|
Post by illicit on Jan 27, 2006 23:18:52 GMT -5
Actually, both of you are sort of wrong. FDR was indeed a Democrat, but his New Deal programs didn't cost much. It was sort of like managed debt. WW2 put us in huge debt, but at that point it didn't matter. Republicans and Conservatives are known for fiscal "responsibilty" but Bush has thrown that principle out. And Ratwar... Jimmy Carter actually had the largest military budget to date or something. I'll find a source. I'm not sure on that one, but I know that Regan more than doubled the national debt in his two terms. Sorry, I forgot Clinton was 2 terms, he screwed up everything worse than Bush, which is why he is having trouble. He knew about 9/11, he screwed up with the affair, he lead us into the hole and people dont understand that bush is trying to dig us out. Yes, 8 years of economic growth, budget surpluses, and no wars is definitely screwing everything up. As for knowing anything about 9/11 that's BS. Pure BS. You have no evidence only irrational claims. Yes, it did screw everything up, surpluses can be very bad for the economy, it makes money more available, thus creating higher inflation, taxes, and interest rates, and when this finally goes back to normal then it screws everything up real bad.
|
|
Star
Outlander
STAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR!!!
Posts: 38
|
Post by Star on Jan 27, 2006 23:23:08 GMT -5
I'm not sure on that one, but I know that Regan more than doubled the national debt in his two terms. Yes, 8 years of economic growth, budget surpluses, and no wars is definitely screwing everything up. As for knowing anything about 9/11 that's BS. Pure BS. You have no evidence only irrational claims. Yes, it did screw everything up, surpluses can be very bad for the economy, it makes money more available, thus creating higher inflation, taxes, and interest rates, and when this finally goes back to normal then it screws everything up real bad. And debt is good for the country?
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Jan 27, 2006 23:25:21 GMT -5
I'm not sure on that one, but I know that Regan more than doubled the national debt in his two terms. Yes, 8 years of economic growth, budget surpluses, and no wars is definitely screwing everything up. As for knowing anything about 9/11 that's BS. Pure BS. You have no evidence only irrational claims. Yes, it did screw everything up, surpluses can be very bad for the economy, it makes money more available, thus creating higher inflation, taxes, and interest rates, and when this finally goes back to normal then it screws everything up real bad. Actually, a little bit of inflation is good for the economy. Oh, and the Federal Reserve has a lot more control over inflation rates than the amount of budget surplus.
|
|
|
Post by illicit on Jan 27, 2006 23:26:03 GMT -5
Yes, it did screw everything up, surpluses can be very bad for the economy, it makes money more available, thus creating higher inflation, taxes, and interest rates, and when this finally goes back to normal then it screws everything up real bad. And debt is good for the country? It doesnt matter if we dont intend to pay it back
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Jan 27, 2006 23:27:35 GMT -5
And debt is good for the country? It doesnt matter if we dont intend to pay it back If we don't intend to pay it back, faith in the Federal government drops hurting the economy even more... Good Argument!
|
|
|
Post by illicit on Jan 27, 2006 23:28:19 GMT -5
It doesnt matter if we dont intend to pay it back If we don't intend to pay it back, faith in the Federal government drops hurting the economy even more... Good Argument! Faith from who? Who needs our faith?
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Jan 27, 2006 23:30:54 GMT -5
If we don't intend to pay it back, faith in the Federal government drops hurting the economy even more... Good Argument! Faith from who? Who needs our faith? The general populus. Personally, I wouldn't trust anyone that borrows money without the intent to pay it back...
|
|
|
Post by illicit on Jan 27, 2006 23:32:45 GMT -5
Faith from who? Who needs our faith? The general populus. Personally, I wouldn't trust anyone that borrows money without the intent to pay it back... Then why do we keep paying taxes?
|
|
|
Post by eek on Jan 28, 2006 20:38:34 GMT -5
The general populus. Personally, I wouldn't trust anyone that borrows money without the intent to pay it back... Then why do we keep paying taxes? So the Government can keep paying for schools, healthcare, security and other public services.
