Chickenhawks

[Gravitymaster 0]

Thanks for all your comments. You proved my point better than I could have. Now go back and read the first post.

Edited to add:

Oh, and for the record, I have never PM'd you and said the things you claim I said. Your claim is a complete and utter fabrication and you know it.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah, so you bit and not the other guy. Do you recall that Bush 1 downsized the military personnel-wise approximately as mush as Clinton did and he was only a 1-term pres..... hence the rate is much higher over the time. Furthermore, the Fascist pig we call Reagan gave pay raises that were substantially lower than Clinton signed. So can we put to bed this ridiculous and mythical rhetoric about dems = hate military / repubs = love military?

Apparently you missed the point. I made no judgement about Clinton reducing the Military. I was only pointing out there were reasons many didn't serve and a downsized military was one of the reasons.

Quote

Apparently you missed the point. I made no judgement about Clinton reducing the Military. I was only pointing out there were reasons many didn't serve and a downsized military was one of the reasons.

True, but to say Clinton downsized the military isn't totally true. Congress had a bigger role in it than did the president. That's like saying NAFTA was Clinton's baby, when in reality it was started during the Bush1 era, passed by Congress and signed by Clinton.

Oh, I see. When the budget was being balanced, it was all Clinton. The Republican controlled House and Senate had nothing to do with it. But when it came to downsizing the Military, the House and Senate had a bigger role than Clinton.

[kallend 2,105]

Quote

Oh, I see. When the budget was being balanced, it was all Clinton. The Republican controlled House and Senate had nothing to do with it. But when it came to downsizing the Military, the House and Senate had a bigger role than Clinton.

Budget was balanced under Clinton with a Republican Congress. Record deficits under Bush with a Republican Congress. Hmmm, looks like those Chickenhawks in this adminstration like to spend spend spend the taxpayers' money and more besides.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh, I see. When the budget was being balanced, it was all Clinton. The Republican controlled House and Senate had nothing to do with it. But when it came to downsizing the Military, the House and Senate had a bigger role than Clinton.

Budget was balanced under Clinton with a Republican Congress. Record deficits under Bush with a Republican Congress. Hmmm, looks like those Chickenhawks in this adminstration like to spend spend spend the taxpayers' money and more besides.

Thank you. Only 3/4 of CLinton's term had Congress Republican controlled, whereas 100% (absent the Jefford's mutiny from the Repub Party) of Bush's term has been Repub controlled. Get it? What the is the independant variable? What is the dependent variable?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah, so you bit and not the other guy. Do you recall that Bush 1 downsized the military personnel-wise approximately as mush as Clinton did and he was only a 1-term pres..... hence the rate is much higher over the time. Furthermore, the Fascist pig we call Reagan gave pay raises that were substantially lower than Clinton signed. So can we put to bed this ridiculous and mythical rhetoric about dems = hate military / repubs = love military?

Apparently you missed the point. I made no judgement about Clinton reducing the Military. I was only pointing out there were reasons many didn't serve and a downsized military was one of the reasons.

Quote

Apparently you missed the point. I made no judgement about Clinton reducing the Military. I was only pointing out there were reasons many didn't serve and a downsized military was one of the reasons.

True, but to say Clinton downsized the military isn't totally true. Congress had a bigger role in it than did the president. That's like saying NAFTA was Clinton's baby, when in reality it was started during the Bush1 era, passed by Congress and signed by Clinton.

Oh, I see. When the budget was being balanced, it was all Clinton. The Republican controlled House and Senate had nothing to do with it. But when it came to downsizing the Military, the House and Senate had a bigger role than Clinton.

No, truth is the military needed downsizing 20 years ago, maybe 30, but when the Repubs do it it's good management, when the Dems do it it's military hate.

