I love it how our country is so against wellfare for the poor (good forbid we help anybody in need) but when it comes for welfare for the rich, hey, we're all for it!! They deserve to be put on a pedastal cause "they create jobs".
Janskeet said:I love it how our country is so against wellfare for the poor (good forbid we help anybody in need) but when it comes for welfare for the rich, hey, we're all for it!! They deserve to be put on a pedastal cause "they create jobs".
This "country" does not support welfare for the rich. Allowing them to keep money they legitimately earn is fine, but that's not welfare.
Whenever I think your ability to be stupid has been exhausted, Janskreet, you somehow manage to sink your mind even lower. For the sake of not looking like an asshole, perhaps you should stop trying to think about politics altogether. You obviously have no fucking clue what you're ever talking about and you run away, like a coward, from every intellectual challenge you receive. In my opinion that's just not working for you. :)
Oh, and weren't you the little asshole who was recently complaining about the United States controlling most of the worlds wealth, Janskreet? Only a hypocritical piece of shit would then immediately switch to complain about American companies employing foreign individuals. The best way to help the rest of the world is to give it jobs and work with it. Now, as a conservative, I am apposed to the United States giving away jobs to bad countries when the United States should get support by comparison, but if you're an idiot that thinks all countries and cultures are equal in every way, you have no fucking right to complain about the outsourcing of jobs.
Michigan is one of the worst run states in the union. Democrats have continually tried to crush the ability of people to get ahead and build wealth there. Apart from the fact that Michael Moore's movies are, in the end, complete lies, the best way to help an economy that is losing jobs is to let new businesses grow in place of the old. Traditional Democrats don't like new businesses and a growing economy, however, and prefer to keep everyone down so they can hand out welfare to those who do no work at all. That's a far bigger crime than GM trying to keep their business competive by employing foreign labor. If you can't realize such a simple fact, then you are a brainless fool that isn't worth talking to. You seemed like a nice person otherwise (in Star Wars discussions and such), but if you can't engage in even simple discussions about politics, you're hopeless.
For the sake of the United States, I hope Barack Obama tries to bring us back to the sound fiscal policies of Ronald Reagan. Under Bush we have moved away from those principles and that's the main reason why our economy is currently doing so poorly. I don't care what party is in office so long as we get back to doing the right things. I just have a fear that Barack is going to make things worse though (on the basis of what he says he wants to do).
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
MeBeJedi said:I just don't see one ounce of evidence that anyone in the mainstream is knowingly trying to deceive anyone for political gain. (I could be wrong, but I don't see a single, substantial reason as to why that would be.)
Winning an election comes to mind...
"Winning an election" is why I wouldn't see evidence? . . . Hmm, I don't get the logic there.
MeBeJedi said:
Obama and his supporters respond with offense! Guy needs to grow some skin if he is going to be president. It is only his middle name!
It has nothing to do with whether or not Obama can "shake it off". it simply illustrates the low levels that Republicans will stoop to in order to win a presidential campaign. Obama's not going to change his name, but Republicans should consider changing their practices if they want to win future elections. Even Ed Rollins, an ardent McCain backer, has said the Republicans have a loooooong history of such political practices. Several states have had phone calls and fliers targeted to Democrats telling them that they are supposed to vote on Nov. 5, instead of Nov. 4. Imagine that - wanting to disenfranchise huge numbers of Americans from even voting.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/04/obama-supporters-targeted-in-bogus-messages/
And as to the party, itself, doing this:
As we conclude, I thought it was interesting, in your report, Republican officials, as you said, challenging 6,000 registered voters, among them a former Montana state rep., Kevin Furey, a first lieutenant in the Army Reserve, on the challenge list because he’s currently in New Jersey planning to deploy to Iraq. His quote: “It’s ironic, at the same time I’m about to return to Iraq to help build a democracy, that my own right to vote is being challenged at home for partisan purposes. These challenges are a blatant and offensive attempt to suppress the rights of voters.”
if you want folks to stop talking about the Republican tactics, then maybe someone needs to tell the Republicans to stop using such tactics. Seems the better idea, don'cha think?
