What the hell does that mean? Why do liberals act like republicans rig elections? BUSH WON. GET OVER IT.Death Magnetic post=18.71728.738814 said:
Poll: United States Presidential Election
- Thread starter Do4600
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Okay, I can't prove that she's not being forced to marry and you can't prove that she is. So why did you say it?Darth Mobius post=18.71728.738721 said:
And to you "there are ways to make someone think they WANT to do something, even when they don't." YEAH. IT'S FUCKING CALLED PARENTING - ever heard of it, or did your parents just let you run free all the time and (edit) never told you what they thought you should do?
You can't guarantee a divorce either. It's a statistical probability, but so are all marriages. Your point is pretty much moot.
Kurtz.
I don't know how else to say it. You're just WRONG, in both your arguments and your factual basis.
The period after World War I was an economic boom, yes, but it did not end a depression; there was no depression before World War I. The capitalist economic boom LED to the depression BECAUSE it was almost completely capitalist (in my opinion; others may have a different one). The depression ended due to FDR's New Deal legislation (no, some of it did not work, and was thrown out, but what did work has been great for this nation ever since it was put into play), as well as the jumpstart to the economy due to wartime production. Jobs were created through the manufacture of tanks, ships, and weapons, as well as people being drafted into the military. Honestly, check your facts before you start making up complete bullshit.
Next, yes; a democrat was in office when the Japaneese attacked Pearl Harbor. Could the attack have been predicted? Maybe; there is debate, we don't know. The war was well handled, I don't know if another Democrat or a Republican could have done the same. Pretty much a moot point, so if that's what you're getting at, I agree.
Yes, Clinton did have the times go with him. However, you can still fuck it up even if times are incredibly good (See: 1920's and then the Great Depression). So yes, he still did a good job.
Terrorist attacks: proved to be preventable, if you don't believe this, fine. That led to one war: Afghanistan, which we still haven't accomplished the objective in and are now losing hold on due to Iraq.
The recession, by many economist opinions, is as a result of Bush and the Republican's failed legislation.
And holy shit dude, the Democrats have only had a majority for the last 1 1/2 years. We saw the destruction that a Republican president + a Republican congress can do. You can't twist that to say the Democrats are at fault for all the problems, that's just fucking stupid. The problems were well in place before the Democrats even got into the minimal power position they hold in Congress.
Now that I think about it, you're acting like Joe McCarthy.
I don't know how else to say it. You're just WRONG, in both your arguments and your factual basis.
The period after World War I was an economic boom, yes, but it did not end a depression; there was no depression before World War I. The capitalist economic boom LED to the depression BECAUSE it was almost completely capitalist (in my opinion; others may have a different one). The depression ended due to FDR's New Deal legislation (no, some of it did not work, and was thrown out, but what did work has been great for this nation ever since it was put into play), as well as the jumpstart to the economy due to wartime production. Jobs were created through the manufacture of tanks, ships, and weapons, as well as people being drafted into the military. Honestly, check your facts before you start making up complete bullshit.
Next, yes; a democrat was in office when the Japaneese attacked Pearl Harbor. Could the attack have been predicted? Maybe; there is debate, we don't know. The war was well handled, I don't know if another Democrat or a Republican could have done the same. Pretty much a moot point, so if that's what you're getting at, I agree.
Yes, Clinton did have the times go with him. However, you can still fuck it up even if times are incredibly good (See: 1920's and then the Great Depression). So yes, he still did a good job.
I honestly can't figure out whether you're a blind follower or misinformed. Or hey, maybe you're just a really, really good troll.Mistah Kurtz said:
Terrorist attacks: proved to be preventable, if you don't believe this, fine. That led to one war: Afghanistan, which we still haven't accomplished the objective in and are now losing hold on due to Iraq.
The recession, by many economist opinions, is as a result of Bush and the Republican's failed legislation.
And holy shit dude, the Democrats have only had a majority for the last 1 1/2 years. We saw the destruction that a Republican president + a Republican congress can do. You can't twist that to say the Democrats are at fault for all the problems, that's just fucking stupid. The problems were well in place before the Democrats even got into the minimal power position they hold in Congress.
Obama wants to lower taxes on the middle class, and restore the tax rates from pre-2000. So, he is not per-say raising taxes; he's restoring them to what they should be. Also, the basis of liberalism is more government, more civil liberties, less free market. Conservatism is less government, more free market, less civil liberties. Should I go on and call George Bush a facist now that he's gotten rid of a bunch of our civil liberties? Honestly, you're being ridiculous.Mistah Kurtz said:
Now that I think about it, you're acting like Joe McCarthy.
I didn't know what you were talking about, so I searched "Civil Rights Amendment" into Google. The only thing that came up were the Civil Rights Acts of 1964/1968, both of which had bipartisan support. So, I dunno what you're talking about. Unless you're talking about the 14th Amendment, which is just ridiculous because it was enacted in 1868, about 140 years ago. Besides, I wasn't able to find a vote count for that amendment, so I can't check your information.Mistah Kurtz said:
No matter who is elected, there's probably going to be damage to america, but mccain's damage will be more sudden and significant. Besides, remember: It's a race between obama and Palin; mccain will probably die during the race or in office.
