Alliedassault
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Alliedassault (alliedassault.us/index.php)
-   Offtopic (alliedassault.us/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Would you vote for Bush in 2004? (alliedassault.us/showthread.php?t=33792)

Madmartagen 01-08-2004 02:38 AM
[quote="Cpl. Eames":b8969]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madmartagen
Any vote is a throw away for me because I havent seen any good candidates. In a way, our democracy is a farce because our vote doesnt even count. The popular vote doesn't decide who the president will be, its the electors who make that choice. I havent heard a single reason why anyone should vote for bush that isnt propoganda based. I think its ridiculous to say that CNN is biased, and on the other hand, get information from a show like Fox News. They are both biased in everyway imaginable. Bush will win again because his dad has money and they let idiots vote.
There used to be poll taxes and literacy tests to keep them from voting...but someone said that "violated civil rights"[/quote:b8969]

WTF??? Are you serious? You think charging people to exercise their given right is constitutional? You think that making literacy a requirement to have a minimal say in how their lives should be governed is acceptable? You probably think the 'grandfather clause' was a great way to keep vagrants from ruining our country, dont you? Eames just sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up, boon. Youre acting stupid again.

Madmartagen 01-08-2004 02:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShagNasty
[img]http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/3STOOGES.JPG[/img]
ROFLOL!

Drew 01-08-2004 03:09 AM
GG me for assuming you people comprehend basic economics. I keep forgetting you're a bunch of high schoolers (although I was getting published in National Economics when I was a senior.. wtf are you n00bs doing - February/March issue of 2001, article is under last name Doss.. before any of you n00bs start trying to cry BS. Go to your library and look it up).

Anyway. There are short-term and long-term affects to the economy. Like I said, a lot of the instability we are seeing right now is a result of careless economic policies that are characteristic of the Democratic party. They pump socialist programs in the US full of money, and as we all know (or don't in what seems to be a large number of cases) socialist programs don't even break even on spending, but rather devour resources. Then the big bad Republicans come along and have to give the entire establishment a kick in the ass on the way back to capitalism, only to have the 'crats fuck it up next term.

Long story short: Presidents love to talk about how great the economy is while they're in office. But let's look and see who is warranted:

Bill Clinton takes office from George Bush, Sr. Bill Clinton immediately begins pumping cash into several socialist programs and increases the size of the government. These are both cash whores. So Bill Clinton introduces a bill that magically creates more jobs and brings unemployment to an all-time low. But uh oh.. reserves are getting a bit low. Better raise the taxes, but we'll deflect negative public opinion by heralding the elimination of defecit in the budget, which most uneducated citizens think means we've alleviate the national debt. Yeah right. In truth we've only managed to cut costs by a few billion dollars with the help of hiked taxes. Of course closing down half the military bases in the country and swooping through the military budget and personnel like the fucking Angel of Death - scythe in hand - helped just a bit. But the timing is just right, so the unemployment polls don't reflect the massive influx of unemployed persons just yet.

Then George Bush, Jr. takes office. A month later, the economy is recessing and unemployment is skyrocketing. CNN is already pinning this on Bush, but the poor man hasn't even had the opportunity to have a bill pass through the House, let alone the Senate or be signed into law. The Bush team decides the bite the bullet and really starts aggressively addressing the economy issue, although the media keeps this off the airwaves (Open congressional transcripts are usually available through the library of any major university. Not sure if you can find them online). And then 9/11 happens. Everyone backs off for a couple of months. Then, one day we all wake up and a Democrat is BLAMING THE STOCK MARKET CRASH ON BUSH. For fuck's sake. This alone should always and forever illegitimize their party, since it came from their majority leader.

Now, despite the most horrific attack on the United States since the attack on Pearl Harbor, Bush is still managing to produce great signs for a rebound in the economy. Now - fuck CNN - listen to me. The stock market is short-term. The stock market is short-term. The stock market is always fucking short-term. It's down? Sorry for you, but in the long-term that means jack shit. What does matter? Corporations are becoming more efficient and increasing productivity. Does that mean higher unemployment right now? Yes. But instead of Bush dumping cash into some stupid ass program to give these people meaningless jobs, he is instead giving the money to consumers in the form of tax cuts. Haven't connected the dots yet? Companies are more efficient and increasing productivity. This means more availability at much lower costs. Consumers have more money in their pockets from tax returns and go out and are more likely to buy these products being offered at a lower price with better quality. This in turn increases revenue for the company who begins producing more to meet the demand and in turn hires more workers and further stimulates the economy.

