[quote=“Toe Save”]Tigerman, I think if you reread the original post, it implies that you are abandoning ship with a turd (a magnificient turd at that) in tow.
Now, be a man and retract that statement…this whilly nilly calling for banning…where does it stop? It says in “da rules” that being stupid is cause for banning. I’m still here.
And, if you come back, bring the turd with you of course…I promise to come to the IP Forum if you do and leave a bunch more for you to pick up.
I say no moderator…enter anarchy at your own risk…booohoooohooo all you want…
Have at it then politics’ men at arms
Consider what you first did post unto
To paste, to copy and to spare no feelings
Feeling? Tis flat treason 'gainst the kingly state of couth
Tigerman, you old salt…republican teddy bear, stop mopping and get out there and give someone a lickin’
Let me help you…
Bush IS A KNOB.
I really mean it. He is. He scares the bejesus outta me. Is there any history of a party changing the leadership whilst enjoying a sitting president?
I might take a more tenable view of the republican POV if you could just admit that:
Bush IS A KNOB
Protecting him belittles your intelligence.
What do ya say TMTM…here’s my cherry…first post in the IP forum…are you man enough to come out and defend that knob of a president? I will give you until November to change my mind. I, like 25% of Americans, will cast a vote, live, here on Forumosa…I know nothing about Kerry and Bush scares me…
At the risk of spamming, I will quote this post in a new thread called Toe Votes. In it I will argue with anyone about the upcoming American election…maybe it flies…maybe it flounders…I challenge both Fred and Tigerman to convince me to cast my Canadian Marijuana Party voting ass their way…along the way I will ask questions to both sides…I will even tackle gun debate…let all the yayas out…[/quote]
Re-electing Bush spells disaster for America and will cause irreparable damage to global stability.
Fred Flintstone, TMTM, et al…care to convince me other wise?
Lets turn this around for a quick reality check. How does Bush spell disaster for America? Politically, economically, socially, psychologically, etc? How can damage to global stability be unrepairable?
Bush has the most racially diverse administration ever. He inherited an economy coming off of one of the greatest bubbles in history. He inherited a terrorism problem from a previous administration. Richard Clarke had 4 opportunities to kill Bin Laden during Clinton’s terms. He passed tax cuts that will eventually be repealed unless they are voted in permanently so that the US could get over the tech bubble. Unemployment is still under the historical average. The GOP has even made gains during the 2002 election and seem able to do so again in 2004.
You can’t touch him politically or economically. In both areas he’s done far better than even I thought he would. His past is littered with the political graveyards of those who underestimated him.
Internationally The US does have problems with its image, but any check to Clinton’s term or earlier(beginning during the Vietnem war) will show that America’s international image is/has been under attack and rarely gets credited for any of its successes or generosity.
Afghanistan is an international problem. Karzai is begging everyone for more troops and not getting them. This is a clear chance for any other “We want a multi-polar world” country to shine. The painful reality check is no one is giving up more troops for it.
Iraq is actually one of his brightest spots. Now, before you dismiss me, please here me out. If this was face to face, I know you would have the indecency to shout me down.
What if Iraq really does become a tried and true democracy with freedom of speech and religion. What if it breaks the mode of arab autocracies that have torn the region apart and bred the islamic terror that festers there now? What if it actually shows growth in ideas, commerce, and culture. It will take years, but is it not better than what the area is like now?
So please do more clearly explain your naked hatred of George W. Bush in more civil coherent tones and try to teach and learn something along the way.
Just because it is fashionable to hate GWB, does not make it right nor worthwhile.
I think Okami’s post points out something that Bush has in spades - the ability to make decisions. he’s pretty clear thinking and has fairly basic principles.
On security: The world was not a particularly safe place before bush’s administration - the WTC could easily have been blown up during Clinton’s time in office, remember. they had a go, after all.
The question is - is bush right to treat terrorism as a war? Or is kerry right that it is largely about law enforcement?
Bush’s attitude is a break with the past, when it was approached as a law-enforcement issue.
My view is that it is worth pursuing this approach. The potential pay-offs are huge. The ‘old methods’ may involve less violence in the short-term but have not solved much over decades.
I doubt that kerry would prove to be a decisive president - not his style. He would be consultative and consensus-building.
I prefer Bush on this - he’s single-minded.
The downside to the war approach is that it starts to concentrate power in the hands of the executive. New legislation might be misused. Bush sometimes seems to be on a holy crusade at home as well as abroad. Changing the constitution to prevent gay marriage? Come on! What nonesense! But, he has also tried to reform education and his approach is more radical than the liberals.