So you're saying that it was a number of factors? And that to say democrats are entirely responsible for it is inaccurate? I think i've made my point.CmdrKinslayer post=362.71728.738982 said:
I was getting at the fact that someone saying 'democrats led us to ww2' is not valid praise.
So because clinton didn't fuck up the economy that was booming means democrats handle it better?
I don't think they've been PROVEN to have been preventable, but I do agree in the mishandling of the war in iraq and the war on terror. I wasn't saying they weren't mishandled, I was saying it's partly responsible for shitty times. A democrat wouldn't have necessarily handled it any other way.
And by many economists opinions it's not.
You can't say that just because there was a republican majority during an economic downturn that republicans are responsible for it. That's just fucking stupid.
Are you retarded? Civil liberties increase as government gets smaller.
Also, I wasn't calling Obama a communist, I was saying he was very much like a communist in those respects. You could also validly argue that George Bush is fascist in the respects you named. I wouldn't argue with that.
Mistah Kurtz said:
You're right, I was mistaken on that - I was referring to the civil rights act and should have checked my numbers first. However, my point remains semi valid if you look at the vote percentages - (from wikipedia) -
By party
The original House version:[9]
* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]
* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
1) What?Mistah Kurtz post=18.71728.739139 said:
2) No, it means that Clinton seized the opportunity and turned it into a great time of prosperity. Not all nations were able to do this.
3) Anyone other than Bush would not have lied to the country, the UN, and anyone else who wasn't in "the loop" about Iraq and gotten us into a situation that we can't get out of. If we did go into Iraq, anyone other than Bush would have had a strategy for what happens AFTER we blow everything up.
5) (Yes, I know I skipped 4) Maybe not; but they certainly had a role in either causing it, or by not helping to prevent it.
6) What? More government spending and programs have nothing to do with civil liberties. Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying, but don't call people retarded unless you know what you're talking about.
7) And the numbers say that it had bipartisan support. What's your point?
43 - Rmushroomyakuza post=18.71728.738711 said:
42 - D
41 - R
40 - R
39 - D
38 - R
37 - R - 1970
Pretty close to the rate you claimed. The problem is that almost the entire time congress was Democratic controlled. You know, the ones who actually write laws and are part of the "checks and balances"? That is why it was huge in 1994 when it was the first time a Republican majority existed in Congress for almost 40 years. It went back to being Democratically controlled in 2006, and since then the approval ratings continued to drop well below GWB's.
So while you are correct that Republicans get voted POTUS, they only held Congress for 12 of roughly the past 50 years. In which case if you have the Democratic party controlling the congress during every Republican presidency and Democratic congress during a Democratic presidency, which one do you think is going to get more progress when the same party is the majority in 2/3rds of government?
You yourself stated: "This is a nation constructed on an idea - yet that idea seems so far away right now, it's almost lost entirely."mushroomyakuza post=18.71728.738711 said:
How do you know it is "almost lost entirely" when you can't say what it was in the first place? If you don't know where the country was intended to head, how can you comment on where it is heading now and claim that it is the wrong direction from what was originally intended?
Ironic how you were annoyed by someone else for not basing their like of a candidate on substance, and then turn around and make a similar vacuous comment. His "air of likeableness" says nothing about his policies, or his competence. Great oration says nothing about how well he debates an issue or how strong his resolve is.
So what change is needed to "correct" the USA? You claim it is time for change, but for all you know this could be exactly what the USA is supposed to be doing, and change would be ignoring the original direction.
But you have no problems playing armchair politics. It's nice to know that you have a problem with the way things in the USA are going, but are incapable or unwilling of providing an alternative solution.mushroomyakuza post=18.71728.738711 said:
Criticism solves nothing. It takes critical thinking to provide a better solution when you have an issue with the one at hand. Just because people don't like what you are doing doesn't make it intrinsically wrong.
Why do you believe you have to be a politician to understand politics? Are you saying that while you aren't capable of knowing how a government *could* run, you are still a valid source of opinion for how things *should* run?
Ah, the old familiar cry of the left-winged loon, psychically detecting blackmail and predicting murder in betwixt flying in circles. How familiar, the assertion that the father is being forced to "marry a daughter against his will" immediately followed by "We do not even know if this is what the father even wants in his life." (I am assuming you are quite elderly and infirm, since you knew what he wanted but apparently forgot it by the very next sentence.)Tenmar post=18.71728.737820 said:
This is going to amaze liberals, but some men actually love the women they impregnate! Even more shocking, some men actually want a family - even babies! Oddly enough, some anthropologists actually attribute the survival of the human race to the fact that some aberrant individuals don't have irresistible urges to stick a fork in a baby's head.
