable. Artisits are not capable. Engineers are capable. Military men (and women) are capable. Corporate CEOs of highly successful companies are capable (but I wouldn't recommend them for obvious reasons). Who do we have in office? Sniveling law grads who were born rich and are seeking only to stay rich through easy tax-payer money and who don't have a larger vision for where they want the nation as a whole to go.

I didn't even vote in the last presidential election because I wasn't old enough. I didn't vote in the last Congressional elections because I was busy the entire day and hadn't yet registered (yay DMV slowness). This is not a result of me being fed up because who I want didn't end up in office; I quite frankly don't care who ended up in office because none of them have an iota of what they want in the long run for the country. Our governmental elections are based solely on popularity by appearances, not on who knows what they are doing. Objectively, Kennedy won because he was young, a stark contrast to Nixon (who was also sick that day, if I recall). People who only heard the radio debates thought Nixon won.

tl;dr: the majority in this country are ignorant average Joes and Janes who have no idea that they are being played by the people they put in office. But like I said, I would never consider taking away their right to vote. I believe everyone deserves a say and I will support that even if it conflicts with the greater good because that is part of what makes the United States the United States. To counter some of the negative effects of this, though, we have to have a stricter criteria for those wanting to run for office, else the weasels will keep slipping in and messing it up for the rest of us.

Actually, come to think of it, we could have a direct democracy in this day and age with computers. We don't need representatives any more, only someone to execute the plan we all voted on. Only problem is preventing the computer system from being abused.

Also, Obama rising from the ashes like a Phoenix? Lawl. He has so far only managed to make the pile he has to rise out of higher.

[Patrickssj6]

So says you. Isn't that the big question? We all think people who think differently are stupid because they have had different experiences.
I was referring more to this in terms of stupidity.

Our governmental elections are based solely on popularity by appearances, not on who knows what they are doing.

[TVTyrant]

So uhh, when did Austria become a US territory?

I meant that in the opposite sense. Sorry, its the internet and all and I couldnt figure out a way to word it better. I meant that he shouldn't be able to become president.

Pats: Most real politicians died out a long time ago. Nixon was the best pure politician in the last 50 years, and he was a cheater. Ugly as fuck, prickly personality, great leader who didn't afraid of anything, he had it all. He also killed the idea of real politicians in the US becoming presidents.

[Futzy]

Post.
I try to stay out of political arguments, but, referring to the first paragraph, damn are you an ignorant fool.

[=sw=warlord]

Once again you are completely dancing around the point. You are responding to things that I never said. Why are you bringing up birthplace?
I brought up birthplace as my own spin on the subject, no one asked me to bring it up but I know there are several people who out of either ignorance or stupidity would rather have “one of their own” than bring someone else in who can do the job better.
Yet again Warsaw you seem to think me bringing my own personal opinion is directly related at you and have taken it as a personal insult.
I don't give a shit where somebody is from if they want to run, so long as they can speak English reasonably well. All I care about is if they are capable. Guess what? Law graduates are not capable. Scientists are not capable. Artisits are not capable. Engineers are capable. Military men (and women) are capable. Corporate CEOs of highly successful companies are capable (but I wouldn't recommend them for obvious reasons). Who do we have in office? Sniveling law grads who were born rich and are seeking only to stay rich through easy tax-payer money and who don't have a larger vision for where they want the nation as a whole to go.
Yet again you haven't read what I mentioned in a previous post, instead of having me to straighten you out on what you seem to think my stance is how about I just point you straight to my comment where I directly mentioned, Those who know what to do should be the ones making the choices. (http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?23116-Washington-Panics-As-Govt-Shutdown-Looms&p=574807&viewfull=1#post574807)


tl;dr: the majority in this country are ignorant average Joes and Janes who have no idea that they are being played by the people they put in office. But like I said, I would never consider taking away their right to vote. I believe everyone deserves a say and I will support that even if it conflicts with the greater good because that is part of what makes the United States the United States.
Not really, the country could be communist and it would still be the United states, the reason for that is on the box, it's the United States of America, Democracy is what allowing everyone to vote makes and even that isn't full on direct democracy as I doubt some of the bills being pushed through would be too popular with the general mass.

.
Bold.

[TVTyrant]

I would rather have someone from the US than bring in someone else. I think that living a lifestyle similar to those of your people is important, which is why I only vote for candidates that I have researched and know who they are. If I'm not sure, I don't vote on the issue, simple as that.