Overall, however, despite democrats’ conservatism over education reform, Kerry seems more tolerant and I prefer his more nuanced, less dogmatic, and more liberal approach to social issues.
On the economy, well Bush has been responsible for some daft decisions - steel tariffs, etc. Budget deficits are perhaps larger than they should be, too. But Kerry has come up with some pretty lousy anti-trade rhetoric - “Benedict Arnold” companies and the like.
That one is a toss-up for me. I prefer Bush’s rhetoric but his decisions have not been great.
[quote=“Okami”]
Lets turn this around for a quick reality check. How does Bush spell disaster for America? Politically, economically, socially, psychologically, etc? How can damage to global stability be unrepairable?[/quote][/quote]
In a word, reputation. If he gets re-elected, the last hope for the reputation of good americans everywhere will be shattered forever. The world will believe that America has lost control of its electoral process and the power structure and religious fanatics are in control. Just like Iran, the former Iraq and Al Queda, but with really, really good toys. How is a fanatic for Christ any safer than a fanatic for Islam? Bush, and his cowtowing to the religious right should make this entire discussion moot come Nov. If Americans do have control of the process, then the Dems should landslide right on in. There has to be more enlightened people than Christian wingnuts, or am I wrong?
But if the Republicans can steal it again, keeping this idiot son nespot
(despot+nepotist) poised over the button…with his “look at me Dad, I’m in a flight suit on CNN” mentality…oh my stars, the guy is freaky scary…well, no moment of American history scares me more than it’s unwritten part. Bush has proven time and time again his total disregard for anything non-american. Shunning world opinion, staging illegal wars, racial profiling…hmmmmm, smells like Berlin, circa 1938…only this time, De Fuhrer is pulling the strings on his idiot puppet of a son whilst in seeming retirement somewhere in Texas. As for poor Dubya inheriting all of the current strife from Clinton…who first legitimized Ossama? And George Schemior would never have happened if it weren’t for Ronald Raygun…
[quote=“Gil Scott Heron”]
And in this year that we have gone from Sho-gun to Ray-gun
Oh yeah, I remember what I said about Ray-gun
Acted like an actor
Hollyweird[/quote]
That was from a song called B-Movie…I can’t find the entire lyrics, but I am sure interested parties could d/l it. It, when listened to today, is a dire prediction of things to come, from a POV of/from the Reagan years. I think Mr Heron aptly described the problem when he said (I paraphrase here):
“The problem is that America has gone from a producer to a consumer.
And all consumers know that when the producer names the tune, the consumer has got to dance. That’s the way it is. The Arabs used to be in the 3rd world. They have bought the 2nd world and put a firm downpayment on the 1st. Controlling your resources will control your world.”
Now, the power 5% in America have no desire to “control the resources” by investing in alternative energy sources…no, no, no///rather keep this hillbilly in office to do their bidding by stealing the worlds fossil fuels with illegal wars. Cold fusion would lead to economic collapse…
So what? Let it collapse…Let’s start over…true survival of the fittest…no leg-ups to trust fund Chads and Biffs and George Jr.s…
I am starting to lose focus…I’ll be back tonight to continue the argument.
One question first though: Which party has a more vested agenda in pursuing alternative energy sources?
You are an infuriating person to argue with, even more so in person. I’m going to keep this as civil as possible, though I recall your usual tactics in person of shouting the other person down and when finally on the verge of defeat saying something irrelevent and just dropping the whole thing rather than changing your mind or views.
If I wrote this about Canadians, what would your reaction be? Probably not too dissimiliar to mine of ROFLMAO. Reputation is a fragile thing, ask any woman about that. American reputation started taking a nose dive during the early 70’s due to Soviet efforts to undermine the view of Americans of those living outside the US. They would publish anti-semitic pamphlets, I forget the one that is used as a blueprint they did for Zionist domination of the world, but it’s quite famous and popular amongst the middle east. They were also instrumental in staging fake massacres and blaming US forces in Vietnam. They worked through a variety of peace organizations and communist officials in Europe. When Kerry got up on the stump for his big speech denouncing US actions in Vietnam, that was Soviet propaganda doing its part.
Here’s an idea, what if GWB wins by a landslide? We still have 3 debates to go and I can assure you this is the point that the Bush camp is waiting for. There are just too many loose ends with Kerry. The Bush camp has played softball so far, just wait till they have Kerry up in front of an American audience to express his views, versus through the liberal press.
