Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board. (The 2012 window is now closed; thanks for playing.)
TrackDaddy wrote:Well, not everyone is interested in living in a basement (bunker?) stocked with canned goods, nurturing an irrational fear, while held hostage by the illusion they are somehow genetically superior to someone else.
Have fun though.
Idealistic as it may sound some people believe that humanity trumps the "ours, we, theys, and us" in your posts.
Counterintuitively to what seems to be either taught or inherent/bred into some, structured love is an option. If the offering is rejected, THEN you fight.
Can there be peace on Earth?
As "liberal" as it may sound...
Eh...maybe...from time to time..
But certainly not as long as greed is allowed to go unchecked under the guise that it is somehow more noble if we call it capitalism.
I have a sandwhich.
You want half?
Paulthefan will dismiss your post as a "wishful liberal ranting", but I, as well as many others here agree and applaud you.
TrackDaddy wrote:Well, not everyone is interested in living in a basement (bunker?) stocked with canned goods, nurturing an irrational fear, while held hostage by the illusion they are somehow genetically superior to someone else.
Have fun though.
Idealistic as it may sound some people believe that humanity trumps the "ours, we, theys, and us" in your posts.
Counterintuitively to what seems to be either taught or inherent/bred into some, structured love is an option. If the offering is rejected, THEN you fight.
Can there be peace on Earth?
As "liberal" as it may sound...
Eh...maybe...from time to time..
But certainly not as long as greed is allowed to go unchecked under the guise that it is somehow more noble if we call it capitalism.
I have a sandwhich.
You want half?
Wouldn't need/want half of what ever you're eating. So Capitalism is now the liberals evil de jour.
I say working until April(for now) just to pay for the politicos grand utopian delusions and unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration will suck the sandwich out of generations of tax payers to come.
Peace to all.
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration
Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?
While allowing the economy to tank to near Great-Depression levels thanks to years of Republican-led deregulation, tax cuts and increased government spending. But do not attempt to confuse these folks with facts . . .
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration
Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?
While allowing the economy to tank to near Great-Depression levels thanks to years of Republican-led deregulation, tax cuts and increased government spending. But do not attempt to confuse these folks with facts . . .
Exactly. In general, I'd suggest that a little more attention to the FACTS and a lot less ideological ranting is in order.
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration
Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?
While allowing the economy to tank to near Great-Depression levels thanks to years of Republican-led deregulation, tax cuts and increased government spending. But do not attempt to confuse these folks with facts . . .
And how does the democratic led congress fit into all (open your eyes) of this and how does increasing the national debt 4 times over the previous solve this?
If you think that overspending led us to this economy, then I am sure the right answer to fix it is to quadruple (or more) the problem.
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration
Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?
Vince wrote:Peace to all.
Agreed .
Actually the current administration inherited a 1 trillion deficit and then the current administration doubled it to 2 trillion with his latest budget according to the CBO, which only partially takes into account the list of spending promises made during the campaign.
TrackDaddy wrote:Well, not everyone is interested in living in a basement (bunker?) stocked with canned goods, nurturing an irrational fear, while held hostage by the illusion they are somehow genetically superior to someone else.
Have fun though.
Idealistic as it may sound some people believe that humanity trumps the "ours, we, theys, and us" in your posts.
Counterintuitively to what seems to be either taught or inherent/bred into some, structured love is an option. If the offering is rejected, THEN you fight.
Can there be peace on Earth?
As "liberal" as it may sound...
Eh...maybe...from time to time..
But certainly not as long as greed is allowed to go unchecked under the guise that it is somehow more noble if we call it capitalism.
I have a sandwhich.
You want half?
Paulthefan will dismiss your post as a "wishful liberal ranting", but I, as well as many others here agree and applaud you.
Ill gladly share my sandwich with you, but please dont bring 5 others with contempt for me and my mores, to the table that you have promised my half of the sandwich to.
Last edited by paulthefan on Sun Jun 07, 2009 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration
Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?
While allowing the economy to tank to near Great-Depression levels thanks to years of Republican-led deregulation, tax cuts and increased government spending. But do not attempt to confuse these folks with facts . . .
proof that too many economics courses taught by communists can rot your brain. To your credit you did manage to get the "increased government spending" part right.
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration
Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?
Vince wrote:Peace to all.
Agreed .
Actually the current administration inherited a 1 trillion deficit and then the current administration doubled it to 2 trillion with his latest budget according to the CBO, which only partially takes into account the list of spending promises made during the campaign.
Peace to the haters.
I looked it up. Here are the numbers.
Deficit at the end of 2000 - 5,674B
2008 - 10,699.8B
Third quarter of 2009 - 11,383B
I'll tell you something else. During the 1980 campaign, Reagan attacked Carter mercilessly about the deficits (under 1B at that time). I remember that debate vividly, Reagan used the analogy of "stacking one-dollar bills all the way to the moon". He promptly multiplied the inherited deficit. Please, don't tell me that he had a Democratic Congress. Yes, he did, but of a tiny majority and with his charm he persuaded some more conservative Democrats to vote for his budgets.
What I am saying is that all the rhetoric of the Republicans of being fiscally conservative is not supported by their record.
