Who are you voting for?

[JoesXJ]

I'm curious to see what everyone is voting for.

[lancey3]

This poll decides the election.

[RichP]

After he announced his VP choice it got me off the fence and probably wasting my vote on Bob Barr..

[JohnJohn]

After he announced his VP choice it got me off the fence and probably wasting my vote on Bob Barr..

Throw a hotty out in front RichP and he rolls over like a puppy dog. :loveu: Good news BTW

[JoesXJ]

at this point, I'm still on the fence but about to fall to the red side

[Ecomike]

I think Obama is the best presidential choice we have had since Reagan.

:clap:

I think he will do an even better job at staightening out the economic mess we have than Clinton did. For those of you who keep preaching about the need for fiscal conservativism in Washington, you need to look at the last 60 years of the US budget deficiet, and if you do you will discover that we had one president in that period with a budget surplus, and that was Bill Clinton (and I think JFK had a surplus too). Clinton's budget had a surplus because he reduced corporate welfare, and increased the number of quality, high paying US jobs with the policies he pushed through Congress in the early years of his administration.

Republicans have always been in favor of huge corporate welfare programs while waving the anti-socialistic antisocial welfare flag as the supposed problem with the federal budget!

The Iraq war in reality, is and has been nothing but a huge corporate welfare program for Haliburton at taxpayers (current and future) expense. Your kids in other words will end up paying for it.

One of the comments I have heard Oboma say many times is that it is time to reward corporations that create good paying jobs here in the USA, and stop rewarding corporations that export good jobs overseas while closing down US plants. Said, incentives and rewards being acomplished by making changes in the tax codes for corporations that operate in the US.

[Tom R.]

Clinton's budget had a surplus because he reduced corporate welfare, and increased the number of quality, high paying US jobs with the policies he pushed through Congress in the early years of his administration.
Please, do a little research before posting nonsense.

Under Bill Clinton, federal spending increased 29.5%. How was this increase offset? By increasing tax revenues by over 85.5%! Much of it was from Clinton's historic tax increase on the rich. Now, to be fair, G. Bush the 1st also raised taxes (remember his "Read my lips" line?), so that contributed as well. Lest you forget, an economic boom was already underway (no credit to Bill C.), which provided more tax revenues. Actually, a much stronger (and factual) case can be made that the Republicans under Newt G. were directly responsible for balancing the budget. After all, Congress is responsible for setting the budget. They laid out a 7-year plan to have the budget balanced and actually did it in 4 years.

Also, yearly surpluses did not start with Clinton. The largest surplus in a single year ($290B) occurred in G. Bush's last year in office. What this means is that Clinton was mostly not responsible for balancing the budget and he certainly did not create any surplus by controlling spending. He happened to be in office when these things occurred. To his credit, he did support applying the surplus to balance the budget rather than use it elsewhere.

As for federal welform reform, Clinton supported the Republican view. This was another key objective of the Republican-led Congress that was successfully enacted.

And don't forget that a significant portion of "savings" came from Clinton stripping the military, essentially producing a hollow force that made it possible for military personnel to carry out their jobs with extreme difficulty.

The spending and tax revenue figures come from the U.S. Government's GPO Web site.

[Bent]

Hmmm, 17% idiots here so far; that's too many.

[Ecomike]

Hmmm, 73.21% idiots here so far; that's too many.

There I corrected it for you!:D

[ECKSJAY]

There I corrected it for you!:D

Why do you hate America?

[red91]

It should be a COLBERT NATION !!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/red91inWA/ap_StephenColbert_071017_ms.jpg




He's a natural behind the podium too !!



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v244/red91inWA/030506colbert.jpg

[Ecomike]

Please, do a little research before posting nonsense.

Nonsense! Who's talking nonsense. Get your own facts straight. Just what did I post that is nonsense?

Under Bill Clinton, federal spending increased 29.5%. How was this increase offset? By increasing tax revenues by over 85.5%! Much of it was from Clinton's historic tax increase on the rich. Now, to be fair, G. Bush the 1st also raised taxes (remember his "Read my lips" line?), so that contributed as well.



Lest you forget, an economic boom was already underway (no credit to Bill C.), which provided more tax revenues. Actually, a much stronger (and factual) case can be made that the Republicans under Newt G. were directly responsible for balancing the budget.

Get your facts straight, the economy was not in an economic boom when Bush Senior lost the election for his second term, it was in serious trouble. That is why he lost the election. People voted their pocket books, and they remembered his prior broken promise, "Read my Lips" of no new taxes!
I guess he felt that higher old tazes was keeping his promise of no new taxes! :laugh3:

I already said that Bush senior and yes the republicans that folowed his lead nearly balanced the budget, fixing the mistakes of the Reagan era, but Clinton kept it balanced (yes with the help of congress, but it is the Presidents duty to try and control the spending of congress, they can not spend with out the presidents signature, unless they override his veto of spending bills, so the president does have some control over spending, so get YOUR facts correct!) Sorry but you kinda pissed me off with your nonsense comment.:twak: I have no problem being corrected with real proof, admiting if I am wrong about some detail, and no problem defending my statements, just don't call them nonsense and fail to back up your own claims, unless you want me to return the favor, LOL.:D

After all, Congress is responsible for setting the budget. They laid out a 7-year plan to have the budget balanced and actually did it in 4 years.

Sources, man, sources, links! But like I said, Clinton had to follow along with that plan for the next 8 years, BUT WAIT!, your 7 year plan ended in Clintons 4th year, no?

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the presidential staff, administration draft the intital budget request and submit their wish list to Congress for the administrative section of the government, then the president goes to the news media and pushes for special legislative items they want to force Congress to pass, including budget items if Congress does not go along. That is a rhetorical question.

Seems like I did say Bush senior was probably the best President we had since who knows when.

Also, yearly surpluses did not start with Clinton. The largest surplus in a single year ($290B) occurred in G. Bush's last year in office.

News to me!!! Where is the proof please? $290 bilion surplus is huge, think I would have remembered that, but I was busy as hell at the time and might have missed it, but I sure recall hearing otherwise.

What this means is that Clinton was mostly not responsible for balancing the budget and he certainly did not create any surplus by controlling spending.

I disagree, he did help control spending. The president has enough power and authority, political clout, to screw the budget over, just look at how successful Reagan and Bush Jrs. were at convincing Congress to pass run away defeceit budgets for year after year.

[quote=Tom R.] He happened to be in office when these things occurred. To his credit, he did support applying the surplus to balance the budget rather than use it elsewhere.

My point exactly.

And don't forget that a significant portion of "savings" came from Clinton stripping the military, essentially producing a hollow force that made it possible for military personnel to carry out their jobs with extreme difficulty.

From what I recall, and I was very close to this at the time, Bush Sr. and the Republican Congress started that and initiated most of the downsizing during Bush Sr's term in office in response to reduced tensions with the Soviet Union. It was already on the books by the time Clinton took office. Probably had a lot to do with balancing the budget in Bushes last year.

Of course Bush Sr's strategy of getting the wealthiest nations of the world at the time, like Japan and SA, UAE, to pay for the cost of Desert Storm was also briliant, and no doubt saved his budget. A shame Jr did not learn from his father's successes!

The spending and tax revenue figures come from the U.S. Government's GPO Web site.

So where is the link to that source?

[scottmcneal]

One of the comments I have heard Oboma say many times is that it is time to reward corporations that create good paying jobs here in the USA, and stop rewarding corporations that export good jobs overseas while closing down US plants. Said, incentives and rewards being acomplished by making changes in the tax codes for corporations that operate in the US.


Does this mean he is going to tax the crap out of us? The corporations went over seas for less taxes, why would they come back here for.. He has to get a tax base from them or us right?

[red91]

One of the comments I have heard Oboma say many times is that it is time to reward corporations that create good paying jobs here in the USA, and stop rewarding corporations that export good jobs overseas while closing down US plants. Said, incentives and rewards being acomplished by making changes in the tax codes for corporations that operate in the US.