Now, if you didn't read this, fine. You either knew it already, or you're choosing to remain an ignorant fuck. Either way, Bush should get credit for what he's done with the economy, not bashing. Clinton fucked it up, but used the leftovers from Bush, Sr. and some crooked accounting to make it look like he was a savior. The Bush, Jr. team is turning that around, though. I'd like to see them have the chance to show the people the economic strength of a capitalist country not being held back by ignorant socialists.

Vote for Bush 2004.

01-08-2004 03:22 AM
You say "n00bs" a lot.... nice insult, I bet it makes a lot of poeple cry eh?

I'd vote for bush in 2004, caz of the lack of better canadiates sleeping:

Drew 01-08-2004 03:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quze
You say "n00bs" a lot.... nice insult, I bet it makes a lot of poeple cry eh?

I'd vote for bush in 2004, caz of the lack of better canadiates sleeping:
Way to make it past the first paragraph.

01-08-2004 03:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quze
You say "n00bs" a lot.... nice insult, I bet it makes a lot of poeple cry eh?

I'd vote for bush in 2004, caz of the lack of better canadiates sleeping:
Way to make it past the first paragraph.
it is 3 am. And just because I only commented on your first paragraph doesn't mean I didn't read your entire post.

Ever conside that?

Madmartagen 01-08-2004 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis
GG me for assuming you people comprehend basic economics. I keep forgetting you're a bunch of high schoolers (although I was getting published in National Economics when I was a senior.. wtf are you n00bs doing - February/March issue of 2001, article is under last name Doss.. before any of you n00bs start trying to cry BS. Go to your library and look it up).

um...ok oOo:

Anyway. There are short-term and long-term affects to the economy. Like I said, a lot of the instability we are seeing right now is a result of careless economic policies that are characteristic of the Democratic party. They pump socialist programs in the US full of money, and as we all know (or don't in what seems to be a large number of cases) socialist programs don't even break even on spending, but rather devour resources. Then the big bad Republicans come along and have to give the entire establishment a kick in the ass on the way back to capitalism, only to have the 'crats fuck it up next term.

thats because socialist programs are understood to be unprofitable. they are services provided to the people who pay their taxes and expect some kind of return.

Long story short: Presidents love to talk about how great the economy is while they're in office. But let's look and see who is warranted:

Bill Clinton takes office from George Bush, Sr. Bill Clinton immediately begins pumping cash into several socialist programs and increases the size of the government. These are both cash whores. So Bill Clinton introduces a bill that magically creates more jobs and brings unemployment to an all-time low. But uh oh.. reserves are getting a bit low. Better raise the taxes, but we'll deflect negative public opinion by heralding the elimination of defecit in the budget, which most uneducated citizens think means we've alleviate the national debt. Yeah right. In truth we've only managed to cut costs by a few billion dollars with the help of hiked taxes. Of course closing down half the military bases in the country and swooping through the military budget and personnel like the fucking Angel of Death - scythe in hand - helped just a bit. But the timing is just right, so the unemployment polls don't reflect the massive influx of unemployed persons just yet.

The difference between the office of Clinton and Bush sr is....NO COLD WAR GOING ON HERE! So there is no need for a large scale standing army. Reagan and Bush had a legitimate reason to keep a large army up and running. BTW if Clinton slashed and burned the hell out of the military, then how was the US Army able to perform so well in Afghanistan? Bush's first military budget didn't take place for another 12 months, so it would appear that George used Bills army to do the fighting.

Then George Bush, Jr. takes office. A month later, the economy is recessing and unemployment is skyrocketing. CNN is already pinning this on Bush, but the poor man hasn't even had the opportunity to have a bill pass through the House, let alone the Senate or be signed into law. The Bush team decides the bite the bullet and really starts aggressively addressing the economy issue, although the media keeps this off the airwaves (Open congressional transcripts are usually available through the library of any major university. Not sure if you can find them online). And then 9/11 happens. Everyone backs off for a couple of months. Then, one day we all wake up and a Democrat is BLAMING THE STOCK MARKET CRASH ON BUSH. For fuck's sake. This alone should always and forever illegitimize their party, since it came from their majority leader.