Pego wrote:I'll tell you something else. During the 1980 campaign, Reagan attacked Carter mercilessly about the deficits (under 1B at that time). I remember that debate vividly, Reagan used the analogy of "stacking one-dollar bills all the way to the moon". He promptly multiplied the inherited deficit. Please, don't tell me that he had a Democratic Congress. Yes, he did, but of a tiny majority and with his charm he persuaded some more conservative Democrats to vote for his budgets.
What I am saying is that all the rhetoric of the Republicans of being fiscally conservative is not supported by their record.
agree in part, Reagan had to choose his battles carefully. After roughly 45+ years of liberal domestic policy some things were off limits.
The real problem conservatives have with liberals on this issue is that the liberal answer to republican hypocrisy on spending is: "get the democrats in there to spend 3x as much". Can this republic survive these two parties ?
Pego wrote:I'll tell you something else. During the 1980 campaign, Reagan attacked Carter mercilessly about the deficits (under 1B at that time). I remember that debate vividly, Reagan used the analogy of "stacking one-dollar bills all the way to the moon". He promptly multiplied the inherited deficit. Please, don't tell me that he had a Democratic Congress. Yes, he did, but of a tiny majority and with his charm he persuaded some more conservative Democrats to vote for his budgets.
What I am saying is that all the rhetoric of the Republicans of being fiscally conservative is not supported by their record.
agree in part, Reagan had to choose his battles carefully. After roughly 45+ years of liberal domestic policy some things were off limits.
The real problem conservatives have with liberals on this issue is that the liberal answer to republican hypocrisy on spending is: "get the democrats in there to spend 3x as much". Can this republic survive these two parties ?
Not with Michael Steele supposedly in charge of the GOP.
lonewolf wrote:I can't hold it till free speech month. :x Am I the only person here who is not enchanted by Obama and is alarmed by his politcs or is it I am the only one not afraid to dissent? Apparently praising Obama is not politcal but criticizing him is???? :?
Back on thread topic, very nice speech in Cairo, Mr. Prez ! Most of the World is willing to give you a chance...And considering all the issues that were/are part of your political inheritance, I think you are doing just fine. How it will all work out in the future ? Apparently, only your opposition knows, but thanks for trying...
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration
Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?
Vince wrote:Peace to all.
Agreed .
Actually the current administration inherited a 1 trillion deficit and then the current administration doubled it to 2 trillion with his latest budget according to the CBO, which only partially takes into account the list of spending promises made during the campaign.
Peace to the haters.
I looked it up. Here are the numbers. Deficit at the end of 2000 - 5,674B 2008 - 10,699.8B Third quarter of 2009 - 11,383B
I'll tell you something else. During the 1980 campaign, Reagan attacked Carter mercilessly about the deficits (under 1B at that time). I remember that debate vividly, Reagan used the analogy of "stacking one-dollar bills all the way to the moon". He promptly multiplied the inherited deficit. Please, don't tell me that he had a Democratic Congress. Yes, he did, but of a tiny majority and with his charm he persuaded some more conservative Democrats to vote for his budgets.
What I am saying is that all the rhetoric of the Republicans of being fiscally conservative is not supported by their record.
So are your numbers saying the Democrats have run up an 11 trillion dollar deficit?? Are they trying to out spend/borrow Reagan?
Vince wrote: Wouldn't need/want half of what ever you're eating.
Of course not.
You want it all for yourself.
Nope, that would be your like minded friends in office, who would in turn give it to someone who had voted for them, after they took a bite for themselves.
rasb wrote:Back on thread topic, very nice speech in Cairo, Mr. Prez ! Most of the World is willing to give you a chance...And considering all the issues that were/are part of your political inheritance, I think you are doing just fine. How it will all work out in the future ? Apparently, only your opposition knows, but thanks for trying...
that is touching.
Last edited by paulthefan on Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rasb wrote:Back on thread topic, very nice speech in Cairo, Mr. Prez ! Most of the World is willing to give you a chance...And considering all the issues that were/are part of your political inheritance, I think you are doing just fine. How it will all work out in the future ? Apparently, only your opposition knows, but thanks for trying...
that is touching.
Hey Paulie,
My friend, you cute little moonbat, you I am so glad to have been able to reach out and touch you...
You did admit that Obama's speech perhaps did more good
than harm, so there is some hope for our eventual reconciliation...
Hey Paulie, My friend, you cute little moonbat, you :) I am so glad to have been able to reach out and touch you... You did admit that Obama's speech perhaps did more good than harm, so there is some hope for our eventual reconciliation...
why would we need reconciliation when we are already dear friends!.. Ill treat for lunch someday.
Hey Paulie, My friend, you cute little moonbat, you I am so glad to have been able to reach out and touch you... You did admit that Obama's speech perhaps did more good than harm, so there is some hope for our eventual reconciliation...
why would we need reconciliation when we are already dear friends!.. Ill treat for lunch someday.
That is a deal, bud. We can share a sandwich. What do you think 75/25?
Vince wrote:So are your numbers saying the Democrats have run up an 11 trillion dollar deficit?? Are they trying to out spend/borrow Reagan?