As far as the communist thing, no that would not be the United States. Its like Iran. Iran is not Persia because the Persian Empire died in the 1800s. So now it is Iran. They still refer to themselves as Persians, but call their country Iran. If the US were to go through a drastic political change I am sure they would change the name. They would still be Americans, but the country would not be the US. Just an interesting thought.

[Mr Buckshot]

I would rather have someone from the US than bring in someone else. I think that living a lifestyle similar to those of your people is important, which is why I only vote for candidates that I have researched and know who they are. If I'm not sure, I don't vote on the issue, simple as that.

As far as the communist thing, no that would not be the United States. Its like Iran. Iran is not Persia because the Persian Empire died in the 1800s. So now it is Iran. They still refer to themselves as Persians, but call their country Iran. If the US were to go through a drastic political change I am sure they would change the name. They would still be Americans, but the country would not be the US. Just an interesting thought.

Hey, my cousin was born in the states and holds American citizenship as a result, but he grew up mostly in Australia, would you like to recommend him for an election? He's a born American, exactly what you want! Clearly as a born American he is representative of the people, having never been in the country except for a few short vacations!

[Warsaw]

I try to stay out of political arguments, but, referring to the first paragraph, damn are you an ignorant fool.

Am I?

How's the nation doing? Great, right? Everything is peachy, we are not trillions of dollars in debt, and we have a plan to keep on trucking as the leading superpower for the indefinite future, right? Awesome. How come I wasn't informed?

Reality check: most of the people in office have law degrees and they have been running the country into the mud. They are working the system to cover their interests, because that's what their knowledge allows them to do. They don't know how to create a system, they don't know how to maintain one. Their actions and/or inactions are actually slowly bleeding off the lifeblood of the country. What we need in Congress are people who can create, sustain, and maintain a system. What we need in an executive position is someone who has the good leadership skills and the ability to see how everything is working together so he can better execute. Please, by all means, tell me why that makes me a fool to think that.



Patrick: and what do you know about what people think during election time in the United States? Come live over here for the three months leading up to Election Day in 2012. Some examples of what you are going to hear from 90% of the population is "he smokes," "he might be having an affair," "he looks well kempt," "he's a Muslim," or "that man is too old to be in office." None of those has any relevance to running the country.

I would like to be clear: my suggestion that officials have degrees in engineering does not restrict anybody from running for office. People are not born into their careers, and if you have one degree you can always go for another. If somebody wants to run, they just have one more step to take on the road to getting there. That step at the very least will make them a better individual because now they have more options than before. The way some of you are suggesting is that not everybody is allowed to get that degree, which is nonsense.


Bold.

I thought I was responding to Patrick. You both made similar style responses, and both of your avatars have the same colour palette. I work more visually, so I apologise. I was affiliating your post with his post, so what you had said earlier didn't click. I did read that earlier post. I meant to lampoon him, not you, because he's talking gobbledygook again and bringing his personal vendetta against me into the debate.

[TVTyrant]

Hey, my cousin was born in the states and holds American citizenship as a result, but he grew up mostly in Australia, would you like to recommend him for an election? He's a born American, exactly what you want! Clearly as a born American he is representative of the people, having never been in the country except for a few short vacations!

How old is he now? You have to live within the country for 14 years. And what's with the hostile tone? Jesus man all those exclamation points make you come across a little too strongly...

Warsaw, I think there is a maximum respectable age. Over 80 is kind if the line to me.

[Patrickssj6]

Patrick: and what do you know about what people think during election time in the United States? Come live over here for the three months leading up to Election Day in 2012. Some examples of what you are going to hear from 90% of the population is "he smokes," "he might be having an affair," "he looks well kempt," "he's a Muslim," or "that man is too old to be in office." None of those has any relevance to running the country.
Huh? I am saying the same thing as you are. I know people don't research and just focus on appearance and other shit that have nothing to do with expertises on being a president.

For your information, this is not exclusive to America. I lived 4 years straight in America and have seen enough campaigns.

Edit: lol what's your problem? Personal vendetta?

Heres a personal vendetta for you: I am just discussing things on the Internet with a stranger. I don't do vendettas, if you think this is all serious then you should see the sun more often outside.

[TVTyrant]

But the sun burns my skin ever so badly, what being a ginger and all...