Does this mean he is going to tax the crap out of us? The corporations went over seas for less taxes, why would they come back here for.. He has to get a tax base from them or us right?


Yeah pretty much the choice is take it in the ass, or take it in the ass.

Pick one.

[Ecomike]

Tom R.,
Here is what I just looked up, which backs up my claims, and not yours.

There are different statists floating around, one is budget defecit, the next is Federal Debt, the third is Federal Debt as percentage of GDP. According to what I found the only 4 years that the federal debt was reduced was Clintons last four years. But another sites shows the national debt increasing, and never droping since 1961, which has me wondering how the debt can rise in a surplus year, unless they just save and spend the money the next year with out reducing the debt. One graph shows Bush Jr inheriting a budget surplus in 2001, but the national debt rose that year anyway.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

"George Bush Sr. meekly followed in Reagan’s shadow after his election in 1988, by increasing the debt on average a mere 11.8% a year during his four years as President. In his last year in office he quite responsibly worked with Democrats to raise taxes to help reduce the massive yearly increases in the national debt. This bipartisan plan got the growth down to under 11% in 1992, but it was too little too late and didn’t make much difference in the overall trend. The Neo-Conservatives controlling the Republican Party rewarded him for putting the nation’s future above his party’s ideology by throwing him out of office even though it had hardly been a year since he won the Gulf War.
In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years and with a cooperative Democratic Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration. "

"The fact is that Reagan was able to push his tax cuts through both Houses of Congress, but he never pushed through any reduced spending programs. His weak leadership in this area makes him directly responsible for the unprecedented rise in borrowing during his time in office, an average of 13.8% per year. The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase. The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war. Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich. The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies. Reagan’s legacy is a heavy financial weight that continues to apply an unrelenting drag on this nation’s economic resources."
"When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion[8] (http://www.cedarcomm.com/%7Estevelm1/usdebt.htm#_ftn8). The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has exceeded $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB’s outrageous spending. "


"Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 34. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.7%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.7% per year. Those averages aren’t that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.

If you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99"

"Since 1961 the United States national debt has never gone down.
It is interesting to note who controlled Congress versus what party was in the presidency during the seven years that the debt was reduced throughout the terms of Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Three times the Democratic Party controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency (1948, 1951 & 1961). The other four years all had a mix of control, with Republicans in the White House (1956 & 1957), in charge of Congress (1946 & 1947), but never both. At no time since 1945 when Republicans have been in total charge of both elected branches of government have they reduced spending. They talk about it a lot, but they never deliver."

From:


http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm






THen here"



"When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy; perhaps an economic fantasy describes it better. The last year Mr. Clinton was in office the nation borrowed 18 billion dollars. The first year Mr. Bush II was in office he had to borrow 133 billion[8] (http://www.cedarcomm.com/%7Estevelm1/usdebt.htm#_ftn8). The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because it was clear that the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. As a result of all his tax cutting with no cutting in spending, in 2003 President Bush set a record for the biggest single yearly dollar increase in debt in the nation’s history. He did it again in 2004, increasing the debt more than half a trillion dollars. Since 2003 total borrowing has exceeded $500,000,000,000 per year. Even Mr. Reagan never increased the debt that much in a single year; Mr. Reagan’s biggest increase was only 282 billion, half of GWB’s outrageous spending. "
From:


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2004/biggest_deficit_in_history_yes_and_no.html

[ehall]

I think Obama is the best presidential choice we have had since Reagan.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x57/UrsusMorologus/YouWinThePrize.jpg

[Tom R.]

Mike, it's impossible to discuss this rationally if you keep using information from overtly biased sources. I would also suggest looking at budget (tax & spend) information from the U.S. Government's own data. I've done my research; I'm not doing yours.

Your arguments remind me of the democrats accusing Bush Jr. of not supporting the school lunch program. The liberal democrats were acting all huffy and puffy mad in front of the liberal news media saying things such as "President Bush wants your kids to starve" and other outright lies. What they didn't say was that Bush didn't support the dems bill because it didn't provide ENOUGH funding. He actually wanted to give more. You perspective can only be objective when you have all the facts. Sadly, you work with conjecture and your own revised history most of the time, and half truths the rest.

[Hammered]

I'm voting for the hot VP thats all.

[Ecomike]

Mike, it's impossible to discuss this rationally if you keep using information from overtly biased sources. I would also suggest looking at budget (tax & spend) information from the U.S. Government's own data. I've done my research; I'm not doing yours.

Sadly, you work with conjecture and your own revised history most of the time, and half truths the rest.

Right back at ya on the revised history and half truths comment! But you may be right it may be impossible to discuss this rationally with you since you won't post any published data to back up your own claims, biased or not.

Sorry but you can make that claim of being biased just because my sources prove my point and not yours. As far I am concerned your revised history is the one that is biased!

All right now tell me this is biased data mister!

"In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion) since 1969." "In 1999, the surplus nearly doubled to $125 billion, and then again in 2000 to $236 billion. As a result of these surpluses, Federal debt held by the public has been reduced from $3.8 trillion at the end of 1997 to $3.4 trillion at the end of 2000 and to an estimated $3.2 trillion in 2001. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can remain in surplus for many years. Under the President's budget proposals, $2.0 trillion in Federal debt held by the public will be retired over the next 10 years—all of the debt that can responsibly be retired."

All found on the whitehouse we site!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide04.html

But I guess it is biased too?

It also says: "By 1992, the deficit reached $290 billion. Budget deficits have gradually declined since that high point, returning to balance in 1998. In 2000, the budget surplus was $236 billion. Why have we been able to move from deficit to balance? The main reason is because strong economic growth has increased tax receipts faster than the growth in Federal spending."

Here is the Congressional Budget office details, but be sure an check out figure 1-3 for of my biased data:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8917/Chapter1.5.1.shtml

[Deadman 94 xj]

Mike, it's impossible to discuss this rationally if you keep using information from overtly biased sources. I would also suggest looking at budget (tax & spend) information from the U.S. Government's own data. I've done my research; I'm not doing yours.

Your arguments remind me of the democrats accusing Bush Jr. of not supporting the school lunch program. The liberal democrats were acting all huffy and puffy mad in front of the liberal news media saying things such as "President Bush wants your kids to starve" and other outright lies. What they didn't say was that Bush didn't support the dems bill because it didn't provide ENOUGH funding. He actually wanted to give more. You perspective can only be objective when you have all the facts. Sadly, you work with conjecture and your own revised history most of the time, and half truths the rest.

TomR for president!!! ;)

[JohnJohn]

I think Obama is the best presidential choice we have had since Reagan.

Please tell me something, policy wise, they have in common?

[Ben H]

Comparing Obama to the late great President Reagan is one of the dumbest and insulting things I have heard since Monday. I once thought that information you posted was relatively genuine, despite being polar opposites on the political spectrum. Now all of your gibberish is discounted to the point of bullshit in my eyes. Sheer SPOBI.

[tupton]

:lecture: I think Tom R. just got a taste of his own medicine.

[Tom R.]

:lecture: I think Tom R. just got a taste of his own medicine.
I did? :shhh:

[red91]

Please tell me something, policy wise, they have in common?


This is going to be a long night....


:read:

[JohnJohn]

Right back at ya on the revised history and half truths comment! But you may be right it may be impossible to discuss this rationally with you since you won't post any published data to back up your own claims, biased or not.

Sorry but you can make that claim of being biased just because my sources prove my point and not yours. As far I am concerned your revised history is the one that is biased!

All right now tell me this is biased data mister!