Yes, a few, rare, low-level Republicans do shitty things when nobody's looking. But, does MeBeJedi believe that every last low-level Democrat is a perfect little Sunday school student by comparison? Don't make me laugh (just a warning).
Politics is messy and has always been messy. A person who is trying to be fair-minded will realize this.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
No it is not. "trickle-down economics" runs on the premise that when rich people pay less taxes then they in turn invest the gains into other businesses or companies who thus hire people to work and giving many jobs and you products to buy. The wealth of the rich guy was invested and subsequently paid to a guy who put in a days work he took the money home to feed his family. Redistributing wealth? Yeah, but honorably and in everyone favor. That is my scenerio.
It is still redistribution, because by your very own scenario, the money goes to the rich and "trickles down" to the poor (the blue collar worker). The name, itself, indicates the "flow" of the wealth. LOL!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_economics
However, all the economic reports indicate this has not happened. The biggest reason why people were able to buy as much as they did in recent years was due to increased use of credit, rather than real increases in wages. And look where that's gotten us now.
Regardless, the middle class is disappearing because "trickle-down" doesn't work. The whole point of this mindset was so that the rich Republicans could keep as much money as they could, and most of that was stored in off-shore accounts.
In fact, Republicans are so enamored by all things off-shore, that they've even sent jobs overseas. That way, they don't have to pay actual Americans all that extra money they've been receiving under Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Hell, even Halliburton, based in Texas, partically run by Cheney, and made rich by the Middle East war..........has opened a new headquarters IN THE MIDDLE EAST!
(That being said, here's some more irony: the current economy has been bringing jobs back to US soil. Since the dollar has lost so much value compared to other currencies, it's actually become cheaper for foreign companies to produce their goods in the US. Attaboy, Bush. LOL)
Obama's redistribution of wealth plan is that the rich guy has his money taken forcefully by taxes and then given to God knows who.
"taken forcefully"?
Obama's gonna force you at gunpoint to pay taxes?
And as I've said before, and any history book will tell you, that's been going on since we've had income tax. So again, we've been a Marxist nation long before Obama was even born. ;)
But we do have our resident Neiman Marxist:
Of course, she should be "spreading the wealth" by donating all those expensive clothes. And for a real hoot, take a look at the clothing store that she likes to buy her clothes from in Alaska. See if you can guess the sexual preference of the owners. More and more irony. :)
http://www.outofthecloset.org/
This "country" does not support welfare for the rich. Allowing them to keep money they legitimately earn is fine, but that's not welfare.
What do you think subsidies are? You do realize we are paying farmers to NOT grow crops?
Democrats have continually tried to crush the ability of people to get ahead and build wealth there.
LOL. You do realize that the current financial and housing crisis - the biggest since the Great Depression - is happening under a Republican administration?
I hope Barack Obama tries to bring us back to the sound fiscal policies of Ronald Reagan.
Oh yes, more borrow and spend. Check your history. Reagan and both Bushes were all about deficit spending - spending money that we don't even have. Do you like being in debt to countries like China, Japan and the Middle East? The only president under whom we had a deficit surplus was Clinton!
Oh, and "small government" GREW under Reagan and the Bushes, rather than shrank.
Man, you guys are all about making the big statements without checking facts.
but I don't see a single, substantial reason as to why that would be.)
Winning an election comes to mind...
"Winning an election" is why I wouldn't see evidence? . . . Hmm, I don't get the logic there.
No, "winning an election" is the REASON, not the CAUSE.
Yes, a few, rare, low-level Republicans do shitty things when nobody's looking. But, does MeBeJedi believe that every last low-level Democrat is a perfect little Sunday school student by comparison? Don't make me laugh (just a warning).