Been reading Edward Said lately? A fanatic for Christ will convert you to save your soul and most christian sects, even fanatical ones, try to convert non-christians. There is also Christian charities which will help anyone despite their religious beliefs. New research about the inquisistion, now sheds new light on what really happened during that time. The inquisition courts were at the time the most efficient and capable in Europe. The Catholic church took the view that heretics were lost sheep, rather than the noble’s often held belief that a heretic should be burned. Only 1% of people brought before the inquisition were executed and there are even cases were a person blasphemed in order to be put in front of a much more favorable inquisition court. It’s quite neat how protestant printing presses did such a great job of distorting the truth against an organisation that was trying to right past wrongs. Islamic fanatics are brought up with the myth of multiple almond-eyed virgins waiting for them after they martyr themselves. They believe conversion should come through fear and repression. I can assure you in our time that far more muslims are/were killed by other muslims than by any other faith. Also you have to remember that there are different sects. Sunnis have a very bad reputation of repressing Shias(Iraq and Saudi Arabia) and Sufis(Sudan).
You’re wrong. Bush doesn’t pander to the religious right and neither are they christian wingnuts. If you changed this to talking about a minority group, I could call you a racist. Unfortunately, I can only call you mal-informed and talking out your ass. The US is a very religious place. These religious people vote too, in droves. We have a much different view of the situation than you do. Be careful how you define your “christian wingnuts.” I hope to see some explanation and clarity about these views of yours.
This is the kind of stupid unsubstantiated shit you throw out in public. It’s sad really. You keep talking about things you know nothing about.
Bush won. Even NYT and Washington Post recounts proved this. You also do not become a presidential nominee due to nepotism. Bush was also the one to call off racial profiling and has one of the most racially diverse administrations ever. What about Osama? Why didn’t Clinton clean up the mess on his watch like he should of? No matter who legitamized him, someone is going to have ot take care of him and Clinton was too much of a pussy to do so.
My god, do you not read the news? Your worse than my family that only reads headlines and watches the nightly news(ABC, CBS, NBC). Most Arab countries are facing large amounts of corruption, inadequate infrastructure, unemployment(Iran 20%+), and a burgeoning youth population coming of age in a time with little or know opportunities available for them.
Both, republicans get more credit though for being more business and investment friendly.
You aren’t losing focus, because you had none in the first place. You throw out the same rehashed lines over and over again, unsubstantiated soundbites that sounded cool when the guy you got high with said them.
[quote]Bush has the most racially diverse administration ever. He inherited an economy coming off of one of the greatest bubbles in history. He inherited a terrorism problem from a previous administration. Richard Clarke had 4 opportunities to kill Bin Laden during Clinton’s terms. He passed tax cuts that will eventually be repealed unless they are voted in permanently so that the US could get over the tech bubble. Unemployment is still under the historical average. The GOP has even made gains during the 2002 election and seem able to do so again in 2004.
You can’t touch him politically or economically. In both areas he’s done far better than even I thought he would. [/quote]
If this is your list of accomplishments it reads pretty thin. A racially diverse admin, who cares? You mention what he inhereted but little of what he did. What exactly do you mean his tax cuts were designed to get the US over the tech bubble? Which rationale was that? Bush proposed tax cuts because he wanted them. He changed his reasons for them 3 times over a year period: we can afford them because of surpluses; we need them because of a recession and they won’t cause debt; we need them and they will cause debt but we can live with the debt.
Economically he is untouchable? He took the biggest surpluses in history and turned them into massive debts. He has never vetoed a singly spending bill. He want to spend lots and tax little. You just can’t do this long term and it doesn’t go down well with the average voter nor with fiscally conservative Republicans.
His past is also littered with failed businesses and a failed personal life that was only saved by the crutch of Jesus. Disregarding the religious point though, Bush has failed or done poorly in more things than he has done well in: school, the military, business. Your point is a non-starter.
[quote]Iraq is actually one of his brightest spots. Now, before you dismiss me, please here me out. If this was face to face, I know you would have the indecency to shout me down.
What if Iraq really does become a tried and true democracy with freedom of speech and religion. What if it breaks the mode of Arab autocracies that have torn the region apart and bred the islamic terror that festers there now? What if it actually shows growth in ideas, commerce, and culture. It will take years, but is it not better than what the area is like now? [/quote]
Een if Iraq becomes a democracy its peopel will still hate America, and sympathies to other muslims will counter any goodwill toward the west. The US had it’s chance to change arab opinion. It failed. It failed so badly it seems almost planned.
