Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
I can't vote directly yet, so my only hope is to try and influence old people. Anyway, test your friends! ANSWERS: 1. Depends 2. Not C or E 3. Not D, B is half credit 4. A 5. A 6. A or B, not all Republicans are bad 7. C or D SCORING RUBRIC: 5-7: A well-informed voter 3-4: Pushing it... 0-2: You must be one of Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads. I contemplated putting this in the Politics section, but not too many people read that one, and I had to express my political stance. Remember this, if you would vote for Bush, vote for the Democratic presidential candidate instead to make up for my inability to vote, please.
That was completely pointless. If young Americans will start doing this as an alternative to actually looking up the issues that each politician stands for and what their history is, well, I think I'll be finding a different country to live in... Before the shit hits the fan.
Pardon me, but I actually did look up political issues...in english, the word "youth" doesn't translate into "stupid".
Your mastery of low-end sarcasm isn't showing anything more than you biting into Democratic propaganda. You sound almost like another Michael Moore...
While I must agree with you that, yes, I'm not a master of sarcasm, are you saying that Bush is a good President? Bush has hurt America with big tax cuts that primarily help the rich. Now, you may be saying that it only seems like poor people didn't get much help because of Democrats distorting statistics with their "propaganda". Here's a simplified version: The bottom 60% of income levels in America got 14.7 % of the help from Bush's tax cuts. And Bush has always been saying the vast majority of the help from his tax cuts will go to those at the bottom of the spectrum. Yep, that's definitely a mark of a great president. [Look, more sarcasm!] Now, on to the so-called "War on ". Despite what FOX news tells you [FOX news is conservative propaganda if there ever was any, because FOX is basically a branch of conservatives. One way to support this is that the President of FOX was an advisor to George Bush Senior.] there really aren't any "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq. There really never were any, although I will bet my soul that troops will "find" some of them right before the election. Now, I am all for evil dictators like Saddam being kicked out of power, but not under false pretexts. [Weapons of Mass Destruction]. Besides, Bush went about removing Saddam in about the worst way possible. He basically flicked off the U.N. and went his merry way. Now tell me I don't look up the issues. Although it's hard for me to prove over a chatroom, I didn't cruise over to Wherever.com and look all this up. I knew this. That's why I don't like Bush. That's why I utilized my capacity for sarcasm. And that's why I wish I could vote. Oh, and Al Franken's books aren't propaganda. They're facts. So I guess I've been biting into the truth too much. Sorry. [Yay! More sarcasm!]
Don't expect to get much of a positive response to a non-right wing political opinion on these forums.
Yeah, like I said, you bit into propaganda. Look up the tax statistics? Who pays the most? That's right, the wealthy do. It's only "fair" that they get a proportional share of their money back. People who are in the middle class don't pay nearly as much as the wealthy citizens do. People who are poor pay next to nothing, if nothing at all. So why do they deserve tax breaks of thousands of dollars? Because they're poor? Sorry dude, look up the Constitution - where in it does it state that your fellow man is required to work FOR YOU instead of work for himself? The entire point of free enterprise is not to dole out money to the government to feed bloated social projects, it's to get yourself ahead in life. If you don't like this and the way the government was formed, you do have the option of trying to change it - however, you'd fit in more with Germany, seeing as how it's a welfare state. So what if he told the UN to fuck off? We sat on our hands for twelve years while they did nothing but pass meaningless resolutions that Saddam ignored. I don't care WHAT pretext we went in under, every single one of them cited was a valid justification to enter the country and overtake it by force. Quote: Oh, and Al Franken's books aren't propaganda. They're facts. "A half truth is always a full lie."
Yes, it is one view that since rich people pay more taxes, they should get more back from tax cuts. But then again, rich people don't have to go hungry. Rich people don't have to make sacrifices to put their children through college. Rich people don't have to work two jobs just to support their kids. But, I guess fair is fair.
By the way: Whether or not something is propaganda does not depend on whether it's true or not.
Tax cuts being only for the rich is a lie. We all got the tax cuts. The only people who didn't were the people on wellfare who, may I remind you, don't have to pay taxes. The only people who got the tax cuts were the people who pay taxes, not just "rich people". Stop spinning. Oh, and I see that you read Al Franken books, or "King Contradiction" as I like to call him. Yea, the one who complained that Ann Coulter was to insulting, yet he wrote a book called "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat, Idiot." :rolleyes: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0440508649/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-0830515-5934261#reader-link People who hate America read Al Franken books.
SuperFlyingEngi Yes, it is one view that since rich people pay more taxes, they should get more back from tax cuts. But then again, rich people don't have to go hungry. Rich people don't have to make sacrifices to put their children through college. Rich people don't have to work two jobs just to support their kids. But, I guess fair is fair. And your point is? You think it's alright to circumvent the Constitution, making one man into an economic slave for another man's prosperity? Poverty is a sad thing, I won't argue with you about that. However, you make it out to be that eliminating poverty is the job of everyone who's wealthier than you. Do you deserve money because others have it? That, my friend, is called jealousy. Some people grow up and become mature enough to figure out that coveting what others have and being irrationally jealoius of them is simply nothing but a self-destroying ideal that people believe in. The premise is negative. The emotions you receive from it are negative. All it does is destroy whoever your personality is, leaving you a corrupt, empty shell after greed and power -- all because you want it since others have it. If you worked for your whole live, had millions of dollars to live off of, and ended up being sucked dry by taxes - would you feel the same way? I seriously doubt it. It's not the federal government's job to feed the hungry or shelter the poor. It's the government's job to protect us from foreign invaders, among other things. If you want to help eliminate poverty - do it by donating your own time and money to the cause. Not by forcing others to do what you think they should do.