The budget was balanced under CLinton raising taxes on the rich, since the rich paythe most in taxes, you need to hit them in order to balance the budget via raised revenues and controlled spending. Bush has done neither, hence record deficits/debts. Figure it out.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah, so you bit and not the other guy. Do you recall that Bush 1 downsized the military personnel-wise approximately as mush as Clinton did and he was only a 1-term pres..... hence the rate is much higher over the time. Furthermore, the Fascist pig we call Reagan gave pay raises that were substantially lower than Clinton signed. So can we put to bed this ridiculous and mythical rhetoric about dems = hate military / repubs = love military?

Apparently you missed the point. I made no judgement about Clinton reducing the Military. I was only pointing out there were reasons many didn't serve and a downsized military was one of the reasons.

Quote

Apparently you missed the point. I made no judgement about Clinton reducing the Military. I was only pointing out there were reasons many didn't serve and a downsized military was one of the reasons.

True, but to say Clinton downsized the military isn't totally true. Congress had a bigger role in it than did the president. That's like saying NAFTA was Clinton's baby, when in reality it was started during the Bush1 era, passed by Congress and signed by Clinton.

Oh, I see. When the budget was being balanced, it was all Clinton. The Republican controlled House and Senate had nothing to do with it. But when it came to downsizing the Military, the House and Senate had a bigger role than Clinton.

No, truth is the military needed downsizing 20 years ago, maybe 30, but when the Repubs do it it's good management, when the Dems do it it's military hate.

The budget was balanced under CLinton raising taxes on the rich, since the rich paythe most in taxes, you need to hit them in order to balance the budget via raised revenues and controlled spending. Bush has done neither, hence record deficits/debts. Figure it out.

The spening part I agree with bu, how do you explain all time, again, all time record receipts coming into the treasurey the last two months with a projection of that trend continuing. The rich are paying 1 to 2% more now than under Clinton and the corps are paying an average of 17% more. And all of this after the tax cuts????

Help me understand please.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The spening part I agree with bu, how do you explain all time, again, all time record receipts coming into the treasurey the last two months with a projection of that trend continuing.

I wouldn't believe a lot of those predictions. The GDP is way down again and shrinking. The economy did cycle up for a couple months, but is shaky again. Bush has a history of short, unsustained victories. But the gran tally indicators are the annual deficit and the overall debt. I think they were elated recently because we were only going to be 300 or so B in the hole this year. It took Clinton 5 years to get a handle on the debt/deficit he inherited, so 2 months is no victory, especially when Bush fucked away the 330B surplus he inherited in just a few months. Post something to be proud of and I'll be glad to listen/read. The debt is up 3T and climbing since Bush took office, bythis time in CLinton's presidency it was up about 1T and turning the corner to flat. Give me something to celebrate as for Bush.

Quote

The rich are paying 1 to 2% more now than under Clinton and the corps are paying an average of 17% more. And all of this after the tax cuts????

OK, what's your point? Even if your numbers are correct, I think the logical conclusion would be that Bush has overspent. After never vetoing 1 appropriations bill in his entire 5 1/2 years, (not counting the stem cell veto which was more about morality than $$$) is it a surpise that revenues are close to what they were (if your numbers are correct, minus adjustment for inflation) during Clinton? He cuts taxes and spends out his ass - the country will be in teh shitter when taht happens.

[rushmc 23]

What is my point!!??

OMG

Cutting taxes increases revenues. That is my point!

But the left can't have that no can they? Why? Because the class envey talking point is lost.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,063]

>Cutting taxes increases revenues.

Yet we have a record high debt after the tax cuts. Claiming that going deeply into debt means more money doesn't make much sense.

I could campaign on a platform of "I'm going to cut your taxes to zero and send everyone a big fat check for $1000!" and then do it. Would that be a good idea? (I probably shouldn't propose that; some republican might overhear it and have a new campaign slogan.)

[kallend 2,105]

Quote

What is my point!!??

OMG

Cutting taxes increases revenues. That is my point!

But the left can't have that no can they? Why? Because the class envey talking point is lost.

Apparently neither GWB nor you understand the Micawber Principle.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Cutting taxes increases revenues.