I hope, it was an attempt at a joke. I am no longer sure in the political debates . Just to be sure, 11,383B-10,700B=683B
Actually you're confusing me. The budget deficit and National debt are 2 different things. One being what is owed and one being what is added to what it owed. 2008 GDP was somewhere in the 13-14 trillion range, so I'm guessing you're talking about the national debt.
paulthefan wrote: Can this republic survive these two parties ?
AMEN!!!!
Someone sees the light. We will never solve the problems if it is always "them". There are a multiplicity of problems that have led us to where we are at and it involved both parties and there is corruption at almost every level. Our country is where it as because our society as a whole.
The current great finger pointer is all rhetoric and is going to get us in stunningly blinding speed because the blind masses think he is a god.
paulthefan wrote: Can this republic survive these two parties ?
AMEN!!!!
Someone sees the light. We will never solve the problems if it is always "them". There are a multiplicity of problems that have led us to where we are at and it involved both parties and there is corruption at almost every level. Our country is where it as because our society as a whole.
The current great finger pointer is all rhetoric and is going to get us in stunningly blinding speed because the blind masses think he is a god.
That is wonderful irony --- very clever ! I love the "blind masses" line....
paulthefan wrote: Can this republic survive these two parties ?
AMEN!!!!
Someone sees the light. We will never solve the problems if it is always "them". There are a multiplicity of problems that have led us to where we are at and it involved both parties and there is corruption at almost every level. Our country is where it as because our society as a whole.
The current great finger pointer is all rhetoric and is going to get us in stunningly blinding speed because the blind masses think he is a god.
That is wonderful irony --- very clever ! I love the "blind masses" line....
Exactly...I got a severe case of conceptual whiplash reading that...
paulthefan wrote: Can this republic survive these two parties ?
AMEN!!!!
Someone sees the light. We will never solve the problems if it is always "them". There are a multiplicity of problems that have led us to where we are at and it involved both parties and there is corruption at almost every level. Our country is where it as because our society as a whole.
The current great finger pointer is all rhetoric and is going to get us in stunningly blinding speed because the blind masses think he is a god.
That is wonderful irony --- very clever ! I love the "blind masses" line....
Exactly...I got a severe case of conceptual whiplash reading that...
Sorry, I hit the return button too quick... But I am sure you could have figured it out. He is going to get us past the point of no return real fast.
Vince wrote: Wouldn't need/want half of what ever you're eating.
Of course not.
You want it all for yourself.
Nope, that would be your like minded friends in office, who would in turn give it to someone who had voted for them, after they took a bite for themselves.
Vince wrote:So are your numbers saying the Democrats have run up an 11 trillion dollar deficit?? Are they trying to out spend/borrow Reagan?
I hope, it was an attempt at a joke. I am no longer sure in the political debates . Just to be sure, 11,383B-10,700B=683B
Actually you're confusing me. The budget deficit and National debt are 2 different things. One being what is owed and one being what is added to what it owed. 2008 GDP was somewhere in the 13-14 trillion range, so I'm guessing you're talking about the national debt.
Peace to the Accountants.
Yes, my mistake, one of those senior moments . On the other hand, your confusion is feigned, since the amount to be added to the national debt reflects deficits (I know, it is not the same things, but it closely parallels). The numbers I've posted support, what I am saying. The last administration, arguably the most "conservative" in US history doubled the amount of national debt in 8 years (less than 4% of the nation's age).
I'll repeat my point. Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.
Pego wrote:Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.
Can you give us another word for those that lean towards limited and fiscally restrained govt?... if you can start using the new word you have in mind maybe everyone will adopt it. Until then folks call such people conservatives. They may never get in power or be able to exercise unrestrained control but for now there is no other name for them.
The last chance we had to test your myth was the "compassionate" conservative GWB. But a "conservative" would say a "compassionate" conservative is a euphemism for a liberal.
Pego wrote: The last administration, arguably the most "conservative" in US history doubled the amount of national debt in 8 years (less than 4% of the nation's age). I'll repeat my point. Claims that the present day "conservatives" are fiscally restrained is a myth.
arguable among the editorial board at the NYT or Nation magazine. Pego, do some reading, your text reads a bit partisan. There are probably a dozen admins that were more conservative than the last one and in the 20th century the Coolidge admin was Ebenizer Scrooge compared the the compassionate Santa Claus Bush.
Last edited by paulthefan on Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
Vince wrote:unchecked spending and borrowing by the current administration
Is your memory failing you, or is my recollection of over $2 trillion deficit accumulated by the previous administration erroneous?
While allowing the economy to tank to near Great-Depression levels thanks to years of Republican-led deregulation, tax cuts and increased government spending. But do not attempt to confuse these folks with facts . . .
Actually the facts are the economy has sunk to Carter-era levels.
.
. Just to be sure,
. On the other hand, your confusion is feigned, since the amount to be added to the national debt reflects deficits (I know, it is not the same things, but it closely parallels). The numbers I've posted support, what I am saying. The last administration, arguably the most "conservative" in US history doubled the amount of national debt in 8 years (less than 4% of the nation's age).