I just don’t get why people are letting Bush off the hook with Iraq? When a mission fails in all its objectives you don’t give credit to the man who got it started however good intentioned he may have been.
Please explain the Federal Marriage Act then? It was opposed by over half the republican party. It was almost sure not to pass even before the vote so why waste the political capital on it? Especially when it was a completely unneccessary bit of legislation that would only further divide the country during a time of war?
It was a sop to the fundamentalists. Same as the ban and later lifting of the ban on stem cell research. This stuff wasn’t done to gain votes or popularity but to appeal to a small but very powerful sub-group of the republican party.
[quote=“Mucha (Muzha) Man”]
What exactly do you mean his tax cuts were designed to get the US over the tech bubble? Which rationale was that? Bush proposed tax cuts because he wanted them. He changed his reasons for them 3 times over a year period: we can afford them because of surpluses; we need them because of a recession and they won’t cause debt; we need them and they will cause debt but we can live with the debt.
Economically he is untouchable? He took the biggest surpluses in history and turned them into massive debts. He has never vetoed a singly spending bill. He want to spend lots and tax little. You just can’t do this long term and it doesn’t go down well with the average voter nor with fiscally conservative Republicans. [/quote]
Very well put. He also spent most of the last election campaign giving out the wrong projected figures regarding the efect of his tax cuts, even though his mistakes were pointed out regularly.
We were in recession during the end of Clinton’s administration. The tech bubble burst and the 911 attacks hit financial markets and causes massive disruption.
This year the projected deficit of US$550 billion is down to US$330 billion because of economic recovery and higher tax receipts so that is approximately 3% of our GDP with a 55% debt to GDP ratio. Compare this with 4.5% and 4.8% for Germany and France and Belgium’s 140% debt to GDP ratio and well what’s your point?
Also, the tax cuts mean starving the federal government of funds. I just wish that Bush had followed through with more cuts to programs but let’s deal with that in time. I want agricultural subsidies gone and I want the following departments gone for good: education, energy, commerce, agriculture, labor, transportation, housing and urban development and health and human services. These can all be dealt with more effectively at the state level and will substantially reduce administrative costs and the concentration of lobbying power in DC.
Finally, why not privatize the post office. Nearly 900,000 workers all voting Democrat and competing unfairly with the workers at DHL, UPS and Fedex. Fuck em. Privatize it now. Today.
Ahhh, finally a sensible liberal shows up thanks to the appearance of Mucha Man.
First off, debt is not bad. As FS pointed out US gov’t. debt is much smaller than the larger economies of the EU. Also there is a very active market for US debt, Asian central banks. If you took an accrual business accounting approach to US gov’t spending, the US would have a huge surplus. Of course we could follow the rest of the first world’s example and cut military spending and let the thugs and terrorists overun the earth.
As a fiscal conservative even I have to give you this. The surpluses were going to shrink anyway with the popping of the tech bubble. Most of his spending was required due to the facts of 9/11. Schools also need fixing particularly in the inner city. Eventualy more is going to have to be done though. I share FS’s sentiment that spending will have to be cut back and certain depts privatized or abolished.
If Bush is such a failure, how did he become president? Even Wahington Post and NYT recounts of the Florida ballot proved he won. He graduated from Yale, fulfilled his National Guard requirements, and as I recall made a bundle for selling his stake in the Texas Rangers. Yes, he had some failed business ventures, but so do most entrepeneurs and businessmen.
So what is your point that he failed or did poorly in school, military, and business?
So what if they hate the US; they’ve hated us for decades. It’s just a steady stream of propaganda from the kleptocracies that run the Arab region. Their attempt to focus attention from the myriad problems they face as I outlined in my previous post. The US also doesn’t get just one chance to fix and that’s it. This is a long term project to remake the region into something that trains its burgeoning youth to do something besides how to kill civilians or how to become suicide bombers. You are being short sighted. Yes, the reconstruction effort is going badly, but time, help and pressure from the Iraqi’s on the people who are doing the damage will help to resolve this.
[quote]Please explain the Federal Marriage Act then? It was opposed by over half the republican party. It was almost sure not to pass even before the vote so why waste the political capital on it? Especially when it was a completely unneccessary bit of legislation that would only further divide the country during a time of war?