Yet we have a record high debt after the tax cuts. Claiming that going deeply into debt means more money doesn't make much sense.

I could campaign on a platform of "I'm going to cut your taxes to zero and send everyone a big fat check for $1000!" and then do it. Would that be a good idea? (I probably shouldn't propose that; some republican might overhear it and have a new campaign slogan.)

Irellevant

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

What is my point!!??

OMG

Cutting taxes increases revenues. That is my point!

But the left can't have that no can they? Why? Because the class envey talking point is lost.

There is no absolute rule there. The economy is far more extensive than 1 action results in another reaction. When CLinton raised taxes there was a sharp increase in revenue, so there goes your point. If only the poor people would just go eat a bullet I guess all would fix itself, right?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>Cutting taxes increases revenues.

Yet we have a record high debt after the tax cuts. Claiming that going deeply into debt means more money doesn't make much sense.

I could campaign on a platform of "I'm going to cut your taxes to zero and send everyone a big fat check for $1000!" and then do it. Would that be a good idea? (I probably shouldn't propose that; some republican might overhear it and have a new campaign slogan.)

Quote

I could campaign on a platform of "I'm going to cut your taxes to zero and send everyone a big fat check for $1000!" and then do it. Would that be a good idea?

Bush already did that in a small scale, no plagiarism

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>Cutting taxes increases revenues.

Yet we have a record high debt after the tax cuts. Claiming that going deeply into debt means more money doesn't make much sense.

I could campaign on a platform of "I'm going to cut your taxes to zero and send everyone a big fat check for $1000!" and then do it. Would that be a good idea? (I probably shouldn't propose that; some republican might overhear it and have a new campaign slogan.)

Irellevant

What's irrelevant, the other side of my proposition? I wrote that Clinton raised taxes and revenues were increased. Bill wrote that Bush cut taxes and gave us checks, but the debt has shot vertical. Your theories have yet to be proven via demonstration in application. Look at Hoover, architect of the trickle down, then look at FDR's new deal, where's your argument? Time and time again this theory of cutting taxes continually ends up in Reaganomics type disasters. Show me a time in history where it's worked.

Furthermore, spending is on the other side of the equation and I say social spending helps the economy more than military spending. If the gov ships off a few billion for major corps, the money seems to stagnate and gets distributed to fewer people. But when social programs mass distribute dollars it seesm that the recipienst spend the money immediately and the economy flourishes. Can you argue that via application in history, or just textbook?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Thanks for all your comments. You proved my point better than I could have. Now go back and read the first post.

Edited to add:

Oh, and for the record, I have never PM'd you and said the things you claim I said. Your claim is a complete and utter fabrication and you know i

Ah ha.. still feeling sooooooooooo thin skinned...

And since you have reading comprehension issues while you are sitting there stewing in the chicken soup..... I labeled that quote was from a Chickenhawk.. but I never claimed it was from you.

He knows who he was but it is CERTAINLY representative to all of you.... who found it uneconomic to serve your country.

[rickjump1 0]

Speaking of "Chickenhawk", a national best seller,it was written by Robert Mason. The title is a little deceiving, but it makes good reading for the interested. Has something to do with war.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

What's irrelevant, the other side of my proposition? I wrote that Clinton raised taxes and revenues were increased. Bill wrote that Bush cut taxes and gave us checks, but the debt has shot vertical. Your theories have yet to be proven via demonstration in application. Look at Hoover, architect of the trickle down, then look at FDR's new deal, where's your argument? Time and time again this theory of cutting taxes continually ends up in Reaganomics type disasters. Show me a time in history where it's worked.

FDR's new deal is showing that it won't survive. The debt under President Bush is due primarily to the fact that he hasn't once vetoed a single bill from Congress, who has designed the spending-splurge (the war hasn't helped either, but I obviously think it's well spent).

Quote

Furthermore, spending is on the other side of the equation and I say social spending helps the economy more than military spending.