And people wonder why companies are out sourcing. If taxes weren't so high for companies to feed people that don't want to work then maybe some would bother staying in the US.
That wasn't very funny. Ever hear of Berke Breathed? People like him are able to make people laugh at themselves, when I was a conservative (I'm now a Libertarian/Juris Naturalist), I laughed, and still laugh at it all the time. And take a look the Whats-his-name Jones of the Free-Lance Star. He pissed off and amused just about everybody in the area. You really need to make your stuff better so many people are amused. SuperFlyingEngi Rich people don't have to work two jobs just to support their kids. Maybe because TAXES are bogging down on families? You know who get hurt the MOST by liberal economic policy? The middle class. They can't afford great tax avoidance like the rich, yet they don't get things like welfare for the rich. Look at the Salvation Army, Goodwill and the Red Cross, THAT'S how we should be helping the poor; not by having the government rob Dan to help Joe. Read some Richard Maybury books, it'll give you a WHOLE new perspective on things.
I certainly agree that Bush is a terrible president, although getting your facts from Al Franken is about the same as getting them from Dennis Miller. I think he's funny and I agree with his opinions, but they are just opinions. The tax cuts were given with the purpose of giving money to the rich. $100 isn't going to save a lower class family, $15,000 is going towards buying some rich kid a Lexus. I'm not saying we should distribute the tax cuts unevenly, I'm saying we should raise taxes. By doing so the economy would improve and it would create more jobs. About the decision to enter war - it was totally unjustified and done entirely for political reasons. It's sad how many people just go along with it. The best argument to give against Bush is to just show people where we were in 2000, and show them where we are now. I would give a longer, more in depth opinion, but I only slept 2 hours last night and I'm not thinking too clear.
No, you aren't, 'cause the last time I checked, the economy was doing great... What're you even talking about? More taxes? If you didn't know, tax cuts are exactly what Reagan passed, which led to Clinton's success... Now Bush passed them, and the economy is growing - we've won two wars, successful economy, you really think he's a horrible president? Sure, okay... Lets put Hussien in power, since no one seems to object to him ruling anything..
smwScott .....I'm saying we should raise taxes. By doing so the economy would improve and it would create more jobs..... Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0942617312/002-9285411-3484047?v=glance Go ahead, buy it, you won't regret it. After you're done with it, buy these too: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0942617312/002-9285411-3484047?v=glance http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/094261710X/qid=1075508827/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9285411-3484047?v=glance&s=books You won't regret buying those either.
Ah, the wonders of economics. The solution to one problem is what causes the next. Raising taxes works fine for a while, but eventually the economy starts to decline. (people can't afford the things, so prices drop to a buyable range, only to have the economy slump because the amount of money being brought in is now less) Lowering the taxes stops this, but brings about it's own problems. People have money to spend, so the economy booms, until inflation catches up, and we're right back where we started. Solve that by raising taxes... and 'round and 'round we go. Yes, this is only part of a larger picture, but in regards to the raising taxes question, I think it answers it. Same answer applies to bank loan rates as well.
The following post concerns all countries, and is entirely my opinion(of course): One's ability to succeed in life has everything to do with what one's parents can afford to provide, in the areas of education especially. Many people are born into poverty, and many are born into wealth. Obviously, the people whose parents are rich have a better chance to prosper in life. This isn't fair. I realize, of course, that "life isn't fair," but that's not an excuse to ignore the issue entirely. All of us have a social responsibility to help the less fortunate, be it through taxes, or volunteering our time. There are poor people who manage to overcome the odds to attain success, and there are poor people who do nothing and live off of welfare. It's also important to remember that there are people who geniunely need welfare to help them survive long enough to get a job.
The rich are rich... Theyre rich cause life worked for them. If your gonna give a tax cut thats accross the board, the rich will make out better because they're paying more in the first place. If two people have bank accounts at a fixed rate of 6%. One with 1000$ in the bank One with 10000$ in the bank After one compounding, One has 1060$ One has 10600$ The first guy says "hey how come he gets more than me! We have the same rate!" The reason: He has more money than you to start. This was the best financial analogy I could find. I've been thinking alot about economics so this is the first thing that surfaced in my head. I'm a republican and I support bush wholehartedly. I don't see anything he's done that makes me go "that ain't right!" Everyones so mortified and calling bush an evil infidel... I just don't get it. He's the president and he's doing presidently duties... I just don't get people's beef...
mrpirate The following post concerns all countries, and is entirely my opinion(of course): One's ability to succeed in life has everything to do with what one's parents can afford to provide, in the areas of education especially. Many people are born into poverty, and many are born into wealth. Obviously, the people whose parents are rich have a better chance to prosper in life. This isn't fair. I realize, of course, that "life isn't fair," but that's not an excuse to ignore the issue entirely. All of us have a social responsibility to help the less fortunate, be it through taxes, or volunteering our time. There are poor people who manage to overcome the odds to attain success, and there are poor people who do nothing and live off of welfare. It's also important to remember that there are people who geniunely need welfare to help them survive long enough to get a job. I ask this: "So?" You think it's more fair to redistribute wealth to those who did nothing to deserve it? You can keep spouting off about how we all have some invisible responsibility to take care of others... As if you're going to sit there and say that if your own money is being taken to give to someone else. "Everything is possible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself." You need to realize: This country has a set of rules. Those are defined in the Constitution. When you propose that we all have to give our money away to people, just to make life "fair" for them, what you're doing is being unfair to those who you're stealing from. Thus, you've made them into economic slaves. Is that fair? No, it isn't. NOTHING IS FAIR. Get used to it! If you have problems with being poor, work! Get a job! Not everyone will give you handouts. And expecting people to feed and clothe you just because you're unable to do it is lunacy. If you want to do it, DO IT YOURSELF, donate YOUR OWN MONEY AND TIME to take care of those who are less fortunate than you are. After all, it's YOUR self-proclaimed responsibility. Not anyone else's.
