You should have thought before you posted disrespectful bullshit.

This is aa.com oOo:

Whichj meant your economy dropped which allowed ours to rise.

your all making the internet cry.

why is tripper.exe crying? oOo:

this thread = bwhahahaha....

[quote="Short Hand":5fa48][quote="TGB!":5fa48][quote="Short Hand":5fa48][quote="TGB!":5fa48]You dont need to be an American or live in the country to appreciate the time.

HOWEVER! - you are making gross generalizations, thinking economics and world politics are as easy as you're making them out to be, and I dont think you've studied politics or econ enough to really understand anything you're dropping.[/quote:5fa48]

How could I drop this crap if I didn't understand it ? Jesus. When you don't want to argue you just say im some dumbass. Argue people by slandering them seems to be name of the game here. Honestly.[/quote:5fa48]

Understanding? You're just posting links to articles that agree with your opinion. Tell us then Short how Reagans economic policy shattered the United States. Tell us how Reagans attemps at New Federalism was the wrong move seeing the state of the country at the time. Explain w/o resorting to saying - "oh he rose the national debt" - What president HASNT.[/quote:5fa48]




sleeping: sleeping: sleeping: sleeping: sleeping: Is that not what we have been debating threw out the whole thread ?. Fuck it/ fuck this thread. 29 on 1 is bullshit.[/quote:5fa48]It's time to suck TGB's dick now.

[quote=Pyro]Whichj meant your economy dropped which allowed ours to rise.[/quote:782c3]

The president of this country does not have total control over the economy as you are inferring. it's much, much, much more complicated than you just saying Reagan made itdo whatever. You think the economy was bad in the eighties? No sir.The eighties was a decade of over indulgence. By your logic, you should be happy that our economy dropped if in fact it caused yours to rise. Where's the problem other than you have no clue what you are talking about.

Go Hogman! rock:

[quote=Hogman74][quote=Pyro]Whichj meant your economy dropped which allowed ours to rise.[/quote:967df]

The president of this country does not have total control over the economy as you are inferring. it's much, much, much more complicated than you just saying Reagan made itdo whatever. You think the economy was bad in the eighties? No sir.The eighties was a decade of over indulgence. By your logic, you should be happy that our economy dropped if in fact it caused yours to rise. Where's the problem other than you have no clue what you are talking about.[/quote:967df]

WTF you cant say the President doesnt have total control over the economy, there goes the blame Clinton bullshit republicans use. Reaganomics = oOo:

edit

you can't put the blame soley on him, but you can, however, blame his staff biggrin:

I said total control. Yes the president and his actions can influence.To just say that Reagan caused all of this or that is using that black and white logic TGB was referring to. That was my point.

[quote:df989]Originally posted by Short Hand, who doesn't seem to respect US Army infantry because we train at Ft Benning Georgia, where we also apparently mass produce evil guerillas, and because of this, share the same views as said mass produced evil guerillas:
(Get um brainwashed young and you got um for life).
[/quote:df989]
Works both ways if you ask me.

I think darth vader was the best president we've ever had.

No... Luke owned his ass when he took office... how many presidents have rebelled against the president that was in office before him and then greased 'em?

HA
yes

[quote="Short Hand":13dbf]
1. You didnt compare it to other presidency's.
2. You did't even get it during Reagen's Term.
3. that chart looks like a quick microsoft excel chop up, give me a link please to the site. (even though the info on it is not that impressing).

as it seems you just uploaded this today to this site (is it your site)

[i]hudasstch.gif 20-Jun-2004 08:01 7k at 8:01 around the time of your post. Why not just remotely link it as you should ? are you concerned about the sites bandwidth ? or is this just your excel work as it looks.[/i]

link for more to see this-[url][b] [url="http://www.colonelbrands.com/images/"]http://www.colonelbrands.com/images/[/url][/b][/url]

in relation to the taxes.

