Members Wilbo26 Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by zachary vex he's at 33% today... and who's reporting? FOX. bwahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.htmlname one other member of the press corps that had "overnights" at the white house (and sure, delve into history researching this): Hahahahaha! Jeff Gannon {censored}ing cracks me up. What a bizzare story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 It is really hard to judge without a few years of history to follow his time in office. he's certainly not my favorite president. I would dare say he is my least favorite since i started paying attention with reagan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilbo26 Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Brian Marshall It is really hard to judge without a few years of history to follow his time in office. he's certainly not my favorite president. I would dare say he is my least favorite since i started paying attention with reagan. +1. We won't know how {censored}ty the guy is until we've had a chance to look back and see the big picture. For all we know, Bush might end up balancing the budget, create an economy that lets every American and illegal alien make 100K a year, bring democracy to the Middle East and end centuries of violence, stabilize the world energy market and give us 1.00 a gallon gas again, get rid of them godless heathen queers that are ruining the institution of marriage, (50% divorce rate cough...) and Jesus will return and save humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Gristlefist Things are great, unless you're a Lefty--then you're still in denial and rage about losing the Cold War and seeing Socialism disproven. That's a NARCISSISTIC INJURY that's too much to bear. After all, Lefties are supposed to be more intelligent and more compassionate than normal people. Facing the facts--that Socialism is stupid and hurts people--is like sunlight to a vampire. so you are saying that capitalism is the vampire... interesting I dont really think that socialism has been disproven. Almost all developed nations have a mixed market economy, including the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilbo26 Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Brian Marshall so you are saying that capitalism is the vampire... interestingI dont really think that socialism has been disproven. Almost all developed nations have a mixed market economy, including the US. Shhh, this guy still thinks Russian Communism is the only form of socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Black Falcon Well...if they manage to once again fix another election and get Condoleeza in, like they are gearing up to, then yes. She will be a puppet to the same puppeteers that are doing exactly that now. But...if we luck out and get Hilary in, like the Dems are gearing up to do, then we hopefully will see a return to Clinton-era goodness. what the hell is hillary going to do? I dont have a problem with her because she is a woman... I have a problem with her because (at least to me) she doesnt stand for anything. she is a perfect example of the side of the democratic party that is incapable of saying what she really means, or saying anything of any meaning. I hope howard dean runs again, or someone who isnt afraid to speak, and take the chance of alienating the fringe right who isnt going to vote for him anyways. Whenever you hear dean getting smeared, try looking up the actual audio or transcrips of whatever they are quoting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 Originally posted by Verne Andru Nice to see someone with some insight. One minor point of correction - the US Praetorian Guard pulls the administrations strings which pulls the puppets in turn. While impeachment won't do anything to solve the underlying systemic problems it will sufficiently cripple "their" adgenda for a while so the rest of humankind can take a bit of a breather. The administration is already crippled... of course they did get cafta through before the bottom fell out of their support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gil1 Posted April 20, 2006 Members Share Posted April 20, 2006 I liked Wes Clark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilbo26 Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by Brian Marshall what the hell is hillary going to do? I dont have a problem with her because she is a woman... I have a problem with her because (at least to me) she doesnt stand for anything. she is a perfect example of the side of the democratic party that is incapable of saying what she really means, or saying anything of any meaning.I hope howard dean runs again, or someone who isnt afraid to speak, and take the chance of alienating the fringe right who isnt going to vote for him anyways. Whenever you hear dean getting smeared, try looking up the actual audio or transcrips of whatever they are quoting. A {censored}ing men. I swear 'conservatives' talk about Hillary all the time because they want her to win, because that would pretty much guarantee a Republican victory in '08. She's far too polarizing, and the only way the Democrats will win is if they pick somebody that people in the middle that are sick of Bush and the Republicans will vote for. I'm undecided about Howard Dean. I think he would have been much better than Kerry (pretty much anyone would have been...) but he's also seen as a rabid liberal freak by too many people to be a viable candidate. I liked Clark as well, and couldn't figure out why he got tossed in the dumpster so quickly during the Democratic primaries. Kerry just made no {censored}ing sense. Way to drop the ball Democrats. All I wanted was somebody from another party in the Presidency to bring some sort of balance back into the government. Letting one party pass whatever the hell they want with ZERO vetoes is a recipe for disaster. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by Jeremy Skrenes Personally I'd like to see either a republican congress and a democratic president or a democratic congress and a republican president. A little division of interests there would go a long way towards forcing us to work together. Think of it--why would Bush veto a bill that came to his desk from a republican congress? It would be political suicide for him and congress. Same goes if we had dems in both positions. that was actually the secret of clitons success in the 90's. although i think the republicans were a little overzealous when it came to investigations, they held him in check, while he held them in check... gridlock keeps far leaning agendas out of legislation. This was also the time of newt gingrich as speaker of the house. Although at the time I really didnt like him much, at least his diatribes and talking points were based in reality, and even if i disagreed with him, he would often have valid points. Then again Newt gignrich is now calling for withdrawl from iraq, and basically framing the same type of action as jack mertha.