Ironically, Elizabeth Dole (R), wife of Bob Dole, publicly aired TV ads that accused Karen Hagen (D) of being a Godless American. Guess what....Hagen was a sunday school TEACHER!
"It was bitter, negative, and costly race, with both parties investing heavily. In the days leading up the decision day, Dole was criticized for an attack ad questioning Hagan's Christian faith, though the challenger is an elder in a Presbyterian church and Sunday school teacher." http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/11/04/elizabeth-dole-beaten-by-little-known-democratic-challenger-in-north-carolina.html
So, your facetious post beautifully points out your ignorance of current events. Thanks for making me laugh! LOL!
(Of course, the even bigger irony is that Republicans, who complain ferociously when their religion is attacked, have no problems attacking the religion of others - even those who believe in God.)
Politics is messy and has always been messy. A person who is trying to be fair-minded will realize this.
Obama did. It's a big reason why he won. :)
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>
LOL, this MeBeJedi guy is a tool. I was going to respond to a few things, but by the time he suggested that paying taxes is a choice and attacked Palin over the clothes the McCain campaign bought for her and the fact that she shops at a thrift store, I decided why even bother.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
The fact that you think I did any of those things is an absolute riot. ROFL!
[EDIT]
For the folks who are so concerned about Obama flip-flopping on the very minor issue of campaign funding - a choice he was absolutely within his rights to make - let me make it clear why I did NOT choose to vote for McCain. It wasn't necessarily on a single, particular stance on REAL NATIONAL POLITICAL ISSUES of his, but rather his inability to MAINTAIN a single, particular stance on said issues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_qZOjrxEMI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYsKiA3Myyw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rio6xL8XFZw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W_K4RCisxc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
The guy who was the most vocal against pandering ended up becoming the greatest panderer of them all, and on every MAJOR issue as well. But you guys go on pointing to election spending as an indication of how Barack will preside (despite the fact that Republicans have been outspending Democrats for decades), for all the good it'll do you.
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>
C3PX said:Ziz said:C3PX said:Hmm, I find it interesting that everyone with C-3PO as their avatar are liberals.
This from a guy whose avatar is a Cylon - a race of single-minded robots that want to control everything, that tried to destroy the free thinking people who value life, freedom and prosperity.
And yours is a droid with his erect dork hanging out. I was just making the observation. Not trying to offend. It seemed like with the old forum software many of the liberals had the same C-3PO avatar.
As for Chewy who said the late night talk shows are the biggest loosers, you must not remember the Clinton years. They got by just fine back then.
I wasn't around for the old forum software. I picked that shot of 3P0 because it was humorous...nothing more.
My outlook on life - we’re all on the Hindenburg anyway…no point fighting over the window seat.
Janskeet said:Why do you people support the rich so much?
Because rich people own the businesses that employ most of the middle-class people in this country. No rich people=no jobs.
The reason there is so much outsourcing is because we have the 2nd-highest business tax rate on the planet. McCain wanted to lower those tax rates to encourage businesses to come back to the US, and prevent even more companies from leaving. But, that's obviously not happening now.
ferris209 said:
Another positive is that our days of hearing the constant Bush bashing is coming to an end. But perhaps not, every mistake Obama makes he'll blame on Bush I'm sure. "Well, uh, this economy thing is still bad here in 2012, but, uh, you see, Bush left it this way and I had a lot to clean up. Uh, it's still bad and I need four more years to fix it, and maybe four more after that, becasue Bush sure made a mess!"
Yes, that's a huge positive. If there's reason to whine, they have only themselves to blame (but they'll still probably try to blame a republican from several administrations back - lol).
