i finally have started to understand how some people just choose to derail threads by not discussing the thread subject, but by starting a new thread within a thread...
please comment on the speech or decide not to post...
if you want to discuss racism...start a thread
if you want to discuss the kkk...start a thread
if you want to discuss judical nominations...start a thread
discussions of the speech (liked it, hated it, agree with this point, disagree with that point) are always welcome and appreciated....thanks
So you're finally admitting that you're just a troll?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's not a troll. He just has an ego the size of Nebraska and hates to lose. It was him that started playing this like a game. I asked him a question that he couldn't / wouldn't answer. He starting treating this like he had to get in the last word. So I followed suit. The fact that he couldn't stay with the topic at hand shows it.
First it's " I've already addressed that in other threads " then it's objections to making a comment based on what he thinks of Byrd's character.
The last time we had a disagreement he started PMing me telling to stop being a troll. An attempt to get me to give up due to intimidation. He wouldn't stop even though I asked him to. Hence private messaging for me has been disabled.
[quote]<strong>You really just don't get it do you? Or don't want to. Clinton may not have been perfect but for 8yrs. things were a lot better for the average american ( and please don't give me that coincidence BS ).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clinton had the dot-com fantasty economy to work with.
[quote]<strong>Things are bad out there if you don't have a job. And even if you do it might not last thanks to the sagging economy. And while economic times are cyclic Bush has done nothing to help this. As a matter of fact his policy of war and mismangement have made it worse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What exactly could he do? (*hint* - Presidents don't have much at all to do with how the economy goes.)
[quote]It also makes those other U.N. members not trust us. I know you probably think america should be capitol of the world. Get real.<hr></blockquote>
I think that? Thanks for telling me.
[quote]Why do you think interest rates are at a thirty year low? Lets say that again a thirty year low.<hr></blockquote>
Because the economy is in a bigtime slowdown.
[quote]Thumbing our nose at the rest of the world isn't par for the course.<hr></blockquote>
Asking for their opinion before we drop bombs also isn't par for the course. Did Clinton ever ask for their approval before sending troops somewhere? But I agree, that may have been a mistake on Bush's part.
[quote]I know one thing in two years americans will make their judgement. I don't think Bush will be in office after that.<hr></blockquote>
If the economy doesn't pick up you're right. Economic executive casualties aren't new, either.
--
Chinney:
[quote]The bills will have to be paid. Even moderate conservatives understand this (and that's why they are starting to become very concerned about the deficit), You, Groverat, apparently do not understand this simple point.<hr></blockquote>
Thanks for not answering the question about whose taxes have gone up. Personal shots are easier to make than valid arguments.
[quote]I think that those concerned would be - among others - the family without health coverage where one or more wage earners have lost their jobs. "Big deal" was, incidentally, George Senior's view, and it cost him his job.<hr></blockquote>
Because presidents do so much about economies.
[quote]So you think that military spending beyond what is needed for military commitments is a good thing. I guess that says something about your priorities.<hr></blockquote>
I think having a very strong, very powerful and very mobile military is a good thing. Military development can do a lot for the private sector. I don't want to follow Western Europe's model of military castration.
[quote]The surplus left by the previous President was actual.<hr></blockquote>
It was "projected". Before the dot-bomb.
[quote]Quite a few actually, including my own.<hr></blockquote>
List.
Then list those who talked about it.
[quote]Actually, the present administration has been far less active in trying to get the two sides at the table and more supportive of an Israli hardline position.<hr></blockquote>
Give Bush 8 years and we'll see. Clinton didn't jump on Israel/Palestine at first, either.
[quote]The US doctrine advanced by Bush is explicit in its right for US unilateral action.<hr></blockquote>
"Advanced" by Bush because it has always existed. He's just doing what presidents do, only he asked for UN support where is predecessor did not. I've always said Clinton was better at foreign affairs.
[quote]Also, Groverat, you did not take me up on my challange re achievements of the Bush administration.<hr></blockquote>
- He's done more than any other president towards nuclear disarmament between Russia and the US.
- He's got a conviction to resolve the Iraq quesiton with something beside civilian-punishing economic sanctions.
- He's gotten Democrat-partisan nutcases to make fools out of themselves with their melodramatics. Republican-partisan nutcases had 8 years, I was getting tired of laughing at them.
- He's giving strength to the U.S. military instead of hacking its funding. (The only Constitutionally-expressed duty of the federal government, I might add.)
Of course, I didn't vote for him and probably won't vote for him in 2004, but I don't think he's all that bad. I try to be objective, unlike most of you fruitcakes.
--
New:
[quote]Not worth commenting on?<hr></blockquote>
I said we contributed more than anyone else and you posted stats to agree, what more comment do you want?
--
General comments:
I think it's very funny that you partisan folk associate being "pro-war" with being "pro-Bush". It just reveals that you guys don't actually give a crap about the reality of situations, only political grandstanding.
The fact that your brain registers "pro-Bush" when I say "pro-war" tells me a great deal about the way you think and operate.
I stopped paying attention to this thread because it's become nothing more than a political bitch-fest between Democrats and Republicans, which is uninteresting to me to put it mildly.
I said we contributed more than anyone else and you posted stats to agree, what more comment do you want?
--
General comments:
I think it's very funny that you partisan folk associate being "pro-war" with being "pro-Bush". It just reveals that you guys don't actually give a crap about the reality of situations, only political grandstanding.
The fact that your brain registers "pro-Bush" when I say "pro-war" tells me a great deal about the way you think and operate.
I stopped paying attention to this thread because it's become nothing more than a political bitch-fest between Democrats and Republicans, which is uninteresting to me to put it mildly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Groverat, You really need to stop falling back on that dot com crap. The economy went bad because it was time. We finally reached that part of the cycle. We had the longest bull market in history and you want us to believe it was all because of the internet?
We're talking about what's he's done since to help it? You know the 2yrs he's been in office.
He's also done much more than anyone to piss off the rest of the world and now he wants a war which will make the oil companies rich but the average joe out there poor. We don't need this war right now and it will make a bad economic situation worse. Don't believe me? Just look at the price of gas already. This is why he isn't helping and this is why he'll get voted down in the next election. Not because we didn't understand how he was helping us.
Yes groverat, things were better under the last presidency. It doesn't matter if it was Clinton. Someone was doing their job for the american people. All you need to do is look at the bottom line. Trying to blame this on other things is feeble at best.
This was all in Byrd's speech.
People were fed up with serial recession at the end of his father's term. It'll be the same this time. Because like they used to say when Clinton was elected : " it's the economy stupid. "
A strong military presence anywhere won't help if people here don't have any way to pay their bills. Did more military spending help the Soviet Union?
You want us to stay the course based on speculation that he'll turn things around when he already has such a lousy record? The only reason he was elected into office in the first place is because the democrats had an equally milktoast candidate. It won't happen again. Money or lack there of tends to open one's eyes.
Give Bush 8yrs? I don't think so. I'll be dead and you'll be as old as I am before we can recover.
<strong>I said we contributed more than anyone else and you posted stats to agree, what more comment do you want?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, my stats also show that the US contributed least per capita than any country in the OECD, and that if you'd count the EU or europe as one, (which you always see to do elsewhere), you'd see that Europe contributes a lot more than the US.
Maybe you'd like to comment on that? since you brought it up in the first place.
I stopped paying attention to this thread because it's become nothing more than a political bitch-fest between Democrats and Republicans, which is uninteresting to me to put it mildly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are we arguing about how much money the US gives away? This is always a silly argument to try to make when you're trying to ctiticize the US. We give away a lot of money. Per capita or whatever, it's a lot of money, and we give it away. I suppose we American taxpayers should be paying to run these governments and educate their children too. Of course the catch is that we might have an agenda when we send money, but somehow people are appalled that we have strings attached to aid. This is seen as a bad thing, that we should be giving our money away, no qeustions asked. Why is beyond me. So let's leave that little aspect of the argument out of it.
