Hoot
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,686
- Reaction score
- 18
- Location
- State of Confusion
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
vauge said:Since when did BUSH = every congressperson?
*NEWSFLASH* they have to sign it as well.
Hoot said:Since the House, Senate, and White House are all controlled by Republicans...I blame all of them, but Bush doesn't have to sign every spending bill, does he?
I don't like all the spending either, but for a liberal to start crying about it is very hypocritical. If it was Democrats doing it, you wouldn't be complaining Hoot.Since the House, Senate, and White House are all controlled by Republicans...I blame all of them, but Bush doesn't have to sign every spending bill, does he?
Squawker said:I don't like all the spending either, but for a liberal to start crying about it is very hypocritical. If it was Democrats doing it, you wouldn't be complaining Hoot.
:spin:IndependentTexan said:I seriously doubt that a democrat would make us 3 trillion in debt and then propose a plan since social security is "going bankrupt" that would cost us an extra 2 trillion dollars.
Repubteen said:: if Gore had been President I guaranty Saddam Hussein would still be in power, Osamas number two man would still be around, and we'd be doing nothing to prevent terrorism in the US.Because if he didn't have the guts to tell Clinton to do it in the 90's he wouldn't have the guts to do it now.
Lets start with FDR, then move on to LBJ. The only time Democrats think we are in debt is when Republicans are in the white house. Funny how that works.I seriously doubt that a democrat would make us 3 trillion in debt and then propose a plan since social security is "going bankrupt" that would cost us an extra 2 trillion dollars.
Lets start with FDR, then move on to LBJ. The only time Democrats think we are in debt is when Republicans are in the white house. Funny how that works
Repubteen said:So your saying having Saddam Hussein out of power has not made the world safer?
Ah here is the madness of president Bush! A liberal spends on social programs mostly while raising taxes. Bush spends not on social programs to help the poor, but rather for privatising SS and his 2 wars. None of that is to help the poor. And Bush lowers taxes! No this kind of handling of the economy is neither liberal nor conservative...it is simply insanity!Squawker said:I don't like all the spending either, but for a liberal to start crying about it is very hypocritical. If it was Democrats doing it, you wouldn't be complaining Hoot.
Does this ever end? You're now suggesting that Liberals, as you call them, are hypocrites for complaining about sh*t that Bush does? Democrats don't do this. In case you've forgotten, under President Clinton the US had it's biggest budget surplus EVER.Squawker said:I don't like all the spending either, but for a liberal to start crying about it is very hypocritical. If it was Democrats doing it, you wouldn't be complaining Hoot.
Repubteen said::spin:
Ya of course your right because Kerry had a "plan"(what is was, nobody knew). It's amazing how you soon forget during the Clinton years all the Lib's saying we need to fix SS. The when GWB brings it up they say, theres no problem?And about the 3 trillion, if Gore had been President I guaranty Saddam Hussein would still be in power, Osamas number two man would still be around, and we'd be doing nothing to prevent terrorism in the US.Because if he didn't have the guts to tell Clinton to do it in the 90's he wouldn't have the guts to do it now.
Repubteen said:So your saying having Saddam Hussein out of power has not made the world safer? And regardless of what you might think we were allowed to attack him because he violated every single rule on the Agreement in 1991.
26 X World Champs said:You guarantee it, huh? Are you omni-potent? Oh so easy to throw rocks at Clinton, isn't it? Are you one of those guys who is still blaming everything that Bush does wrong on Clinton? How about some facts to back up your 'guarantee'? Prove to all us that if Gore were President that the world would be less safe than it is today? Saddam's gone, great. How many new Terrorists have been recruited as a direct result of Saddam's removal?
Let me ask something? Would you rather have today's economy or the economy as it was under Clinton? Which one is better? How much was gasoline in the bad old days? How about interest rates? Jobs? Credit Card Debt? Can you name 10 things in today's economy that are better than they were when Clinton was president?
Oh but Pacridge, don't you know? Despite the fact that wages for workers remain stagnant, and sometimes do not keep pace with inflation, that's all OK because workers get stock market options! Oh the wonders of the New Economy! But, to you 26X, I wouldn't credit Clinton too heavily, since it was he that really began enacting many pro-market theorys, rolling back government speding, lowering taxes, and hurting the poor, inevitably leading to recession.Pacridge said:I can name one- things are a hell of a lot better off if you're wealthy. If you're poor- chances are you're poorer.
I agree with the rest of it, but to call China 'Communist' just displays the vast ignorance present in modern America about the subject. Congratulations, Contrarian, you've just hopped on the bandwagon of ignorance!Contrarian said:What are you complaining about Anomoly... all those evil American capitalist jobs are now going to "Communist" China! Read the book - "China, Inc." by Freeman... an eye opener to see how a Communist government takes care of the poor... yea right!
Another wonderful result of Bush-enomics! Allow the low end manufactuing jobs to go to China ($90 BILLION in textiles alone last year!) then con workers into re-training themselves into service sector jobs... then outsource those jobs to India! This is going all the way up the food chain now to engineers, accountants and you may even have your X-rays read by a doctor in Bagalor! We're in deep sh*t!
Now you have a growing underclass with no options. All of this strategically designed to increase corporate profits and fatten the payrolls of CEOs (the highest it has ever been). This incompetent (Bush & Co) feels that he needs to "save" Social Security when the truth is he needs to protect the jobs of those who contribute to the system! If there is a larger undercalss created by this mess, not only will Social Security take a hit, but welfare will be back on the top of the agenda because of starving people. Who says history repeats itself? Hoover > FDR anyone?
A communist neccesarily reads Marx (or has read), and apparently you haven't read him. You have no room to talk about your perceived definition of what you happen to think communism is. What you describe is Stalinism, the ideology that spread through eastern Europe driven by an iron fist. And to go further, China's oppressive roots come from another ideology of which you lack understanding-Maoism. Fantasy land appears to simply be truth, yours is not a lie, simply a misunderstanding, I suppose.Contrarian said:I don't think that I am the ignorant one..........
You missed the point entirely. If one would enter a lecture hall in a well respected university, and you would ask students to name a "Communist" country. My guess is that China would be named more often than others. This would be because of the "Great Revolution" about 50 years ago, and the ideology of Mao and his gang... and probably because 1.3 BILLION people in that country represent themselves as such. If you think I'm incorrect please point to a single, successful communist government on the planet? North Korea? Vietnam? Cuba?
The point is, that Communism (as most of us ignorant capitalists understand it :unsure13: ) is more exploitive than any form of Capitalism. In fact the Communist Chinese are using their years of oppression of the people to leverage cheap labor and a "submissive" workforce in their state sponsored economy. In other words these people have been so abused for so long that they will do ANYTHING for a fraction of wages earned by the rest of the industrialized world. That is exploitation to the highest degree. When you're moved from living in a mud hut on a state run farm to a clean dormitory in Shanghai so you can work in a sweat shop for the glory of the people and the party... it looks pretty good. The only problem with that is these people will never be allowed to achieve anything more. If they weren't selected to get an education etc... they are just cheap, compliant labor feeding a national economy devastated by Communist ideology.
I understand where you are coming from, unfortunately it is fantasy-land. :beam:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?