Quote:
As I've pointed out in the past, big capital letters doesn't make you right.
Quote:
Just because I haven't said anything about Bush's spending in this thread, you blow a fuse and post another ignorant rant. I can picture the smoke coming from your ears while you typed it out. LOL. And now you want to bring Nixon into this? Seriously pathetic. You can't keep on a subject.
Quote:
Also, while I am against the level of spending being done, (and I have never said that Bush was any better in that department), it's more about how he and congress are spending the money right now. They are trying to chop down the producers of the country, and make as many people dependant on the government as possible. If you can't see it (which I'm guessing you can't), you're simply blind.
Quote:
This thread was about what's going on right now in our country, but you would rather try to argue on sh!t that happened long ago, and leave out parts that blow holes in your theory. This is starting sh!t, (which you accuse me of doing).
Quote:
Again, you left out the fact that Reagan raised the breakpoints on the tax brackets, still making it a net tax cut. Of course, if you recognize that fact, then you can not b!tch about him raising taxes on the middle class while severely lowering them on the rich. Typical liberal BS.
Quote:
You also left out the fact that when he took office, the top marginal rate was 70%, not 50%. He brought it down to 50%, and then lowered it again to 38%, and then cut all of the brackets down so that there were essentially only 4 brackets, and the second from the top was the highest bracket. And yes, the largest cuts were on the rich, but that's because they were paying more than double the rates of the majority of Americans. This is completely unfair. But then again, the liberal version of "fair" is when everyone has the same amount of money, regardless of what they earned.
Quote:
And you seriously don't think we're going to get to even 11% unemployment? Pure delusion. I'll be pleasantly surprised if we're not there this year, and well beyond that in 2010.
Quote:
So again, are you capable of staying on topic, and answering the relevant questions that I posed, or would you rather waste time pissing and moaning about the past in a thread about our present and future, as if somehow it makes everything that's going on right now OK.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:
And you seriously don't think we're going to get to even 11% unemployment? Pure delusion. I'll be pleasantly surprised if we're not there this year, and well beyond that in 2010.
I was being sarcastic, it can surely pass the worst unemployment rate from the Reagan era, what Bush did or "lack of a fix" thereof is severe enough that it might meet Reagan's unemployment numbers or even surpass it. Sad how your party just keeps F-ucking up a beautiful country, no?
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:
Just because I haven't said anything about Bush's spending in this thread, you blow a fuse and post another ignorant rant. I can picture the smoke coming from your ears while you typed it out. LOL. And now you want to bring Nixon into this? Seriously pathetic. You can't keep on a subject.
See this is the difference between you and me, I know the history, you obviously don't. By me knowing history I can bring Nixon, Reagan, Bush to this topic that you blatantly are complaining about Obama. See you think we are all idiots like Rush Limbaugh's audience and can easily brainwash society with nonsense rederic. See your strategy on that Obama will cause an Apocalypse with mass spending, yet your "conservative-liberal Republican folks (learn how to label people) spent WAY more for it's time, you don't say any thing on it. So what if it's not in our time? Point is: YOU HAVE NO ROOM TO TALK!
Quiklilcav wrote:
And since you so love to bring Limbaugh into arguments, why don't you try getting it right? Or do you simply get the excerpts the MSM's hand to you to try to make him sound like an extremist? He has never said that he wants the country to fail. That's what the MSM's and Democrats would like you to believe. Sure, you can take a sentence out of context and make that assumption from it, but if you hear the entire discussion or speach in context, you'd get it (well, maybe you wouldn't, you're obviously not intelligent enough). Why do I think like that? Because I believe the same thing: I want America to continue to be "The Land of Opportunity". When has our slogan ever been "The land of equal outcome"? As the founders of our country wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere did they say government had the obligation, or the right, to hand it out to people.
Quiklilcav wrote:spoiler wrote:might as well
Yep, might as well, since you can't post anything of substance that's actually on topic.
Quicklilcav wrote:This guy came out of the gates cramming legislation through without giving anyone enough time to fully read and understand it, using fear tactics to scare everyone into believing it needs to be passed now before the world ends.
spoiler wrote:Go pull the hair out of your Vagina
Roofy wrote:Ummmmmm... Patriot Act, anyone??? Or the half-assed, almost comical, "Terrorist Threat level" color coordinated kindergarten chart that was splayed out on every network, every day like a f.vcking Weather Channel advisory??? Or how the threat level bounced up or down with no real or apparent reason???