It was a sop to the fundamentalists. Same as the ban and later lifting of the ban on stem cell research. This stuff wasn’t done to gain votes or popularity but to appeal to a small but very powerful sub-group of the republican party.[/quote]
First off, you don’t know how acts and laws are passed in the US. A congressman or senator can put forth an act or law to be voted upon, not a president or any member of the executive branch. Then both houses have to agree on it and then the president can sign it into law. Afterwards it has to withstand the scrutiny of review by the judiciary. Do you really think the law would of amde it that far? Do you think that Bush doesn’t believe that marriage should only be a bond between a man and a woman? I don’t see it as a sop to fundamentalist, but a president acting out on his beliefs.
Second point, The country has been divided by the media this whole time not by Bush and co. I read the msnbc.com, Newsweek, and Washington Post practically everyday. It’s hard to stomach the media bias you see and hear there. These are 3 outlets that are suppose to be fair and balanced. I have to go to the Economist(moderate, British) and National Review(conservative) in order to get any sort of balance.
Third, originally stem cells were from aborted fetuses. A very touchy subject in the US and the Ban was for new stem cells not the ones already in existence. As the technology progressed, scientist are/were able to make new stem cells from already existing cells, hence the need to lift the ban.
[quote=“Okami”] They were also instrumental in staging fake massacres and blaming US forces in Vietnam.
Okami[/quote]
How do you stage a fake massacre?
Does everyone just get up after the shooting stops and chuckle as they shuffle off, satisfied with the knowledge that they’ve succeeded in pulling the wool over the international community’s eyes once again?
[quote=“fred smith”]Ah but you are missing two points:
We were in recession during the end of Clinton’s administration.[/quote]
False, you are 100% incorrect. GDP enjoyed positive growth until March, 2001, two months after Bush was inaugurated.
The point: US conservatives have abandoned fiscal conservatism in order to pander to American voters, and in a way that is exactly like that that conservatives accuse Democrats of, except that conservatives no longer have the good sense to raise taxes when necessary.
In short, that US conservatives have completely abandoned the moral high ground of fiscal responsibility to the Democratic party. And in doing so, they’ve added enormous and credible weight to the charge that they’re far more cynical than honest in their approach to government.
Without any balancing decrease in spending. In fact, under Bush the W spending has increased sharply, and growth in federal employees has grown even more sharply.
Christ, without Bush’s ‘full employment for the federal Executive’ policy, just how negative would his ‘net job gain under Bush’s watch’ numbers be right now? [url=Democratic National Convention - #40 by E-clectic from E-clectic, btw)[/url]
In short, your pithy BS about the need for a dramatic shrinking in the Federal government is just that under Bush: mindless, pithy BS.
Well, you can’t have it both ways, Okami. If we’re on an accrual system, then the US has accrued an enormous security outflow, no? You admit that we’re on the hook for the first world’s military spending; I don’t think that’s a small accrual at all, do you?
Also, what kind of liability has the US accrued in Iraq now, without UN help there?
Not only that, but the EU, as a consortium of first-world countries, has thus accrued an enormous debit to revenue, US-supplied regional security, which will close to some collective EU balance sheet account as an asset, no?
In fact, due solely to Bush’s ‘leadership’ US security liabilities have been sharply increased - even over 9/1[u]2[/u]/01 levels - and the EU’s security revenues have accrued a somewhat smaller debit, since Bush couldn’t be bothered to get the EU on his side before he chose to wage war on Iraq.
I’d be interested to have you back up your ideas here with an honest appraisal of the impact of accrual accounting to the US under the ‘leadership’ of President Bush, Okami. If you accept Bush’s analysis of world security right now, then my guess is that under an accrual system the EU may actually be better off than the US.
Poor choice of diction. Mostly they would go in, shoot a bunch of people, take pictures and then send out the photos to be published. Kind of like the photo were you see a S. vietnamese police officer executing a kneeling blindfolded man. They often fail to mention that kneeling blindfolded man had killed a S. vietnamese police officer, under the executing officer’s command, and his family the night before.
Flike
Quite wrong, not US conservatives, but Bush. Do not blanket generalize a whole group by the actions of one of its members.
Really? I didn’t get this memo. I’ll ask Tigerman and Fred Smith about this, but my gut feeling is that you are completely WRONG! Just because Bush has not vetoed one bit of extra spending, does not mean that conservatives have given up on fiscal responsibility.
Maybe if Clinton had done more than perjur himself and launch misslies whenever there were depositions or inquiries into his affairs/scandals then maybe Bush would be in a better position than having to clean up his mess. Did it ever occur to you that you can lower taxes and raise gov’t revenues? Happened with Reagan and Russia.