Aircraftkiller You need to realize: This country has a set of rules. Those are defined in the Constitution. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is better than your Constitution.
Yeah, and my penis is bigger than Canada. Your point?
Aircraftkiller Yeah, and my penis is bigger than Canada. Your point? Canada is larger by mass than America.
mrpirate All of us have a social responsibility to help the less fortunate, be it through taxes... I don't pay taxes, because I have magical powers.
Javaxc Canada is larger by mass than America Hurray you can grow more crops. But nothing much else beyond that, I'm sorry to say.
Javaxcx Nah, we're not war monger's either. At least we didn't legalize pot.
I was against that law. Furthermore, it was repremended. It is illegal.
Let's not turn this into a US vs. Canada thread. Because we all know that Canada SUCKS! Just kidding about the latter. Just buy and read the damn books I linked to, problem solved.
Stop copying my signature
Quiet, Canadian! EDIT: By the way, do you know imitation is a sign of admiration? lol
Actually, I just looked at the number of which we joined.
Take it as a compliment! It's always nice to know others wish to emulate Canadians!
You left-wingers still need to explain why it's my responsibility to help those who don't make as much money as I do. Don't tell me anything based on morals. We are not a communist society. If someone doesn't help make the bread, they shouldn't get to help eat the bread. I'd like to see more tax breaks for businesses, so they can afford to hire more people and create more jobs... then those people buy things and create more jobs.
Cool this has ballooned into a large stereotype fight. It needs to be locked
I don't know about everyone else, but I never said anything about you giving your money to those less fortunate. I was talking about Bush's tax cut being unfairly biased to the rich. Yes, it's true the rich definitely pay more taxes than the poor, but even then Bush's cuts gave too much to the wealthy. The best way to stimulate the economy is to let poor people pocket more money. Then, they immediately go out and buy things that they need, and therefore money given to them jumps right in to the economy. I didn't see any morals there. And poor people are helping to make the bread. What do you think would happen if every poor person just left the country? America would come crashing down. There would be no sanitation workers, few police, the armed forces would drastically decrease in size, and other jobs that make our nation what it is. About cutting taxes for companies to make more jobs, giving poor people more money back would still work better, because what would they do with it? Immediately buy things. Then, the companies still get the money, so they hire more people, and then more jobs gives more poor people more money, so they go out and buy things, which makes MORE jobs. And all this time, that money gets taxed, so the government prospers as well.
And what would the rich do with the extra money? Invest it in the stock market. And what happens when you buy lots of stock? The price goes up. Both scenarios can be just fine for the economy. However, the tax cuts only benefitted the rich more because they are taxes more. If they did a 1% cut across the board, the rich would benefit more because 1% of their taxes is a lot more than 1% of some poor guy's taxes. It's math. It's all just twisting of facts to make someone look bad. Let's use another scenario has been used. Let's say government workers in some random industry get a 4% raise every year. But in order to spare a few layoffs, some committee decides they will only get 3% this year. There are people who will call this a CUT, even though they're all still getting raises, still getting more money.
Well, since both scenarios work just fine, how come Bush has managed to put the economy in a huge slump? 3.2 million jobs have been lost while Bush has been president. He must be doing something wrong. Now, giving money back to pretty much anyone from taxes should have a positive effect on the economy - I'd give help to the poor, you'd give help to the wealthy. If this is true, why do Bush's tax cuts not work? But back to the main topic of this thread which was my initial purpose and only one person has answered: Do you or do you not think George W. Bush is a good president?
And more than that have been gained, in addition to the economy being at its highest since the Clinton years... What're you talking about? The fuck? You keep saying "Bush isn't doing this or that" when it's fucking obvious that everything he's done has brought this nation out of depression! Stop reading that propaganda bullshit. He's a great president. Hell of a lot better than electing someone like you...
When you say the economy is at its highest, how are you measuring that? Clinton didn't leave America in a depression. How could Bush bring America out of a depression if it was never in one? Luckily for you, I never plan on becoming a president. I wouldn't be able to stand the media always clammering over each other's heads to ask a question. Oh, and thanks for finally answering the question that this thread was originally for.
SuperFlyingEngi Clinton didn't leave America in a depression. How could Bush bring America out of a depression if it was never in one? Yes, Clinton did leave America in an economic slump for Bush to handle. Clinton rode Regans economic reform plan and Clinton claimed that it was his economic reforms that caused the economic boost during his 8 years. He didn't to jack shit for the economy when he was in office and it's been proven.
bigejoe14 He didn't to jack for the economy when he was in office and it's been proven. By whom, if I may be so bold?
I find one thing very, very interesting...the same people that take a so-called "humanitarian" stance on taxes are the ones that would rather have left Saddam in power in Iraq. Interesting how your morals and ethics go right out the windown when the issue doesn't affect you directly, isn't it?
