|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Jul 25, 2004 8:04:46 GMT -5
The problem with you dummycrats is you think you know what's best for the Country and get bent out of shape when people see things differently from you. There's no reason to get your panties in a bunch just because most people disagree with you. Then again why would people agree with you when you are more concerned about appeasing the terrorist backing Islamic world and helping to elect a communist sympathiser to the US Presidency? You are more concerned with what the corrupt United Nations thinks as a governing body than your own American Government.
You've put all your marbles into the wrong bag (R)uffda. My only advice to you is to cut your losses and learn from your mistakes. When the dummycratic party losses their Presidential bid (yet again) in November, They (as usual) will have only their own ineptness to blame.
Bush is not perfect but AT LEAST he puts America first by doing what what he thinks is best for our Country. Compared to his opponent who will do what is best for his communist, socialist, and American hating allies throughout the world!! The choice is clear, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 25, 2004 9:31:52 GMT -5
The problem with you dummycrats is you think you know what's best for the Country and get bent out of shape when people see things differently from you. There's no reason to get your panties in a bunch just because most people disagree with you. Most people disagree with (R)uffda? Even by using the polls you posted yourself GWB is at best tied with Kerry. The other polls I've seen show GWB well behind Kerry. Somehow that doesn't translate to a majority or "most". Again, using your own numbers at least half of the people are in agreement with (R)uffda that GWB and Cheney need to be voted out. Or the ineptness of the gullibility of the straight party line voting regurgitate and chant whatever rhetoric is thrown to them by GWB and his crew withouth bothering to look into its validity or truth. Based on similarly skewed logic it can easily be stated that GWB, Cheney, and the rest of his cronies are doing only what works best for themselves and the oil industriy. They couldn't care less for you, or the majority of their constituents. The choice is quite clear. Vote GWB-Cheney out of office in 2004. |
|
|
|
Post by future on Jul 25, 2004 10:26:54 GMT -5
Cheney and his "watch me hit this ball" dumb*$$ Bush will get soundly beat this November.
Sure we will see movements in both directions after each convention but when it comes to debates....uuuggh.... I might even feel some sympathy toward Bush as he gets outclassed . Not!
Kerry will have a field day....and I'm sure his days as Champion of the Yale Debate team and Brain might come in handy.
Bush better make sure his Ernest Angsley ear and mouthpiece are working so someone can feed him lines!
Give it up BiK and SonofSam! its over!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2004 11:12:24 GMT -5
Bush is not perfect but AT LEAST he puts America first by doing what what he thinks is best for our Country. Compared to his opponent who will do what is best for his communist, socialist, and American hating allies throughout the world!! The choice is clear, don't you think? I know IslandGirl is right and this is a hopeless discussion, but I have to ask: BiK, do you REALLY believe that is what John Kerry would do? Or are you saying this because he is the Democratic nominee? I am just astounded at how JK is perceived by some. I am not thrilled with JK, but I do think he is honorable. I also think he will be surrounded by capable people in his Administration. Unlike the cynics and toadies surrounding W. As for "putting America first", you bet I want a President who has a different priority. Putting America first is a cause for many of the world's problems. But I doubt that philosophy will change much with JK in office. Unfortunately, for W and his rabble, it does not stop there. What they really do is put rich, male, white America first. The guy came in as the Big Uniter. Have you ever lived in a time where this country was more divided? I think we were even less divided in the Viet Nam era. (Remember Viet Nam? The war W partied through? At least some people took a position during that war. W, as usual, was just looking out for #1--and a good drink.) And as for "appeasing the terrorist Islamic World", you have once again (intentionally?) misrepresented my position. Even the 9/11 Report clearly states that the U.S. must do more to win the IDEOLOGICAL war. Invading Iraq was a major misstep. You want to win the "War on Terror"? Be BETTER than they are. Offer an alternative. At least offer an alternative that does not simply "Put America First."
Anyone else notice that Bush's new campaign line is about "fighting the war in foreign lands so we don't have to fight it here"? How many times is he going to change the justification for his illegal invasion? And just how the hell do you think other countries feel about THAT? "Better you than us!" I guess that's putting America first, too. Right, BiK?
Anyhow. Any time anyone wants to have a serious discussion, just let me know. Meanwhile, I'll leave BiK to spout his usual garbage about throwing drinks at washed-up lounge singers who DARE to say something stupid (the horror!) OR about U.S. senators, who have served their country both in the military and in Congress, being commie pinkos. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 25, 2004 12:11:10 GMT -5
Hey Ruffdork,
Still waiting on your comeback on that budget thing.