You really want to get into a accounting argument with me? Let’s talk about these security liabilities in Europe. Maybe we do owe them something, but how much is it? Now, lets take something we can measure like say researchers and scientists. There are 400,000 of them from Europe working in the US. The Economist says that at a low estimate this is a 4 trillion($4,000,000,000US) dollar subsidy from Europe to the US. Also though the troops are there do we really have to defend Europe and if so, from what?
How would the UN help us in Iraq. The Iraqis have a real grievance with this organization and are not exactly fond of it. You do remember the 10 billion dollar oil for food scam that strikingly is not mentioned in the media that finds time to accuse Halliburton of everything under the sun.
Despite the US security guarantee Europe is still in dire financial straits due to aging population, low economic growth and encumbersome bueracracy. How is the Economic stability pact is broken by the countries that were most keen to get it passed in the first place? Whereas the US, despite security guarantees all over the world has a burgeoning population, economic growth and a more business friendly culture.
Iraq is an investment in the future. It will not be easy or clean. If the perjurer had taken care of business earlier(I mean the man did sign in a law that said the goal of US Iraq policy was regime change). We might be facing lower costs now. The US has always born the costs of world security. It’s not European aircraft battle carrier groups that keep us living safely in Taiwan. It’s not European troops that act as a tripwire to assure destruction of North Korea if they attack South Korea. I also saw painfully little of the UN in Rwanda and Sudan. So please do tell me, which country cares most about insuring a peaceful world and has a leader that went through with a unpopular war to take out a dictator that supported terrorism, attacked his neighbors, has used chemical weapons before and was in defiance of the terms the peace settlement of the first gulf war.
Bush has not veered from US policy under Clinton(He was for regime change too, just a coward about it. There was plenty of shooting in the No-Fly zone.). Even Kerry is on tape saying that we need a regime change in Iraq no fewer than 3 times. He only became antiwar to keep Dean from winning the nomination.
So do please explain to me how Kerry or Clinton are any different besides the fact that they would of been too much afraid of negative poll numbers to go to war on principle.
Clearly, if you support Bush then you are no conservative.
?
Is yours an example of what they mean when they talk about the ‘Bushies’ Clinton-penis envy’?
Sure, it’s well known, in fact. But you can’t always lower taxes and raise receipts. If you could, then why not go from marginal tax rate of 1% to 0%, since by your argument one could always raise tax receipts by lowering tax rates (in this case, even by eliminating taxes altogether)?
You’ll also need to account for this, Okami. Why was Clinton so successful at simultaneously raising national income and reducing debt via a fiscal policy of targeted tax increases?
I’d rather see you defend your charge, that under Bush and accrual accounting rules the US has a far higher GDP than the EU, but only after you clear up your figures. Trillion or billion?
Okami, you said the US is responsible for first-world security. So yes, according to you, we really have to defend Europe.
I mean, maybe that’s who the Iraqis have a ‘real grievance’ with at the present. Note also that sloppy accounting by the CPA in Iraq ‘strikingly is not mentioned’ by the Bush administration in public, and we certainly have no evidence to date that it’s been fixed, either.
?
By all means, let’s discuss the impact of EU regulation under accrual accounting rules.
Let’s not leave out an honest appraisal of US national ‘assets’ under Bush, ok? Because I think that under Bush we have some massive write downs to make.
Then what’s the currently correct credit accrual to US security expense, Okami?
Under accrual rules, we must debit a corresponding asset-side account for whatever figure you decide on. What should its title be, Okami?
How about the beginning of the Bush administration where they sat on their hands out of a grudge against Clinton when his national security advisors were asking them to take action with Al Qaeda because intelligence was picking up info about a major terrorist attack planned for US soil, and then finally decided to do something about it…after it happened? Clinton got the men responsible for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Bush had only one guy in mind and still couldn’t get him, even after sending the military there to do just that.
Clinton helped push funding on military technology and increased such weapons as smart bombs. Bush won Afghanistan with the help of Clinton’s legacy, unless you are going to claim that Bush could fund and train a military in less than a year of taking office.
Then Bush paid them back by cutting military pay and benefits.
Some guy.
imyourbiggestfan:
You imply that by Kerry being “consultative and consensus-building” he would be a weaker president than one who deliberately ignores the advice and arguments of the opposing party just because their the opposing party and does what he wants? I would hardly call that positive presidential material.
“I prefer Bush on this - he’s single-minded.”