Clinton did NOT ruin our economy. When there is a boom, there will be a BUST, it's simple. It was expected that inflation would stop in 1998, but it continued. And when inflation continues, money becomes worthless, and when it stops, the stock market, etc. will slump. We could've been in the "Greater Depression" if we didn't lower taxes and regulations. If we did something like the New Deal, the economy would be a DISASTER. Buy and read the books I mentioned above, there, problem resolved.
Stealing is a crime even if you're the IRS.
Aircraftkiller That was completely pointless. If young Americans will start doing this as an alternative to actually looking up the issues that each politician stands for and what their history is, well, I think I'll be finding a different country to live in... Before the shit hits the fan. I hear Brazil is nice this time of year.
Aircraftkiller That was completely pointless. I agree... may you entertain us with one of your great PM's?
You don't make much of a case to warrant treating you in a decent manner...
Aircraftkiller You don't make much of a case to warrant treating you in a decent manner... I see you have been talking to the mirror lately..
To answer the question, Bush has my vote in November... unlike most of you here who will speak your mind and then when it comes to the crunch, forget or decline to fucking vote. I have an enormous respect for the way he treats us and the way he's cleaning up the mess that Bill Clinton left behind. Clinton is without a doubt one of the worst things that could have happened to us. And it's all summed up quite nicely in his final act as president when he stole furniture, etc from the White House when he moved out. Leaving the White House in worse shape than when he got in... it's the same thing that he did to the USA.
Alkaline surely you can come up with better retorts than this "No im not YOU are" crap.
Crimson To answer the question, Bush has my vote in November... unlike most of you here who will speak your mind and then when it comes to the crunch, forget or decline to ing vote. I have an enormous respect for the way he treats us and the way he's cleaning up the mess that Bill Clinton left behind. Clinton is without a doubt one of the worst things that could have happened to us. And it's all summed up quite nicely in his final act as president when he stole furniture, etc from the White House when he moved out. Leaving the White House in worse shape than when he got in... it's the same thing that he did to the USA. While you say Bush is cleaning up the mess that Clinton left behind, what mess are you talking about? Did Clinton make the deficit way too small? If that's the case, Bush is cleaning up quite nicely. And while you say that Clinton is "without doubt" a bad president, what facts do you have to support this? Yes, he had an affair and yes, it was a bad thing, but how did that hurt our country? Answer: It didn't. That's called conservative propaganda. About Clinton supposedly "stealing furniture" from the White House: that story is utter and total bullsh*t. It is a complete and total lie. Heres how it went down: When Clinton left office, some conservatives came up with a crazy off-the-wall story about him taking all the Ws out of the keyboards, stealing furniture, etc., so they called for a group to look into Clinton's "treachery". So then, Democrats really pushed for the group, and so one was made. This group stalled for as long as possible and never found anything. So, President Clinton's term was best summed up by a big conservative lie? Right...next time, get your facts straight.
I like how you totally ignored what she said and went on to something that had no relevance to it. That's something the Democrats are quite good at doing.
Did your eyes just roll out of your head? I was debasing what Crimson said, not going on to irrelevent topics. If you're going to say that I edited my post to something entirely different, that's called a lie, something conservatives are quite good at doing. What I fixed in my edit was that I spelled a word wrong and I forgot to write how Clinton stealing furniture from the White House is complete and total B.S. And wwhen you say Democrats are quite good at ignoring topics and moving on to different ones, I would have been slightly more tempted to agree with you if you had actually given some examples. Now, it may be your opinion that Democrats randomly change the subject, and you're entitled to your opinion. But then I'm entitled to my opinion that your opinion sucks.
THe thing I am most afraid of is having another president elected who will prematurely withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving both regions unstable and potentially dangerous. Bush won't do that, but the Democratic candidates, who are mostly against the war, would. I don't pretend to support Bush on every issue, but that one alone is enough to guarantee him my vote this year (first election for me...been waiting a while for it!). It's stupid to change parties in the middle of a war, especially when the other party would either screw it up, withdraw, or lose it.
If you think all Clinton did was get head in the Oval Office, then you are not suitable to debate this.
Apparently luckily for me, that's not at all what I think of Clinton. Clinton did wonders for the economy. He proved that when the economy goes up, crime goes down, even though Republicans kept saying that they were crcaking down on crime. Let's take a look at some other things Clinton never got credit for while he was president: Clinton seized all of the weapons grade nuclear material in Russia as it was falling apart to prevent it from getting into the hands of trroerists. Perhaps if he hadn't done this there would in fact be Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. [Hint - that's a bad thing] Clinton created more jobs than any other president, as opposed to Bush losing more jobs than any other president. Now tell me I don't know anything about Clinton except his rather unpopular acts during his term. EDIT: *&^% internet blocker makes me fix some words so post is readable.
OK, my dad spent well over year poring over books, websites, court documents, etc... he found pretty much every seedy thing former President Clinton and her husband had their dirty little hands into. You are forcing me to pull this data I think. Unfortunately it's in a large poster form so it would require a lot of typing.
Talk is cheap. Let's see your poster.
While I find that, you find the jobs created/lost numbers for Clinton and Bush.