I'm not criticizing the US, I'm criticizing Groverat for making stupid points like:
"The US has no rival in the amount of humanitarian aid sent out each year to help people across the globe,(...)"
"I can sit happy with the resolute knowledge that my nation does more for the international good than every person who goes on lengthy diatribes about its evil combined."
"But I guess doing nothing is better, eh? Europe sure as hell puts out a lot of humanitarian aid compared to the U.S. right?"
me: "France, Germany, Denmark and Norway alone (of European countries) contribute more Aid together than the US, with over 100 million less people."
I really don't see anything wrong in pointing out lies or misinformation.
If you go back and read it, you'll see that I'm very clear on the point that my intention was not to criticize the US. Only to get Groverat down from his pompous horse of high moral.
[quote]<strong>Groverat, You really need to stop falling back on that dot com crap. The economy went bad because it was time. We finally reached that part of the cycle. We had the longest bull market in history and you want us to believe it was all because of the internet?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If not all, then most.
There was so much fake growth there was no way the bubble wasn't going to burst. Billions and billions invested into non-entities. Anyone with a brain saw it coming.
I cannot believe you will, with a straight face, try to dismiss the dot-com failure. Hilarious
[quote]<strong>We're talking about what's he's done since to help it? You know the 2yrs he's been in office.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll say it again: Presidents have very little to do with the economy.
[quote]<strong>He's also done much more than anyone to piss off the rest of the world and now he wants a war which will make the oil companies rich but the average joe out there poor. We don't need this war right now and it will make a bad economic situation worse. Don't believe me? Just look at the price of gas already. This is why he isn't helping and this is why he'll get voted down in the next election. Not because we didn't understand how he was helping us.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uncertainty is bad, yes, but there is very little historical precedent to believe that war is bad for economies.
[quote]<strong>Yes groverat, things were better under the last presidency. It doesn't matter if it was Clinton. Someone was doing their job for the american people. All you need to do is look at the bottom line. Trying to blame this on other things is feeble at best.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What did Clinton do to help the economy?
Blaming the economy on a president is brainless.
[quote]<strong>This was all in Byrd's speech.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have no respect for politicians of his ilk, I didn't bother reading it.
Was it fact-filled or rhetoric-filled. I'll bet on the second.
Please provide some facts.
[quote]<strong>People were fed up with serial recession at the end of his father's term. It'll be the same this time. Because like they used to say when Clinton was elected : " it's the economy stupid. "</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, if the economy is good presidents are popular, you aren't clever for pointing this out.
Tell me, why did the economy turn south before Clinton left office? Bush's fault? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>A strong military presence anywhere won't help if people here don't have any way to pay their bills. Did more military spending help the Soviet Union?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why is it that people must make idiotic parallels?
When you start making statements like that I stop listening to you.
--
New:
[quote]<strong>Well, my stats also show that the US contributed least per capita than any country in the OECD, and that if you'd count the EU or europe as one, (which you always see to do elsewhere), you'd see that Europe contributes a lot more than the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, do you have anything to prove what I said wrong? If not, why keep after it?
Dear God, have a cookie for your per capita contributions, let it go.
My points are "stupid" yet you can't prove any of them wrong... interesting.
--
bunge:
[quote]<strong>I tried to keep it on topic...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess the one thing microeconomics taught me was that a dollar is a dollar. Whather you pay an extra dollar for a case of soda or whather you pay an extra dollar for a new house, it's the same dollar and it's counted the same. So whter as a ratio of GNP, per household capita or whatever, don't we still shell out a hell of a lot of money? Isn't qualifying it as a per anything ratio just twisting the plain fact? (The fact that we give away a lot, I've heard we give more aid to the Middle East han other nations, but I'll assume that's not necessarily true.)
<strong>I guess the one thing microeconomics taught me was that a dollar is a dollar. Whather you pay an extra dollar for a case of soda or whather you pay an extra dollar for a new house, it's the same dollar and it's counted the same. So whter as a ratio of GNP, per household capita or whatever, don't we still shell out a hell of a lot of money? Isn't qualifying it as a per anything ratio just twisting the plain fact? (The fact that we give away a lot, I've heard we give more aid to the Middle East han other nations, but I'll assume that's not necessarily true.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I give you full credit for it. The american people is very generous. But I think its wrong of your government to tie Aid to buying American goods (And its wrong of France to do this as well).