Why do you keep blaming Bush for the increases in spending when you know full well it is Congress that is responsible for any increases to the budget?
No surprise to me that you will continue to claim this lie as truth, seeing as how you will be voting for the biggest liar in American politics in the coming Presidential election since Clinton.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2004 12:40:52 GMT -5
Hey Ruffdork, Still waiting on your comeback on that budget thing. Why do you keep blaming Bush for the increases in spending when you know full well it is Congress that is responsible for any increases to the budget? No surprise to me that you will continue to claim this lie as truth, seeing as how you will be voting for the biggest liar in American politics in the coming Presidential election since Clinton. Didn't you read the part where I said I was going to stop reading your messages? Good thing I lied, eh? Why is it that you think because Congress (the Republican controlled Congress) kisses W's ass that this absolves W of any responsibility for his fiascoes? It's his budget, SoBB. You know it and I know it. He asked for the money. Sometimes he asked for even more than he got. They were his tax cuts, too. Add it up and you have the biggest deficit EVER. I don't deny W is the leader (as you seem to). I just claim he is a damned poor one. Now. You tell me: why is JK now a liar? And keep on blaming everything on Clinton, if that makes you feel better. BTW, if I'm going to have to respond to every bit of nonsense you post here, let me know now so I can schedule the time. As my granpappy used to tell me, "(R)uffda! The world is full of dolts. Now fetch me a beer, you weasel!" |
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 25, 2004 12:51:50 GMT -5
Didn't you read the part where I said I was going to stop reading your messages? Good thing I lied, eh? Why is it that you think because Congress (the Republican controlled Congress) kisses W's ass that this absolves W of any responsibility for his fiascoes? It's his budget, SoBB. You know it and I know it. He asked for the money. Sometimes he asked for even more than he got. They were his tax cuts, too. Add it up and you have the biggest deficit EVER. I don't deny W is the leader (as you seem to). I just claim he is a damned poor one. Now. You tell me: why is JK now a liar? And keep on blaming everything on Clinton, if that makes you feel better. BTW, if I'm going to have to respond to every bit of nonsense you post here, let me know now so I can schedule the time. As my granpappy used to tell me, "(R)uffda! The world is full of dolts. Now fetch me a beer, you weasel!" Ruphderk, Will you just once in your board career please supply us with some hard evidence for all of your claims? You never do, you just keep bashing, bashing, bashing. Everyone knows: Endless bashing without supporting documentation = Really bad case of whining |
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 25, 2004 13:03:07 GMT -5
Now. You tell me: why is JK now a liar? And keep on blaming everything on Clinton, if that makes you feel better. Let me refresh your memory a little: Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" HAHAHAHA!!!!! John Kerry -Testified before Congress about Vietnam atrocities he never actually witnessed -Threw "his" medals over the fence at the Capitol, then they magically reappeared on his wall years later -Earned said medals in less than 5 months of total combat duty (most of which he spent on a boat), then refuses to produce the documentation for those medals. He self-nominated for those medals - how cheezy. Shall we move on to Kerry's voting record as a US Senator? Or shall we discuss how he married into money, would be one of the richest men ever elected President if he actually wins, yet promises to only increase the taxes on the rich? HELLO....WAKE UP FOLKS....PLEASE TELL ME YOU PEOPLE AREN'T THAT GULLIBLE! Yeah...Kerry will help the middle class and the poor....sure....*wink* |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2004 13:06:21 GMT -5
Ruphderk, Will you just once in your board career please supply us with some hard evidence for all of your claims? You never do, you just keep bashing, bashing, bashing. Everyone knows: Endless bashing without supporting documentation = Really bad case of whining I AM giving evidence. You are the one who is into the personal attacks. Bashing Ronstadt. Bashing Moore. Bashing Kerry. Bashing me. Let me proceed to your next reply to see if you have calmed down and/or stated what specific "documentation" you are looking for. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2004 13:20:35 GMT -5
Let me refresh your memory a little: Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" HAHAHAHA!!!!! And this pertains to this thread how exactly? I don't recall my defending Clinton's veracity concerning Monica. (What a waste of time and money that was. And now the Right-Wingers have the GALL to say Clinton was not focused on al Qaeda. Hmmm. If true, I wonder why not?) Again, your point is what exactly? First of all, I do not think your portrayal of his actions in Viet Nam or after Viet Nam is accurate. But, even if it was, how can you even bring it up given W's "record"? What about his voting record? Or are you going to get into the "flip flop" propaganda, which conveniently overlooks that compromise is what legislation is all about? What does his wife have to do with ANY of this? Hey, I am not a huge JK guy. He wasn't my choice for the Democratic nomination. I wish he'd quit being such a politician. But I'm enough of a realist to know he'd get buried if he did. But I remain astounded at the CRAP you all are throwing at him. The man served his country in Viet Nam and in the Senate. He is much more qualified for the Presidency than the current occupant. And if he were a Republican, with the EXACT SAME POLITICAL VIEWS, you and BiK would love him. You all are in attack mode. That's all. And you accuse me of bashing with no "documentation." You want to be civil and discuss this? If so, let's do it. If not, please don't waste my time. |
|
chunkymonkey
Freshman
My wife thinks I should change my moniker.
