Quiklilcav wrote:Fail. Try again.
you're annoying? or can be annoying?
Your Gay, or are trying to be?
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
and you're ass kissing, and that's final.
spoiler wrote:and you're ass kissing, and that's final.
No, I was trying to upset you\irritate you.
Did it work?
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Quiklilcav wrote:you'll accuse me of being racist as spoiler did on page 1.
I was referring to that stupid little comment you just made about me
dumbass
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:spoiler wrote:and you're ass kissing, and that's final.
No, I was trying to upset you\irritate you.
Did it work?
Chris
I found it comical IMO does that count?
It works.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Quote:
There is a big difference in avoiding a topic, and ignoring stupidity. The discussion of what terms mean was brought up before, and you won't accept the fact that the use of words can change over time, as they are used to label a different set of ideals. As far as socialism goes, yeah, we have socialist programs already, which should be scaled back, as they are failing. However, the topic right now is what increase in socialist programs and policies are being slid into out nation, and why they need to be stopped. Once an increase in them is avoided, the discussion for what to chisle away at can resume. Unfortunately, too many people refuse to see what is being proposed right before their eyes.
But go ahead and keep reassuring yourself that I'm losing credibility. Hopefully it's helping you sleep at night.
Yes, it was brought up before and like (I) said words will not change to align to your stupidity. You used a word of an example before, yet because of your sheer ignorance on the history of the word, the word you chose, never actually changed its definition. Nice failure on your argument.
Quote:
Sorry, I forgot who I'm dealing with. Without spelling everything out and connecting the dots, you can't follow along.
You mentioned the 80's, and the tax brackets that Reagan gave the biggest cut to (because they had by far the highest rate), and I mentioned that if you raise that bracket again, which the current administration wants to do, that it would hurt the economy. If you had half a brain, you would have been able to figure that out, but clearly I have to continue to speak in first grade English to you.
But to illustrate exactly what I have been telling you all along, but you just don't get, I took data from that link, and put 79-89 into an Excel chart.
Applaud the downward turn, but at the same time praise the highest unemployment rate in any presidential term, praise the average unemployment rate was near 8% for his two terms, praise that his rate was so high it was more of disaster then today’s train wreck. You fail to mention that the reason it went slightly down, was mostly on the mass expenditure in the government defense sector… a social program! Capital for technology for military was astounding and therefore got us into the Trillions in debt. Yhea, I tip my hat for the “credit card happy” & “conservative spender” actor.
Quote:
You keep telling yourself that. Bottom line is that he still has huge approval ratings, because the majority of people in this country understand what you don't (and what the current Democratic Party don't want people to understand): Reagan did great things for the American economy. What you can't seem to understand is that there is a deliberate effort among liberals to destroy Reagan's reputation, and a successful plot to destroy Bush's, because they can't push their agenda if the people believe that conservative fiscal governing works. It's all part of the political game with them. The reason why the Republican party is failing right now is because they are trying to appeal to Democrat supporters by being moderate, instead of cutting through it and standing up for their beliefs and sticking to their guns.
Conservative fiscal governing could work, but your boy toys Reagan and Bush Jr didn’t do that. Do you understand that? Are you aware of the mass expenditure these two clowns did?
Quote:
It's hardly infantile, so I guess I shouldn't expect you to get it. Look into the etymology of the phrase, and with a little bit of luck, you might understand it. Or maybe you'll accuse me of being racist as spoiler did on page 1.
So I take it has to do something in black folks culture, I’m not 100% familiar with theirs? But if you are indeed saying” kool aid” as form kick-back or a tacky joke. You are indeed a sad human. I guess Rush thought it was funny, so you decided to plagiarize. Yep, now you’re pathetic.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:
Sorry, I forgot who I'm dealing with. Without spelling everything out and connecting the dots, you can't follow along.
You mentioned the 80's, and the tax brackets that Reagan gave the biggest cut to (because they had by far the highest rate), and I mentioned that if you raise that bracket again, which the current administration wants to do, that it would hurt the economy. If you had half a brain, you would have been able to figure that out, but clearly I have to continue to speak in first grade English to you.
But to illustrate exactly what I have been telling you all along, but you just don't get, I took data from that link, and put 79-89 into an Excel chart.
Applaud the downward turn, but at the same time praise the highest unemployment rate in any presidential term, praise the average unemployment rate was near 8% for his two terms, praise that his rate was so high it was more of disaster then today’s train wreck. You fail to mention that the reason it went slightly down, was mostly on the mass expenditure in the government defense sector… a social program! Capital for technology for military was astounding and therefore got us into the Trillions in debt. Yhea, I tip my hat for the “credit card happy” & “conservative spender” actor.