"In 1998, the Federal budget reported its first surplus ($69 billion) since 1969." "In 1999, the surplus nearly doubled to $125 billion, and then again in 2000 to $236 billion. As a result of these surpluses, Federal debt held by the public has been reduced from $3.8 trillion at the end of 1997 to $3.4 trillion at the end of 2000 and to an estimated $3.2 trillion in 2001. With continued prudent fiscal policies, the budget can remain in surplus for many years. Under the President's budget proposals, $2.0 trillion in Federal debt held by the public will be retired over the next 10 years—all of the debt that can responsibly be retired."

All found on the whitehouse we site!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/guide04.html

But I guess it is biased too?

It also says: "By 1992, the deficit reached $290 billion. Budget deficits have gradually declined since that high point, returning to balance in 1998. In 2000, the budget surplus was $236 billion. Why have we been able to move from deficit to balance? The main reason is because strong economic growth has increased tax receipts faster than the growth in Federal spending."

Here is the Congressional Budget office details, but be sure an check out figure 1-3 for of my biased data:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8917/Chapter1.5.1.shtml

Yes you are right.


D: Keneddy - started Vietnam
R: Nixon - fought Vietnam
R: Ford - finish Vietnam
D: Carter - tried to fight Iran (crash and burn)
R: Reagan - fought cold War
R: Reagan - fought cold War
R: GHW Bush - fought 1st Iraq War
D: Clinton - pu$$y
D: Clinton - pu$$y - bombed Yugoslavia that was about it
R: GW Bush - fought Afgan War
R: GW Bush - fought Afgan & Iraq War

Wars cost money

[red91]

Yes you are right.


D: Keneddy - started Vietnam
R: Nixon - fought Vietnam
R: Ford - finish Vietnam
D: Carter - tried to fight Iran (crash and burn)
R: Reagan - fought cold War
R: Reagan - fought cold War
R: GHW Bush - fought 1st Iraq War
D: Clinton - pu$$y
D: Clinton - pu$$y - bombed Yugoslavia that was about it
R: GW Bush - fought Afgan War
R: GW Bush - fought Afgan & Iraq War

Wars cost money


I thought the government bought lotto tickets and cashed them in...

[Bent]

R: Reagan - fought cold War
R: Reagan - fought cold War AND WON!

;)

[Ecomike]

Please tell me something, policy wise, they have in common?


Did I say they had any policy positions in common? No, I don't think so, if I did it was not my intent.

Reagan was one hell of a great motivational speaker, IMHO, just like Obama, IMHO. Being a great motivational speaker is important for a US presidential leader, IMHO, especially with such a divided country (politically divided that is).

The next President, V.P., He, & / or she needs to be able unify the majority of Americans, Congress, and US allies to get anything done in the next 4 years.

Other than that, I would need to think long and hard about their policies (Reagan - Obama) and any similarities, if there any. I do know they both had, have the same (or at least very similar) positions on the abortion issue. Reagan was opposed to abortion, but he was not in favor a no exception anti abortion amendment to the US constitution like the ultra far right wing moral majority has been since the late 1970's.

I don't think a McCain-Palin administration will have the temperment to work with a Democratic Congress, which means McCain would give us 4 more years of stalemate in Washington, which would be very bad for us right now.

[JohnJohn]

Did I say they had any policy positions in common? No, I don't think so, if I did it was not my intent.

Reagan was one hell of a great motivational speaker, IMHO, just like Obama, IMHO. Being a great motivational speaker is important for a US presidential leader, IMHO, especially with such a divided country (politically divided that is).

The next President, V.P., He, & / or she needs to be able unify the majority of Americans, Congress, and US allies to get anything done in the next 4 years.

Other than that, I would need to think long and hard about their policies (Reagan - Obama) and any similarities, if there any. I do know they both had, have the same (or at least very similar) positions on the abortion issue. Reagan was opposed to abortion, but he was not in favor a no exception anti abortion amendment to the US constitution like the ultra far right wing moral majority has been since the late 1970's.

I don't think a McCain-Palin administration will have the temperment to work with a Democratic Congress, which means McCain would give us 4 more years of stalemate in Washington, which would be very bad for us right now.


I would agree. They are/were great motivators. I believe that's were the agreement with you ends.

Reagan spoke about ideaology. Obama motivates by talking about change, change from those before him. In my mind this means he is letting others define him.

Reagan we a teacher, he taught Liberals about "trickle down economics" and being tough on our enemies. He did not bring two sides together. He sold them on what he thought was best.

Having everyone get along is a farce. All conservatives should do is teach, bring others around to our way of thinking. Agreeing to disagree is a waist of time from a conservative stand point. Think the way we do our fight amongst yourselves.

Abortion has not bearing on which candidate I vote for, no bait for me there.

[Ecomike]

Reagan we a teacher, he taught Liberals about "trickle down economics" and being tough on our enemies.
I'm still waiting for my first economic trickle, LOL!:cheers:

[JohnJohn]

I'm still waiting for my first trickle, LOL!:cheers:

making my points for me now. Go and get your own trickle...stop waiting and complaining you haven't got yours yet. :D :angel:

[Ecomike]

Having everyone get along is a farce.



So shall we pick the weapons of our choice, and step back ten paces?

:shiver:

If so, I pick words!:patriot:

[Ecomike]

making my points for me now. Go and get your own trickle...stop waiting and complaining you haven't got yours yet. :D :angel:

I gave up way back in the mid 80's on that song and dance, trickle.

[ZacSquatch]

I vote based on guns... because we can fix a nation with them if it comes to it...

Viva la revolution

My morals really are fawked up...

[Ecomike]

Having everyone get along is a farce. All conservatives should do is teach, bring others around to our way of thinking. Agreeing to disagree is a waist of time from a conservative stand point.

IRRC Nixon, Reagan and Bush actually agreed to disagree with the Communists and started the process of looking for common ground with them. So I guess that was a farce too.

[Ecomike]

I vote based on guns... because we can fix a nation with them if it comes to it...

Viva la revolution

My morals really are fawked up...

I still like the old bumper sticker, have not seen one in decades. It said you can take my gun from cold dead hands....

[JohnJohn]

IRRC Nixon, Reagan and Bush actually agreed to disagree with the Communists and started the process of looking for common ground with them. So I guess that was a farce too.

in the USSR during Nixon, Ford, Carter, they had free elections?

Reagan did not agree to disagree with the Soviets. Reagan & Thatcher changed that nation and freed the nations under the old iron curtain. Dude, Reagan settled and compromised with no one.

[Tom R.]

I don't think a McCain-Palin administration will have the temperment to work with a Democratic Congress, which means McCain would give us 4 more years of stalemate in Washington, which would be very bad for us right now.
I think they're more likely to work with a Democrat-led Congress. McCain has demonstrated his willingness to work across party lines many times during his career, which is why ultra-conservative Republicans don't really care for him. I'd venture to say that Obama-Biden are much less likely to work across party lines.

[kujito]

Undecided. Stuck between a Barack and a Hard-Ass.
I still need to see some debates. What are your plans? I need details. Plus, I need to see them under pressure without spoon fed lines.

Just watched the Palin speach. Impressive. Not a whole lot of substance, but impressive nonetheless. She's apparently ready for a fight. Biden loves to fight. Those debates oughtta be entertaining.

[Ecomike]

in the USSR during Nixon, Ford, Carter, they had free elections?

Reagan did not agree to disagree with the Soviets. Reagan & Thatcher changed that nation and freed the nations under the old iron curtain. Dude, Reagan settled and compromised with no one.

Dude, I don't recall even mentioning the Soviets, or Cuba,.... what I said was communists, I never said WHICH communists. :roflmao: Try China. "Only Nixon could go to China!"

We have been getting cozzie with Communist China since Nixon's historic visit. I seem to recall Bush senior visiting China and getting real cozzy with them too. It was all about finding common ground, rather than fighing bloody wars over differences, with which to build a lasting peace.

I don't recall if Reagan went to mainland China, I was too busy at the time scrounging for scraps of food during the Reagan trickle down Era.