[Bodzilla]

look guys if you want to get down to it, john cleese said it best.

the major problem in politics around the world, but especially in america is that people vote for someone they think they can relate to, and have a beer at the pub.
That is the Exact opposite of what you want.

what you want is someone your worried about raising points to because he's that intelligent and well informed he'll rip your arguments to shreds.

[Patrickssj6]

look guys if you want to get down to it, john cleese said it best.

the major problem in politics around the world, but especially in america is that people vote for someone they think they can relate to, and have a beer at the pub.
That is the Exact opposite of what you want.
We all already said and agreed on that.

This threat derailed from the original topic.

[Dwood]

I meant that in the opposite sense. Sorry, its the internet and all and I couldnt figure out a way to word it better. I meant that he shouldn't be able to become president.

Pats: Most real politicians died out a long time ago. Nixon was the best pure politician in the last 50 years, and he was a cheater. Ugly as fuck, prickly personality, great leader who didn't afraid of anything, he had it all. He also killed the idea of real politicians in the US becoming presidents.

He'd probably be my political idol if it wasn't for Watergate. Oh, and if it weren't for how awesome Reagan was.

[sleepy1212]

what you want is someone your worried about raising points to because he's that intelligent and well informed he'll rip your arguments to shreds but still doesn't think that hes better than you and act like an elitist dick so that, even though he's intelligent enough to be a great leader, he's also the kind of guy you could share a few beers with.

fixt

[Bodzilla]

You want intelligence running a country, not a joe blow in a pub.

[TVTyrant]

You want intelligence running a country, not a joe blow in a pub.

This. Popularity is for the mobocracy.

[Dwood]

This. Popularity is for the mobocracy.

Someone must have known that when they removed the requirement for congress (sans house of representatives) to be elected by 'the people' and not the governors or the state legislature.

[sleepy1212]

You want intelligence running a country, not a joe blow in a pub.

intelligent != dickhead.

or are you so narrow minded that you can't fathom a great leader who is also likeable?

[TVTyrant]

It is rare. Thats our point. Its not a narrow minded thing its just a historical experience thing.

[sleepy1212]

Historical experience is that vastly competent leaders are generally well liked.

[=sw=warlord]

Historical experience is that vastly competent leaders are generally well liked.

In which nation?
Adolf was a popular leader but in the end ground the country [and others around it] into the ground and so was Stalin.
Historical figures in general are either popular yet not too competent or unpopular and yet very competent.
Obama was a extremely popular elect in the run up to his signing in and now look.

[TVTyrant]

Historical experience is that vastly competent leaders are generally well liked.

No, not really. Lincoln was hated by both the North and South, and barely won re election. He was the best American president.
Emperor Justinian of Byzantium was the single most successful military leader of the 500s. His people hated him because he was a douche.
Stalin industrialized the world's largest country in 15 years, and then moved all of its industry back 1000 miles before an advancing army, and won a war that was pretty much un winnable. Hated by the Soviets until his death, and than loved forever after.
Winston Churchill (beloved though) failed to win re election after his policies saved his whole bloody country.
FDR barely won re election in 1940 and 1944. Hes highly regarded as among the top 5.
Ivan the Terrible was Russia's most important leader. He expanded Russian territory into many regions both west and east of the original Russian territory. His name says it all for him.

Historically the most competent and successful leaders have been reviled by there people. There are some such as Pericles, TR, Augustus, and Alexander who break the rule. But it is not common, and few of them were crisis leaders the way the above were.

[sleepy1212]

You left out the "vastly competent" part. Take another look. While they excelled at X they failed at Y


No, not really. Lincoln was hated by both the North and South, and barely won re election. He was the best American president.
And barely won the war and is really only significant for one reason.
Emperor Justinian of Byzantium was the single most successful military leader of the 500s. His people hated him because he was a douche.
or because generals aren't always the best leaders.
Stalin industrialized the world's largest country in 15 years, and then moved all of its industry back 1000 miles before an advancing army, and won a war that was pretty much un winnable. Hated by the Soviets until his death, and than loved forever after.
hated by his underlings (politburo, central committee, etc...) and opposing communists, loved by the people, except the kulaks.
Winston Churchill (beloved though) failed to win re election after his policies saved his whole bloody country.
the war was over, look who won
FDR barely won re election in 1940 and 1944. Hes highly regarded as among the top 5.
depends on which top 5.
Ivan the Terrible was Russia's most important leader. He expanded Russian territory into many regions both west and east of the original Russian territory. His name says it all for him.
His name does say it all. why is he in this list?
Historically the most competent and successful leaders have been reviled by there people. There are some such as Pericles, TR, Augustus, and Alexander who break the rule. But it is not common, and few of them were crisis leaders the way the above were.