Aid should be used to make countries independent of more aid.
And I give you full credit for it. The american people is very generous. But I think its wrong of your government to tie Aid to buying American goods (And its wrong of France to do this as well).
Aid should be used to make countries independent of more aid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Groverat, You really need to stop falling back on that dot com crap. The economy went bad because it was time. We finally reached that part of the cycle. We had the longest bull market in history and you want us to believe it was all because of the internet?
We're talking about what's he's done since to help it? You know the 2yrs he's been in office.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just to clear things up, the Internet bust was a major part of the stock market's problem. When you take away faith in the system due to inflated/made-up values, people tend to respond unfavorably. So, G, you're right on the money.
As for what GW's done, he's tried to cut taxes. Until those tax cuts are made permanent people will still worry about them. The next round of tax cuts are more aimed at long-term influence and a general reform of the tax environment.
The main thing he's done is taken on the task of making sure the American people are safe. To this extent, he's been pretty successful. That is, by the way, a primary requirement for a healthy economy. Most other things fall into insignificance next to homeland security.
First it's " I've already addressed that in other threads " then it's objections to making a comment based on what he thinks of Byrd's character.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, first I trashed Byrd's character.
[quote]<strong>The last time we had a disagreement he started PMing me telling to stop being a troll. An attempt to get me to give up due to intimidation. He wouldn't stop even though I asked him to. Hence private messaging for me has been disabled.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the last time we had a disagreement I PM'd you not just because you were being a troll but also because we had gone way off topic. And I was trying to let the air out of our dispute. Now I don't bother... And I only sent you two PM's. Somehow I doubt that falls under the heading of intimidation.
Sen. Byrd has been picked, with Sen. Kennedy, and probably others, to vehemently try out opposing the President's position on this, because neither senator really has anything to fear when reelection comes along. The slack-mouthed cretins who elected these winners in the first case can be counted upon to come through yet again.
Speeches such as this one indicate that its maker is a point "man" for a new position. A test case. Do this, run some polls. That's why it's so negative, in part.
Comments
please comment on the speech or decide not to post...
if you want to discuss racism...start a thread
if you want to discuss the kkk...start a thread
if you want to discuss judical nominations...start a thread
discussions of the speech (liked it, hated it, agree with this point, disagree with that point) are always welcome and appreciated....thanks
g
<strong>It's so disappointing that you all can't see a purely partisan political speech when is presented to you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, they see it.
<strong>
So you're finally admitting that you're just a troll?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's not a troll. He just has an ego the size of Nebraska and hates to lose. It was him that started playing this like a game. I asked him a question that he couldn't / wouldn't answer. He starting treating this like he had to get in the last word. So I followed suit. The fact that he couldn't stay with the topic at hand shows it.
First it's " I've already addressed that in other threads " then it's objections to making a comment based on what he thinks of Byrd's character.
The last time we had a disagreement he started PMing me telling to stop being a troll. An attempt to get me to give up due to intimidation. He wouldn't stop even though I asked him to. Hence private messaging for me has been disabled.
That's who you're dealing with.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
[quote]<strong>You really just don't get it do you? Or don't want to. Clinton may not have been perfect but for 8yrs. things were a lot better for the average american ( and please don't give me that coincidence BS ).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clinton had the dot-com fantasty economy to work with.
[quote]<strong>Things are bad out there if you don't have a job. And even if you do it might not last thanks to the sagging economy. And while economic times are cyclic Bush has done nothing to help this. As a matter of fact his policy of war and mismangement have made it worse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What exactly could he do? (*hint* - Presidents don't have much at all to do with how the economy goes.)
[quote]It also makes those other U.N. members not trust us. I know you probably think america should be capitol of the world. Get real.<hr></blockquote>
I think that? Thanks for telling me.