So don't preach to me about how tough the Republicans have been on communists.

I don't understand your free elections questions?

[The Hard Struggler]

I vote based on guns... because we can fix a nation with them if it comes to it...

Viva la revolution

My morals really are fawked up... Ha! Guns are good, but money is better when it comes to revolution. 250 years ago, guns gave the common man the ability to fight tyranny, technology changed that, I can't afford tanks, planes, cruise missiles.

Imagine if every business, large and small, along with just half of individuals who pay taxes, suddenly said "Enough!" and didn't pay.

I'm no anarchist, but eventually people will start to buck and I think thats how it will start.

Back to the original post, I vote for nobody.

[Ecomike]

Ha! Guns are good, but money is better when it comes to revolution. 250 years ago, guns gave the common man the ability to fight tyranny, technology changed that, I can't afford tanks, planes, cruise missiles.

Imagine if every business, large and small, along with just half of individuals who pay taxes, suddenly said "Enough!" and didn't pay.

I'm no anarchist, but eventually people will start to buck and I think thats how it will start.

Back to the original post, I vote for nobody.

Most large corporations would not stop paying taxes, as it would cost them all those sweet government contracts they make so much money off of.

[JohnX]

So shall we pick the weapons of our choice, and step back ten paces?

:shiver:

If so, I pick words!:patriot:


Words??? Come now, you won't complete a sentence in that battle before being shot in the head. :D

[Ecomike]

Words??? Come now, you won't complete a sentence in that battle before being shot in the head. :D

Then I would win anyway, being a martyr, and the shooter would loose the argument and his freedom and or life.

[Bent]

Then I would win anyway, being a martyr, and the shooter would loose the argument and his freedom and or life.
In that case I'm all for Oboma winning the election!
:conceited

[dbperformance96]

How can anyone vote for a man that will not put his hand on his heart and say the pledge of allegiance...... but yet he is gonna unite this nation? Good luck. IMHO he doesn't stand a chance.....

[The Hard Struggler]

Most large corporations would not stop paying taxes, as it would cost them all those sweet government contracts they make so much money off of. "Most"? Thats a pretty large generalization. According to the G.S.A (the dept that handles most non military procurement) the government spends about 200 billion a year or aprox 3.0% of the GDP, and 25% of that 200 billion goes to small businesses, and another 10% to minority owned businesses.

The military budget was 626.1 billion in 2006 or 3.7% of the GDP.

So roughly only 7.0% of the GDP was spent by the government. "Most" of the 3200 corporations on the NYSE get a very small % of their profits from the government.

A very few do "most" of their business with the government , defense contractors, but still a small % of the GDP.

[JohnX]

Then I would win anyway, being a martyr, and the shooter would loose the argument and his freedom and or life.
Right. Just like you're winning everyone here over with your words. And you becoming a martyr....not likely. Shooter losing their freedom....still have to catch them.

My point was....You vs. ANYONE. You are armed with words alone....you'll lose.

[JohnJohn]

Dude, I don't recall even mentioning the Soviets, or Cuba,.... what I said was communists, I never said WHICH communists. :roflmao: Try China. "Only Nixon could go to China!"

We have been getting cozzie with Communist China since Nixon's historic visit. I seem to recall Bush senior visiting China and getting real cozzy with them too. It was all about finding common ground, rather than fighing bloody wars over differences, with which to build a lasting peace.

I don't recall if Reagan went to mainland China, I was too busy at the time scrounging for scraps of food during the Reagan trickle down Era.

So don't preach to me about how tough the Republicans have been on communists.

I don't understand your free elections questions?

Your right I was mixing threads. We were talking about the Cold War in another thread and my thoughts mixed to this one.

I do recall Gore on a Clinton/Gore fund raiser to China... Why are we talking about China again? :helpme:

[billyjp2]

I'm voting for Mccain but i live in Massachusetts so it wont even matter!!!

[Ecomike]

Right. Just like you're winning everyone here over with your words. And you becoming a martyr....not likely. Shooter losing their freedom....still have to catch them.

My point was....You vs. ANYONE. You are armed with words alone....you'll lose.

Sorry to disapoint you, but the three times I was facing the wrong end of gun (twice), or knife (once), by someone who inteneded to do me serious harm (or kill me), I came out unharmed, armed only with words.

[Deadman 94 xj]

Sorry to disapoint you, but the three times I was facing the wrong end of gun (twice), or knife (once), by someone who inteneded to do me serious harm (or kill me), I came out unharmed, armed only with words.

They only pumped you in the butt and took your money?

Give me a break. Next you'll say bad things don't happen to good people.


I guess the UN should have handled Iraq.

[Mudderoy]

Obama sucks....

McCain just sucks less.

[Ecomike]

Your right I was mixing threads. We were talking about the Cold War in another thread and my thoughts mixed to this one.

I do recall Gore on a Clinton/Gore fund raiser to China... Why are we talking about China again? :helpme:

Probably has something to with the connectivity of world history, geography, and the way they are interwoven and the way politics (which is interwoven with history and geography....oil politics) eventually drags them all into an inteligent discusion. Possibly because mainland China is still run by a communist repressive regime. Mainland China was a major Russian allie during the Cold war.

Doesn't anyone find it currious that we only risk bankrupting our country by spending 100s of billions of taxpayer dollars, running off and sending our troops to fight in places where known oil reserves are significant, while claiming we are there to protect Human rights of the local population and to free the local population from tyranny, yet we let other repressive regimes commit genocide in areas where there are no huge, known, accessable oil reserves?

And yes, Clinton was friendly with trade policies with mainland China.

[Deadman 94 xj]

Doesn't anyone find it currious that we only risk bankrupting our country by spending 100s of billions of taxpayer dollars, running off and sending our troops to fight in places where known oil reserves are significant, while claiming we are there to protect Human rights of the local population and to free the local population from tyranny, yet we let other repressive regimes commit genocide in areas where there are no huge, known, accessable oil reserves?



Yup, it's official. I hate you :laugh:

[Mudderoy]

Probably has something to with the connectivity of world history, geography, and the way they are interwoven and the way politics (which is interwoven with history and geography....oil politics) eventually drags them all into an inteligent discusion. Possibly because mainland China is still run by a communist repressive regime. Mainland China was a major Russian allie during the Cold war.

Doesn't anyone find it currious that we only risk bankrupting our country by spending 100s of billions of taxpayer dollars, running off and sending our troops to fight in places where known oil reserves are significant, while claiming we are there to protect Human rights of the local population and to free the local population from tyranny, yet we let other repressive regimes commit genocide in areas where there are no huge, known, accessable oil reserves?

And yes, Clinton was friendly with trade policies with mainland China.

We are in Iraq because dumbass Hussain wouldn't allow inspections.

Other good reasons to be in Iraq:

1. Iran - So they don't control the oil in the middle east
2. Iran - Being very close may make them play better with others.
3. Iran - A nice big FAT U.S. base next door to them.
4. Free people that have had a foot on their collective necks for what 80 years?
5. Fight the terrorist in the Middle East and not in America.

I think there are several good reasons for us to spend 100's of billions of dollars in Iraq. Surely you can see past the simple "we're fighting for oil" idea?

Clinton was willing to trade with anyone in a skirt, including a few Scotts I hear.

[JNickel101]

Yes you are right.


D: Keneddy - started Vietnam
R: Nixon - fought Vietnam
R: Ford - finish Vietnam
D: Carter - tried to fight Iran (crash and burn)
R: Reagan - fought cold War
R: Reagan - fought cold War
R: GHW Bush - fought 1st Iraq War
D: Clinton - pu$$y
D: Clinton - pu$$y - bombed Yugoslavia that was about it
R: GW Bush - fought Afgan War
R: GW Bush - fought Afgan & Iraq War

Wars cost money

Whats funny about this is that Clinton actually used the volunteer military more than any other president in US history, but at the same time cut the defense budget more than any other president in US history. Remember launching 100 cruise missiles into Afghanistan at the time of his impeachment? yeah....they cost between 1-2 million bucks each....

expensive distraction. didn't accomplish much.