I'm not advocating popularity as a point of policy. If it were we'd still have some major human rights issues on the table. Luckily there have been some leaders willing to bite an unpopular bullet to accomplish something good. My problem is with the blanket statement that popularity and intelligence are mutually exclusive in politics. Many of the leaders in your list were loved for some of their accomplishments and also hated for other things they did. Our modern leaders have both strong and weak points and being likable isn't a weak point, especially in foreign policy and one's ability to negotiate within the system - being liked is very important.

However, if we elect someone from the Jersey Shore or a NASCAR driver, I'll concede it's time to build a robot.

[TVTyrant]

If you say that FDR is a top 5 worst you are officially retarded.

What Y is there to fail at? If your successful and it moves your nation ahead on the ladder, thats whats important. That is what the point of having a government is unles your Switzerland.

The people of Russia hated Stalin until after the war. The growing pains of industrialization were too much for most. If it weren't for the stringent gun control that they had at the time, they would have removed him.

Lincoln saved the Union. Slavery was not his biggest concern. We crushed the CSA, are you kidding me? They held tough, but as soon as they started losing they lost bad.

I said why Ivan the Terrible was on this list. Were it not for him a united Russian nation would not have happened. The territories west of Moscow and Siberia were individual patchworks before him. His ability to lead was what lead to Russia becoming important in the first place. No Ivan, no Tsars. No Tsars, no Soviet Union.

Justinian of Byzantium was not a general. He lead the Byzantine empire into re uniting the original Roman Empire for a short time. Under him Constantinople owned Spain, North Africa, Persia, France, Italy and Greece. Thats a pretty big achievement when the Brits, Germans, and lowlanders were just starting to become recognizable forces in the world. His forces dfeated the Germanic groups that had crushed the Western Empire prior to that. He was not a general. He had generals who worked for him. His "people" hated him because he taxed the living fuck out of the upper class to pay for his conflicts. He was actually quite popular with the regular people of the time.

I don't think popularity has to be a weak point either. But saying that it should be a required part of a leader is asinine. It is rare for it to be helpful. In international politics (as shown by Bush) it is not helpful at all if the other leaders are pragmatic. Pragmatism should be the key to why you should vote for someone, not their image or how much you'd like to have a beer with him.

[sleepy1212]

If you say that FDR is a top 5 worst you are officially retarded.

Just pointing out that it's a politically opinionated tier.

What Y is there to fail at? If your successful and it moves your nation ahead on the ladder, thats whats important. That is what the point of having a government is unles your Switzerland.

fighting a war while fucking up your economy is a good example. while one has popular support the other sometimes costs the election.

The people of Russia hated Stalin until after the war. The growing pains of industrialization were too much for most. If it weren't for the stringent gun control that they had at the time, they would have removed him.

Except they didn't blame Stalin. Those that bought into the communist ideal, particularly those in industrial centers blamed the Georgians, and the Kulaks, the other communist factions, and ultimately the capitalists.

Lincoln saved the Union. Slavery was not his biggest concern. We crushed the CSA, are you kidding me? They held tough, but as soon as they started losing they lost bad.

From what...states seceding in reaction to himself?

I said why Ivan the Terrible was on this list. Were it not for him a united Russian nation would not have happened. The territories west of Moscow and Siberia were individual patchworks before him. His ability to lead was what lead to Russia becoming important in the first place. No Ivan, no Tsars. No Tsars, no Soviet Union.

Assuming the ends justify the means?

Justinian of Byzantium was not a general. He lead the Byzantine empire into re uniting the original Roman Empire for a short time. Under him Constantinople owned Spain, North Africa, Persia, France, Italy and Greece. Thats a pretty big achievement when the Brits, Germans, and lowlanders were just starting to become recognizable forces in the world. His forces dfeated the Germanic groups that had crushed the Western Empire prior to that. He was not a general. He had generals who worked for him. His "people" hated him because he taxed the living fuck out of the upper class to pay for his conflicts. He was actually quite popular with the regular people of the time.

I don't think popularity has to be a weak point either. But saying that it should be a required (never said that and explicitly arguing against the opposite requirement) part of a leader is asinine. It is rare for it to be helpful founded. In international politics (as shown by Bush) (was waiting for that, lol) it is not helpful at all if the other leaders are pragmatic. Pragmatism should be the key to why you should vote for someone, not their image or how much you'd like to have aer with him be.