Posts: 58
|
Post by chunkymonkey on Jul 25, 2004 13:44:41 GMT -5
You're welcome. You have some choices: 1) you can cut spending and lower taxes, or 2) you can increase spending and raise taxes, or 3) you can, more or less, maintain the status quo. W has tried a novel approach: increase spending AND cut taxes. Now tell me, ChubbyMonkey, how does that work? (R)! concerning ... "how does that work?" Review your history. The Reagan years saw increased spending (more than at any other previous time in history) AND more tax cuts (some of the biggest). That seems to violate your three options. Yet ... what happened? Oh, I forgot ... you read a different history book! The answer: it began the longest run of U.S. economic growth in this century ... to the extent that the growing economy produced more taxes (what Reagan predicted would happen) ... leading to the revenue that enabled us to pay down the deficit ... and ultimately, leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union. And since we're all trying to stick to the facts ... A text of Baroness Margaret Thatcher's eulogy at the funeral of President Ronald Ronald ... [glow=red,2,300]We have lost a great president, a great American, and a great man ...[/glow] [Note to (R)!, this guy was your pick for our 2nd worst President  ] [glow=red,2,300]... He sought to mend America's wounded spirit, to restore the strength of the free world, and to free the slaves of communism. These were causes hard to accomplish and heavy with risk ... His politics had a freshness and optimism that won converts from every class and every nation - and ultimately from the very heart of the evil empire. And surely it is hard to deny that Ronald Reagan's life was providential, when we look at what he achieved in the eight years that followed. Others prophesied the decline of the West; he inspired America and its allies with renewed faith in their mission of freedom. Others saw only limits to growth; he transformed a stagnant economy into an engine of opportunity. Others hoped, at best, for an uneasy cohabitation with the Soviet Union; he won the Cold War - not only without firing a shot, but also by inviting enemies out of their fortress and turning them into friends. We live today in the world that Ronald Reagan began to reshape ... It is a very different world with different challenges and new dangers. All in all, however, it is one of greater freedom and prosperity, one more hopeful than the world he inherited on becoming president. [/glow] |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2004 13:57:33 GMT -5
(R)! concerning ... "how does that work?" Review your history. The Reagan years saw increased spending (more than at any other previous time in history) AND more tax cuts (some of the biggest). That seems to violate your three options. Yet ... what happened? Oh, I forgot ... you read a different history book! The answer: it began the longest run of U.S. economic growth in this century ... to the extent that the growing economy produced more taxes (what Reagan predicted would happen) ... leading to the revenue that enabled us to pay down the deficit ... and ultimately, leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union. And since we're all trying to stick to the facts ... This is Revisionist History and I disagree with all of it. 1) The "recovery" had nothing to do with Reagan's tax cuts (AND his tax cuts are a myth); 2) the deficit was paid down by the Internet bubble of the 90s, which Reagan neither foresaw or had anything to do with; and 3) the collapse of the Soviet Union MAY have been a byproduct of all of this, but it was never Reagan's "plan" to bankrupt them. I will provide more details on all of this shortly. Good God. Let's quote Margaret Thatcher's eulogy. What's she going to say: "Rest in peace, Ronnie. You were a lousy President and a simpleton, but a whole lot of people sure liked your smile." I'll be back. I know you can't wait. |
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Jul 25, 2004 14:18:44 GMT -5
Cheney and his "watch me hit this ball" dumb*$$ Bush will get soundly beat this November. And Gore was to soundly beat Bush as well, Lol!. Perhaps you should give it up. Your party is inept!! |
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Jul 25, 2004 14:24:12 GMT -5
He is much more qualified for the Presidency than the current occupant. And if he were a Republican, with the EXACT SAME POLITICAL VIEWS, you and BiK would love him. Love a communist sympathiser? NEVER!! |
|
|
|
Post by future on Jul 25, 2004 14:33:14 GMT -5
All I saw at Reagan's funeral was that the typical response to death......at a grotesque level.....that being the self-serving, egocentric reaction of people....mainly Republicans..... racing to see who could hold the hand of the American people and help get them through this loss......oh oh the pain!