SuperFly, the government does not create jobs. The economy creates jobs on it's own. The government's so-called "stimulation" of the economy is basiclly the government lowering taxes and lessening regulations. In other words, the goverment stops breathing down the economy's throat, or at least a little bit. The economy can live on it's own without government intervention. And the federal deficit problem was WAY before Clinton and Bush, it was around since the 80s. "It's Clinton's fault!", "No, it's Bush's fault!" :rolleyes:
So you're saying that the government doesn't actually control the economie's ups and downs? That's just plain wrong. And please don't tell me to read any silly books. EDIT: Crimson, I got those statistics you wanted. Lets take a look at them, shall we? In Clinton's two terms, roughly 23 million new jobs were created. Now, when I say roughly, I mean between 22 and 24 million jobs, not between 30,000 and 1 million. He was able to create that many new jobs becaused he inherited a horrible economy from George Bush Senior, and then he fixed it, contrary to what ACK said before about it being from Reagan's tax cuts. That's just wrong, plain and simple. I took this number out of a transcript from Kerry talking to some media person. So far in Bush's term, he's managed to lose nearly 3 million jobs, or about 2.9 million. I found this buried deep in http://www.fedstats.org, a website that doesn't take sides. Well, looks like Bush wasn't quite as good as Clinton for the economy. Even though he said he promised to help the economy in his election speeches for his first term. So, please see his speeches for the B.S. they are later this year.
/me sits on his moose and points and laughs at California
Javaxcx /me sits on his moose and points and laughs at California :rolleyes: Moose? I'm ashamed to share this country with you! Beavers are much more comfy.
Knock off those damn innuendos.
That's not what I asked for. You only pulled two of the four figures.
Perhaps I mis-phrased myself slightly...those numbers are net jobs lost/gained. For Clinton, from the beginning of his first term to the end of his second term, there were 23 million more jobs in America. This includes jobs lost. Same goes for Bush in that from the beginning of his first term until just a short while ago, nearly 3 million jobs have been lost in America. This includes jobs gained. I find it hard to see how this could possibly be considered distorting the facts, so please don't say thhat unless you have a really good reason.
Javaxcx /me sits on his moose and points and laughs at California May I join you?
You know what caused alot of jobs to be lost? Companies out sourcing because of heavy corporate taxes.
Not only that, but also because of some organized labor (unions).
So companies spontaneously started rabidly outsourcing when Bush became president even though the only thing he knows how to do concerning the economy is cut taxes?
He shit happens. The president has no control of the economy. He cannot magically make it go up and he cant wave his wand and create jobs. in 1929 shit just started falling, people put too much moeny into stocks and the company was making no profits and shit just happaned. Also if you look at the numbers in 98 the economy started falling, when sept 11th happaned it just made it even worse. Then after that a few companys went bankrupt making people lose their jobs and become poor. All those people who lost millions on stocks were stupid, they shouldnt have put ALL their money into one company. And the people losing ther jobs also have no room to talk. There are millions of ways to make money in the US. There is always a carreer in the military and you can do mslal jobs like cleaning peoples houses. They get payed upwards of $15 an hour. You don't need to be on a payroll to have a job. May i show you the unemployment numbers US-5.8% Canada-7.6% England-5.2% France-9.1% Germany-9.8% Denmark5.1% Finland-8.5% See where im going? Ours is high, yet it is still lower than many others.
Wait a sec, what's that over there? Oh, I see what it is now. It's the Politics forum, just waiting for ya'll to crowd into it.
tarsonis9 Wait a sec, what's that over there? Oh, I see what it is now. It's the Politics forum, just waiting for ya'll to crowd into it. I already explained that one - good job not reading the whole thread. Nodbugger: Where'd those statistics come from? And from what year where they?
I am referring to how this post is turning into a "Republicans are better than Democrats" kind of thing, and I believe, (not that I am a moderator or anything, just my .02 dollars) that this should be moved to the Politics forum, and be continued there. And, by the way, doesn't the title of this forum's description read as: "General Discussion of Command and Conquer: Renegade."? Just another thought...
SuperFlyingEngi tarsonis9 Wait a sec, what's that over there? Oh, I see what it is now. It's the Politics forum, just waiting for ya'll to crowd into it. I already explained that one - good job not reading the whole thread. Nodbugger: Where'd those statistics come from? And from what year where they? http://www.cia.gov the world factbook, they are between 2001 and 2003, and maybe add a 1 or 2 percent margine of difference from then and now. because those 3 million jobs are only a 1% change.
That's great and all, but since you obviously don't want to discuss it, don't fucking respond to it.
SuperFlyingEngi So companies spontaneously started rabidly outsourcing when Bush became president even though the only thing he knows how to do concerning the economy is cut taxes? Yeah, kinda proves that the current president has to kinda work with the previous president's mistakes/good ideas. The market did not start falling in 1998. It was in 2000. BigCharts graph of the NASDAQ composite indicates this. When was Bush inaugurated? Oh yeah, January 2001. And where was the NASDAQ? Oh yeah, it was at half of its 5000+ peak reached in March of 2000. So there's a huge-ass boulder tumbling downhill and suddenly Bush is placed in front of it... and you expect him to stop it. Now, today, we're about 400 points below where we were when Bush took office. And yet, he's ruining the economy.
SuperFlyingEngi For Clinton, from the beginning of his first term to the end of his second term, there were 23 million more jobs in America. This includes jobs lost. Same goes for Bush in that from the beginning of his first term until just a short while ago, nearly 3 million jobs have been lost in America. This includes jobs gained. How can you possibly compare these numbers when your taking numbers from Clinton's 2 terms and from the first 3 years of Bush's term? Wow... Impressive! Clinton can gain more jobs in a longer period of time than Bush can! You can't argue this point until both are in office the same amount of time, unless you use like periods of time to compare, (i.e. Clinton's first term, and Bush's first term when it's finished).
LOL -- good point majikent. I totally didn't even think of that.
majikent How can you possibly compare these numbers when your taking numbers from Clinton's 2 terms and from the first 3 years of Bush's term? Wow... Impressive! Clinton can gain more jobs in a longer period of time than Bush can! You can't argue this point until both are in office the same amount of time, unless you use like periods of time to compare, (i.e. Clinton's first term, and Bush's first term when it's finished). Your point would have more merit if more jobs were being created than lost right now during Bush's first term. 3 years into his first term, Clinton had actually created more jobs in America, not lost them. Are you suggesting that Bush will radically turn around and start creating loads and loads of jobs in America to catch up to Clinton's 23 million? If his father was any hint, this WILL NOT happen. What I was showing is that Clinton did a great job as president by creating 23 million jobs in America, contrary to the idiocy displayed by Bigjoe14 when he said it has been proven that Clinton didn't do jack for the economy. Then I showed how well Bush has done so far in his term, which you can't say is a good job. Did I make a graph comparing the two? No. Besides, Crimson originally asked for these numbers in the first place. I merely supplied them. Speaking of which, where's your so-called poster of Clinton's bad things? And your graph kind of shows how good a president Clinton was. where you set it to 5 years, set it to All Data. Now, the one huge spike there is right in the middle of Clinton's terms. After a big long trail of the NASDAQ being nice and low, Clinton comes in and the market starts skyrocketing. Now, want to know why Bush jr. actually has an O.K. record for the stock exchange? He wants to have social security work by people putting their S.S. money in the stock exchange. After Bush was payed large sums of money by the heads of the stock exchange, because having everyone invest large sums of money in the stock market would let brokers charge big money for all those transactions. Now, this is bad because if the market crashes or if stocks go down, elderly people lose a ton of their retirement money. And that graph can't just explain away almost 3 million net jobs being lost under President Bush junior.
It's not a 'so-called' poster. It does actually exist. I just can't find it, so I'll have to get another one. Some more points you'll have to address are: 1) What did Clinton DO to create these jobs? Just because jobs became available, doesn't mean you can pinpoint any real or probable Clinton causes for these jobs. 2) Why do you think a huge spike is such a good thing? I say it's not. While many people were making millions of dollars in that market upswing, many of them lost all it, and much more. I worked at Charles Schwab talking to traders all day long during that market upswing, and plenty of the way into the fall as well (until June 2002 in fact), so I was there day to day knowing what was going on on the trading floors. And most of them were cursing Clinton for it. 3) "3 years into his first term, Clinton had actually created more jobs in America, not lost them." -- Once again, no facts to back this up. If you're going to try and interpret this way, then you'd have to supply some sort of year-by-year comparison. And you're only guessing about the future. If, for example, Bush "loses" 27 million jobs in the first year, then each year after that gains 8 million jobs, then you're looking at a net loss of 3 million jobs at the three-year mark, but if that upward trend continues, you'd look at 37 million net jobs gained at the end of his hypothetic 8 year term. Note that was an example, created to point out glaring flaws in your logic. Also, I'd prefer a steady constant gain in the market indicators rather than erratic sharp movements up and down. People lose money that way all too easily, no matter which way it's going. Smooth steady growth is better for everyone, except for the minority who trade short.
You do should give him a little credit. He did approve NAFTA.
I hold Clinton responsible for the lack of a suitable replacement for the aging and inadequate Space Shuttle.It was one of his less-publicized decisions...he cancelled the program for a replacement early in his first term (in 1993, I believe). It takes about a decade to develop anything of that nature- had the program not been cancelled, we might have been sending a new ship up on its first flights last year instead of mourning the loss of a shuttle crew. Clinton was not responsible for the loss of Colombia, but he WAS responsible for there not being a vehicle to replace our current 20 year old design. Now, instead of being on the cutting edge of space travel, we're sitting on our asses sending astronouts up in Russian ships. Summary, for those too lazy to read that: Clinton nerfed the space program.
SuperFlyingEngi If his father was any hint, this WILL NOT happen. What you need to remember is that the current president isn't his father. They have the same name, they even kind of look alike. That doesn't make them the same person. You can't base what our current president has done, or is going to do, by what his father did in his run as president. That's like saying you'll have three kids because your dad did. Or you'll be laid off from a job because your father was previously. It doesn't make any sense. Two completely different people. This isn't to say he isn't influenced by his father, as I'm sure he is. How could his father possibly be a hint to what he is going to do in the next year, and possibly 4 years after that?