Quote:
You keep telling yourself that. Bottom line is that he still has huge approval ratings, because the majority of people in this country understand what you don't (and what the current Democratic Party don't want people to understand): Reagan did great things for the American economy. What you can't seem to understand is that there is a deliberate effort among liberals to destroy Reagan's reputation, and a successful plot to destroy Bush's, because they can't push their agenda if the people believe that conservative fiscal governing works. It's all part of the political game with them. The reason why the Republican party is failing right now is because they are trying to appeal to Democrat supporters by being moderate, instead of cutting through it and standing up for their beliefs and sticking to their guns.
Conservative fiscal governing could work, but your boy toys Reagan and Bush Jr didn’t do that. Do you understand that? Are you aware of the mass expenditure these two clowns did?
You absolutely refuse to accept facts, even when taken from your own source. If you don't get it after looking at the graph I posted, using the very numbers you linked to, then you are truly hopeless. The bottom line is that the policies of lowering taxes, especially on businesses and mid to higher tax brackets, has a dramaticly positive effect on economic activity, which leads to more jobs, and better wages. Reagan's plan was a 3 year plan, and before 3 years had passed, the unemployment rate had peaked and begun it's downward trend, that it continued for the rest of his presidency, and significantly into the Bush Sr. presidency. What f&$ked it up? Bush going back on his promise not to raise taxes. Had he stuck to it, I would be willing to bet he would have stayed for a second term. But when you come off of years of improving economy, then raise taxes and ruin that growth, you're going to p!ss a lot of people off. I was terribly disappointed with that when he did it.
As far as the spending, yes, I agree, that there was too much spending. On what is a topic for an entirely different debate. I have also said all along that I don't think GWB was without his flaws in policies, but statistics prove that the tax cuts worked. He instituted stimulus checks twice and they had zero effect on the economy, but when he lowered taxes, the economy improved. The spending needs to be reigned in, for sure, which is exactly why the Obama "stimulus" bill is an atrocity, and I hope ends up stalling in the Senate. It will do absolutely nothing except increase the amount of money the government is spending on programs that the Democrats have tried to get passed, or expanded, for years. They are purposely keeping the bill from the public as much as they can, and using the fear tactics to gain support. However, a recent poll shows that only 42% of Americans want to see the bill passed. It should also tell you something that not only did every single Republican vote against it, but 11 Democrats as well.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:
It's hardly infantile, so I guess I shouldn't expect you to get it. Look into the etymology of the phrase, and with a little bit of luck, you might understand it. Or maybe you'll accuse me of being racist as spoiler did on page 1.
So I take it has to do something in black folks culture, I’m not 100% familiar with theirs? But if you are indeed saying” kool aid” as form kick-back or a tacky joke. You are indeed a sad human. I guess Rush thought it was funny, so you decided to plagiarize. Yep, now you’re pathetic.
LOL. You fail again, and again. The expression "you're drinking the kool-aide" has nothing to do with race, and I have used this term for years, not because Rush used it. Here is the explaination for you and spoiler, from wikipedia:
wikipedia wrote:The term is derived from the 1978 cult suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. Jim Jones, the leader of the Peoples Temple, persuaded his followers to move to Jonestown. Late in the year he ordered his followers to commit suicide by drinking grape-flavored Flavor Aid laced with potassium cyanide. (Those unable, such as infants, and those unwilling to comply received involuntary injections.) A camera from inside the compound shows a large chest being opened, clearly showing boxes of both Flavor Aid and Kool-Aid.[4] There is also testimony from criminal investigators at the Jonestown inquest stating that there were "cool aid" [sic] packets there.[5] It is unknown whether these are a reference to the Kool-aid brand packets from the trunk, or simply a generic use of the more popular brand for the product. In what is now commonly called the "Jonestown Massacre", a large majority of the 913 people later found dead drank the brew. (The discrepancy between the idiom and the actual occurrence is likely due to Flavor Aid's relative obscurity, compared to the easily recognizable Kool-Aid.) An earlier usage than 1987 can be attested at least as early as 1982 in the film "The Slumber Party Massacre" by Amy Holden Jones. In the scene where Valerie 'Val' Bates prepares Kool-Aid, she offers a glass to her sister and says "As the famous Jim Jones once said: 'should have been drinking Kool-Aid'".
The saying "Do not drink the Kool-Aid" now commonly refers to the Jonestown tragedy, meaning "Do not trust any group you find to be a little on the kooky side," or "Whatever they tell you, do not believe it too strongly."[6] Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly is known for using the term in this manner.