1. You're trying to do a dirty trick - I was responding to someone's points, and you're taking my responses out of context and trying to make it appear as thought they were stand-alone arguments.CmdrKinslayer post=18.71728.739267 said:
3. What did Bush lie about? The WMD's? Sadaam catalogued his own weapon supply and even used them against his own people. The fact that we didn't find them doesn't prove bush lied - in fact it's more likely that Sadaam hid the weapons, or that the Bush administration was mistaken.
6. Actually, giving the government more money (and thus more power) WILL lead to the restrictions of civil liberties. The nature of government is to get bigger, and if you feed it, it can become rabid and attack it's owner. Kind of like a pit bull.
7. My point is that the idea that republicans are anti-minority and anti-poor are unfounded, and you can even see it in the civil rights act voting record - it had much wider support among republicans than democrats.
What kind of civil liberties do Democrats want that Republicans oppose, other than gay marriage (which i agree with democrats on). The right to murder an unborn child? That's hardly a civil liberty. How about the right of a business owner to run his business the way he wants and not have to sacrifice enormous amounts of money to the government? Democrats are pretty opposed to that.
3. Interesting....republicans were in control of congress during the high point of the Clinton era...take THAT lefties!
I'm sorry to do this since you're agreeing with me in a sea of people who hate me and what I stand for, but I have to call some bullshit on that video.BaronAsh post=18.71728.739409 said:
Just because the Iraq war helped Iraq in the long run doesn't mean that it wasn't a mistake. Freedom is always worth fighting for - I agree with what he said there - but it should be Iraqis fighting for Iraqi freedom, not American soldiers. We have zero responsibility to any other country's well being, and it's not our duty to promote our way of life in their country. There are many reason to support the Iraq war, such as the claim that terrorists were supported and harbored there, but I don't believe that the fact that Iraqi's are better off is a good reason. France didn't help America fight the British because they believed in freedom - they did it because they hated the British.
Edit: And for the record, calling Iraq a mistake isn't disrespectful to the men who died - it's disrespectful to the men who sent those men to do so. But I did quite like the sub prime mortgage crisis blues.
Yup.Mistah Kurtz post=18.71728.739139 said:
I know it's not logical and unfair since the economy is controlled by so many uncontrollable factors that really take time to yield their true causality but unfortunately the score card is ticking when you're on watch.
So you're saying it's not logical to assume that Clinton was responsible for prosperity even though he was most likely not responsible for it but merely present, but you're going to do it anyway?BallPtPenTheif post=18.71728.739441 said:
I hope to god you don't vote.
You don't have to be petty about it.Mistah Kurtz post=18.71728.739445 said:
What I am saying is that the public score card doesn't work how you want it to and that nobody cares about your isolated view on the economy. I personally don't attribute the economy boom to Clinton but who else are you going to give credit to? Reagan? Then you are being as silly as a fanboy as the democrats to say that.
Economies are complicated and if Greenspan couldn't save us than there is no point in thinking that McCain or Obama could.
Now please get over yourself.
Although I don't agree with a lot of what Regan did, I do agree with how he handled the economy.BallPtPenTheif post=18.71728.739454 said:
Stop being petty? Get over myself?
You're saying you're intentionally going to adopt a view even though you know it's probably wrong and then attempt to use your knowingly erroneous knowledge to vote?!
THAT is fucking despicable, and it's people like you who fuck up democracy. You're content not knowing, not trying to learn, and then voting. That, my friend, is fucked.
That's an important distinction. It was the WMDs that drummed up the support in the US for an invasion. Not finding those weapons or evidence to suggest their existence creates questions on whether that entire conflict was started with the correct intentions and foundation. If the Bush administration was mistaken it means that they acted with woeful incompetence and committed thousands of human lives and trillions of dollars which the US and allies will have to sacrifice continuously until this conflict is resolved. If Saddam hid the weapons your admitting that his government was many times more competent than our armed forces and intelligence to have never found a trace of them. It would almost be better if he did lie rather than admit that everybody in power in the US is barely competent compared to a middle eastern dictator and his generals.Mistah Kurtz post=18.71728.739396 said:
On another topic I'm really interested in what I'm hearing from all of you who posted from outside the US; the variety of perspectives are quite intriguing and illuminating.
Dude, seriously. Knock it off.Mistah Kurtz post=18.71728.739501 said:
I never said it was my view. Just as your personal take on the economy is irrelevant so is mine. Right or wrong, society measures a president by what happens during their term, what the hell do you not get about it?
I'm not even disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to frame a social context of the other guy's opinion but your so damn pig headed you read everything as a conflict. So yeah, get over yourself.
Stupid people measure a president by what happens during their term. Smart people measure a president by the decisions that he made while he was in office, and since you're complacent to be lazy I doubt you're the kind of person who would take the time to form a fair judgement.BallPtPenTheif post=9.71728.739573 said: