Lucky... 0 #51 September 18, 2008 QuoteQuote did miss read the table but didn't forget about the other stuff So that's where the 23% comes from. More $$$ than all the other nations of the Earth combined. And 911 still happens..... money not well spent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #52 September 18, 2008 QuoteI keep asking people to post evidence of the so-called Clinton recession. The economy was in a downturn well before Bush took office, but that never stopped a single liberal friend I have from labeling it the "Bush recession" on or about Jan 22, 2001. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #53 September 18, 2008 Neither set of candidates has an acceptable tax plan. The left is overly harsh for the most successful among us - and uses the wealth envy mechanism on fucktards to elicit their support for such thievery - and the right is overly generous with their proposed cuts. Cutting spending is critical. Entitlement programs must be re-vamped - all of them - and discretionary spending must be redirected appropriately. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #54 September 18, 2008 QuoteQuoteI keep asking people to post evidence of the so-called Clinton recession. The economy was in a downturn well before Bush took office, but that never stopped a single liberal friend I have from labeling it the "Bush recession" on or about Jan 22, 2001. Show me the indicators that establish a Clinton recession. First you have to establush there was a recession at all, then you have to link it to Clinton in some way; I'm not sure you can do either, as teh last recession was in 90. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #55 September 19, 2008 Quote Show me the indicators that establish a Clinton recession. First you have to establush there was a recession at all, then you have to link it to Clinton in some way; I'm not sure you can do either, as teh last recession was in 90. I have no desire to link this to Clinton -- I'm one of those that doesn't tie the sitting president to economic cycles too much. Indicators leading to the "Bush recession": The stock market began losing steadily from a high of 11,200 in the months leading up to the inauguration. Employment began it's downturn in the middle of '99. Consumer confidence was down in those same months. What indicators do you want? Are we even talking about the same "Bush recession"? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #56 September 19, 2008 Quote i don't think you understand how Obama is going to tax us. Over $250,000 will get a tax increase, over $99,000 will get a soso security tax increase, everyone will loose the bush reduction, anyone selling a house will pay higher capitol gains, people with stock will pay higher taxes on dividends. this will affect almost all americans. Obama has got everone on his side snowed. corperations that are on the edge now will go under with a heavier tax burden and people will loose their jobs because of that. Obama want to raise taxes for most corperations including s-corps like mine and that means higher prices for goods or less money for employees. You would do well to read Obama's tax plan before jumping to such incorrect conclusions.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #57 September 19, 2008 Quote Read your own table! "Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006" 9% INCREASE, not 9% of the total budget. Do the math. Don't forget the "supplemental appropriations", veterans' affairs, and the cost of military R&D hidden in the DoE budget.And CIA NSA etc. covert ops.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #58 September 19, 2008 QuoteYou also made my point, the US military's technological edge is what makes as formidable as it is. Is that why we struggle like we do in Afghanistan and Iraq, because the terrorists have a technological advantage over us?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #59 September 19, 2008 QuoteIs that why we struggle like we do in Afghanistan and Iraq, because the terrorists have a technological advantage over us? No, it's because we fight wars with a great amount of compassion compared to what we COULD do, which wouldn't be pretty. Our technology runs circles around theirs, and you know that. In fact, much of the the modern day technology our terrorrist enemies possess is -- you guessed it -- borrowed from the west. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #60 September 19, 2008 QuoteNo, it's because we fight wars with a great amount of compassion compared to what we COULD do, which wouldn't be pretty. Damn those pesky international treaties we've signed. QuoteOur technology runs circles around theirs, and you know that. Yes it does. Yet, all that technology hasn't won either war for us. QuoteIn fact, much of the the modern day technology our terrorrist enemies possess is -- you guessed it -- borrowed from the west. They probably got it during the Reagan/Bush I administrations when we funded mujahideen terrorist organizations.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #61 September 19, 2008 Quote Quote wouldn't be pretty. Damn those pesky international treaties we've signed. Exactly. Bilateral compassion -- well, perhaps not in the case of terrorism. My point is that we have the capability to obliterate any of the countries you mentioned. We stuggle because of our methods of operation, not because we're technologically incapable. Quote Yes it does. Yet, all that technology hasn't won either war for us. Ethics. Or, the planned sustention of the US war industry. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #62 September 19, 2008 QuoteQuote did miss read the table but didn't forget about the other stuff So that's where the 23% comes from. More $$$ than all the other nations of the Earth combined. We've been over this before. As a function of GDP, the U.S. is around #40 on the list. You're scewing stats to make them fit your argument. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #63 September 19, 2008 QuoteWe stuggle because of our methods of operation, not because we're technologically incapable. Exactly my point. The technology doesn't win wars, well led troops do. Since over one fifth of government spending on the military doesn't seem to be effective, perhaps we should find for constructive uses for that funding, such as funding health care or education.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #64 September 19, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote did miss read the table but didn't forget about the other stuff So that's where the 23% comes from. More $$$ than all the other nations of the Earth combined. We've been over this before. As a function of GDP, the U.S. is around #40 on the list. You're scewing stats to make them fit your argument. Defense NEEDS relate to GDP? The needs relate to likely threat. Are you planning to fight the entire rest of the world combined?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #65 September 19, 2008 Quote Show me the indicators that establish a Clinton recession. First you have to establush there was a recession at all, then you have to link it to Clinton in some way; I'm not sure you can do either, as teh last recession was in 90. This article covers a few indicators. http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200405050850.asp several good points in here http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-80312 Nobody can dispute the economic growth during Clinton's administration. If you atribute it all to him then you're just naive. The internet, computer technology, OPEC prices, etc all contributed to the economy. When he left office, which is the time frame in argument, the economy was in a downturn. Show me facts that dispute that. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #66 September 19, 2008 Quote Defense NEEDS relate to GDP? The needs relate to likely threat. Are you planning to fight the entire rest of the world combined? Defense budget relates to GDP. You're arguing that the defense budget, including military spending, needs to be drasitcally cut because we spend more than all other nations combined. You mentioned nothing about NEEDS vs budget, which would likely be an entirely subjective argument. As a function of GDP, we're #40ish on the list of military budgets. It's like saying Skydive Arizona spends more money on avgas than every other dz in arizona combined. Ok, well, as a function of total income, number of skydivers, days of operations, number of aircraft, etc. they're actually #10 on the list. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #67 September 19, 2008 Quote He voted 90% with Bush Last year Obama voted 40% with Bush and 49% with him in 06. Quotehe has the same platform as the neo-cons Not really: McCain Fiengold bill was pretty much hated by Republicans...McCain supported it anyway. McCain opposed torture...Bush hated him for that. McCain supports federally financed embryonic stem cell research. Bush does not. McCain has made several statements that Bush mismanaged the war. That's not what Bush thinks. McCain even contemplated running with Kerry, Bush ran against Kerry. McCain voted against Bush's energy bill, ""This bill does little to address the immediate energy crisis we face in this country," he said in a statement his Senate office issued at the time. "The handouts to big business and oil companies are irresponsible and will be disastrous for the people of Arizona. I cannot in good conscience vote to pass legislation that does not adequately address issues related to energy efficiency, security, and energy independence." On the final vote on the bill, McCain was one of 26 senators who voted against it. (Hillary Clinton also opposed it while Barack Obama voted for it.) Bush hated that...Notice Obama voted FOR it. During the Repub campaigns the other candidates criticized McCain for not supporting Bush enough. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/co...icle4629087.ece Sorry, there are similarities, but there are also glaring differences."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #68 September 19, 2008 Quote. . . perhaps we should find for constructive uses for that funding, such as funding health care or education. Personally, would love to see that. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 September 19, 2008 Quote"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. Joseph Goebbels “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” Jospeh Goebbels Well, that explains the "McCain 100 years in Iraq" and "Palin says no abortions for anyone" shrills that some take for truth, doesn't it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 September 19, 2008 QuoteCongress passes bills, not the president. Unless it's a Dem Congress and a Rep President - then it's the President's fault. QuoteSo in 2005, when the GOP had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, WHY didn't McCain get anything done about it? So in 2006 when the Dems took over why didn't THEY do anything about it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #71 September 19, 2008 Palin comment - agreed, she never said that. McCain comment - as he actually said that, claiming he did is not propaganda, it's called reporting. His statement: Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years . . . McCAIN: Make it a hundred. Q: Is that … McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans … Q: Uh . . McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day. Now, he may have changed his mind since then. But it is not propaganda to report on what someone says or does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #72 September 19, 2008 QuotePalin comment - agreed, she never said that. McCain comment - as he actually said that, claiming he did is not propaganda, it's called reporting. His statement: The propaganda portion is when he's misquoted as wanting a 100 year war, like the Obama camp did with one of their ads. He said he wouldn't mind keeping troops there as long as they're not in danger just as we have in Germany, Italy, and the other countries he named. That means one or two bases. It doesn't mean keeping enough troops to police the entire country, as is the current case in Iraq. Again, it's been scewed by the left to imply he wants 150,000 troops to remain in Iraq for 100 years. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #73 September 19, 2008 >The propaganda portion is when he's misquoted as wanting a 100 year war, like >the Obama camp did with one of their ads. If an ad said he "wants a 100 year war" I would agree that it is misleading. I have not seen such an ad; do you have a link? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #74 September 19, 2008 QuoteQuote He voted 90% with Bush Last year Obama voted 40% with Bush and 49% with him in 06. Quotehe has the same platform as the neo-cons Not really: bunch o' examples To be fair, the John McCain of today is not, politically, the John McCain of 2000 or even 2004. The old John McCain would have struggled to get his party's nomination, but would have had a much easier time getting moderate swing votes in November. I would have loved to see the old John McCain on the ballot. I'm not sure Obama could even pose a challenge to the old John McCain. Had McCain not taken his hard right turn to appease his party's most conservative, I would probably still be undecided w/r/t who will get my vote. As it is, it is a very easy choice.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #75 September 19, 2008 I can't access youtube at work. I guess they think I should be working. this might be it www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts3U939CD3g these articles talk about it http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_us_iraq_and_100_years.php http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