"Uh, oh, there was a fire-bombing in Eastern Canuckistan today, better raise the threat level to magenta, Bob!"
I honestly believe the drop in Obama's approval ratings is simply because some idiots actually believed that as soon as he was elected, that everything would instantly be fixed. On the other hand, some people, such as Rush Limbaugh and the like, were villifying him as the anti-Christ and destroyer of god, government, and the family, BEFORE HE EVEN TOOK OFFICE!!!
Even if Obama were the almighty savior that some people think, and some people think that others think, he was, I'm sure the "Conservative" talk radio windbags and others of the like would still find something to complain about.
Quiklilcav wrote:spoiler wrote:Go pull the hair out of your Vagina
LOL. Another useless post by you. Go figure
Quote:
I called that one months ago. How predictable you are. You blamed the high unemployment numbers during the early Reagan years on him, not Carter, and I said during that time that you would probably be blaming Bush for economic problems well into the Obama presidency. So next year, when we're still sprialing toward a depression, it's still Bush's fault, and Obama is not responsible, huh? When it's a Republican in office, you can blame everything on them starting day 1. When it's a Democrat, you can keep blaming things on the previous administration for years. But consistency doesn't work for your argument, so just throw it out the window.
Your entire post was pure fail. Thank you for illustrating my points. You can't seem to answer simple questions, and stay on that topic, without somehow trying to divert attention and/or make excuses
Quote:
You have not answered the questions that I asked on page 2, not page 1, you moron. But as I said, you obviously don't really read all of my posts, so I can't have expected you to catch that.
Quote:
This has nothing to do with Bush, or revenge for his negative publicity, or any other bullsh!t excuse you want to throw out there. It is purely about what is going on right now in our country, but you can't seem to understand that. You are obviously unable to comprehend anything I have posted.
Quote:
By the way, go ahead and keep trying to convince yourself that you know economic history better than I do, but consider this: not only have I studied it, but I was also aware and paying attention to it during much of that which you have only read about, or learned about, most likely from a liberal history teacher.
Quote:Wait he's not? lol
And since you so love to bring Limbaugh into arguments, why don't you try getting it right? Or do you simply get the excerpts the MSM's hand to you to try to make him sound like an extremist.
Quote:
Because I believe the same thing: I want America to continue to be "The Land of Opportunity". When has our slogan ever been "The land of equal outcome"? As the founders of our country wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere did they say government had the obligation, or the right, to hand it out to people.
Quote:
do you believe we are better off being a socialist country than a capitalist country? If yes, what about a socialist economy do you think works better than they system which made this country what it is in such a relatively short time?
Roofy wrote:
Ummmmmm... Patriot Act, anyone??? Or the half-assed, almost comical, "Terrorist Threat level" color coordinated kindergarten chart that was splayed out on every network, every day like a f.vcking Weather Channel advisory??? Or how the threat level bounced up or down with no real or apparent reason???
.
Quote:
Birthday: February 8, 1985
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Mike, Go Enlist,
There are reasons for the threat levels.... believe me.
Quicklilcav wrote:So you're comparing massive deficit spending on socialist programs that the Democrats have been trying to get passed for years, that they finally manage to get crammed through hidden in the bill touted as economic stimulus, with the legislation enacted with the intent on increasing our security after the worse terrorist attack on American soil?
Quicklilcav wrote: He crammed through legislation without letting the people voting on it read it, without letting the American people read it, after promising transparency.
Quiklilcav wrote:LOL. This thread is pulling lots of ignorant libs out of the woodwork.
KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.
ThatGuy85 wrote:The Terrorist threat level is a joke.
Does ANYONE here know what to do differently when the threat level is raised from yellow to orange? No you do not.
J03Y wrote:ThatGuy85 wrote:The Terrorist threat level is a joke.
Does ANYONE here know what to do differently when the threat level is raised from yellow to orange? No you do not.
ummm, you do nothing. It is meant to inform you that there is a higher threat level based on information they have obtained. aka be more aware of your surroundings and look for unusual happenings. Wether you care to listen to it or not, it's still there for those who listen
but yes, THIS is really an important issue in the current climate of the country
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:You've been around here long enough to know this certainly isn't true.Quiklilcav wrote:LOL. This thread is pulling lots of ignorant libs out of the woodwork.
This coming from the most ignorant conservative I have ever seen, oh sweet irony.
ThatGuy85 wrote:J03Y wrote:ThatGuy85 wrote:The Terrorist threat level is a joke.