Hopefully we're not talking about Bush and how people generally related to his personality. Just because people liked Bush at the time doesn't mean liking a head of state is a bad thing. There's not one single good reason to write off a candidate just because he's kind, friendly, courteous, confident, and has a sense of humor, as well as intelligent and competent.

being likable is not "the exact opposite of what you want" unless what you want is an authoritarian teetotaling school marm hiding her ankles and carting the undesirables off to camp.

probably still about Bush......

[TVTyrant]

I don't mean it is a bad thing. I'm just saying that most of the time they are mutually exclusive.

ON LINCOLN: You are kidding me. The south did react to Lincoln, yes. But the problem did not stem from Lincoln the man. In the election of 1860 the southern vote was split between a conservative party and a super conservative party. When the Republican's candidate got elected, they threw a hissy fit. Lincoln never claimed he wanted to free the slaves. In a famous letter to Horace Geeley he says "if I could preserve the Union by not freeing a single slave, I would do it. If I could save the Union by freeing all the slaves, I would do it." The south were there own victims in secession. What they stood for was wrong. And what Lincoln did, accepting a position where he could never be popular or truly successful without giving in on both his own ideas on life and morals, and turn that into success was unfathomable. Without his preservation of the Union our country would have collapsed. The southern economy was a dependent on the North's; in the same way the North depended on southern wealth to buy its products and keep the factories working. The west would be a different nation from the Union and Confederacy without Lincoln.
Secession was not a "reaction to Lincoln". It was a foolish act by a people afraid of losing their uneven wealthy living style; a living style they didn't lose anyways since following the war they put all the jobless former slaves to work on former slave plantations being tenant farmers.

On Stalin: As far as I understood it there were a large number of people who were very unsatisfied with him and his policies before WW2. The majority was not in favor of his acts on the Ukrainians nor the way he treated Turks and Jews that lived within the Soviet Union. However under a communist system they had no guns and no rights so it did not matter. During and following the war he became much more popular as the public perception of him standing firm in the face of Hitler became wide spread. It really all depends on where you get your information from though. There are many far lefters who will claim he was insanely popular and the "Stalin as Jesus" image had been existent the whole time. There are some conservatives who will claim he was never popular. I think that public opinion changed on him over time.

On Ivan: He was named the terrible by the people who write history books, who in the 1500s tended to be the extremely wealthy. His people liked him enough to fight his wars, and he put them in a position of advantage. Just like Stalin, there is something about East European culture I don't think we will ever grasp. They are a lot more lenient on the means compared to the ends. The legacy of Russia in the last 500 years has been based on his work, which helped to pry most of the power away from the extremely wealthy at the time. He had many of the noble classes killed. The later problems with the Tsars were not his fault. He gave the common man a pretty square deal, rewarding them with property and freedom from serfdom in return for service to him.

Justinian: Same thing applies with Ivan. The nobles hated him, so the history books hated him. The regular people liked him because he brought in lots of money and goods (slaves) to appease them.

I knew you were waiting for the Bush thing, but that is the reality. Clinton was likable too (before blowjobgate) and I don't like him much either. I liked Bush I quite a bit and he was pretty prickly in public opinion.

[Rorschach]

Je suis arrivé. What's the topic at hand, now?

[TVTyrant]

OMG its Rorschach :D Where have you been?

[Warsaw]

Since the elections of the 1860s were mentioned, I would like to take the opportunity to point out that in the late 19th Century, the Democrats were the radical racists and the Republicans were the "saviors". Just saying this to demonstrate the superfluous nature of political parties and why it is folly to invest too much in them. Look at the candidates, look at their policies, look at the issues and their stances on them.

It would also help if people stopped thinking that the President is the one in charge of the country. He is merely the executive officer. He can make suggestions to Congress and command troops, but his leash is [supposedly] tight. Unfortunately, people forget he has a leash and Congress keeps adding slack so they can focus on lining pockets.

[TVTyrant]

Congress keeps adding slack for republican presidents while voting down everything in sight for dems so they can focus on lining pockets.
FTFY.
Honestly They would vote for anything that Bush put forward but they can barely pass Obama's legislature. Because, you know, the guy who drove our country into the ground was cool, but the new guy, naw fuck him. He doesn't have enough money. American government sucks massive donkey dick.