I don't recall a recession in the first month of Bush's presidency, but I do know that the blame game goes both ways. Clinton was blamed for the first attacks on the WTC after only some 40 days or so in office. Furthermore, everyone in this country knows that every Democrat will vote against a Republican bill just as much as Republicans vote against Democrats (with the exception of John McCain), so this isn't news to anyone. As for the stock market, it might be more stable if there weren't as many Enrons, Haliburtons and other big fish that are so eagerly protected by Bush's tax cuts. Don't forget about lifting the tax on estates and stock earnings, as we all know, poor people play stock market all the time.

Now, despite the most horrific attack on the United States since the attack on Pearl Harbor, Bush is still managing to produce great signs for a rebound in the economy. Now - fuck CNN - listen to me. The stock market is short-term. The stock market is short-term. The stock market is always fucking short-term. It's down? Sorry for you, but in the long-term that means jack shit. What does matter? Corporations are becoming more efficient and increasing productivity. Does that mean higher unemployment right now? Yes. But instead of Bush dumping cash into some stupid ass program to give these people meaningless jobs, he is instead giving the money to consumers in the form of tax cuts. Haven't connected the dots yet? Companies are more efficient and increasing productivity. This means more availability at much lower costs. Consumers have more money in their pockets from tax returns and go out and are more likely to buy these products being offered at a lower price with better quality. This in turn increases revenue for the company who begins producing more to meet the demand and in turn hires more workers and further stimulates the economy.

That is the same rhetoric as told by all supporters of the tax cut for the rich plan. Give the cuts to the companies so they can spend it on their workers, right? How many business use their income tax refunds on their employees? None that I know of.

Now, if you didn't read this, fine. You either knew it already, or you're choosing to remain an ignorant fuck. Either way, Bush should get credit for what he's done with the economy, not bashing. Clinton fucked it up, but used the leftovers from Bush, Sr. and some crooked accounting to make it look like he was a savior. The Bush, Jr. team is turning that around, though. I'd like to see them have the chance to show the people the economic strength of a capitalist country not being held back by ignorant socialists.

Vote for Bush 2004.


Here's the credit Bush can take on his part in the economy.

http://www.senate.gov/~budget/democrati ... 102003.pdf

Drew 01-08-2004 06:45 AM
A) We are not a Socialist country. The Nazis were Socialist. We are Capitalists.

B) The United States Military has had a policy that predates WWII of being able to fight a full scale war simultaneously on two fronts. Any analyst will tell you this is not possible today. In addition, we had to call up reserves just to go to Afghanistan, which should be enough by itself to tell you the military is hurting. Clinton broke the military's back, end of story. Be glad there was a Republican in office this term. Gore would have slapped the Taliban on the wrist and walked away with a sore asshole.

C) Way to not even address the issue at hand, which would be that tax cuts are also going to the lower classes. The biggest consumers are the middle class, and they've had one tax cut already with another one coming. And as far as all the complaints about the rich getting tax cuts... Number one, who do you think puts up the money for new companies and ideas to be realized? Who gives loans or invests in small businesses that need some help? And for God's sake, why is it fair for them to lose nearly half their money to taxes when you only lose 20%? The media talks all these big numbers that make it seem way unfair, but the people in the highest tax bracket in the US still pay more than double what we do percentage-wise in taxes, and probably pay more in taxes each year than you'll make in your lifetime. So stop being ignorant and come off that. As I've said, the stability of the stock market both has to do with the backlash from reckless expenditures from the Clinton Administration catching up, and most importantly the worst act of terrorism this country has seen.

D) See above.

Linking to senate.gov does not make you smart. Please try again post-education.

Stinger_Dude 01-08-2004 07:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis
A) We are not a Socialist country. The Nazis were Socialist.
The Nazis were not Socialist. Even though they have the name National Socialism they were exactly opposite of Socialism and followed the routes of Fascism or extreme capitalism. It was an extreme right wing movement, not left. Hitler hated Socialism called it a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.

pest 01-08-2004 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis

Now, if you didn't read this, fine. You either knew it already, or you're choosing to remain an ignorant fuck.
oOo:

You make some reasonable economic statements and some very large assumptions, then beat over everyones head and if we choose not to believe we are ignorant fucks. Politics by sledgehammer, huh. Thats always been my biggest gripe with Bush and with his little brother.