The more recent (IIRC, began in the 90's) urban useage of it, which everyone seems to keep confusing my usage with, is gangsters using the term in reference to money. ("don't be thinking you're getting into my kool-aide", or similar). That has nothing to do with how I used it.
And spoiler, you continue to prove yourself to be more and more of a retard.
From page 1:
spoiler wrote:Quiklilcav wrote:spoiler wrote:Bush is a lunatic and I'm glad he is out of the office
Congrats on drinking up all the MSM's Kool-Aide 
Kool aid? sounds like you need to get over your racial problem against black people. I mean, why kool aid? why not orange juice? or Water? or coke? or sprite? you said koolaid because he's black didn't you?
spoiler wrote:Quiklilcav wrote:you'll accuse me of being racist as spoiler did on page 1.
I was referring to that stupid little comment you just made about me dumbass
You are clearly the dumbass. Thanks for playing.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:57 PM
WTF! You're like the little energyzer bunny.
Power Thursday!!
That keeps going and going and going when is it going to end
Well, I can agree with you about what you just said(humor), but trust me I do not mean to insult you or anyone in this forum.
I apologize if it was an insult. is just that you kinda started it but is okay
The bottom line is I think is all a big mis understanding on how you write things and how I read them but at the end we will have our differences and agreements
Quiklilcav wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:
Sorry, I forgot who I'm dealing with. Without spelling everything out and connecting the dots, you can't follow along.
You mentioned the 80's, and the tax brackets that Reagan gave the biggest cut to (because they had by far the highest rate), and I mentioned that if you raise that bracket again, which the current administration wants to do, that it would hurt the economy. If you had half a brain, you would have been able to figure that out, but clearly I have to continue to speak in first grade English to you.
But to illustrate exactly what I have been telling you all along, but you just don't get, I took data from that link, and put 79-89 into an Excel chart.
Applaud the downward turn, but at the same time praise the highest unemployment rate in any presidential term, praise the average unemployment rate was near 8% for his two terms, praise that his rate was so high it was more of disaster then today’s train wreck. You fail to mention that the reason it went slightly down, was mostly on the mass expenditure in the government defense sector… a social program! Capital for technology for military was astounding and therefore got us into the Trillions in debt. Yhea, I tip my hat for the “credit card happy” & “conservative spender” actor.
Quote:
You keep telling yourself that. Bottom line is that he still has huge approval ratings, because the majority of people in this country understand what you don't (and what the current Democratic Party don't want people to understand): Reagan did great things for the American economy. What you can't seem to understand is that there is a deliberate effort among liberals to destroy Reagan's reputation, and a successful plot to destroy Bush's, because they can't push their agenda if the people believe that conservative fiscal governing works. It's all part of the political game with them. The reason why the Republican party is failing right now is because they are trying to appeal to Democrat supporters by being moderate, instead of cutting through it and standing up for their beliefs and sticking to their guns.
Conservative fiscal governing could work, but your boy toys Reagan and Bush Jr didn’t do that. Do you understand that? Are you aware of the mass expenditure these two clowns did?
You absolutely refuse to accept facts, even when taken from your own source. If you don't get it after looking at the graph I posted, using the very numbers you linked to, then you are truly hopeless. The bottom line is that the policies of lowering taxes, especially on businesses and mid to higher tax brackets, has a dramatically positive effect on economic activity, which leads to more jobs, and better wages. Reagan's plan was a 3 year plan, and before 3 years had passed, the unemployment rate had peaked and begun it's downward trend, that it continued for the rest of his presidency, and significantly into the Bush Sr. presidency. What f&$ked it up? Bush going back on his promise not to raise taxes. Had he stuck to it, I would be willing to bet he would have stayed for a second term. But when you come off of years of improving economy, then raise taxes and ruin that growth, you're going to p!ss a lot of people off. I was terribly disappointed with that when he did it.
You failed you illiterate SOB, it is now highlighted. It did go down ever so slightly but in the average it held at the highest ever 8% during his two terms... record high during his terms. But it was a result of mass spending on the defense sector as steel, cars, ammunition, planes, helicopters were being produced, AND not to mention major interest cut nation wide. Better wages? Do you even know the inflation that was going on in this country in the 80s? Hell, even the minimum wage never even went up during his term! On February 18, 1981 Reagan unveils his "program for economic recovery" was major failure as the result in the increase of the unemployment rate, then he went for what I mentioned before.