[sleepy1212]

dude...republican congress. republican. you honestly think there'd be a health care bill if it hadn't been the other way around last year?

[Warsaw]

FTFY.
Honestly They would vote for anything that Bush put forward but they can barely pass Obama's legislature. Because, you know, the guy who drove our country into the ground was cool, but the new guy, naw fuck him. He doesn't have enough money. American government sucks massive donkey dick.

No, Congress in general. The biggest power giveaways occurred for Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Bush. It's a party-agnostic trend.

[TVTyrant]

dude...republican congress. republican. you honestly think there'd be a health care bill if it hadn't been the other way around last year?
It took more than a year to get a useless bill in. That bill will help no one and you know it.

No, Congress in general. The biggest power giveaways occurred for Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Bush. It's a party-agnostic trend.
Yeah your right. The disaster presidents get the most power. Its just irritating to watch.

[Warsaw]

The problem is not that they get power, it's that the power remains with the office even after the crisis is over.

[sleepy1212]

It took more than a year to get a useless bill in. That bill will help no one and you know it..

I agree but that's not what I meant.

basically this:

Republican majority/pres = republican circle jerk
Democrat majority/pres = democrat circle jerk

Toeing the party line isn't getting anyone anywhere in this country.

[Rorschach]

OMG its Rorschach :D Where have you been?
Preoccupied, so this place kinda slipped my mind for... well, a wee bit.

Remembered you fine folks, dropped by, saw this thread (which I had heard news about recently) and decided to poke my head in considering it pertains to me.

[TVTyrant]

So this whole discussion is going to shit. The Republicans want to cut 60 something billion, while the dems only want to cut 30 something billion. So instead of cutting 45 billion like responsible intelligent people, neither side is budging on the issue.

[Dwood]

So this whole discussion is going to shit. The Republicans want to cut 60 something billion, while the dems only want to cut 30 something billion. So instead of cutting 45 billion like responsible intelligent people, neither side is budging on the issue.

Means they stand for something.

[TVTyrant]

Or that they are jerks who aren't willing to do the right thing. The wrong thing to do would be to let the teachers and soldiers go without pay for months until one side caves, which will probably be the democrats (like usual) because they can't stand to watch people be helpless and treated unfairly, which the Republicans will say is their weakness. No, its not because they stand for something, its because they are a bunch of self-interested assholes who don't give a flying fuck about the regular people of this country. /rant

[Dwood]

they can't stand to watch people be helpless and treated unfairly,

You're kidding, right? I hope you understand the Democrats aren't the saviours of the poor and needy.

[TVTyrant]

No I'm not kidding. Just saying they cave more easily when peoples well being are at stake. Give me an example of a time they did something that specifically hurt the poor and needy. (Obviously in the modern era. The Confederacy doesn't count).
And its better if those people dont get this taken care of, so the soldiers fighting our wars will recieve no pay?

E: Second part wasn't fair. But we as a civilized country do this thing called compromise. Its a great ideal that happens to be the foundation of this thing called Democracy.

[Dwood]

You name a time that the Democrats 'caved' for the 'needy' and I'll name a program designed to help the needy that began to hurt more than help.

And @ your edits, it was totally fair. The way you posted, sounds like you treat them as the saviors of the poor and the Republicans can't do jack to help people in need. (Welfare program doesn't count, see above)

Compromise has become a pipe dream. Look where it took us pre-civil war.

[Warsaw]

No I'm not kidding. Just saying they cave more easily when peoples well being are at stake. Give me an example of a time they did something that specifically hurt the poor and needy. (Obviously in the modern era. The Confederacy doesn't count).
And its better if those people dont get this taken care of, so the soldiers fighting our wars will recieve no pay?

E: Second part wasn't fair. But we as a civilized country do this thing called compromise. Its a great ideal that happens to be the foundation of this thing called Democracy.


You can't discount history like that. A fair way to look at it would be Dems are always the "radicals (chaos)" while Reps are "status quo (order)". Used to mean Dems were racist fucks, now it means they are socialist-ish. Either way, it's a bent toward changing the system as opposed to preserving it. And word to the wise: changing the system is not always good, and it's not always bad.

You want to know the most fucked up thing about this whole shutdown idea? Congress still gets paid. Nobody else does, not even soldiers. But Congress still gets paid to do less than they normally do, which amounts to nothing already.