^^^ I'm sure you guys will go out of your way to complain about Obama in some form or another, so the "whining" won't be going anywhere.......only the voices will change. ;)
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>
MeBeJedi said:^^^ I'm sure you guys will go out of your way to complain about Obama in some form or another, so the "whining" won't be going anywhere.......only the voices will change. ;)
Agreed! That is probably one of the most true statements you've ever made MeBeJedi! Except that even though I do not care for Obama and cannot stand his policies, I will honor and respect him as an Amercican President, just as any American should. Which is much more than the liberal left has done for Bush the last eight years.
If real patriotism meant that we honored and respected our leaders above all else, America would probably still be under English rule. ;)
Tell me, again, what the Second Amendment was for? Hmmmmmmm.......
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>
MeBeJedi said:If real patriotism meant that we honored and respected our leaders above all else, America would probably still be under English rule. ;)
Tell me, again, what the Second Amendment was for? Hmmmmmmm.......
To provide a balance of power between government and it's citizens.
LOL....no
The American system of government was based on a DISTRUST of government.......which would explain why the free press is protected from said government by the FIRST Amendment.
This distrust is also why a series of checks and balances were instituted into the government.....some of which the Bush administration has attempted to remove or outright circumvent.
But apparently, pointing out anti-constitutional actions of the president is seen as worse than the actual anti-constitution actions, themselves. Everyone close your eyes and let Bush do whatever he wants.....even if it puts the government into a recession.
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>
MeBeJedi said:LOL....no
The American system of government was based on a DISTRUST of government.......which would explain why the free press is protected from said government by the FIRST Amendment.
This distrust is also why a series of checks and balances were instituted into the government.....some of which the Bush administration has attempted to remove or outright circumvent.
But apparently, pointing out anti-constitutional actions of the president is seen as worse than the actual anti-constitution actions, themselves. Everyone close your eyes and let Bush do whatever he wants.....even if it puts the government into a recession.
So according to you Abraham Lincoln should also be written down in history as a war criminal, as well as FDR and even George Washington to an extent.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
It's good to see that you can read my mind. LOL!
BTW, I might point out that the BACKSPACE key makes you go back to the LEFT after you've made a mistake while going RIGHT. Double-LOL!
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>
WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, "It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can't catch a break."
This is so fucking true.
sean wookie said:WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, "It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can't catch a break."
This is so fucking true.
I Heart the Onion
MeBeJedi said:But apparently, pointing out anti-constitutional actions of the president is seen as worse than the actual anti-constitution actions, themselves. Everyone close your eyes and let Bush do whatever he wants.....even if it puts the government into a recession.
I like the above quote very much. The monkeys added to the humor, but I don't think we need the same picture quoted in every other post, so I have omitted it with no small amount of reluctance. Man, it is going to suck when we can't blame Bush for everything anymore. Bush and his damn sub prime mortgages! err... wait a minute...
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
MeBeJedi said:BTW, I might point out that the BACKSPACE key makes you go back to the LEFT after you've made a mistake while going RIGHT. Double-LOL!
Oops, too late. Somebody already used that one.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
Man, it is going to suck when we can't blame Bush for everything anymore.
He's leaving us in a recession, fighting two wars, huge numbers of homeless families, and a ten trillion dollar debt. We're going to be feeling the aftereffects of his presidency for years to come.
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>
Solely his fault, all the right/Republicans fault, every last bit of it....lol
Wearing the "blinders" and not looking at the whole picture will help slove all these issues of course.
"The Empire can't stop us now..now its our turn" -Luke-
Solely his fault, all the right/Republicans fault, every last bit of it....lol
Well, if you really feel that way...
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>
MeBeJedi said:No it is not. "trickle-down economics" runs on the premise that when rich people pay less taxes then they in turn invest the gains into other businesses or companies who thus hire people to work and giving many jobs and you products to buy. The wealth of the rich guy was invested and subsequently paid to a guy who put in a days work he took the money home to feed his family. Redistributing wealth? Yeah, but honorably and in everyone favor. That is my scenerio.
It is still redistribution, because by your very own scenario, the money goes to the rich and "trickles down" to the poor (the blue collar worker). The name, itself, indicates the "flow" of the wealth. LOL!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_economics
However, all the economic reports indicate this has not happened. The biggest reason why people were able to buy as much as they did in recent years was due to increased use of credit, rather than real increases in wages. And look where that's gotten us now.
Regardless, the middle class is disappearing because "trickle-down" doesn't work. The whole point of this mindset was so that the rich Republicans could keep as much money as they could, and most of that was stored in off-shore accounts.In fact, Republicans are so enamored by all things off-shore, that they've even sent jobs overseas. That way, they don't have to pay actual Americans all that extra money they've been receiving under Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Hell, even Halliburton, based in Texas, partically run by Cheney, and made rich by the Middle East war..........has opened a new headquarters IN THE MIDDLE EAST!
(That being said, here's some more irony: the current economy has been bringing jobs back to US soil. Since the dollar has lost so much value compared to other currencies, it's actually become cheaper for foreign companies to produce their goods in the US. Attaboy, Bush. LOL)
Is this seriously the same MeBejedi that I remember? You always struck me as having a sound mind in the past, but now, with this political stuff of yours, it's as if you're not even trying to honestly and seriously discuss issues. In my opinion that's way below your behavior in the past, but maybe I've misjudged you.
First: Names for an economic theory do not define what that theory is ALL about. (LOL.) While "trickle-down" economics does imply a "flow," that term defines "flow" in conjunction with real work and real production of wealth for our society as a whole. Simply taking money from one person and giving it to another yields no gain in wealth for anyone, but in fact wastes our economy's money and manpower in the form of a government bureaucracy.
Second: "Trickle Down Economics" was a term coined by an ignorant opponent of Reagan's economic policies. Its definition is only a simplified caricature of them.
Third: You are incredibly misinformed about the recent economic policies of George W. Bush. He followed the later policies of Clinton more than he followed anything Reagan ever did.
Fourth: High taxes on people and businesses, oppressive regulations, even more borrowing on the part of our government, and a bad monetary policy is what has so "shrunk" the middle class in recent years. The miniscule tax cuts and the lack of Obama's direct redistribution of wealth on the part of our government has had nothind to do with the recent setbacks for average people. The fact that you are even trying to claim otherwise is absolutely laughable. You seek to correct everybody in this thread and yet you make absurd claims like that? LOL. :)
Fifth: The one thing you're actually right about is the way Republicans don't care about jobs and wealth flowing overseas. But believe me, that's not this country's biggest problem and the solutions I hear from Democrats will only worsen things by hurting our economy as a whole.
Sixth: A lowered value for the dollar is not good for our economy on the whole. Increased investment in the U.S. is generally good, but not at the cost of everyone becoming poorer by having our rates of incomes redistributed to all of the rich and poor people who get in debt. This is something you should be a lot more clear in stating (and certainly shouldn't disagree with, if you do).
MeBeJedi said:
This "country" does not support welfare for the rich. Allowing them to keep money they legitimately earn is fine, but that's not welfare.
What do you think subsidies are? You do realize we are paying farmers to NOT grow crops?
This "country" and the American people (Republicans and Democrats) are apposed to subsidies and welfare like that. It is only the Republican and Democrat politicians of this "country" that support bullshit like that.
Janskreet was talking in terms of what average Americans support when he said "country." (That's why I put the term in quotes.) Is the simple context of a statement too hard for you to follow, MeBeJedi? LOL.
MeBeJedi said:
Democrats have continually tried to crush the ability of people to get ahead and build wealth there.
LOL. You do realize that the current financial and housing crisis - the biggest since the Great Depression - is happening under a Republican administration?
LOL. You do realize that every action our government took to FORCE this shitty housing and credit crisis on our economy would have all been actually and strongly apposed by Reagan?