i i would like to start off by saying that i am incredibly rich. i love george w bush becasue he gives me more money. this i find absolutel DELECTABLE because i deserve it. its not like i contribute to society like those worthless middle class people and poor people do itm just lucky i dont have to put up with the fact that clinton was a great president. even though he WASNT!!!! wanna know why? because he didnt ive me money and that is unfair. why should i only get a seven story mansion with twelve bigscreen TV's. i dont care about poor people who are CONTRIBUTING to our society and economy (which is in the shitter) but its lucky i am buddies with george bush ( its good i used to smoke crack with him back in the day) cbecause i dont have to deal with the so called "economy" you democrats disgust me! trying to create jobs and fix our economy because george is a drunken fool! I WANT MORE MONEY GODDAMMIT AND I DONT WANNA WORK FOR IT!!!!! well i must sayi also dont care about veterans i did what george w bush did and went AWOL but it would be nice if you didnt tell anyone that because thats unpatriotic just like those GODDAM DEMOCRATS ughhh and who needs social securtiy if anyone tries to fucking touch me ill have them fed to my sharks which are housed in a gold plated fish tank which only costed 27 thousand dollars which is pocket change ever since those tax cuts. Speaking of taxes what the fuck IS tax? i shouldnt have to pay for other people that is WAY too much to ask for. i should care only about myself becaue im the only person that matters in the ENTIRE world GO GEORGE W. BUSH AND MAKE ME MORE MONEY AND SCREW EVERYONE ELSE Note: I am NOT rich im just making fun of you moronic conservatives. PSS wanna bash me with your constitutionsal bullshit? comeon there i also something in there called freedom of sppech bet thats a new one
^ your a fucking retard. When tax cuts go acroos the board everyone is equal. I goes by precent. If you have more you get more. And you think people living off of welafre work? Hell alot of people with money made money becuase they worked. Rich people pay the same percentage wise as everyone else. percentages are always fair. I dont get why you fucktards do not understand that. $10 to you or me is like $1,000,000 to Bill gates. Why? Because he has 90 billion. He has more therefore he gets more. What dumbass.
im sorry nodbugger but all i really got from your pst is that "I have the intelligence of my president" its sad our country is getting run by idiots who dont know their ass from there head. oh great insults by the way i liked the juvenile twang they had
Crimson It's not a 'so-called' poster. It does actually exist. I just can't find it, so I'll have to get another one. Some more points you'll have to address are: 1) What did Clinton DO to create these jobs? Just because jobs became available, doesn't mean you can pinpoint any real or probable Clinton causes for these jobs. 2) Why do you think a huge spike is such a good thing? I say it's not. While many people were making millions of dollars in that market upswing, many of them lost all it, and much more. I worked at Charles Schwab talking to traders all day long during that market upswing, and plenty of the way into the fall as well (until June 2002 in fact), so I was there day to day knowing what was going on on the trading floors. And most of them were cursing Clinton for it. 3) "3 years into his first term, Clinton had actually created more jobs in America, not lost them." -- Once again, no facts to back this up. If you're going to try and interpret this way, then you'd have to supply some sort of year-by-year comparison. And you're only guessing about the future. If, for example, Bush "loses" 27 million jobs in the first year, then each year after that gains 8 million jobs, then you're looking at a net loss of 3 million jobs at the three-year mark, but if that upward trend continues, you'd look at 37 million net jobs gained at the end of his hypothetic 8 year term. Note that was an example, created to point out glaring flaws in your logic. Also, I'd prefer a steady constant gain in the market indicators rather than erratic sharp movements up and down. People lose money that way all too easily, no matter which way it's going. Smooth steady growth is better for everyone, except for the minority who trade short. First things first: If you can't find the poster, it doesn't exist in my eyes. get another one and let me tear it apart, will you? Moving on...[paragraph by paragraph] What did Clinton do to create these jobs.....if jobs can't be traced back to Clinton, I guess it's just a HUGE COINCIDENCE that jobs started increasing as soon as he got into office until he left and jobs started going down under Bush Jr. And don't even lie to yourself about Bush "trying to stop a boulder going down a hill." It's Bush's own inability to control the market tht is causing a decrease in jobs, not what Clinton did. So markets going up are a bad thing.....you probably should have given a few details here other than, "Oh, I was in the business, I would know." And so many people were cursing Clinton for it? Yah, probably the same people who try to drink coffee through the handle of their cup. Oh, sorry I didn't "supply" facts, I guess if you want them you're going to have to throw some numbers of your own in to the pot. So far I've been talking numbers and statistics, and you've been saying about how you "were there" and "everyone hates Clinton" without anything to back it up. Don't tell me to put numbers behind everything until you start doing it yourself. Ah yes, about the market... There is no way in hell you can make the market staay steady. Unless you play like Bush Senior and keep the market nice and low so it really can't take big spikes down. Please note that I'm still using your chart here. To sum this up: 1) Get your supposed "poster" 2) Post said poster here so I can have a good laugh at how silly the whole concept is. 3) Flush poster down toilet 4) Come back here so I can convince you to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate instead of Bush.
ummmmm...... yeah crimson wtf? i am also eager to see this "poster: it is kind of convenient you "lost" it. i think instead o falling back on your daddys lies and mistakes you should tryi being like superfly and actually try to learn something OH WAIT YOUR REPUBLICAN MY BAD!!!!!! try and find the poster i really wanna see how crappy it is! PS- falling back on daddys lies and wel . . . daddy in general you remind me of george w bush PSS- that is a bad thing if you idnt know
Llama Man 451 im sorry nodbugger but all i really got from your pst is that "I have the intelligence of my president" its sad our country is getting run by idiots who dont know their ass from there head. oh great insults by the way i liked the juvenile twang they had Im sorry you cant understand anything. I suggest you stay indoors.
please nodbugger you are killing me. ill give you some credit you did a little better this time we're getting there. what you dont have in political understanding you are almost making up for in dissing. then again since you have no political understanding WHATSOEVER there isnt much to be made up for now is there? how unfortunate, you might want to either get informed, or maybe if your feeling really ya know ABSOLUTELY CRAZY try waatching something besides FOX news. . . but i doubt one of your level would be able to do that . . . but we can dream cant we?