|
|
|
Post by WitchBoy on Jan 29, 2006 1:42:21 GMT -5
Illicit, do you even know what you're saying anymore? Every statement you make digs you deeper into a pit.
|
|
Twitchmonkey
Gallant
Dragonzord Hooker
I like hookers
Posts: 2,979
|
Post by Twitchmonkey on Jan 29, 2006 1:53:27 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, the national debt is money borrowed with the intent to pay it back. We don't pay it back, people stop giving it to us, then we need it for whatever reason, and we're screwed. We'e lucky those we're indebted to have allowed it for this long, but how much longer will it last? I'm sorry if I am unsure of the facts, the national debt is not something which I am all too familiar with.
As far as the Clinton/ush debate, Bush knew about 9/11 too, he just didn't take it seriously. And could we just forget about Clinton's affair? It had no bearing on the government in any way aside from the money spend on the impeachment process, it's just such a weak point.
|
|
|
Post by darkhelmet on Jan 29, 2006 10:17:14 GMT -5
No! It shows Clinton was bad on "moral values". And Twitch, no country in the world pays back debt. Except for Sweden or one of the those Scandinavian countries.
|
|
PrettyBurn
Squire
CAMELOT!
can't stop the signal
Posts: 1,338
|
Post by PrettyBurn on Jan 29, 2006 12:51:25 GMT -5
No! It shows Clinton was bad on "moral values". That's the part that disgusts me. In 2004, when people were asked why they were voting for Bush, the large majority were doing it for moral reasons, because they thought he was a nice, moral guy rather than because they thought he was a good president. *shudder* It makes me sick.
|
|
|
Post by eek on Jan 29, 2006 12:59:42 GMT -5
Heh... our most "morally sound" (IMO) party leader just resigned last week because of an alcohol problem.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jan 29, 2006 13:42:26 GMT -5
Bush and most Republicans in general are not moral, they are religious. They can call it saving morality but it is just legislating religion, namely Christianity. Gay marriage and abortion should not even be issues and yet they are major platform planks each and every election. It should be automatic that both are allowed. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Both of these fall under pursuit of happiness. Both are someone doing something without harming anyone else. So they should be allowed without a shadow of a doubt. Religious and moral are not the same thing.
|
|
PrettyBurn
Squire
CAMELOT!
can't stop the signal
Posts: 1,338
|
Post by PrettyBurn on Jan 29, 2006 13:44:06 GMT -5
Bush and most Republicans in general are not moral, they are religious. They can call it saving morality but it is just legislating religion, namely Christianity. Gay marriage and abortion should not even be issues. It should be automatic that both are allowed. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Both of these fall under pursuit of happiness. Both are someone doing something without harming anyone else. So they should be allowed without a shadow of a doubt. Religious and moral are not the same thing. Beautifully said.
|
|
|
Post by Hunessai on Jan 29, 2006 15:48:16 GMT -5
I don't think it's fair to say that most Replubicans aren't moral. Each person holds a slightly different view on the universe, and will most likely have a different moral code. There is no absolute right and wrong.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Jan 29, 2006 21:36:00 GMT -5
I don't think it's fair to say that most Replubicans aren't moral. Each person holds a slightly different view on the universe, and will most likely have a different moral code. There is no absolute right and wrong. I was speaking more of their political views being moral. I wasn't saying Republicans are immoral people, I was just trying to say that although they claim that they believe in "morality" it is really just believing in religious values.