typical for a capitilistic view, to see that. You would think that helping the poor with larger cuts would help out. How much is the government making off them in the first plaxce in taxes ???? Their is a reason these friggin rich people are responsible for 90 %.... because they are filthy rich. So. WHy not just give the poor who don't have that much to give the government in the first place a larger tax cut then their rich counter parts ????? if its only 10 % ? would this not give them the needed power to better themselves, and oddly enough put more money into the economy itself how little it may be. Poverty is a vicious cycle that most people don't quite understand until you are exposed to it clearly. My family itself at 1 point was on welfare for nearly half a year up in Canada. If it had not been for those checks in those months while my single mother with a baby would probably would have had to given up custody of us. compasion for the poor people, it hard to give but it works miracles.

http://www.colonelbrands.com ... mind me if im wrong but this looks like it may be your site, since their is no way to upload images to this site via public, unless your a web master. your name is colonel, your avatar is in "theme" of all of the stuff on that site........WHat a source to use peole "YOU OWN CHART"

If garry had half a brain while reading this and not huis current state of fanboy mentallity he my have seen all the fualts that came with it. I guess he see's large formations of words in order and he thinks that must be ownage. sorry but it ain't. ed:[/quote:13dbf]

Short Hand - Sorry it took awhile to get back to you - steaks on the grill this afternoon at a neighbor's house rock: !

1) I'm not sure what you mean by comparing it to other presidencys. The epidemic was discovered after President Reagan took office so it is only natural that his expenditures would be less than the guys that followed him, Our government has built-in increases for everything. My point was that he was spending money on it - and a great deal of money.

2) As I said, I realize that the article was from the year after he left office, but the point was that it was from a budget he approved (budgets are approved the year before the expenditure) and the that we were spending more on AIDS than cancer, which really doesn't make sense, other than the fact it is a political issue. (that has nothing to do with this discussion - this discussion is only about whether he ignored the problem)

3) The chart came from this website: http://www.texashousing.org/txlihis/pol ... uddeb.html and the only point of the chart was that spending increased every year. I posted it on the site that I use for my sigs because I figured it was easier for folks to see the chart than click on a link. BTW - thanks for posting a link to my web site - if you really want to help the poor buy a shirt from me!

4) "You would think that helping the poor with larger cuts would help out." I can't really debate you on this because it comes down to whether you believe in free enterprise or socialism. Yes, I believe that capitalism is the best method and history confirms it. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world. As for your statement, the cuts given to the poor were more, as a percentage, than what was given to the upper class, and if you believe the folks that you are quoting the upper class actually paid more taxes under President Reagan because he closed all of their loopholes.

I understand what you are saying about welfare being important. I believe in having a safety net for folks to fall back on (and spending for those programs increased during the Reagan years too BTW) but I also believe that the American system was geared in the past in such a way that it encouraged people to stay on welfare instead of working their way off the rolls. I think President Clinton's administration put the first restrictions on the length of time you can draw welfare - but I'm not sure about that one - I'd have to look it up. But that's a debate for a different thread.

thkz Colonel. We have come to a conclusion. :). I never thought I would see this :)

thkz for citing the chart, it was really supicious since it was a excel chart and it was hosted from your site and all. I gotta get going to work. NIght shift fun time.

[img]http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/images/greenspan.jpg[/img]

Anybody who has studied economics, especially in the US, knows that this man is much more important and powerful than the president when it comes to the welfare of our economy.

During Reagans time in office it was this man:

[img]http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/news/2003/images/volker_dg.jpg[/img]

He is much more responsible than Reagan for economic growth and failure. I suggest you study up on both of these men before you trample on the grave of another great leader.

Short, lets hear what your own opinions are, not what someone else wrote in the San Fran Chronicle. The "29 against 1" comment was the biggest line of cop out bullshit I've read.

If you're upset that people call you anti-american, then stop being anti-american. How many threads have you read on this board that thrash dead Canadian Prime Ministers?