[sleepy1212]

So this whole discussion is going to shit. The Republicans want to cut 60 something billion, while the dems only want to cut 30 something billion. So instead of cutting 45 billion like responsible intelligent people, neither side is budging on the issue.

It has nothing to do with the amount of the cut, but what is being cut.

[TVTyrant]

You name a time that the Democrats 'caved' for the 'needy' and I'll name a program designed to help the needy that began to hurt more than help.

And @ your edits, it was totally fair. The way you posted, sounds like you treat them as the saviors of the poor and the Republicans can't do jack to help people in need. (Welfare program doesn't count, see above)

Compromise has become a pipe dream. Look where it took us pre-civil war.

My edit was referencing to a paragraph I had written that was rude towards you. Rather than being an ass I usually post and then edit out my insults because I don't want to get infracted/ hurt people's feelings. I agree that a lot of social programs end up getting abused, but its not the fault of the providers that the provided are ignorant and lazy. That's the fault of the people who get the benefits, and while your right to say its not fair to the rest of us, many of those people have kids, and I'll be damned before our government let's those children starve to death.

An example of the Democrats trying to compromise with the Republicans are the tax cut bills they recently wussed out on. Believing the opposing party to be one of grace, the Democrats allowed the tax breaks for wealthy citizens to go through again. Then, rather than fulfilling their end of the bargain, which would have been to pass Obama legislature, the Republicans gave them the finger. I'm not saying that the Democrats being a bunch of losers is a good thing. I hate them for it. But it would be nice if the Republicans would fucking compromise for once, so we could get some actual legislature passed that will get our country going again. I think we are at a point where we all realize that the government needs to stop spending so much. But I do not honestly feel that many in the Republican party have the best interests of the American people at heart.

Warsaw: To that point I can also point out that the Republican party was originally the Whigs, who wanted to only make votes go to people who were college educated and owned property, who are the people they supposedly do not represent today! (talkin bout Joe da Plumber),

Yeah congress getting payed is totally fucked. I hate that about this whole thing. The governement gets to keep filling their personal pockets while they fuck over all the public employees. Seriously fucked.

[Kornman00]

Politicians need to cut their own fucking paychecks before they cut so many other things. They need to flat out stop getting paid until a fucking agreement can be met.

[Dwood]

But I do not honestly feel that many in the Republican party have the best interests of the American people at heart.


And I feel the same way about the Democrat party. I don't think they have the best interests at heart either. I'd rather the Democrats cave in to Republican demands than the Republicans cave in to the Democrats' demands.




Warsaw: To that point I can also point out that the Republican party was originally the Whigs, who wanted to only make votes go to people who were college educated and owned property, who are the people they supposedly do not represent today! (talkin bout Joe da Plumber)

Aren't you a history major?

Ever heard of Jim crow laws? Last I checked that was worse than anything the Whigs ever dreamed up. And since you brought up the whigs I'll bring up Democrats fighting the rghts for Blacks to vote..

And you know what? I'd be fine with property restrictions, because if one owns property, then that means they have a vested interested in the actual economy of the States, and won't just vote for the president who gets the most botox injected in the face. And property also includes owning a home. Paying a loan on it or not. There's gotta be some kind of qualifier-we all know how well letting everyone vote goes.

[Limited]

Aren't you a history major?
Ha, history major in America, what a laugh.

I have to sort of disagree with Kornman, though I don't know how much US politians get paid, its probably more than the UK MP's. But that said the issue we have over here, is the salary for the roles is just TOO low to attract the BEST of the best. For example a busineesy role, may be economic business minsiter or something jazzy like that. Idealy you want the best businessman in the country on that, some one that has worked at the top of his industry in a big successful company. The issue is why would they leave? Why would they leave a great job that pays extremely well to a civil servant worker that gets crappy pay?

I know David Cameron gets paid rubbish money for the role he plays in our country and the amount of responsibility he has. What I feel is the "lower" down people should get paid less. 172 civil servants actually get paid MORE than David Cameron (British Prime Minister fyi).

Office of Fair Trading chief executive John Fingleton, whose annual package is up to £279,999, is the top earner.
David Cameron - £142,500.