|
|
|
Post by illicit on Jan 30, 2006 9:28:10 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, the national debt is money borrowed with the intent to pay it back. We don't pay it back, people stop giving it to us, then we need it for whatever reason, and we're screwed. We'e lucky those we're indebted to have allowed it for this long, but how much longer will it last? I'm sorry if I am unsure of the facts, the national debt is not something which I am all too familiar with. As far as the Clinton/ush debate, Bush knew about 9/11 too, he just didn't take it seriously. And could we just forget about Clinton's affair? It had no bearing on the government in any way aside from the money spend on the impeachment process, it's just such a weak point. If I am not mistaken Bush never even heard about 9/11, thats why it happened, the CIA and other Intelligence agencies had the information but they never had enough to tell the president, UNLESS they told eachother. Now clinton knew, and could have stopped it, sadly he wanted bush's presidency to be a bad one, so he just killed thousands of people. There is nothing that says that, its Life, Liberty, and property I dont know where people get pursuit of hapiness from because it truly doesnt exist.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Jan 30, 2006 9:46:08 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, the national debt is money borrowed with the intent to pay it back. We don't pay it back, people stop giving it to us, then we need it for whatever reason, and we're screwed. We'e lucky those we're indebted to have allowed it for this long, but how much longer will it last? I'm sorry if I am unsure of the facts, the national debt is not something which I am all too familiar with. As far as the Clinton/ush debate, Bush knew about 9/11 too, he just didn't take it seriously. And could we just forget about Clinton's affair? It had no bearing on the government in any way aside from the money spend on the impeachment process, it's just such a weak point. If I am not mistaken Bush never even heard about 9/11, thats why it happened, the CIA and other Intelligence agencies had the information but they never had enough to tell the president, UNLESS they told eachother. Now clinton knew, and could have stopped it, sadly he wanted bush's presidency to be a bad one, so he just killed thousands of people. There is nothing that says that, its Life, Liberty, and property I dont know where people get pursuit of hapiness from because it truly doesnt exist. How do you figure Clinton knew? I'd like to see any source for this information besides your . As for the the quotes from the Declaration of Independence, the property line comes from John Locke, the author who's work Thomas Jefferson used as a guide (some including me would call it plagerizing), not the Declaration itself, which clearly states pursuit of happiness. God, it is bad when I know where you mistakes are coming from... Here's a link: www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
|
|
|
Post by Raist on Jan 30, 2006 13:10:51 GMT -5
Chuck Norris of course.
Or whoever is closest to my opinions on humans in general. I am not gonna explain my views out, but which side I will vote on probably isn't around yet. So eh..
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Feb 9, 2006 9:49:36 GMT -5
When we consider the New World Order, we must consider that a large populace held in check by a small but powerful force is quite a common situation in our universe. And we know the major conditions wherein this large populace may turn upon its keepers -- One: When they find a leader. This is the most volatile threat to the powerful; they must retain control of leaders. Two: When the populace recognizes its chains. Keep the populace blind and unquestioning. Three: When the populace perceives a hope of escape from bondage. They must never even believe that escape is possible!
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Feb 9, 2006 19:11:18 GMT -5
When we consider the New World Order, we must consider that a large populace held in check by a small but powerful force is quite a common situation in our universe. And we know the major conditions wherein this large populace may turn upon its keepers -- One: When they find a leader. This is the most volatile threat to the powerful; they must retain control of leaders. Two: When the populace recognizes its chains. Keep the populace blind and unquestioning. Three: When the populace perceives a hope of escape from bondage. They must never even believe that escape is possible! *Stands up and claps* Finally someone who agrees with my basic ideals. To quote a great leader of the common man: "The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Feb 10, 2006 3:42:10 GMT -5
*Stands up and claps* Finally someone who agrees with my basic ideals. To quote a great leader of the common man: "The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."That, sir, is sig worthy.
|
|
|
Post by TheStranger on Feb 10, 2006 8:17:29 GMT -5
When we consider the New World Order, we must consider that a large populace held in check by a small but powerful force is quite a common situation in our universe. And we know the major conditions wherein this large populace may turn upon its keepers -- One: When they find a leader. This is the most volatile threat to the powerful; they must retain control of leaders. Two: When the populace recognizes its chains. Keep the populace blind and unquestioning. Three: When the populace perceives a hope of escape from bondage. They must never even believe that escape is possible! *Stands up and claps* Finally someone who agrees with my basic ideals. To quote a great leader of the common man: "The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."He may agree with your ideals, however, that which he writes is plagiarism. But I guess, this being an online forum, such is of little importance.
|
|