Llama Man 451 please nodbugger you are killing me. ill give you some credit you did a little better this time we're getting there. what you dont have in political understanding you are almost making up for in dissing. then again since you have no political understanding WHATSOEVER there isnt much to be made up for now is there? how unfortunate, you might want to either get informed, or maybe if your feeling really ya know ABSOLUTELY CRAZY try waatching something besides FOX news. . . but i doubt one of your level would be able to do that . . . but we can dream cant we? What the hell are you talking about? A percent is a percent, it is fair for everyone. Its not my fault you don't make as much money as other people.
dude, i make a nice amount of money which shows you do not have to be poor or a treehugger to be a democrat . . . a percent IS a percent but at least i am not i denial man. we NEED more taxes we are over 450 billion dollars in debt ok? after clinton less we were in the highest surplus EVER? guess who was runnin the gov't when we had the Great Depression . . . take a WILD guess . . . if you guessed republicans you are correct, you have not won a milllion dollars but for the sake of being for the sake of we'll say that you have . . . without more taxes you kids will be learning about science and geography from a friggin Bob the builder book and i am relatively sure there are no underlyig themes of any and all sciences in Bob the Builder.
Ok for one its a deficit, not debt. Go learn the difference. Besides if we stopped paying lazy people to do nothing we could easily get rid of that plus some. It was a republican at the Great Depression and a Democrat during it. And FDR really didn't fix it. He justhad people set stuff up tha helped. I just went through this in a history class. The Great depression never really ended until the mid 1940s. And my high school is living proof more moeny does not make people learn. My school is a very good school, good teachers up to date equipment and new taxes are ebing put in every few months to give them more money. Yet there are still some students who do not care. Teachers still protest they want more(even they get payed highest than any other teachers in the state, these are normally teachers who have been there less than 5 years) More money does not make better grades. Will to learn and teach does. If the student wants to learn and the teacher wants to teach will get more accomplished than a million dollar classroom and two people who hate each other and hate their jobs.
Llama Man, I get a headache trying to read through your typos and broken English. Quite obviously you are a Democrat... you want the government to pay your way because you're not driven enough to accomplish anything, much less spelling your words out. No matter how long this conversation goes out, I will not EVER vote for a Democrat. I have a fucking brain kthx. Because I'm not living off the government and I'm making my money to support the lazy liberals, I haven't had time to go to my parents' house and get another copy of the poster. This isn't some half-assed effort, either. Several high ranking government officials praised his work and still communicate with him to his day. He's also been asked several times to give political lessons to Boys State. And, he's converted more people from Democrat to Republican than you can ever hope. Hell, he converted me from not caring to Republican... though, not really Republican so much as a Constitutionalist.
Nodbugger Ok for one its a deficit, not debt. Go learn the difference. Besides if we stopped paying lazy people to do nothing we could easily get rid of that plus some. It was a republican at the Great Depression and a Democrat during it. And FDR really didn't fix it. He justhad people set stuff up tha helped. I just went through this in a history class. The Great depression never really ended until the mid 1940s. And my high school is living proof more moeny does not make people learn. My school is a very good school, good teachers up to date equipment and new taxes are ebing put in every few months to give them more money. Yet there are still some students who do not care. Teachers still protest they want more(even they get payed highest than any other teachers in the state, these are normally teachers who have been there less than 5 years) More money does not make better grades. Will to learn and teach does. If the student wants to learn and the teacher wants to teach will get more accomplished than a million dollar classroom and two people who hate each other and hate their jobs. First off, deficit and debt are not crazily different words. Deficit is just a fancy word for how much the government owes, and the definition of debt, according to dictionary.com, is "Something owed, such as money, goods, or services." Wow, big difference. FDR didn't help the depression? Are you crazy? Now, it is a given that the nation did not fully recover until the early 1940s, but the nation probably wouldn't have recovered until at least the 1960s if FDR didn't do what he did. He got people to trust the banks again by having them be protected by Congress, and he created many groups and organizations funded by the government to help the poverty-stricken. If FDR hadn't been there, our nation wouldn't be ANYTHING NEAR what it is now. Oh your school is absolute proof beyond reasonable doubt tht money dooesn't help kids learn? Then why do school distriicts with more funds always have better test scores than those that could use more funding? Magic? No. Now, yes, there are alwways some students who just don't want to learn, but there are many more of those in poverty areas than there are in good school systems. And, your one school can't really prove anything. It's like reaching into a bag of skittles, pulling out one, and thinking that all the skittles in that bag will be the same color as the one you just pulled out. And you are more likely to find a teacher who wants to teach and a student who wants to learn in a rich environment than a poor one. Also, a school system that has more money can pump out more prepared students than one without proper funding because a well-funded school has more resources to educate pupils with. Well, Crimson, we will say whether you vote democrat or republican....just keep coming back and I can throw facts at you all day. Being a liberal doesn't make someone a welfare recipient who complains about other people's masses of money. Just look at John Kerry. He's by far the richest senator AND he's a liberal. How can this be? Maybe Kerry is smart enough to realize all the Republican lies that get thrown around the media. About your daddie's "poster"... Which "government people" contacted him about it? Media reps who want to make idiot attacks at Clinton in the news because there aren't any real good insults you can throw at a great president? More people from Democrat to Republican....again, this is a spot where numbers might help your failng argument. This shows why you shouldn't complain to me about not having enough statistics behind what I say. Is it just me or does it sound like Boys State is an incredibly conservative school that you vaguely defined so that I couldn't look it up on the internet? And, I don't ever hope to convert anyone from a Democrat to a Republican. Ever. One more thing, please don't call yourself a constitutionalist. You're a Republican, straight and simple.