Seriously, use your brain for crying out loud (it's in your skull for a reason)! I'm sorry for being so forceful here, but are you really this fucking stupid, MeBejedi? I actually thought you were smarter than this! Please, I beg that you start proving your current trend wrong! I have to admit, your newfound ignorance and haughty attitude are making me a little sad and disappointed.
::sigh::
Have you heard nothing about what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been doing the last few years? Did you know that they were both "government sponsored entities"?! Have you heard nothing about the way socialists threatened lawsuits against banks that refused to engage in bad mortgages? Did you know that even Clinton blamed the housing crisis on the actions his own party took?! Do you know nothing about how both Clinton and Bush (the younger) have allowed a bad monetary policy to create both the "tech" credit bubble and the subsequent housing credit bubble? Do you even have any clue what a bad monetary policy is?!
For someone who likes to go around shooting his mouth off and pretend like he's the one to educate everyone else, you are incredibly, foolishly ignorant. Perhaps you should try researching the world before you go around thinking you can tell other people how it works. You'd sound less stupid and you'd come off as less of an offensive dickwad.
MeBeJedi said:
I hope Barack Obama tries to bring us back to the sound fiscal policies of Ronald Reagan.
Oh yes, more borrow and spend. Check your history. Reagan and both Bushes were all about deficit spending - spending money that we don't even have. Do you like being in debt to countries like China, Japan and the Middle East? The only president under whom we had a deficit surplus was Clinton!
Oh, and "small government" GREW under Reagan and the Bushes, rather than shrank.Man, you guys are all about making the big statements without checking facts.
No, I'm not going to check my history because my history is highly correct and valid. You're the one that needs to check your history because you clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
What I was talking about were Reagan's policies of low taxation, low regulation, and a strong monetary policy. Both elder Bush and Clinton essentially kept those policies of Reagan alive (for the most part) up until the end of the 90's and our country's economy grew like crazy over those fifteen years (as a clear, measured result). With both the government out of people's ways and a stable money supply, our country was able to solidly invest in itself and we all benefitted from that. It was not until Clinton allowed Greenspan to ruin the dollar (for the sake of the fucking stock market) that our economy finally began to go downhill again. To make things even worse in recent years, Bush not only allowed the EXACT same thing with the Dollar, but we had awful Democrat regulations forcing bad mortgages on our banking system too!
You need study history to stop being such an ignorant loud mouth. If you knew ANYTHING about Reagan, you'd know that he was strongly apposed to big government spending and borrowing. Unfortunately that issue wasn't nearly a big enough priority for him (in comparison to his other good policies) and he allowed drunken Democrats in the legislature to spend like crazy. (In case you're ignorant of how our government works, it is the legislative branch that most decides how much our government spends on what and not the President, duh.) In Reagan's defense though, his allowance of Democrat spending was a tool he used to secure the funding that won us the Fucking Cold War (I know, a very small thing, right?), and defense spending was easily the smaller part of overall spending during his years in office. But, yeah, if you're like me and you support small government, yes, he could have perhaps done better in hindsight, but that one small fact is nothing close to Reagan being "all about deficit spending" as you so stupidly said. LOL.
Elder Bush was also apposed to big spending and borrowing, but he, again, had to work with Democrats at a time of war. Clinton, compared to most Demcorats, was thankfully against out-of-control spending and the initial Republican takeover of the legislature in 1995 helped rain in spending even more for a few years, but our government still grew overall and we still outspent tax income (there was no surplus under Clinton). Then, under the younger Bush and both Republican and Democrat legislatures of his years, "small government" took a took a turn for the worse again. None of them were apposed to spending and borrowing at all and, as such, I absolutely refused to support them on that issue. But, Barack Obama has all but promised to increase spending and borrowing even more than what Bush and has done, so if you don't like Bush's spending I'm confused as to why you'd like Barack's spending proposals. :)
The fact that you apparently don't know one drop of this actual history is a very shameful thing in my mind. It's all basic history that anyone can find if they simply look for it and yet you apparently don't even have a clue!