And not to mention simple minded when it comes to international politics and diplomacy. Bush could not steer this country into prosperity if it came with handlebars and perfect wheel alignment. He’s bad for our country and the sooner he can be booted back to the ranch he likes to spend so much time at, the better.
[quote]What?! Conservatives use gut feelings, too?
Okami, both of those guys discount ‘feelings’ so why shouldn’t we?
Where’s your evidence?
Here’s mine. According to the Cato Institute, which supported Bush in 2000 when he ran as a fiscal conservative, ‘Conservative’ Bush Spends More than ‘Liberal’ Presidents Clinton, Carter’.
More liberal than Carter?
How can you support Bush the Bozo?
Clearly, if you support Bush then you are no conservative.[/quote]
Supporting Bush is made easy following the rants made by liberals with their feelings and “disgust with America” attitude. I can support Bush because the alternative is so much worse. It’s quite similiar to how liberals/swing voters supported Clinton despite his tack to the center/right while handing the republicans the house or representatives and the senate. Liberals found the vitriol spewing from the right so nauseating and counter productive that they even gave Clinton a 2nd term in the white house.
Also you make several logical missteps. Bush is more liberal than Carter? WTF? My evidence that conservatives have feelings? You’re grasping or out in la-la land.
You’re in la-la land and if you can’t respond like an adult please refrain from responding.
[quote]Sure, it’s well known, in fact. But you can’t always lower taxes and raise receipts. If you could, then why not go from marginal tax rate of 1% to 0%, since by your argument one could always raise tax receipts by lowering tax rates (in this case, even by eliminating taxes altogether)?
You’ll also need to account for this, Okami. Why was Clinton so successful at simultaneously raising national income and reducing debt via a fiscal policy of targeted tax increases?[/quote]
We’re not talking about going to a 0% tax rate. No one is and you’re arguing something that is :offtopic: . Taxes start at 20%+ and rise with your income. People really start investing when they make over $70,000 a year. So lowering tax rates increases investment and consumer spending leading to higher tax revenues, it’s finding the right % of tax to take to optimize gov’t revenues that’s the hard part because eventually you could have over investment or under investment due to gov’t tax policy, but that’s another topic.
Can we please agree that Clinton benefited from being president during the largest financial bubble in human history and this may of affected the financial circumstances of his presidency? Do I need to revisit some of the tales of companies with non viable business plans that still managed to get cash to start a business? Clinton could of lounged around by the swimming pool for the entire presidency and he still would of been a 2 term president with an excellent economic record during his presidency(not because of it).
[quote]Maybe because another Bush scandal in Iraq is more proximate to Iraqi independence. According to some accounts, a staggering US$4 billion in oil revenues and other Iraqi funds earmarked for the reconstruction of the country has disappeared into opaque bank accounts administered by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the US-controlled body that rules Iraq. By the end of the year, if nothing changes in the way this cash is accounted for, that figure will double.
I mean, maybe that’s who the Iraqis have a ‘real grievance’ with at the present. Note also that sloppy accounting by the CPA in Iraq ‘strikingly is not mentioned’ by the Bush administration in public, and we certainly have no evidence to date that it’s been fixed, either. [/quote]
Let’s see how this plays out. Considering Bush has been vindicated on Niger uranium claims and Wilson has been shown to be a liar. Clinton’s guys had 4 chances to kill Osama. Clinton and Kerry were all for Iraqi regime change. I’m going to hold out and this one and see how it plays out. If it’s true, we’ll see a congressional inquiry for sure.
In regards to the accrual accounting argument, we could go back and forth all day and get no where fast. I know that I can’t change you’re mind and prefer to stay away from what if games. It was a bad point o bring up, I admit.
ImaniOU,
WTF are you talking about? Clinton got the report something was planned in the late 90’s and had 4 chances to kill Osama that were not taken. How about the USS Cole and the Embassy bombings in Africa?
The case was open and shut. The men were known jihadist living in the US and they actually almost succeeded the first time.
Clinton cut military spending, it was called the peace dividend after the Cold War. Also smart bombs were developed before Clinton’s term and most weapon systems are implemented without regard to what the president wants. You should actually go back to Reagan if you want to give Bush credit for having a military that can do what it does. When did Bush cut military pay and benefits?
Kerry will be another Carter. A man that brings the press in to helkp him run the presidency. We don’t need another Carter. France and Germany will not help us in Iraq, because they won’t even help us in Afghanistan. They have neither the money nor military man power to do anything but sit on their hands and whine.