Does ANYONE here know what to do differently when the threat level is raised from yellow to orange? No you do not.
ummm, you do nothing. It is meant to inform you that there is a higher threat level based on information they have obtained. aka be more aware of your surroundings and look for unusual happenings. Wether you care to listen to it or not, it's still there for those who listen
but yes, THIS is really an important issue in the current climate of the country
I'm just saying, I cannot name one person I know that pays attention to it, or even knows what level we're at. I don't care who screamed for it, dem's or rep's, it's just dumb.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:
I called that one months ago. How predictable you are. You blamed the high unemployment numbers during the early Reagan years on him, not Carter, and I said during that time that you would probably be blaming Bush for economic problems well into the Obama presidency. So next year, when we're still sprialing toward a depression, it's still Bush's fault, and Obama is not responsible, huh? When it's a Republican in office, you can blame everything on them starting day 1. When it's a Democrat, you can keep blaming things on the previous administration for years. But consistency doesn't work for your argument, so just throw it out the window.
Your entire post was pure fail. Thank you for illustrating my points. You can't seem to answer simple questions, and stay on that topic, without somehow trying to divert attention and/or make excuses
BIG difference, Reagan's extreamly high and record unemployment rate went in 2-3 years after he went into office. Obama on the other hand has been in office for 4-5 weeks. Yet I'm the one who failed? Answer this; when you typed that I failed, were you looking in the mirror at yourself?
Once again.... no room to talk.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:
You have not answered the questions that I asked on page 2, not page 1, you moron. But as I said, you obviously don't really read all of my posts, so I can't have expected you to catch that.
You're right I only answered the only question you asked me on page 1.
Quote:
This has nothing to do with Bush, or revenge for his negative publicity, or any other bullsh!t excuse you want to throw out there. It is purely about what is going on right now in our country, but you can't seem to understand that. You are obviously unable to comprehend anything I have posted.
Really? Post all the 25 threads per week links on how Bush Jr was screwing up all the way up to 2009. I want to review what you wrote. (I should be expecting cricket sounds on your side)
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:
By the way, go ahead and keep trying to convince yourself that you know economic history better than I do, but consider this: not only have I studied it, but I was also aware and paying attention to it during much of that which you have only read about, or learned about, most likely from a liberal history teacher.
False & try me. You are prime example what happens when funding was put into the defense dept instead of public schools. Worst thing, your answer in order to compensate in furthering your knowledge on history is to turn on the radio and hit AM and search for Rush. Big no-no.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:Wait he's not? lol
And since you so love to bring Limbaugh into arguments, why don't you try getting it right? Or do you simply get the excerpts the MSM's hand to you to try to make him sound like an extremist.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:
Because I believe the same thing: I want America to continue to be "The Land of Opportunity". When has our slogan ever been "The land of equal outcome"? As the founders of our country wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere did they say government had the obligation, or the right, to hand it out to people.
Agreed on that aspect "the land of opportunity" and it should always stay. Now your slogan "The land of equal outcome" is a extremest view and quite frankly doesn't pertain to today. When we gave free for all to banks and lenders,the ugly "greed" came about, this is the crap that happened in the 80s and now today. As much as we want Lassier-fair, history and current times still show WE are not responsible enough.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:
do you believe we are better off being a socialist country than a capitalist country? If yes, what about a socialist economy do you think works better than they system which made this country what it is in such a relatively short time?
You do know we are a by-product of both, call it a hybrid if you will. IMO none is perfect and both have equal amounts of faults. And both "isms" is there to fix what the other screwed up. One ugly circle. There are capitalist nations on both side have worked great 18-19th and very early 20th century USA was a good example how a capitalist economy nation works. USA today is an example how capitalism doesn't work. Socialsm from many Scandenavian countries or England or Israel works. Late 1970-80s USSR or now-migrant-rich France the socialist regime is getting faulty as the new folks don't contribute to the system and suck the system dry. I still stand, both will not work 100%. We have to know this socialism is only there to clean up capitalism's mess. If capitalism works cleanly, then capitalism could be great, but sadly humans and how our culture is brought up won't let that happen.
spoiler wrote:The bottom line is
Anything that is not an insult, criticism, attack, or strike against Obama is useless in your eyes.
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:Quiklilcav wrote:LOL. This thread is pulling lots of ignorant libs out of the woodwork.
This coming from the most ignorant conservative I have ever seen, oh sweet irony.
Roofy wrote: HE didn't cram through legislation, the House and Senate did. The President doesn't have the power to do that, fortunately. And I'm pretty sure that it's against the law to be required to vote on a bill that you don't know the details of, or at least it was the last time I checked.
Roofy wrote:And yes it's a shame that you can't go online and research every detail of the Stimulus Bill and read it for yourself.
If people would research, the government puts out more information than alot of people are aware of.
Roofy wrote:Would you feel any differently about the stimulus plan if the Republicans, and McCain, if he were elected, enacted the EXACT SAME legislation???
ThatGuy85 wrote:The Terrorist threat level is a joke.
Does ANYONE here know what to do differently when the threat level is raised from yellow to orange? No you do not.
Quote:
Yes, but Obama has signed legislation that will only keep the rate increasing, when he could have passed tax cuts, which would have slowed it. His stimulus plan had almost no stimulus in it. It had, instead, massive amounts of government programs that had nothing to do with growth of the economy. He has also given himself and his cabinet members increasing power in this bill, and through moves such as giving Rahm Immanuel control of the cencus bureau. Also, back to the point, if you want to blame Reagan for the unemployment rate in his second and third year, then you have to concede that it's Obama to blame when our unemployment rate surpases that well into next year. What I will guarantee you is this: if this congress and administration continues doing what they are doing now, you will absolutely not see the peak in unemployment followed by a steep and consistant drop that we saw in 1983. And you can save this thread and quote me on that at any later date of your chosing.
Quote:
Bring it on. As a matter of fact, why don't you dig them all up, and start an entire new thread with the sole purpose of discrediting me on the subject. I want you to show everyone all of the quotes, complete with a link to where you found it, where I stood up and defended Bush's spending and increasing of the national debt. I can tell you there are two things that you will find: one, where you claimed that Bush doubled the debt, and Clinton had a surplus. Nowhere did I say it was acceptable that Bush increased the debt.
Quote:
because all available intelligence at the time led both him, and congress to believe it was the right thing to do. The majority of the Democrats even supported him at the time. It wasn't until his approval ratings went through the roof that they started all the sh!t about him being a liar.
Quote:
By the way you repeat the rhetoric (spelled correctly for the phoneticly challenged such as yourself),
Quote:
Do you get your education by turning on a radio or television?I would say most of it probably comes from CNN or MSNBC.
Quote:
The "ugly greed" as you like to call it (or should I say, you like to repeat from the Democratic rhetoric), is absolutely not what got us in this mess, and it's been proven.
Quote:
The only place where I will agree that we should have regulated banking just a hair more would be in the mortgage-backed securities market.
Quote:
The only place where I will agree that we should have regulated banking just a hair more would be in the mortgage-backed securities market. However, twice in this decade, attempts to pull in the reigns on Fannie and Freddy It was touted as racism, because it would cause the number of mortgages to minorities to decrease. And as far as the rest of it, when the economy is left fully alone, and the government does not try to manipulate it, it is survival of the fittest. Some will fail, but they will be replaced by those that succeed. Those that succeed will employ more people, and the economy grows. As with any system, it's not perfect, and corruption will creep into it here and there, but for the most part, it will self-regulate. Contrast with that a system where the power of government is continually increased, and the system is under the control of it, and the corruption can crush the people, and go unchecked
Quote:
We are not a by-product of socialism and capitalism. We have been a capitalist nation, who over the last 100 years has been slowly being turned socialist, one program at a time. That is corruption of the country, and what made it the economic super power that it is. You can not argue that fact. For over 200 years this country has experienced huge amounts of growth. As with anything, there have been setbacks. However, that large growth was made possibly purely by capitalism. Every socialist system that has been put in place has been completely ruined by the governement. Public education lasted a long time, but they managed to ruin that over the past 50 years. Social Security? Completely perverted from it's original design, and the money blown, so that it would begin on a path to bankruptsy, which we are rapidly approaching. Do I really need to go on, or can people see that it is government running things, and poorly, that has caused more major failures in this country than anything.
Quiklilcav wrote:Here you go: a clip of Rush taking a call from someone who said he was hoping that the economy would continue to crash so that people would realize how bad Obama is doing. Anyone who has listened to just the clips that the MSMs have aired from his show or his speech, and/or anyone who thinks he's an extremist might think that we would be excited to have such a call, and that he would agree with them. Listen to what his response to this caller is.
Rush Clip
Quote:
And our intelligence and UN said the there were no WMDs, hell the UN could not even finish doing ground search because Bush wanted to rip Saddam's head off.