Social spending is better? Look at all the social spending in Germany and France. It has created a market so stagnant that they may very likely have "undone" themselves with the "good will". Besides, the majority of the US budget is still spent in Health and Human Services.

Quote

But when social programs mass distribute dollars it seesm that the recipienst spend the money immediately and the economy flourishes. Can you argue that via application in history, or just textbook?

I can argue against that in reducing taxes, more disposable income is created, thus spent in the economy (hence what is happening now).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[juanesky 0]

Oh Amazon, it is funny to read your hilarious comments.

Seems that after few months nothing has changed, only your service was honorable, not any one elses....

I was expecting to get some of your hate mail while I was away......

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[kallend 2,105]

Quote

Oh Amazon, it is funny to read your hilarious comments.

Seems that after few months nothing has changed, only your service was honorable, not any one elses....

That is NOT what she said.

IMO her service was much more honorable than someone who avoided Vietnam with 5 deferments because he "had other priorities". Now he's a prominent hawk, which perfectly defines him as a chickenhawk.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Tsk tsk tsk.....

What is it you do again????

[matthewcline 0]

Why has this thread degenerated to a personal attack forum between 2 or 3 people?

Why not debate the actual thread topic.

Liberals, Conservatives and Moderates have equal amounts of draft dodging, selfish, un-honorable carreer politicians who will flip flop for personal gain and step on the citizens they are to represent and think nothing of the lives they will waste in the process. They will support a war effort as long as thier pockets and thier friends pockets are filling with dollars, all the while care nothing of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen who will perish as they get rich and the pain caused to all the fallens families.

You can toe a party line or be honest and admit all parties have screwed this Nation and the War efforts up (remember we are stretched thin in several hemespheres) .

Now I know some who served or still serve will not agree totally with me as well as some who never served but it is my opinion and I know I have earned the right to have it and earned the right to express it (and you have the right to ignore it).

I also have the right to be a bad speller.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Why has this thread degenerated to a personal attack forum between 2 or 3 people?

Why not debate the actual thread topic.

I would ask the attackers who seem to be so thin skinned that question.

I would ask the administration officials who never served yet are so pro war..... WHY their families are filling THEIR pockets... while families of servicemen are on food stamps and suffering financially. That does not sound like they support our troops at all.

Quote

all the while care nothing of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen who will perish as they get rich and the pain caused to all the fallens families.

It would be nice if those politicians would actually remember those who did serve and treat them far better. All the thanks you for your service homilies I hear do not make up for the sacrifice these families have made and are making right now. I think the ones who DID serve are in a far better position to understand the needs of veterans.

[matthewcline 0]

I ask a senator who is a majority "leader" those very questions as well a a minorty "leader" (their little web campains against each other) and know what?

No answer from either one yet.

I got a "thank you for your service" from the majority "leader" and a "your thoughts mean a lot to us we will get back to you soon" form letter from the minority "leader". Still waiting to be gotten back too.

It is time for the parties to be desolved and the electorate system to get fixed (although this last POTUS election was also a popluar vote win yes?).

It is time for the Citizens to be treated as the constitution intended. It is time to vote honesty over money and we are the only ones that can do that. If we stop voting in our "pork belly" politicians and hope the other voterswill do the right thing wewill always be failed by the "system".

Ok a bit off topic, but the whole "chickenhawk" thing is getting childish and both sides need to look in the mirror and see the culprits.

Learn and prepare to debate, but most of all educate,

then vote.

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[juanesky 0]

What about GW? You won't be able to find any words in her posts about him serving at all. I have been trhough this with her, and the only response is nasty emails that I have posted here before. Seems that hatred is the only things that permeates through her notes-words, compositions....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[kallend 2,105]

Quote

What about GW? You won't be able to find any words in her posts about him serving at all. I have been trhough this with her, and the only response is nasty emails that I have posted here before. Seems that hatred is the only things that permeates through her notes-words, compositions....

GW? George Washington was a commander who went through the same hardships as his troops. He then advised AGAINST foreign wars, showing that he was not a chickenhawk, and he was smart too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.