Are you looking at historical trends when you say these things or are you just spouting out nonsense to feel a sense of empowerment? Can we agree that we just got out of the largest financial bubble in human history and we still have lower unemployment, higher workforce participation, and a faster growing economy than Europe. At least explain coherently where you get these ideas.
[quote=“flike”]What?! Conservatives use gut feelings, too?
Okami, both of those guys discount ‘feelings’ so why shouldn’t we?
Where’s your evidence?
Here’s mine. According to the Cato Institute, which supported Bush in 2000 when he ran as a fiscal conservative, ‘Conservative’ Bush Spends More than ‘Liberal’ Presidents Clinton, Carter’.
More liberal than Carter?
How can you support Bush the Bozo?
Clearly, if you support Bush then you are no conservative.[/quote]
Clinton’s 1996 win wasn’t due solely to ‘liberal’ support, Okami. Lots of Republicans voted for him, too, especially in western states like Colorado and New Mexico.
According to the Cato Institute, a libertarian thinktank, yes: Carter was more fiscally conservative than Bush.
Read the link.
Everything you’ve written so far has far more of its weight in ‘feelings’ rather than evidence. In fact, it seems clear that while you would prefer to characterize ‘the alternative’ to Bush as expressing ‘vitriol’ for Bush or feeling ‘disgust for America’, you are no better than they.
I did. Do you think children would respond by questioning the ‘Bushies’ Clinton-penis envy’?
[quote=“flike”]Sure, it’s well known, in fact. But you can’t always lower taxes and raise receipts. If you could, then why not go from marginal tax rate of 1% to 0%, since by your argument one could always raise tax receipts by lowering tax rates (in this case, even by eliminating taxes altogether)?
You’ll also need to account for this, Okami. Why was Clinton so successful at simultaneously raising national income and reducing debt via a fiscal policy of targeted tax increases?[/quote]
I don’t think you know squat about economics, Okami, but I do think you correctly identified, and tried to respond to, my question (bold).
It may be that you just don’t write or didn’t/can’t think clearly. Pass.
No.
The Japanese credit bubble during 1985-91 (total credit/GDP was > 250% and the Nikkei hit 40,000), the US depression in the 1920s, the great Dutch tulip bubble, the South Seas bubble, all of these were arguably larger - in negative impact to world economies if not in absolute, real dollar terms - than the dot com bubble of the nineties.
A major part of the hangover of the 90s wasn’t related to the bubble at all but rather to enormous investments in capacity as inoculation against Y2K effects that never materialized. On Jan. 1, 2000, employment rates tanked in the tech sector as the supply of programmers vastly outweighed the demand for same virtually overnight, doubts about tech stocks set in, the sharks emerged, and ‘hiring freeze’, layoffs, and consolidation became the buzzwords, rather than ‘share of mind.’
In other words, Okami, you are incorrect when you ascribe the recession of March, 2001, solely to the dot.com bubble. A large share of the damage was due to overinvestments in capacity due only to Y2K.
Besides, Clinton had to deal with the Fed pushing interest rates up what, 6 times in the late nineties?
Happens all the time, Okami, cry me a river. The correction is called market efficiency; it
lol. what school of economics teaches that raising taxes and raising the minimum wage creates jobs? it pays off the deficit and raises the wages of the lowest tier of workers, but it does NOT create more jobs. if anything, the biggest step government can take to stop the creation of jobs is raising taxes and implementing a higher wage floor.
why would you even cite nairu when the trend in the late 90’s contradicted the basic premise of nairu? we grew at a fast rate, had below-nairu levels of employment, and almost no inflation.
Was the photograph faked? Did it show a man not being summarily executed?? Are you saying that the police officer was a commie faking a massacre? Did the person get up afterwards and do the Curly Shuffle? Please explain.
The famous photographed execution you are probably referring was also filmed by NBC and shows Saigon Police Chief Brig. Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan shooting a bound Viet Cong soldier (not kneeling and not blindfolded) in the head. The Viet Cong soldier’s name was Bay Lop.
The summary execution happened in during the Tet Offensive, on Feb. 1, 1968. Eddie Adams, the photographer thought that the killing was justified because the Bay Lop was caught in the act of killing others during Tet.
Adams later heard that the Chief’s wife scolded her husband for not immediately confiscating the film. Nguyen later moved to the United States in 1975 and opened a Vietnamese restaurant in Virginia. He died in 1998. My guess is that the U.S. would not have given him refuge if he had been, as you suggest, a commie participating in propaganda.
Others have torn apart your “facts”, but it is interesting that you cannot even stick to the truth when it comes to recent history.