Quote:
As far as the spending, yes, I agree, that there was too much spending. On what is a topic for an entirely different debate. I have also said all along that I don't think GWB was without his flaws in policies, but statistics prove that the tax cuts worked. He instituted stimulus checks twice and they had zero effect on the economy, but when he lowered taxes, the economy improved. The spending needs to be reigned in, for sure, which is exactly why the Obama "stimulus" bill is an atrocity, and I hope ends up stalling in the Senate. It will do absolutely nothing except increase the amount of money the government is spending on programs that the Democrats have tried to get passed, or expanded, for years. They are purposely keeping the bill from the public as much as they can, and using the fear tactics to gain support. However, a recent poll shows that only 42% of Americans want to see the bill passed. It should also tell you something that not only did every single Republican vote against it, but 11 Democrats as well.
There goes your labeled "Conservative fiscal governing" presidents, they're anything but that.
And blame the last $850 billion in socializing banking system, where the top decided to get bonuses, get lavish vacations and nice private jets with our money... instead of "trickling down" to the masses. It is always good to award the the 1%, right? I know you're in favor of such mal-practice.
Quote:
LOL. You fail again, and again. The expression "you're drinking the kool-aide" has nothing to do with race, and I have used this term for years, not because Rush used it. Here is the explaination for you and spoiler, from wikipedia:
With your lack of knowledge of history or economics or politics, leads me to only believe that you didn't plagiarize Rush but instead plagiarize another schmuck named Bill O'Reilly. But good job on being original... sunshine.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
You do remember Econ class, right? Clinton inherited Regan's economy, and Bush Jr. got billyboys.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
LMFAO. EPIC FAIL for copying me after your BS claiming I'm a plagerist, and poorly, as well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, January 30, 2009 2:01 PM
This is why, sometimes, I love a good old Fight.
My money's on Me.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Sorry i got back to this so late. The price of moving.
Anyhow, no, FDR didn't fix the economy, the imminent WWII did since the allies were pumping money into the states for their industrial production, thus getting jobs, etc. It was just timing.
However, something you have to keep in mind. Socialism in and of itself is no more vile than Capitalism--it's the arseholes running the system that you have to be worried about. Besdies, neither can truly work with a little of the other in the mix. Socialism needs some form of reward/retribution for people to have any motivation, else it falls back to Feudalism and without any social consiousness, Capitalism just turns into a modern feudalism--with Money as the defining point of aristocracy...but that's a whole other thread.
Really, if we look at the overall trend, We haven't had a president that truly epitomized what America stood for since Washington. Everyone else was full of their own agendas. That being said, Bush sucked as a president. So did Clinton. So did Bush the Elder. So did Regan. So did Carter. Ad nauseum. IMHO, so will Obama, but how he, and subsequently Bush goes down in history will be determined by what happens around him, and to a lesser extent, of how he reacts to it and what happens with the surrounding presidencies.
Plus, it will also depend on the social consciousness of the era in which he'd defined in. If, in the future, the society a-large places a stong emphasis on, say, housing and not being homless, he might very well be heralded. If, however, that society places a strong emphasis on personal freedom without state intrusion, then he will likley be vilified.
It's just way too early to tell at this point.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
No politician is going to make everybody happy.
I guess there is one word to make everyone happy. communism
"all goods are shared equally by the people. There is no poverty — nor is there an upper class."
BUT-
The problem with communism is that "Government members tend to rationalize that they deserve the best of everything because they are governing for the people."
"Communism would probably function well if humans didn’t have the unfortunate tendency toward greed. Some argue that if everyone had the same, no one would want more. This, of course, has been proven to be a fallacy over and over again. If there are no goals to achieve, and nothing to work toward except a production quota, where is the incentive to excel? Capitalism is not a perfect system either. It just functions better in the face of human greed than other systems do, as it offers the carrot of financial gain for hard work."
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-communism.htm
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:24 PM
Quote:
Goodwrench throws charts and links around without truly considering what they really mean. When I show a clear explaination, that supports why I have my view, he decides to change the argument. When his argument doesn't work, he resorts to lame attempts at insults.
Hypocrite.
Quote:
There are times for compromise, and looking at things from the other person's point of view, and there are times to stick to your principles, and core beliefs. When it comes to things like what we are currently faced with, I will stick to my guns. Goodwrench may try to discredit me, and I believe he get's frustrated when he can't prove me wrong, but I will continue to use the statistics to back up what I say.
The problem you have is that if i even show the charts like I did thread after thread after thread, you will not know the history behind the chart as if you lived out of this planet during those periods. And I am not going to teach you on something that you should have learned in school, if you even went there.
In the words of Republican Sen. John McCain:
You don't understand.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
yeah but you two kinda prove the point i was trying to make, both people on diffrent sides both believing that their way is the only way for something to work. theres always two ways to get around the block. but both sides always believe that their way is the only way. something that may have worked in 88 may not work in 2008 because of other changes. but no one is ever willing to compromise.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