01-08-2004 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis
A) We are not a Socialist country. The Nazis were Socialist. We are Capitalists.
so let's lift all fair wage laws and stuff and have children laboring in the coal mines for pennies a day oOo:

I don't like Socialism (Soviet style) but the government needs to take steps to protect the average joe from capitalists who want to increase their profits by gouging prices or paying unfair wages. I suggest you read up on your turn of the (last) century history, n00b.

PS. no I don't like people taking my money and paying it as welfare to lazy mexicans, but I equally hate assholes who take my money and keep most of it as profit rather than giving fair wage increases to their workers (at least enough to cover cost of living increases)

PPS. funny how you call everyone "ignorant fucks", because the only thing that cutting education funding will get you is more "ignorant fucks", but that's what they want: a large pool of unskilled labor.

Zoner 01-08-2004 11:30 AM
There is NO FRIGGIN' WAY I'm voting for Bush in 2004. Nossir, you can't make me and I won't give in!!!

SW-14 01-08-2004 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoner
There is NO FRIGGIN' WAY I'm voting for Bush in 2004. Nossir, you can't make me and I won't give in!!!
oOo:

Madmartagen 01-08-2004 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis
A) We are not a Socialist country. The Nazis were Socialist. We are Capitalists.

Nazis and the Communists were socialists, its just that one was on the far left and the other is on the far right. There is no such thing as being just socialist, we are a democratic-republic that has liberal, conservative and socialist policies that are implemented in every administration. We take steps to empower our economy with capitalism, but on the other hand we have to check that power with more socialist programs. If we were a true capitalist society, we would have fair trade, no tariffs, no payoffs for bankrupt airline companies or financial corporations. We use socialist solutions to balance the losses accrued by capitalist ventures (not saying capitalism doesnt work, im all for capitalism).

B) The United States Military has had a policy that predates WWII of being able to fight a full scale war simultaneously on two fronts. Any analyst will tell you this is not possible today. In addition, we had to call up reserves just to go to Afghanistan, which should be enough by itself to tell you the military is hurting. Clinton broke the military's back, end of story. Be glad there was a Republican in office this term. Gore would have slapped the Taliban on the wrist and walked away with a sore asshole.

You bring in an analyst that says our military cant fight a two front war, and I will bring in one who says we can. Big fucking deal, ok? End of story? Not really, our military is still the finest in the world and was able to lay the smack down on the Taliban, Serbia, and Iraq. I don't see how Clinton broke the militarys back when he had the same budget expenditure as Bush did pre 9/11. Its obvious to say our military has more money now when we have troops in the field. I agree with you on the last remark you made. I am glad Bush is here to deal with the Taliban, because I don't think Gore would have the stomach for this kind of campaign.

C) Way to not even address the issue at hand, which would be that tax cuts are also going to the lower classes. The biggest consumers are the middle class, and they've had one tax cut already with another one coming. And as far as all the complaints about the rich getting tax cuts... Number one, who do you think puts up the money for new companies and ideas to be realized? Who gives loans or invests in small businesses that need some help? And for God's sake, why is it fair for them to lose nearly half their money to taxes when you only lose 20%? The media talks all these big numbers that make it seem way unfair, but the people in the highest tax bracket in the US still pay more than double what we do percentage-wise in taxes, and probably pay more in taxes each year than you'll make in your lifetime. So stop being ignorant and come off that. As I've said, the stability of the stock market both has to do with the backlash from reckless expenditures from the Clinton Administration catching up, and most importantly the worst act of terrorism this country has seen.

I believe I did address the tax cut issue, only I didnt spend as much time elaborating on it. Why should the enormously wealthy pick up the slack? Maybe its because of the tax breaks (not cuts) they get now that more than offsets the money they have to give back to the government. No taxes on stock earnings, no tax on estates? You think Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Al Rowe and Newt Gengrich know how to dodge taxes in April? I bet they do, and I bet they do more than anyone else. They should also pick up the slack because they are the ones who created this shit in the first place. The middle and lower class are consumers/end users. Their job is to spend, spend, spend and we do that very well. Who manipulates the budget, defecit, economy and taxes? If a wealthy person lost half their money every year in taxes, they wouldnt be wealthy anymore, now would they? I dont think we have had a serious riches to rags story going on in our country since the great depression. Finally, the stability of the stock market also depends on wealthy CEO's not inflating their profits, doing insider trading, and destroying employees 401k by selling thier own shares AFTER preventing others from doing so. I wonder if these TX based firms have any friends in the white house?

I dont blame 9/11 on Bush so WTF?

D) See above.

rolleyes:

Linking to senate.gov does not make you smart. Please try again post-education.
I'm sorry, I didn't have my article published in the National Economics, because I was sick the day it was due. Just because someone published your ziggy cartoon in a third rate periodical doesnt mean you are the only one on this forum capable of making a rebuttle. Since we are on the topic of challenging credibility, I would like to point out that you did not reference any source material at all in your post. Like everyone on this forum you were expressing an opinion. You, however, seem to think that just because you post it, it MUST be a fact. Get off your high horse and STFU, kthx.

Short Hand 01-08-2004 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madmartagen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis
A) We are not a Socialist country. The Nazis were Socialist. We are Capitalists.

Nazis and the Communists were socialists, its just that one was on the far left and the other is on the far right. There is no such thing as being just socialist, we are a democratic-republic that has liberal, conservative and socialist policies that are implemented in every administration. We take steps to empower our economy with capitalism, but on the other hand we have to check that power with more socialist programs. If we were a true capitalist society, we would have fair trade, no tariffs, no payoffs for bankrupt airline companies or financial corporations. We use socialist solutions to balance the losses accrued by capitalist ventures (not saying capitalism doesnt work, im all for capitalism).

B) The United States Military has had a policy that predates WWII of being able to fight a full scale war simultaneously on two fronts. Any analyst will tell you this is not possible today. In addition, we had to call up reserves just to go to Afghanistan, which should be enough by itself to tell you the military is hurting. Clinton broke the military's back, end of story. Be glad there was a Republican in office this term. Gore would have slapped the Taliban on the wrist and walked away with a sore asshole.

You bring in an analyst that says our military cant fight a two front war, and I will bring in one who says we can. Big fucking deal, ok? End of story? Not really, our military is still the finest in the world and was able to lay the smack down on the Taliban, Serbia, and Iraq. I don't see how Clinton broke the militarys back when he had the same budget expenditure as Bush did pre 9/11. Its obvious to say our military has more money now when we have troops in the field. I agree with you on the last remark you made. I am glad Bush is here to deal with the Taliban, because I don't think Gore would have the stomach for this kind of campaign.

C) Way to not even address the issue at hand, which would be that tax cuts are also going to the lower classes. The biggest consumers are the middle class, and they've had one tax cut already with another one coming. And as far as all the complaints about the rich getting tax cuts... Number one, who do you think puts up the money for new companies and ideas to be realized? Who gives loans or invests in small businesses that need some help? And for God's sake, why is it fair for them to lose nearly half their money to taxes when you only lose 20%? The media talks all these big numbers that make it seem way unfair, but the people in the highest tax bracket in the US still pay more than double what we do percentage-wise in taxes, and probably pay more in taxes each year than you'll make in your lifetime. So stop being ignorant and come off that. As I've said, the stability of the stock market both has to do with the backlash from reckless expenditures from the Clinton Administration catching up, and most importantly the worst act of terrorism this country has seen.

I believe I did address the tax cut issue, only I didnt spend as much time elaborating on it. Why should the enormously wealthy pick up the slack? Maybe its because of the tax breaks (not cuts) they get now that more than offsets the money they have to give back to the government. No taxes on stock earnings, no tax on estates? You think Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Al Rowe and Newt Gengrich know how to dodge taxes in April? I bet they do, and I bet they do more than anyone else. They should also pick up the slack because they are the ones who created this shit in the first place. The middle and lower class are consumers/end users. Their job is to spend, spend, spend and we do that very well. Who manipulates the budget, defecit, economy and taxes? If a wealthy person lost half their money every year in taxes, they wouldnt be wealthy anymore, now would they? I dont think we have had a serious riches to rags story going on in our country since the great depression. Finally, the stability of the stock market also depends on wealthy CEO's not inflating their profits, doing insider trading, and destroying employees 401k by selling thier own shares AFTER preventing others from doing so. I wonder if these TX based firms have any friends in the white house?

I dont blame 9/11 on Bush so WTF?