[quote]Why do you think interest rates are at a thirty year low? Lets say that again a thirty year low.<hr></blockquote>
Because the economy is in a bigtime slowdown.
[quote]Thumbing our nose at the rest of the world isn't par for the course.<hr></blockquote>
Asking for their opinion before we drop bombs also isn't par for the course. Did Clinton ever ask for their approval before sending troops somewhere? But I agree, that may have been a mistake on Bush's part.
[quote]I know one thing in two years americans will make their judgement. I don't think Bush will be in office after that.<hr></blockquote>
If the economy doesn't pick up you're right. Economic executive casualties aren't new, either.
--
Chinney:
[quote]The bills will have to be paid. Even moderate conservatives understand this (and that's why they are starting to become very concerned about the deficit), You, Groverat, apparently do not understand this simple point.<hr></blockquote>
Thanks for not answering the question about whose taxes have gone up. Personal shots are easier to make than valid arguments.
[quote]I think that those concerned would be - among others - the family without health coverage where one or more wage earners have lost their jobs. "Big deal" was, incidentally, George Senior's view, and it cost him his job.<hr></blockquote>
Because presidents do so much about economies.
[quote]So you think that military spending beyond what is needed for military commitments is a good thing. I guess that says something about your priorities.<hr></blockquote>
I think having a very strong, very powerful and very mobile military is a good thing. Military development can do a lot for the private sector. I don't want to follow Western Europe's model of military castration.
[quote]The surplus left by the previous President was actual.<hr></blockquote>
It was "projected". Before the dot-bomb.
[quote]Quite a few actually, including my own.<hr></blockquote>
List.
Then list those who talked about it.
[quote]Actually, the present administration has been far less active in trying to get the two sides at the table and more supportive of an Israli hardline position.<hr></blockquote>
Give Bush 8 years and we'll see. Clinton didn't jump on Israel/Palestine at first, either.
[quote]The US doctrine advanced by Bush is explicit in its right for US unilateral action.<hr></blockquote>
"Advanced" by Bush because it has always existed. He's just doing what presidents do, only he asked for UN support where is predecessor did not. I've always said Clinton was better at foreign affairs.
[quote]Also, Groverat, you did not take me up on my challange re achievements of the Bush administration.<hr></blockquote>
- He's done more than any other president towards nuclear disarmament between Russia and the US.
- He's got a conviction to resolve the Iraq quesiton with something beside civilian-punishing economic sanctions.
- He's gotten Democrat-partisan nutcases to make fools out of themselves with their melodramatics. Republican-partisan nutcases had 8 years, I was getting tired of laughing at them.
- He's giving strength to the U.S. military instead of hacking its funding. (The only Constitutionally-expressed duty of the federal government, I might add.)
Of course, I didn't vote for him and probably won't vote for him in 2004, but I don't think he's all that bad. I try to be objective, unlike most of you fruitcakes.
--
New:
[quote]Not worth commenting on?<hr></blockquote>
I said we contributed more than anyone else and you posted stats to agree, what more comment do you want?
--
General comments:
I think it's very funny that you partisan folk associate being "pro-war" with being "pro-Bush". It just reveals that you guys don't actually give a crap about the reality of situations, only political grandstanding.
The fact that your brain registers "pro-Bush" when I say "pro-war" tells me a great deal about the way you think and operate.
I stopped paying attention to this thread because it's become nothing more than a political bitch-fest between Democrats and Republicans, which is uninteresting to me to put it mildly.
<strong>jimmac:
I said we contributed more than anyone else and you posted stats to agree, what more comment do you want?
--
General comments:
I think it's very funny that you partisan folk associate being "pro-war" with being "pro-Bush". It just reveals that you guys don't actually give a crap about the reality of situations, only political grandstanding.
The fact that your brain registers "pro-Bush" when I say "pro-war" tells me a great deal about the way you think and operate.
I stopped paying attention to this thread because it's become nothing more than a political bitch-fest between Democrats and Republicans, which is uninteresting to me to put it mildly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Groverat, You really need to stop falling back on that dot com crap. The economy went bad because it was time. We finally reached that part of the cycle. We had the longest bull market in history and you want us to believe it was all because of the internet?