Yikes, and you say that I'm making "big statements" without checking the facts? Wow.
Oh well, at least I can still say you're still a colorful person, MeBeJedi. Hopefully I can return to thinking you're intelligent someday as well. :)
MeBeJedi said:
but I don't see a single, substantial reason as to why that would be.)
Winning an election comes to mind...
"Winning an election" is why I wouldn't see evidence? . . . Hmm, I don't get the logic there.
No, "winning an election" is the REASON, not the CAUSE.
Uh . . . "No"?! Reasons aren't causes? LOL, what?! :)
Hmm, and, so, you believe you can legitmately attribute "reasons" to people without evidence of those supposed reasons? We're all just supposed to take your mysterious word and therefore believe that you can read the hearts and minds of evil Republicans?! LOL! That is truly hilarious. :)
MeBeJedi said:
Yes, a few, rare, low-level Republicans do shitty things when nobody's looking. But, does MeBeJedi believe that every last low-level Democrat is a perfect little Sunday school student by comparison? Don't make me laugh (just a warning).
Ironically, Elizabeth Dole (R), wife of Bob Dole, publicly aired TV ads that accused Karen Hagen (D) of being a Godless American. Guess what....Hagen was a sunday school TEACHER!
"It was bitter, negative, and costly race, with both parties investing heavily. In the days leading up the decision day, Dole was criticized for an attack ad questioning Hagan's Christian faith, though the challenger is an elder in a Presbyterian church and Sunday school teacher." http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/11/04/elizabeth-dole-beaten-by-little-known-democratic-challenger-in-north-carolina.html
So, your facetious post beautifully points out your ignorance of current events. Thanks for making me laugh! LOL!
(Of course, the even bigger irony is that Republicans, who complain ferociously when their religion is attacked, have no problems attacking the religion of others - even those who believe in God.)
LOL.
Doh, I warned you not to make me laugh, MeBeJedi! :)
I seriously can't believe that you're such a brainless drone that you'd actually believe Democrats have done nothing dirty to help them win any recent elections or win current debates. What a skewed, upside-down world you must live in. :)
MeBeJedi said:
Politics is messy and has always been messy. A person who is trying to be fair-minded will realize this.
Obama did. It's a big reason why he won. :)
Uhh . . . Obama realized that poliics is messy? What does that have to do with the point I was trying to make about our discussion? . . . .
Eh, well, since you're bringing it up, I guess I'll talk about it: Sure, I'll definitely admit that Obama was a fairly classy guy in this election. Obama's temperment generally seems like one that is patient and willing to listen to people and that's certainly a great thing for this country to have in a President (he made McCain look like an idiot in this regard). Of course, the friends and allies he's chosen to have in the past are easily questionable, and his supported policies suck nasty, dirty cock, but I'll give you the fact that he seems like a guy who at least tries to be wise and careful. I'm glad that led him to run a very clean campaign (for his part). :)
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
MeBeJedi said:Solely his fault, all the right/Republicans fault, every last bit of it....lol
Well, if you really feel that way...
Case in point... take everything at face value HAHAHAHA
"The Empire can't stop us now..now its our turn" -Luke-
C3PX said:Man, it is going to suck when we can't blame Bush for everything anymore. Bush and his damn sub prime mortgages! err... wait a minute...
Says who, it's obvious from the posts on this page alone, If Obama doesn't wipe out poverty, bring the unemployment rate to 0% and ensure everyone owns a home it will clearly be the fault of Bush. Don't ya know thats the American way...blame someone else. Obama has what may be a free pass with the overwhelming dislike for Bush. Obama could totally frig a lot up but all of it would be because of Bush, not because of his own actions. As much as people say Bush does not take accountability, Obama has the possibility of 0% accountiability for anything he does simply because he need only say I could not overcome these issues due to Bush. He hasn't even started and they are already setting up that scenario.
"The Empire can't stop us now..now its our turn" -Luke-