D) See above.

rolleyes:

Linking to senate.gov does not make you smart. Please try again post-education.
I'm sorry, I didn't have my article published in the National Economics, because I was sick the day it was due. Just because someone published your ziggy cartoon in a third rate periodical doesnt mean you are the only one on this forum capable of making a rebuttle. Since we are on the topic of challenging credibility, I would like to point out that you did not reference any source material at all in your post. Like everyone on this forum you were expressing an opinion. You, however, seem to think that just because you post it, it MUST be a fact. Get off your high horse and STFU, kthx.


Your found words for what I wanted to say. ownage rock:

Zoner 01-08-2004 03:23 PM
[quote="SW-14":cc041]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoner
There is NO FRIGGIN' WAY I'm voting for Bush in 2004. Nossir, you can't make me and I won't give in!!!
oOo:[/quote:cc041]

You know the reason WHY, right?

Unknown_Sniper 01-08-2004 03:25 PM
[quote=Zoner]
Quote:
Originally Posted by "SW-14":bb98e
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoner
There is NO FRIGGIN' WAY I'm voting for Bush in 2004. Nossir, you can't make me and I won't give in!!!
oOo:
You know the reason WHY, right?[/quote:bb98e]
your canadian?
As for all those Clark posters I told you guys about. they have been replaced with half as many JOe Lieberman posters. its discusting. I hate living in a rich town....no I dont :P

Zoner 01-08-2004 03:27 PM
[quote="Unknown_Sniper":e2d13]your canadian?[/quote:e2d13]

The man wins a cookie. biggrin:

Unknown_Sniper 01-08-2004 03:29 PM
YAY I want this one.[img]http://www.collegehumor.com/image.php?id=30239&height=1500&width=492[/img]

Madmartagen 01-08-2004 03:35 PM
[quote="Unknown_Sniper":a0149]YAY I want this one.[img]http://www.collegehumor.com/image.php?id=30239&height=1500&width=492[/img][/quote:a0149]

LMAO!

Drew 01-08-2004 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madmartagen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis
A) We are not a Socialist country. The Nazis were Socialist. We are Capitalists.

Nazis and the Communists were socialists, its just that one was on the far left and the other is on the far right. There is no such thing as being just socialist, we are a democratic-republic that has liberal, conservative and socialist policies that are implemented in every administration. We take steps to empower our economy with capitalism, but on the other hand we have to check that power with more socialist programs. If we were a true capitalist society, we would have fair trade, no tariffs, no payoffs for bankrupt airline companies or financial corporations. We use socialist solutions to balance the losses accrued by capitalist ventures (not saying capitalism doesnt work, im all for capitalism).

B) The United States Military has had a policy that predates WWII of being able to fight a full scale war simultaneously on two fronts. Any analyst will tell you this is not possible today. In addition, we had to call up reserves just to go to Afghanistan, which should be enough by itself to tell you the military is hurting. Clinton broke the military's back, end of story. Be glad there was a Republican in office this term. Gore would have slapped the Taliban on the wrist and walked away with a sore asshole.

You bring in an analyst that says our military cant fight a two front war, and I will bring in one who says we can. Big fucking deal, ok? End of story? Not really, our military is still the finest in the world and was able to lay the smack down on the Taliban, Serbia, and Iraq. I don't see how Clinton broke the militarys back when he had the same budget expenditure as Bush did pre 9/11. Its obvious to say our military has more money now when we have troops in the field. I agree with you on the last remark you made. I am glad Bush is here to deal with the Taliban, because I don't think Gore would have the stomach for this kind of campaign.

C) Way to not even address the issue at hand, which would be that tax cuts are also going to the lower classes. The biggest consumers are the middle class, and they've had one tax cut already with another one coming. And as far as all the complaints about the rich getting tax cuts... Number one, who do you think puts up the money for new companies and ideas to be realized? Who gives loans or invests in small businesses that need some help? And for God's sake, why is it fair for them to lose nearly half their money to taxes when you only lose 20%? The media talks all these big numbers that make it seem way unfair, but the people in the highest tax bracket in the US still pay more than double what we do percentage-wise in taxes, and probably pay more in taxes each year than you'll make in your lifetime. So stop being ignorant and come off that. As I've said, the stability of the stock market both has to do with the backlash from reckless expenditures from the Clinton Administration catching up, and most importantly the worst act of terrorism this country has seen.