[JNickel101]

Probably has something to with the connectivity of world history, geography, and the way they are interwoven and the way politics (which is interwoven with history and geography....oil politics) eventually drags them all into an inteligent discusion. Possibly because mainland China is still run by a communist repressive regime. Mainland China was a major Russian allie during the Cold war.

Doesn't anyone find it currious that we only risk bankrupting our country by spending 100s of billions of taxpayer dollars, running off and sending our troops to fight in places where known oil reserves are significant, while claiming we are there to protect Human rights of the local population and to free the local population from tyranny, yet we let other repressive regimes commit genocide in areas where there are no huge, known, accessable oil reserves?

And yes, Clinton was friendly with trade policies with mainland China.

If we are in Iraq b/c of oil (most of which is sour crude anyway, except for the Basra reserve, IIRC), then why is Iraq selling 38% of its oil to China and India? You'd think if we were there b/c of oil, we'd be getting all of it....

:banghead:

As much as you seem to love Clinton, I remember posting a quote from him in 2003 saying/agreeing with going into Iraq and removing Saddam from power. If you really want the reference, I can waste more time and find it for you.

I'm sure you also agree with Obama's "I never voted to send troops into Iraq" statement.

Sure, true....because he wasn't even a f-ing US Senator when we went into Iraq.

For the sake of the election, he should change his middle name to "inexperienced"....he wont stop running his mouth about a war that started when he wasn't even around!!!

[Ecomike]

"Most"? Thats a pretty large generalization. According to the G.S.A (the dept that handles most non military procurement) the government spends about 200 billion a year or aprox 3.0% of the GDP, and 25% of that 200 billion goes to small businesses, and another 10% to minority owned businesses.

The military budget was 626.1 billion in 2006 or 3.7% of the GDP.

So roughly only 7.0% of the GDP was spent by the government. "Most" of the 3200 corporations on the NYSE get a very small % of their profits from the government.

A very few do "most" of their business with the government , defense contractors, but still a small % of the GDP.

I think there are some serious problems with the numbers you posted above, and no links to your sources.

According to what you said, "roughly only 7.0% of the GDP was spent by the government" and "military budget was 626.1 billion in 2006 or 3.7% of the GDP" that means that 3.7/7.0 = 52.857% of the what the govenment spent was on the military budget. ????? But then you said earlier that "According to the G.S.A (the dept that handles most non military procurement) the government spends about 200 billion a year or aprox 3.0% of the GDP" and yet it spent "The military budget was 626.1 billion in 2006 or 3.7% of the GDP" according to your post.

I did some digging and found some links to some easy to follow data at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

But getting back to my original point, I probably was not clear enough earlier, if you look deep and close enough at the results of everyone stopping paying their taxes (the original point of my comment), huge amounts of money would stop flowing to major businesses whose customers get their cash from the government, not just direct government contracts to large companies, but social security and medicare, medicaid. Retired, social security dependent people would have no SS cash flow to spend or would cut back due to the lack of monthly checks, and much of what they spend affects the bottom line of major corparations (medical industry which is over 10% of GDP now IIRC). Government employees would be laid off, so they would stop spending money, another big hit. Banks and countires like Japan and China would no longer value the dollar, and they (Japan and China) hold the 2 largest quantities of US debt right now, so the dollar value would plummet, and gaslone would quickly rise to say $100/gallon and keep going as the dollar became worthless, all becuase tax payers stopped paying taxes and stopped the government from servicing it's debt.

The entire US (and eventually world wide banking system) would collapse. You would be broke and out of work in no time with prices doubling weekly.

No US coproration in its right mind would allow that. Probably has something to do with why US employeers are required to withhold taxes and pay them to the government for you.

[Mudderoy]

I think there are some serious problems with the numbers you posted above, and no links to your sources.

According to what you said, "roughly only 7.0% of the GDP was spent by the government" and "military budget was 626.1 billion in 2006 or 3.7% of the GDP" that means that 3.7/7.0 = 52.857% of the what the government spent was on the military budget. ????? But then you said earlier that "According to the G.S.A (the dept that handles most non military procurement) the government spends about 200 billion a year or aprox 3.0% of the GDP" and yet it spent "The military budget was 626.1 billion in 2006 or 3.7% of the GDP" according to your post.

I did some digging and found some links to some easy to follow data at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

But getting back to my original point, I probably was not clear enough earlier, if you look deep and close enough at the results of everyone stopping paying their taxes (the original point of my comment), huge amounts of money would stop flowing to major businesses whose customers get their cash from the government, not just direct government contracts to large companies, but social security and medicare, medicaid. Retired, social security dependent people would have no SS cash flow to spend or would cut back due to the lack of monthly checks, and much of what they spend affects the bottom line of major corparations (medical industry which is over 10% of GDP now IIRC). Government employees would be laid off, so they would stop spending money, another big hit. Banks and countires like Japan and China would no longer value the dollar, and they (Japan and China) hold the 2 largest quantities of US debt right now, so the dollar value would plummet, and gaslone would quickly rise to say $100/gallon and keep going as the dollar became worthless, all becuase tax payers stopped paying taxes and stopped the government from servicing it's debt.

The entire US (and eventually world wide banking system) would collapse. You would be broke and out of work in no time with prices doubling weekly.

No US coproration in its right mind would allow that. Probably has something to do with why US employeers are required to withhold taxes and pay them to the government for you.

I would rather my taxes go to the military fighting a war(s) than some suck ass liberal who'd take it, increase the size of governement and entitlements to people who are able to work.

I may be stupid, and I may not know how to spend my money but I'll be damned if some liberal is going to tax me and spend it the way they and their college professor decide it should be spent.

If you want your money given to people then give it, don't take mine and do "the right thing" with it. Why do all you liberals feel so guilty that you have to take my money to fix things? Maybe you just need to start taking personal responcibility like marriage before sex, no sex unless you are willing to raise the child. Monogamous relationships, etc...

Oh and Christmas, damn it! :smsoap: :laugh3:

[Ecomike]

They only pumped you in the butt and took your money?

Give me a break. Next you'll say bad things don't happen to good people.


I guess the UN should have handled Iraq.
They were not after money.

One was an ex con with a hand gun, who was an ex employeer of mine at the time, a close friend, a mechanic who taught me auto mechanics when I was 18. I still have fond memories of the guy. One day he and his wife were drunk and a group of us were all having something like a labor day party, weekend barbaque at the apartment complex. His wife got pissed off at him and did some real stupid stuff in front of everyone that really pissed him off, something like slapping in the face when their argument went south. He proceeded to grab her by the hair (she had very long hair) and draged her across the concrete parking lot back to his apartment. I was the only one out of about 20 peaople that intervened. I got them seperated and calmed down, but a few minutes later he came after me with a hand gun. All I had was calm nerves and calm words to keep him from shooting me.

The next day he apologized to me.

Fear is the source of anger, take away that fear and the anger goes away, along with one of the the reasons for war and fighting. Fear is usually caused by miss understandings that leed to the fear. Exception to that is probalby outright greed and lust for power, but on a personal individual level people that have an uncontrolable lust for power, and uncontolable greed still have deep psycological problems with fear of something driving them.

[Ecomike]

If we are in Iraq b/c of oil (most of which is sour crude anyway, except for the Basra reserve, IIRC), then why is Iraq selling 38% of its oil to China and India? You'd think if we were there b/c of oil, we'd be getting all of it....

:banghead:



Simple, we get most of our junk from China now. China needs oil to make the junk we buy from them with US dollars. Then they buy the oil with US dollars fromn Iraq. Also I think the trip from Iraq to China is shorter, cheaper than the trip to the US, So we get more of our oil from Mr. Chaves (sp?), Venesuala, which is closer that Iraq. In case anyone has forgoten there was a UN embargo against Iraq which limited their oil exports, so increase Iraq oil exports, and reduce the world oil supply demand problem we needed to get rid of SH in order to end the oil export embargo. Does not matter if Iraq oil goes to China, Japan, or USA, not in global market, but the supply demand issue is the real reason, to keep prices low, but it, keeping oil prices low, and supplies up, backfired on Bush-Cheney, or did it????????:eek:

[Ecomike]

I would rather my taxes go to the military fighting a war(s) than some suck ass liberal who'd take it, increase the size of governement and entitlements to people who are able to work.

I may be stupid, and I may not know how to spend my money but I'll be damned if some liberal is going to tax me and spend it the way they and their college professor decide it should be spent.

If you want your money given to people then give it, don't take mine and do "the right thing" with it. Why do all you liberals feel so guilty that you have to take my money to fix things? Maybe you just need to start taking personal responcibility like marriage before sex, no sex unless you are willing to raise the child. Monogamous relationships, etc...

Oh and Christmas, damn it! :smsoap: :laugh3:

How about you pay for the bloated military budget and unnecessary wars, while I pay for the social progams (not including social security and unemployment insurance), and we will see who goes broke first. :looser:

[Ecomike]

We are in Iraq because dumbass Hussain wouldn't allow inspections.

Other good reasons to be in Iraq:

1. Iran - So they don't control the oil in the middle east
2. Iran - Being very close may make them play better with others.
3. Iran - A nice big FAT U.S. base next door to them.
4. Free people that have had a foot on their collective necks for what 80 years?
5. Fight the terrorist in the Middle East and not in America.

I think there are several good reasons for us to spend 100's of billions of dollars in Iraq. Surely you can see past the simple "we're fighting for oil" idea?

Clinton was willing to trade with anyone in a skirt, including a few Scotts I hear.
1. Unless you plan on invading Iran, forget that one, as Iran already has the second largest oil reserve in the world (IIRC). Really piss them off, and they turn off the oil tap, and then see where prices go.

2. Or it may make them more militant and provide Al quida the fodder it needs to get a foot hold in Iran and the Middle east.

3. Iraq seems to other plans.

4. They are free, they just want to kill each other.

5. If you want to CREATE and fight terrorists in Iraq be my guest, just please don't do it in my name. There were no terrorists in Iraq until we showed up.

[Ecomike]

Frankly I still just don't see the math in spending over 1 trillion dollars on an unnecassary war, loosing thousands of good american troops, letting over 100,000 good american troops get injured, many permanently disabled, just to fight terrorists in Iraq, that were not there to begin with, just becuase the Republicans let their guard down and let a handfull of insane idiots steel some planes and fly them into 2 buildings.

That money could have been much better spent right here tighening up our own internal security, and finshing the job we left undone in Afganistan, which is biting our ass again right now.

I can't see puting a republican that believes Bush was right, in office for 4 more years of the same BS.

[red91]

If you want to CREATE and fight terrorists in Iraq be my guest, just please don't do it in my name. There were no terrorists in Iraq until we showed up.


Good point.

Oh wait...Sadam used a PLASTIC SHREDDER to throw LIVE people in that didn't like the way he did things.

His male relatives regularly raped and killed whoever they wanted with impunity.

But I'm sure that didn't scare the SHIT out of any Iraqi's, or terrorize them in the least.



Pass the Bong.

[Deadman 94 xj]

They were not after money.

One was an ex con with a hand gun, who was an ex employeer of mine at the time, a close friend, a mechanic who taught me auto mechanics when I was 18. I still have fond memories of the guy. One day he and his wife were drunk and a group of us were all having something like a labor day party, weekend barbaque at the apartment complex. His wife got pissed off at him and did some real stupid stuff in front of everyone that really pissed him off, something like slapping in the face when their argument went south. He proceeded to grab her by the hair (she had very long hair) and draged her across the concrete parking lot back to his apartment. I was the only one out of about 20 peaople that intervened. I got them seperated and calmed down, but a few minutes later he came after me with a hand gun. All I had was calm nerves and calm words to keep him from shooting me.

The next day he apologized to me.

Fear is the source of anger, take away that fear and the anger goes away, along with one of the the reasons for war and fighting. Fear is usually caused by miss understandings that leed to the fear. Exception to that is probalby outright greed and lust for power, but on a personal individual level people that have an uncontrolable lust for power, and uncontolable greed still have deep psycological problems with fear of something driving them.

I see your point, I really do. I think everyone wishes life was so simple, accept for those that seek to truely destroy it.

You are missing a big pont in my opinion. There are people (if you so choose to call them that) that do not listen to reason. I know you know this and have seen it in the news or in person. What are we to do about them? It would be nice if we could pay off our enimies and tell them "it'll be ok" but what happens after that?
I believe in principle and standing up for whats right, just like you did in that situation. Unfortunately wars are fought. But in a position of leadership or just plain love you have to play the game the same way your opponent plays it.
Do you think Saddam wouldn't have nuked us if given the chance? If not he sure as hell wasn't very convincing.
If your buddy that had the gun pointed it at that girls head and said he wasn't going to shoot, all the while loading bullets into it, would you have believed him?

Is Israel supposed to have a "good talk" with the palestinians in hopes to end things?

It is the way it is. And it's been that way for as long as humans have walked the earth.

Every one always looks at things as some sort of big conspiracy. It's really very simpe and not that complicated.

By the way, is your last name Moore ?:gee:

[red91]

Every one always looks at things as some sort of big conspiracy. It's really very simpe and not that complicated.




Yup one group.... THE ILLUMINATI.

BEWARE!!

[Ecomike]

Do you think Saddam wouldn't have nuked us if given the chance?

No. But he might have nuked Israel. Unless you know something I don't know he was a far cry away from ever making a nuke.


Is Israel supposed to have a "good talk" with the palestinians in hopes to end things?

It has worked before, one example is Egypt and Israel, something good President Carter did acomplish. I think he was a democrat.:rolleyes:

[DrMoab]

Mike, you take "Bag of Hot Air" to a level never before seen.

Albuquerque doesn't see that much hot air during the big Balloon festival.

[Deadman 94 xj]

It has worked before, one example is Egypt and Israel, something good President Carter did acomplish. I think he was a democrat.:rolleyes:

I never said anything about Egypt. I suggest you stick to the context of what's being discussed if you want your arguments to have any merit.

We all know you read a lot, that doesn't mean you can start spouting off irrelavent information in hopes to gain ground.

Typical Lib. I suppose you'll start defining the meaning of the word "is" next. Clinton did it. :thumbup:

[Ecomike]

I never said anything about Egypt. I suggest you stick to the context of what's being discussed if you want your arguments to have any merit.

We all know you read a lot, that doesn't mean you can start spouting off irrelavent information in hopes to gain ground.

Typical Lib. I suppose you'll start defining the meaning of the word "is" next. Clinton did it. :thumbup:

So just why is that the prior middle east wars between Egypt and Israel are irrelevant to trying to get Iran and Israel talking about lasting peace in the middle east? Perhaps because a Democratic president brokered that peace treaty?

I was simply giving a good historical example of an answer to your question rather than just saying yes to your prior question below:

"Is Israel supposed to have a "good talk" with the palestinians in hopes to end things?".

[JNickel101]

Simple, we get most of our junk from China now. China needs oil to make the junk we buy from them with US dollars. Then they buy the oil with US dollars fromn Iraq. Also I think the trip from Iraq to China is shorter, cheaper than the trip to the US, So we get more of our oil from Mr. Chaves (sp?), Venesuala, which is closer that Iraq. In case anyone has forgoten there was a UN embargo against Iraq which limited their oil exports, so increase Iraq oil exports, and reduce the world oil supply demand problem we needed to get rid of SH in order to end the oil export embargo. Does not matter if Iraq oil goes to China, Japan, or USA, not in global market, but the supply demand issue is the real reason, to keep prices low, but it, keeping oil prices low, and supplies up, backfired on Bush-Cheney, or did it????????:eek:

Actually the plan backfired on the Dem controlled Congress - apparently. Gas prices were fine til they took the majority in 06...thats when oil prices started to rise.