[TVTyrant]

Which is the exact same as Jim Crow. The "black codes" for the most part never actually said black or negro or colored within them. Jim Crow laws were cleverly written pieces of legislature full of loopholes such as "those whose families have owned property since the date of 1846 onward" and all kinds of stuff like that which would exclude the freedmen. Saying that there should be a qualifier for people to vote is exactly the same. It is the specific exclusion of all persons who do not have the means of wealth to own property. There are these thing, their called ghettos. Their full of rental housing. They are also full of African Americans and Hispanics. It goes into the same pot as Jim Crow, whether you mean it to or not. I'm not saying that you are a racist. What I'm trying to get across is that those are the majority of people who will be excluded under such an act.

Also: Its almost impossible to say the modern day Democrats are the same people as they were in the 1870s, especially when all of the Republican states have become Democrat, and all of the Democratic states have become Republican. While the GOP is the party of Lincoln, I have a hard time believing that he would stand for the same kinds of tax breaks for wealthy citizens that the Republicans support now.

Limited: Would you care to elaborate on that? Kind of coming off as rude man. I'd really be interested in what you had to say on the subject.

[Warsaw]

Dwood: calm down...

TVTyrant: The Republicans were a split from the Whigs, if I recall correctly. For a time they were contemporary parties, but then the Whigs died off. Of course they aren't the same people in any party, we have different issues today. Back then, the "Democratic" states were radical former rebels. They re-integrated with the then-current system. Now they try to preserve that system, so they are Republican. It's not cut and dry, it's a spectrum of equilibrium. Both parties have shifted, but Democrats have always been pro-change and Republicans have always been pro-stability.

I'm not supporting either party, just for the record. I don't honestly care. I support what I believe in, and there is no U.S. party currently in existence that acceptably satisfies my beliefs.

@Limited: But you see, that low-pay is also a boon. It won't attract the money grubbers. It will attract those that are willing to give of themselves for the greater whole. I don't know about you, but knowing that an official sacrificed his/her lifestyle to serve gives me a lot more confidence in his/her motives and abilities. On the flip side, the individual may be interested in a power play, not money, but that's always a danger anyways.

[sleepy1212]

I agree that a lot of social programs end up getting abused, but its not the fault of the providers

Actually, it's entirely the fault of the providers. You can blame the recipients for being morally corrupt, but a system with clear-cut rules and hard-nosed restrictions is harder to game. If feeling entitled is some sort of "civil right" as handouts and redistributive policies are encouraged how can you not blame the system?

I think budget cuts in these areas are absolutely necessary, not because I don't care about children and the elderly, but because capable adults are receiving assistance they don't deserve, thinning out the pool of available funds to people who really do. If the Democrats would pull their heads out of their ideological asses and make these institutions actually serve people rather than using them to propagate an agenda, there would be more support. My grandparents receive assistance and pay their property taxes with it. Why? Because liberals love "helping" people but they hate private property.

dumb conversation anyway, no one is actually trying to cut anything that will make a dent on anything.

Also: no paycheck for the soldiers + possible US troops on the ground in Libya = vacation in Williamsburg?


there is no U.S. party currently in existence that acceptably satisfies my beliefs.
seconded

[TVTyrant]

Sleepy I agree that their needs to be heavier restrictions on who gets welfare and assisted living. However, my point is that its better to try and help people and have a few people sucking off for free (lol) than to do nothing and let those people die, especially when we were so damn adamant about closing the orphan's homes and mental health hospitals during the second half of the 20th Century.

Warsaw: I agree. Honestly this is the issue I'm the most liberal on. We have had discussions on other things and you know how I feel on guns and personal freedoms.

[Limited]

@Limited: But you see, that low-pay is also a boon. It won't attract the money grubbers. It will attract those that are willing to give of themselves for the greater whole. I don't know about you, but knowing that an official sacrificed his/her lifestyle to serve gives me a lot more confidence in his/her motives and abilities. On the flip side, the individual may be interested in a power play, not money, but that's always a danger anyways.
Sure its nice to know there are noble good willing people in the government, but that doesn't change the fact they might not be well equipted enough for the job. I do see your point though, you need someone that is doing it to help, not just for the money.

TVTyrant, I was just joking, implying that you have no history to learn :) But you obviously learn more than just American history (of if you do only US history, you specialise in-depth).

[TVTyrant]

Yeah, we cover American history (one class I took made a really deep look into Native Americans), but for the most part I've taken classes on Western Civ. American history is weird because you can get so in-depth on specific people. Its all so fresh and clear compared to Western Civ.

[Timo]

I feel like this is relevant (and hilarious as balls):
I5QwKEwo4Bc&

[Kornman00]

I got a pretty good laugh out of that. Who Wants To Not-Be A Millionaire!