I believe I did address the tax cut issue, only I didnt spend as much time elaborating on it. Why should the enormously wealthy pick up the slack? Maybe its because of the tax breaks (not cuts) they get now that more than offsets the money they have to give back to the government. No taxes on stock earnings, no tax on estates? You think Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Al Rowe and Newt Gengrich know how to dodge taxes in April? I bet they do, and I bet they do more than anyone else. They should also pick up the slack because they are the ones who created this shit in the first place. The middle and lower class are consumers/end users. Their job is to spend, spend, spend and we do that very well. Who manipulates the budget, defecit, economy and taxes? If a wealthy person lost half their money every year in taxes, they wouldnt be wealthy anymore, now would they? I dont think we have had a serious riches to rags story going on in our country since the great depression. Finally, the stability of the stock market also depends on wealthy CEO's not inflating their profits, doing insider trading, and destroying employees 401k by selling thier own shares AFTER preventing others from doing so. I wonder if these TX based firms have any friends in the white house?

I dont blame 9/11 on Bush so WTF?

D) See above.

rolleyes:

Linking to senate.gov does not make you smart. Please try again post-education.
I'm sorry, I didn't have my article published in the National Economics, because I was sick the day it was due. Just because someone published your ziggy cartoon in a third rate periodical doesnt mean you are the only one on this forum capable of making a rebuttle. Since we are on the topic of challenging credibility, I would like to point out that you did not reference any source material at all in your post. Like everyone on this forum you were expressing an opinion. You, however, seem to think that just because you post it, it MUST be a fact. Get off your high horse and STFU, kthx.
Didn't see anything in there that couldn't be rebutted by repeating myself, so I'll just encourage you to re-read.

Third rate? It's a journal published across the entire nation and can be found in most major university libraries. Mmmmkay.

And of course it's right if I post it.

Zap. USMC 01-08-2004 07:31 PM
I thought the Nazis were fascists? cool:

Madmartagen 01-08-2004 08:09 PM
[quote="Cpt. Zapotoski":e003c]I thought the Nazis were fascists? cool:[/quote:e003c]

Yes they were. The Nazi party, or NSDAP, stands for the National Socialist German Workers Party. They are both socialists and fascists.

Zap. USMC 01-08-2004 08:39 PM
[quote=Madmartagen]
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Cpt. Zapotoski":6efe8
I thought the Nazis were fascists? cool:
Yes they were. The Nazi party, or NSDAP, stands for the National Socialist German Workers Party. They are both socialists and fascists.[/quote:6efe8]

Aye.

Kind of funny how the Germans called themselves "Socialists" yet Hitler HATED the Russians... "socialism" is a Russian theory.

01-08-2004 08:48 PM
[quote="Cpt. Zapotoski":fd88e][quote=Madmartagen]
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Cpt. Zapotoski":fd88e
I thought the Nazis were fascists? cool:
Yes they were. The Nazi party, or NSDAP, stands for the National Socialist German Workers Party. They are both socialists and fascists.[/quote:fd88e]

Aye.

Kind of funny how the Germans called themselves "Socialists" yet Hitler HATED the Russians... "socialism" is a Russian theory.[/quote:fd88e]

Socialism is a German-French theory actually, Karl Marx was a kraut and I think Engels lived in France.

I understand that to have "true" socialism you need to have the means of production be owned by the government (suposedly in the interest of the people). I understood from reading WWII books that Germany still had privately owned companies before and during WWII, so they were not really socialists. So even with progressive taxes we are not "spiralling into socialism"

Eames 01-08-2004 08:58 PM
Engels was a kraut too. And the germans were "national socialist" which is a far right version of socialism also known as "facism" . The german state controled everything, every aspect of peoples life. The germans did not hate socialist, they hated communist, because they felt that world bolshevism and world judiasm went hand in hand.

and btw i havent been reading the other pages how the hell did a topic on bush geting elected turn to what govt the nazis had??

Zap. USMC 01-08-2004 09:01 PM
[quote:e251e]because they felt that world bolshevism and world judiasm went hand in hand. [/quote:e251e]

How are they alike? I believe the Bolshevik party were athiests and actually stripped religion from the culture... unless Stalin did that, not really sure.