We're talking about what's he's done since to help it? You know the 2yrs he's been in office.
He's also done much more than anyone to piss off the rest of the world and now he wants a war which will make the oil companies rich but the average joe out there poor. We don't need this war right now and it will make a bad economic situation worse. Don't believe me? Just look at the price of gas already. This is why he isn't helping and this is why he'll get voted down in the next election. Not because we didn't understand how he was helping us.
Yes groverat, things were better under the last presidency. It doesn't matter if it was Clinton. Someone was doing their job for the american people. All you need to do is look at the bottom line. Trying to blame this on other things is feeble at best.
This was all in Byrd's speech.
People were fed up with serial recession at the end of his father's term. It'll be the same this time. Because like they used to say when Clinton was elected : " it's the economy stupid. "
A strong military presence anywhere won't help if people here don't have any way to pay their bills. Did more military spending help the Soviet Union?
You want us to stay the course based on speculation that he'll turn things around when he already has such a lousy record? The only reason he was elected into office in the first place is because the democrats had an equally milktoast candidate. It won't happen again. Money or lack there of tends to open one's eyes.
Give Bush 8yrs? I don't think so. I'll be dead and you'll be as old as I am before we can recover.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>I said we contributed more than anyone else and you posted stats to agree, what more comment do you want?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, my stats also show that the US contributed least per capita than any country in the OECD, and that if you'd count the EU or europe as one, (which you always see to do elsewhere), you'd see that Europe contributes a lot more than the US.
Maybe you'd like to comment on that? since you brought it up in the first place.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>
I stopped paying attention to this thread because it's become nothing more than a political bitch-fest between Democrats and Republicans, which is uninteresting to me to put it mildly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I tried to keep it on topic...
"The US has no rival in the amount of humanitarian aid sent out each year to help people across the globe,(...)"
"I can sit happy with the resolute knowledge that my nation does more for the international good than every person who goes on lengthy diatribes about its evil combined."
"But I guess doing nothing is better, eh? Europe sure as hell puts out a lot of humanitarian aid compared to the U.S. right?"
me: "France, Germany, Denmark and Norway alone (of European countries) contribute more Aid together than the US, with over 100 million less people."
I really don't see anything wrong in pointing out lies or misinformation.
If you go back and read it, you'll see that I'm very clear on the point that my intention was not to criticize the US. Only to get Groverat down from his pompous horse of high moral.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
If not all, then most.
There was so much fake growth there was no way the bubble wasn't going to burst. Billions and billions invested into non-entities. Anyone with a brain saw it coming.
I cannot believe you will, with a straight face, try to dismiss the dot-com failure. Hilarious
[quote]<strong>We're talking about what's he's done since to help it? You know the 2yrs he's been in office.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll say it again: Presidents have very little to do with the economy.
[quote]<strong>He's also done much more than anyone to piss off the rest of the world and now he wants a war which will make the oil companies rich but the average joe out there poor. We don't need this war right now and it will make a bad economic situation worse. Don't believe me? Just look at the price of gas already. This is why he isn't helping and this is why he'll get voted down in the next election. Not because we didn't understand how he was helping us.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uncertainty is bad, yes, but there is very little historical precedent to believe that war is bad for economies.
[quote]<strong>Yes groverat, things were better under the last presidency. It doesn't matter if it was Clinton. Someone was doing their job for the american people. All you need to do is look at the bottom line. Trying to blame this on other things is feeble at best.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What did Clinton do to help the economy?
Blaming the economy on a president is brainless.
[quote]<strong>This was all in Byrd's speech.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have no respect for politicians of his ilk, I didn't bother reading it.
Was it fact-filled or rhetoric-filled. I'll bet on the second.
Please provide some facts.
[quote]<strong>People were fed up with serial recession at the end of his father's term. It'll be the same this time. Because like they used to say when Clinton was elected : " it's the economy stupid. "</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, if the economy is good presidents are popular, you aren't clever for pointing this out.