The truth is, you have something against our great country. I'm the first to admit that we have problems, yep we've got a lot of em. We're not perfect, and I'm sure we never will be. But the fact is, I love my country and believe it or not, I also love yours. I respect you and your countrymen. Why can't you pay us the same respect?

[quote="Short Hand":67979]thkz Colonel. We have come to a conclusion. :). I never thought I would see this :)[/quote:67979]

No problem Short Hand - I enjoyed the discussion.

sometimes being bold is the only way to get across to people. Maybe a few poeple who are not posting in the thread might take some of this with some thought. Get them intrested in other articles from the site and other ideas in general etc. Open a few closed minds. Thats all im hoping for. We will never really know if so or not but that is for tiem to decide.

Can't we all just have a big group hug........?

Levinstein would stab me if he got that close. Noc & Trip would most liekly as well too.

[quote="Short Hand":9fe53]Levinstein would stab me if he got that close.[/quote:9fe53]

You'd probably catch a disease from him too. annoy:

[quote="Short Hand":0d476]Levinstein would stab me if he got that close. Noc & Trip would most liekly as well too.[/quote:0d476]

Maybe if you admitted you were wrong half the time. sleeping:

[quote=MrLevinstein]Maybe if you admitted you were wrong half the time. sleeping:[/quote:922df]

maybe if you admitted you were wrong as well. maybe.

[quote="Short Hand":67c93][quote=MrLevinstein]Maybe if you admitted you were wrong half the time. sleeping:[/quote:67c93]

maybe if you admitted you were wrong as well. maybe.[/quote:67c93]

Im wrong. If I met pyro id seriously beat the living shit out of him. 2 years of reading his moronic posts would cause a temper tantrum and it'd go insane.

[quote="Short Hand":c23fd]


sometimes being bold is the only way to get across to people. Maybe a few poeple who are not posting in the thread might take some of this with some thought. Get them intrested in other articles from the site and other ideas in general etc. Open a few closed minds. Thats all im hoping for. We will never really know if so or not but that is for tiem to decide.[/quote:c23fd]uh, no.


[img]http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/5549/108758755426.jpg[/img]

[quote="Garry Coleman":c71ba][quote="Short Hand":c71ba]


sometimes being bold is the only way to get across to people. Maybe a few poeple who are not posting in the thread might take some of this with some thought. Get them intrested in other articles from the site and other ideas in general etc. Open a few closed minds. Thats all im hoping for. We will never really know if so or not but that is for tiem to decide.[/quote:c71ba]uh, no.


[img]http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/5549/108758755426.jpg[/img][/quote:c71ba]

rock:


P.S - Yes, ShortHand - I would stab you. I'm dead serious. beer:

Take some advice from Colonel. You can have a difference of opinion and not be a dick about it, like he showed.

I remmeber when I whooped you in MOHAA Colonel...POAAC > OTD.

Tripper would shovel short hand.

Do you ever come up with an opinion that ISN'T copied from some other anti-american poophead?

cant pyro just leave already.....?

violent

You dont want pyr0 to leave....believe me you'll miss him and i know that sounds retarted but you will.

And yes short hand tripps is violent

one could only wish people could be more civil like Colonel.

Well I don't plan on visiting New Zealand any time soon So I shouldn't have to worry, and seeing how much he detestes Canada, not saying he is anti-Canadian although he may be.

[quote="Short Hand":1de46]one could only wish people could be more civil like Colonel.[/quote:1de46]

Why don't you three go and a have a fucking gangbang rainbow pash in the corner then, and the rest of us will stay here under the light of reality and continue to act like the assholes we are.

[quote="Short Hand":5cf9e]Well I don't plan on visiting New Zealand any time soon So I shouldn't have to worry, and seeing how much he detestes Canada, not saying he is anti-Canadian although he may be.[/quote:5cf9e]lol, he has never said anything that was negative about Canada. Maybe the two reasons he'd hate canada is because of you and pryo.