01-08-2004 09:06 PM
[quote="Cpt. Zapotoski":551ce][quote:551ce]because they felt that world bolshevism and world judiasm went hand in hand. [/quote:551ce]

How are they alike? I believe the Bolshevik party were athiests and actually stripped religion from the culture... unless Stalin did that, not really sure.[/quote:551ce]

its called propaganda, sort of like the more extremeist Mid East countries say that the US government (both Republicans and Democrats) are really working for the Jews rolleyes:

SW-14 01-08-2004 09:16 PM
[quote=Zoner]
Quote:
Originally Posted by "SW-14":7d764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoner
There is NO FRIGGIN' WAY I'm voting for Bush in 2004. Nossir, you can't make me and I won't give in!!!
oOo:
You know the reason WHY, right?[/quote:7d764]

Yes, that's why I thought it was funny.

pest 01-09-2004 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis
C) Way to not even address the issue at hand, which would be that tax cuts are also going to the lower classes. The biggest consumers are the middle class, and they've had one tax cut already with another one coming. And as far as all the complaints about the rich getting tax cuts... Number one, who do you think puts up the money for new companies and ideas to be realized? Who gives loans or invests in small businesses that need some help? And for God's sake, why is it fair for them to lose nearly half their money to taxes when you only lose 20%? The media talks all these big numbers that make it seem way unfair, but the people in the highest tax bracket in the US still pay more than double what we do percentage-wise in taxes, and probably pay more in taxes each year than you'll make in your lifetime. So stop being ignorant and come off that. As I've said, the stability of the stock market both has to do with the backlash from reckless expenditures from the Clinton Administration catching up, and most importantly the worst act of terrorism this country has seen.
Wow, worst case of Rush inspired Republican party rhetoric I have seen in a bit. And fairly ignorant in spots too.

Where to start....lets see..

Sure, the rich do much of the investing, but retirement plans, 401k and other related investments are now mostly funded thru employee plans, meaning the middle class. And even when its the rich investing directly instead of thru the markets, they get tax breaks. THATS why they invest in this sector, trust me, its not out of philantropic tendencies. Nice attempt to deflect the truth there. And income on investments is taxed at a fixed cap gains percentage, lower than the "upper classes" base rate.

Lose half their money to taxes???? This is the worst statement you have made. The highest tax bracket is nowhere near 50%, its closer to 35%. And its not half their money, its half there taxable income. So someone can never lose the principle to taxes. No riches to rags scenario there, unless the riches are plain dumb. You also conveniently left out the part about progressive taxation. The rich are taxed for their first 100,000 income exactly the same rate as the guy that only makes 100k. They are taxed at higher rates on only the amounts over that particular bracket. Good attempt to deflect the real issues and good use of very exagerated numbers.

Now to address the accusations that everyone but you is ignorant. Economics is ALL theory. And there are lots of theories out there. Just because someone doenst subscribe to the same one as some random bellhop, doesnt mean they are ignorant, especially when the theories are mixed with politics. The excessive use of name calling in your threads takes away from any credibility you may or may not have.

ErichHartmann 01-09-2004 10:53 AM
Well,
 
I can't vote yet but i would if i could. He has ade a huge diffrence unlike bill.
He is anti-terroism which is the best thing you can be and Fight it for our freedom, He did something right after sept 11 to protect us and if you don't like him. Think what he did for the american people protecting you ass so you can live not talk bad things about this great guy. I would think you have no heart if you don't like him.

Bush is like regan to great guys

pest 01-09-2004 11:52 AM
Re: Well,
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErichHartmann
Think what he did for the american people protecting you ass so you can live not talk bad things about this great guy. I would think you have no heart if you don't like him.
Actually, the current administration has taken away more personal rights and freedoms than any other in memory. Which president hasnt protected our asses?

KTOG 01-09-2004 12:05 PM
Ralph Nader 4 life

Madmartagen 01-09-2004 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTOG
Ralph Nader 4 life
Hey it could happen if CA was the only state in the US. Whenever I see him on a debate it always looks like he's ready to box the other opponent out. Thats what we need next election, a fist fight.

General Cobra 01-09-2004 01:43 PM
Once again the people of American must choose from duche bag #1 or duche bag #2. I for one am not gonna bother until there are some REAL people on the ballot worth voting for. I cant bitch so I don't. I don't vote because why vote for either one when I know they are just a bunch of arrogant pompus jackasses that sucked mommas titty too long so they think everyone owes them something? All they do is throw around their weight and never solve a fucking thing.

As for waiting for the REAL people to show up on the ballot.... let's just say I prob won't be voting for the rest of my life on Presidential Elections.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:01 AM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.12 by ScriptzBin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1998 - 2007 by Rudedog Productions | All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.