Do you think that they even had Ronnie's body in the casket at the Capitol or a load of bricks?
Face it folks that was over done!
Below is the Republican Mantra!
Ronald Reagan, Party Animal
The man who taught Republicans to be irresponsible.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Saturday, June 5, 2004, at 4:33 PM PT
I've registered as a Republican exactly once in my life. The year was 1980, and Ronald Reagan, who died today at the age of 93, was seeking the GOP nomination for president. Teddy Kennedy was challenging President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination, and in Massachusetts, where I then lived, Kennedy was certain to win the primary. Better to cast my vote where it could do some good—in favor of John Anderson, who at that point was running as a Republican, and who seemed the only candidate capable of denying Reagan the nomination. Reagan was dangerous. He wanted to eliminate vast portions of the government indiscriminately, and he wanted to commit the military to ill-considered interventions abroad.
I couldn't have been more wrong. As an antigovernment crusader and as a warmonger, Reagan turned out to be all bark and no bite. In his first inaugural address, Reagan said:
It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people.
But that didn't happen. As Michael Kinsley has observed, after Reagan's two terms, spending by the federal government was one-quarter higher, factoring out inflation, than when he got there; the federal civilian workforce had increased from 2.8 million to 3 million; and federal spending, as a share of Gross Domestic Product, had decreased by one percentage point to 21.2 percent. "If Ronald Reagan and his 'Reaganauts' could only slow down the growth of government spending, not reverse it or eliminate wasteful programs, what hope is there for any other conservative president?" complained the conservative Heritage Foundation soon after Reagan left office. The only major government agency Reagan managed to eliminate was the Civil Aeronautics Board, which didn't have much to do after the Carter administration deregulated the airline industry. Fittingly, the Ronald Reagan Building on Pennsylvania Avenue, completed 10 years after Reagan left office, today houses 5,000 government employees and is the largest government building in Washington.
In the saber-rattling department, here's what Reagan said in his first inaugural address:
As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it—now or ever. Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will.
But the only hot war waged during the Reagan administration was to remove a comic-opera Marxist government from the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada. The United States retreated from Lebanon after a suicide bomber killed more than 200 American soldiers. It is seldom observed that Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, which George W. Bush rightly denounced prior to the Iraq war, occurred on Reagan's watch. In 1984, when the Reagan administration got its first inkling that Iraq was engaged in chemical warfare, it chose not to make a fuss. The most ambitious foreign intervention during the Reagan administration—the funnelling of aid to the Nicaraguan contras—was done illegally and, after it was discovered, embroiled Reagan's second term in a scandal from which it never recovered.
Reagan can probably claim some credit for ending the Cold War, but his principal weapon, characteristically, was spending—the Soviets bankrupted themselves trying to keep up with the Pentagon's weapons-buying binge through the 1980s. Reagan's greatest achievement in foreign affairs was therefore linked to his greatest achievement in domestic affairs. He taught Republicans that they could be even less responsible than Democrats.
Government spending is not (at least in my view) inherently irresponsible. What is irresponsible is spending money you don't have. Perhaps the most poignant passage in Reagan's first inaugural address is the one expressing what today seems a very old-fashioned Republican concern about deficit spending:
For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?
You know the rest of the story. The deficit, which stood at $74 billion in Carter's final year, ballooned to $155 billion in Reagan's final year. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, "Reagan taught us deficits don't matter."
Today, what does it mean to be a Republican? It means you can cut taxes indiscriminately and needn't worry about the debt you're piling up. It certainly doesn't mean that you want to shrink the federal government. Indeed, government spending under George W. Bush has increased faster than it did under Bill Clinton. Before Reagan, pandering was principally a Democratic vice. Today, it's principally a Republican vice. Ronald Reagan performed that transformation, and it remains his most enduring legacy.
|
|
]