[JNickel101]

just becuase the Republicans let their guard down and let a handfull of insane idiots steel some planes and fly them into 2 buildings.

I'm sorry...I'm still in disbelief that you just said this. You seriously must be joking.

You can blame your good buddy, hero, mentor Mr Clinton for this. He is the one who cut the defense budget and destroyed our intelligence agencies...AND who also had Bin Laden in his sights and didn't pull the trigger. 9/11 was not Bush's fault, or any other Republican....get off it.

You really need to get off your anti-republican, pro-socialism rhetoric bandwagon....

and yes, I do refer to Dems as socialists. Anyone who thinks taxing the upper 50% of the wage earners for 100% of our nation's revenues isn't enough and wants to tax them even MORE, while creating more handouts for the bottom 50%, including illegals who dont even pay taxes in the first place, is a damn Socialist.

EDIT: You also need to separate 9/11 from Iraq. Blah blah blah, yeah yeah yeah, we tried to garner support for it, and there was mis-intelligence saying Iraq was linked to al Qaeda. Point is, Saddam needed to be removed from power, along with his sons, because they were 10 times as bad as Saddam ever would have been. Uday used to feed people to the lions and tigers in their "zoo". You should go find the article written about him in Maxim - yeah, i know - but its actually a very well written article that illustrates how psycho this dude was. Had Saddam been removed from power, i.e., assassination, Uday would have been in charge - and Iraq would have been 100 times worse. There needed to be a complete regime change. Deal with it. Accept it.

[Deadman 94 xj]

So just why is that the prior middle east wars between Egypt and Israel are irrelevant to trying to get Iran and Israel talking about lasting peace in the middle east? Perhaps because a Democratic president brokered that peace treaty?

I was simply giving a good historical example of an answer to your question rather than just saying yes to your prior question below:

"Is Israel supposed to have a "good talk" with the palestinians in hopes to end things?".

Because religion has nothing to do with the political views of Egypt and the treaty. This has nothing to do with your throwing roses into the flames theory.
The simple fact the the Palestinians do not have "talks" is what I was getting at and is in the context of the argument.
You seem to look for other examples when I put them right in front of you. It's ok if you can't answer my questions with a yes or no, I didn't think you could.

[Ecomike]

Because religion has nothing to do with the political views of Egypt and the treaty. This has nothing to do with your throwing roses into the flames theory.
The simple fact the the Palestinians do not have "talks" is what I was getting at and is in the context of the argument.
You seem to look for other examples when I put them right in front of you. It's ok if you can't answer my questions with a yes or no, I didn't think you could.

:huh:

[Deadman 94 xj]

:huh:

Whats the matter? Is that all you have?

[The Hard Struggler]

I think there are some serious problems with the numbers you posted above, and no links to your sources.

According to what you said, "roughly only 7.0% of the GDP was spent by the government" and "military budget was 626.1 billion in 2006 or 3.7% of the GDP" that means that 3.7/7.0 = 52.857% of the what the govenment spent was on the military budget. ????? But then you said earlier that "According to the G.S.A (the dept that handles most non military procurement) the government spends about 200 billion a year or aprox 3.0% of the GDP" and yet it spent "The military budget was 626.1 billion in 2006 or 3.7% of the GDP" according to your post.

I did some digging and found some links to some easy to follow data at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

But getting back to my original point, I probably was not clear enough earlier, if you look deep and close enough at the results of everyone stopping paying their taxes (the original point of my comment), huge amounts of money would stop flowing to major businesses whose customers get their cash from the government, not just direct government contracts to large companies, but social security and medicare, medicaid. Retired, social security dependent people would have no SS cash flow to spend or would cut back due to the lack of monthly checks, and much of what they spend affects the bottom line of major corparations (medical industry which is over 10% of GDP now IIRC). Government employees would be laid off, so they would stop spending money, another big hit. Banks and countires like Japan and China would no longer value the dollar, and they (Japan and China) hold the 2 largest quantities of US debt right now, so the dollar value would plummet, and gaslone would quickly rise to say $100/gallon and keep going as the dollar became worthless, all becuase tax payers stopped paying taxes and stopped the government from servicing it's debt.

The entire US (and eventually world wide banking system) would collapse. You would be broke and out of work in no time with prices doubling weekly.

No US coproration in its right mind would allow that. Probably has something to do with why US employeers are required to withhold taxes and pay them to the government for you. I was looking for info on how much money the government paid to corporations for goods or services rendered, not paid as wages to individuals or given as charity.

I'm not very computer savvy, (I don't know how to post links:confused:) but I found most at GSA. gov and at "Military budget of the United States" search at Wiki.

Less than 3.0% of GDP paid to businesses by the GSA (paper, ink, 2x4s, office cleaning, tires, and such) and another 3.7% for the military (ammo, planes, tanks, uniforms, mechanics) although the military amount includes wages paid to soldiers.

You said that " huge amounts of money would stop flowing to major businesses whose customers get their cash FROM THE GOVERNMENT" I believe thats where the problem starts. The government doesn't really make any money or wealth, it only has what it takes from us or borrows from other nations. They take from one group and give it to another. The bigger the government gets the more wasteful and inefficient it becomes, that is a fact you cannot argue. The strength of this country comes from the people NOT the government.

You also said that in so many words that there would be bedlam if the government had less money. I disagree, if the government took less, much less, I believe the economy would grow such that government employees would find work immediately.

I also believe that some people would cry because this government can no longer afford to hold their hand in life, in this country and in others. So be it... work or die... I don't care which.

Thats all i'm going to say, let's not clog up this thread with anymore of this dribble.

[Ecomike]

Actually the plan backfired on the Dem controlled Congress - apparently. Gas prices were fine til they took the majority in 06...thats when oil prices started to rise.


:huh:

"A recent low point was reached in January 1999 of $16 (all prices are in US$ per barrel), after increased oil production from Iraq coincided with the Asian financial crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_financial_crisis), which reduced demand. Prices then increased rapidly, more than doubling by September 2000 to $35, then fell until the end of 2001 before steadily increasing, reaching $40-50 by September 2004. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_petroleum#cite_note-1) In October 2004 light crude futures contracts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_contract) on the NYMEX for November delivery exceeded $53 and for December delivery exceeded $55. Crude oil prices surged to a record high above $60 in June 2005, sustaining a rally built on strong demand for gasoline and diesel and on concerns about refiners' ability to keep up. This trend continued into early August 2005, as NYMEX crude oil futures contracts surged past $65 as consumers kept up the demand for gasoline despite its high price. Crude oil futures peaked at a close of over $77 in July 2006, and in December 2006 at about $63.

Let's see, ((77-16)/16)* 100 % = 381.25% increase in the price of crude oil, before the Dems took back Congress in January 2007, not 2006! Even if I use the 2002 price bottom of about $20/barrel, I get 77/20 = 385% increase.

With oil at about $106 a barrel right now, if I use the dec 2006 price above of $63 I get ((106-63)/63)*100% = 68% since the Dems took back control or the House of reps.

Reference link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_petroleum

and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Price_of_West_Texas_Intermediate_1999_to_Jun e_2008.PNG

[BOB]

I'm getting into this Poll a little late...crappy PC.
my vote is for mccain-PALIN
wasn't much of a McCain fan but Palin simply kicks ass.
so far, so good for her. I always said I'd vote for the right woman, and she is it.
hell, my first choice would have bee Condee for VP.
She proved she is too smart by walking away from the VP opportuntity.
I must admit, the GOP is getting better. Palins speech was off the charts.
But, I was impressed when McCain pointed out all the small countries we send money to that did not support us in the IRaq war. He said F*^% em, stop sending them money, and put that money towards Social Security.
Yo mama Obama is just a Community Organizer, whatever the hell in the world that is?
when I grew up in Chicago, that meant he picked up the squeeze money for guys like Jesse Jackson..