Tell me, why did the economy turn south before Clinton left office? Bush's fault? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]<strong>A strong military presence anywhere won't help if people here don't have any way to pay their bills. Did more military spending help the Soviet Union?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Why is it that people must make idiotic parallels?
When you start making statements like that I stop listening to you.
--
New:
[quote]<strong>Well, my stats also show that the US contributed least per capita than any country in the OECD, and that if you'd count the EU or europe as one, (which you always see to do elsewhere), you'd see that Europe contributes a lot more than the US.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, do you have anything to prove what I said wrong? If not, why keep after it?
Dear God, have a cookie for your per capita contributions, let it go.
My points are "stupid" yet you can't prove any of them wrong... interesting.
--
bunge:
[quote]<strong>I tried to keep it on topic...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good on ya.
me: "France, Germany, Denmark and Norway alone (of European countries) contribute more Aid together than the US, with over 100 million less people."
This does not prove you wrong? Get over it. This is in pure dollars btw, no per capita bull.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>I guess the one thing microeconomics taught me was that a dollar is a dollar. Whather you pay an extra dollar for a case of soda or whather you pay an extra dollar for a new house, it's the same dollar and it's counted the same. So whter as a ratio of GNP, per household capita or whatever, don't we still shell out a hell of a lot of money? Isn't qualifying it as a per anything ratio just twisting the plain fact? (The fact that we give away a lot, I've heard we give more aid to the Middle East han other nations, but I'll assume that's not necessarily true.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I give you full credit for it. The american people is very generous. But I think its wrong of your government to tie Aid to buying American goods (And its wrong of France to do this as well).
Aid should be used to make countries independent of more aid.
When it came time to liberate Kuwait who did the brunt work?
The only reason I brought that kind of thing up is the moral posturing Europeans love to do. You seem to forget the context.
<strong>If I'm wrong I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting that.
When it came time to liberate Kuwait who did the brunt work?
The only reason I brought that kind of thing up is the moral posturing Europeans love to do. You seem to forget the context.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, and the stupid English colonial rule separated Kuwait from Iraq in the first place. What goes around comes around...
<strong>The only reason I brought that kind of thing up is the moral posturing Europeans love to do. </strong><hr></blockquote>
What about the moral posturing the 'Mericans 'round here do? Sickening.
<strong>
And I give you full credit for it. The american people is very generous. But I think its wrong of your government to tie Aid to buying American goods (And its wrong of France to do this as well).
Aid should be used to make countries independent of more aid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fair 'nuff about that.
<strong>
Groverat, You really need to stop falling back on that dot com crap. The economy went bad because it was time. We finally reached that part of the cycle. We had the longest bull market in history and you want us to believe it was all because of the internet?
We're talking about what's he's done since to help it? You know the 2yrs he's been in office.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just to clear things up, the Internet bust was a major part of the stock market's problem. When you take away faith in the system due to inflated/made-up values, people tend to respond unfavorably. So, G, you're right on the money.
As for what GW's done, he's tried to cut taxes. Until those tax cuts are made permanent people will still worry about them. The next round of tax cuts are more aimed at long-term influence and a general reform of the tax environment.
The main thing he's done is taken on the task of making sure the American people are safe. To this extent, he's been pretty successful. That is, by the way, a primary requirement for a healthy economy. Most other things fall into insignificance next to homeland security.
<strong>
First it's " I've already addressed that in other threads " then it's objections to making a comment based on what he thinks of Byrd's character.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, first I trashed Byrd's character.
[quote]<strong>The last time we had a disagreement he started PMing me telling to stop being a troll. An attempt to get me to give up due to intimidation. He wouldn't stop even though I asked him to. Hence private messaging for me has been disabled.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, the last time we had a disagreement I PM'd you not just because you were being a troll but also because we had gone way off topic. And I was trying to let the air out of our dispute. Now I don't bother... And I only sent you two PM's. Somehow I doubt that falls under the heading of intimidation.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
Speeches such as this one indicate that its maker is a point "man" for a new position. A test case. Do this, run some polls. That's why it's so negative, in part.