BOB

[JNickel101]

:huh:

"A recent low point was reached in January 1999 of $16 (all prices are in US$ per barrel), after increased oil production from Iraq coincided with the Asian financial crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_financial_crisis), which reduced demand. Prices then increased rapidly, more than doubling by September 2000 to $35, then fell until the end of 2001 before steadily increasing, reaching $40-50 by September 2004. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_petroleum#cite_note-1) In October 2004 light crude futures contracts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_contract) on the NYMEX for November delivery exceeded $53 and for December delivery exceeded $55. Crude oil prices surged to a record high above $60 in June 2005, sustaining a rally built on strong demand for gasoline and diesel and on concerns about refiners' ability to keep up. This trend continued into early August 2005, as NYMEX crude oil futures contracts surged past $65 as consumers kept up the demand for gasoline despite its high price. Crude oil futures peaked at a close of over $77 in July 2006, and in December 2006 at about $63.

Let's see, ((77-16)/16)* 100 % = 381.25% increase in the price of crude oil, before the Dems took back Congress in January 2007, not 2006! Even if I use the 2002 price bottom of about $20/barrel, I get 77/20 = 385% increase.

With oil at about $106 a barrel right now, if I use the dec 2006 price above of $63 I get ((106-63)/63)*100% = 68% since the Dems took back control or the House of reps.

Reference link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_petroleum

and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Price_of_West_Texas_Intermediate_1999_to_Jun e_2008.PNG

How about you take the price that oil reached a high of - what, like $150? Instead of the current price...

And how about we get some real numbers in here instead of the ones you doctored to make your boys look good.

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1970.gif

lets go with the average price...$32 a gallon from 1970 to 2006. In 06 prices averaged $60 a barrel. I wonder what the 2008 average is so far....

And look at that black line that ends about 83/84....look how much cheaper our own oil was when we were using most of our own....

Arguing with you is like running my head into a brick wall. Except I think I'd get more accomplished with the wall.

As was stated before, Iraq needed stability and regime change - look at how steady their oil production has been now, compared with what it was from 91-03.

Crap, now I've gone and helped steer this thread off topic....its so easy to do...:geek:

[fscrig75]

I don't think a McCain-Palin administration will have the temperment to work with a Democratic Congress, which means McCain would give us 4 more years of stalemate in Washington, which would be very bad for us right now.

So why can't the Democratic Congress work with McCain? I don't think the Dems will have the temperment to work with McCain.

Maybe if both sides bend a little to work with each instead of working for their party something will get done.

The presidential approval rating is horrible; somthing like 19%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_rating#Lowest_approval_rating

(Kinda funny Bush has the highest rating and the lowest.)

But the Congressional approval rating isn't much better; 14%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108856/Congressional-Approval-Hits-RecordLow-14.aspx

Both sides suck no one wants to work with the other to get stuff done. But sorry I've already voted for McCain. If I wanted to live in a Socialist country I'd move back to Germany where taxes are through the roof and everyone leaches off the government.

[BOB]

I am looking forward to the day when McCain gives his first State of the Union speech with Pelosi and Palin seated behind him.
Pelosi is a biaaatch. She didn't want Hillary anywhere near the White House.
She wanted to be the alpha female. She did whatever she could to derail Hillary.
Now, she will be seated next to Palin, the soon to be VP.

BOB

[Tom R.]

So why can't the Democratic Congress work with McCain? I don't think the Dems will have the temperment to work with McCain.
Great question! It's because many Democrats and most liberals can't do much for themselves; they need others to do it for them. This includes putting the onus on John McCain to work with a Democrat Congress. BTW Mike--and I hate pointing out the obvious, but apparently you need it--McCain has worked with Democrats probably more than any other Republican in history. Did you forget this out of convenience?

[Ecomike]

So why can't the Democratic Congress work with McCain? I don't think the Dems will have the temperment to work with McCain.

Maybe if both sides bend a little to work with each instead of working for their party something will get done.

The presidential approval rating is horrible; somthing like 19%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_rating#Lowest_approval_rating

(Kinda funny Bush has the highest rating and the lowest.)

But the Congressional approval rating isn't much better; 14%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108856/Congressional-Approval-Hits-RecordLow-14.aspx

Both sides suck no one wants to work with the other to get stuff done. But sorry I've already voted for McCain. If I wanted to live in a Socialist country I'd move back to Germany where taxes are through the roof and everyone leaches off the government.

I don't think McCain is the bending type, in spite of what he said. One minute he is saying he will work with congress, the next he his saying he will hold their feet to the fire. I suspect he will work with congress only if they do what he says to do, just like GWB. Of course the same probably goes for Congress if either side has a majority in Congress.

I can't help but wonder if the congressional disapproval is due to 50% democrats disapproving of the 4x% republicans in the Congress, and 50% republicans disapproving of the apx 50% democrats in the Congress.

[Ecomike]

I am looking forward to the day when McCain gives his first State of the Union speech with Pelosi and Palin seated behind him.
Pelosi is a biaaatch. She didn't want Hillary anywhere near the White House.
She wanted to be the alpha female. She did whatever she could to derail Hillary.
Now, she will be seated next to Palin, the soon to be VP.

BOB


CAT FIGHT! LOL.

Perhaps the WWF could have them on as guest star Divas!:clap:

Unfortunately Pelosi would probably kick her ass, but one ever knows for sure what will happen.

[JNickel101]

I am looking forward to the day when McCain gives his first State of the Union speech with Pelosi and Palin seated behind him.
Pelosi is a biaaatch. She didn't want Hillary anywhere near the White House.
She wanted to be the alpha female. She did whatever she could to derail Hillary.
Now, she will be seated next to Palin, the soon to be VP.

BOB

I hope Sara whoops her ass, hockey style, the first time Nancy's mouth opens and a typical smartass/dumbass comment flows out.

[JNickel101]

CAT FIGHT! LOL.

Perhaps the WWF could have them on as guest star Divas!:clap:

Unfortunately Pelosi would probably kick her ass, but one ever knows for sure what will happen.

This is silly, but seriously, Pelosi isn't much younger than McCain...she's 68. She'd break her hip with the first chair shot....while you have a young, in shape Palin, who probably carries a knife (or concealed handgun) on her - avid hunter/fisher/sportswoman.

Even your views on a fight are flawed....

[Deadman 94 xj]

Notice the more Mike posts in this thread the higher the McCain number goes. LOL

Thanks Mike

[JohnJohn]

Notice the more Mike posts in this thread the higher the McCain number goes. LOL

Thanks Mike

shh he is undercover...geeze, cats out of the bag now

[Ecomike]

This is silly, but seriously, Pelosi isn't much younger than McCain...she's 68. She'd break her hip with the first chair shot....while you have a young, in shape Palin, who probably carries a knife (or concealed handgun) on her - avid hunter/fisher/sportswoman.

Even your views on a fight are flawed....
My mistake, unintentional typo, I typed the wrong name. Should have read Palin, not Pelosi. Perhaps Baracuda Palin, would have been better. :D

I will given Palin one thing, she played the best sport in the world in High school as a point guard! BASKETBALL! Seems like she and Obama have something in common afterall, LOL!:D

[Deadman 94 xj]

shh he is undercover...geeze, cats out of the bag now

Ha!!

It just went up to 99 one minute ago:roflmao:

[red91]

ed the best sport in the world in High school as a point guard! BASKETBALL! Seems like she and Obama have something in common afterall, LOL!:D

I bet if she beat him one on one he'd cry racism !