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Coach Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by Jeztastic Now there's an interesting statement. If you're middle class and affluent, and don't think about it for longer than a few seconds, and don't care about the poverty gap, the environment, Iraq, or human rights... Well then maybe it ain't so bad for you. Even on the middle class it's getting a lot tougher.Bush is a strong vote for worst president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilbo26 Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by Brian Marshall that was actually the secret of clitons success in the 90's. although i think the republicans were a little overzealous when it came to investigations, they held him in check, while he held them in check... gridlock keeps far leaning agendas out of legislation.This was also the time of newt gingrich as speaker of the house. Although at the time I really didnt like him much, at least his diatribes and talking points were based in reality, and even if i disagreed with him, he would often have valid points. Then again Newt gignrich is now calling for withdrawl from iraq, and basically framing the same type of action as jack mertha.... Exactly. Oddly enough, I supported Bush in 2000 because I thought if one party controlled everything they would actually get something done. Boy was I wrong. Well, they did get something done, just nothing good. I used to think Newt was a sack of {censored}, but the last time I saw him, he was on Fox news talking to Hannity and I was impressed. He made actual points, listened to what others said, and didn't come off as an idiot mouthpiece for either side. {censored} maybe he should run for President. I was shocked when he started calling for an Iraq withdrawl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by gil1 I liked Wes Clark. I think wes clark could make a great political leader with some more experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by Wilbo26 +1. get rid of them godless heathen queers that are ruining the institution of marriage, (50% divorce rate cough...) interesting you mention that... check out this article... divorce rates are highest in the RED states where gay people are pretty scarce.article and Jesus will return and save humanity. He may be our only hope... some say bush has an endtimer philosophy. Im not so sure its true... if he did, im not so sure he would have cared so much about iraq specifically... he'd just try really hard to get everyone in the middle east to attack israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brian Marshall Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by Wilbo26 Exactly. Oddly enough, I supported Bush in 2000 because I thought if one party controlled everything they would actually get something done. Boy was I wrong. Well, they did get something done, just nothing good. I used to think Newt was a sack of {censored}, but the last time I saw him, he was on Fox news talking to Hannity and I was impressed. He made actual points, listened to what others said, and didn't come off as an idiot mouthpiece for either side. {censored} maybe he should run for President.I was shocked when he started calling for an Iraq withdrawl. I am 99% sure he is going to at least try to run. The best thing he has going for him IMO is that he is actually a conservative... at least on the economic side. Bush is not. I am not so sure i want him choosing the next to supreme court justices though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Gristlefist Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by Wilbo26 Shhh, this guy still thinks Russian Communism is the only form of socialism. I'm sure there are distinctions to be made--differences of degree and differences of electoral legitimacy, for starters. But, to date, all forms share the common outcome of failure. That seems to be because they're based on a common philosophy that turns out to be false.P.S. I've been meaning to say that your sig/avatar kicks ass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Gristlefist Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by Brian Marshall so you are saying that capitalism is the vampire... interestingI dont really think that socialism has been disproven. Almost all developed nations have a mixed market economy, including the US. No, the vampire is the narcissism of the socialist, the sunlight is the truth. Rosebud was the sled, and the grail represents . . . oh, nevermind. Yes, developed nations represent various mixes of market economics and socialism, but if you line them up from most socialist to least socialist you've pretty much lined them up from most miserable to most successful: USSR - France - UK - USA. Why are India and China dropping Socialism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilbo26 Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by Gristlefist I'm sure there are distinctions to be made--differences of degree and differences of electoral legitimacy, for starters. But, to date, all forms share the common outcome of failure. That seems to be because they're based on a common philosophy that turns out to be false. P.S. I've been meaning to say that your sig/avatar kicks ass! Hey anybody that knows Ghostbusters is ok in my book. I guess my point, same as some others, is that socialism is a common part of many governments today, including ours. Its not a bad thing to take care of those that are down with our common resources. I'm certainly not a fan of useless sacks of {censored} that sit on the couch and watch oprah and spit out babies and collect welfare checks. I do think our system here in America needs some reform, but I think welfare is a good thing for many people. The thing that pisses me off the most is corporate welfare, which defies the entire point of socialistic policies. It makes no sense to give private businesses, especially profitable ones, taxpayer dollars for anything. Smaller countries in Europe are able to incorporate socialism in their government with much greater sucess that we have here, because they simply have much less people to deal with. Soviet Russia was far too large to realistically implicate Socialism, and when you pile on corruption, it was a disaster. I'm all for a free market, but I feel that companies with shiatloads of money are able to manipulate the free market via lobbyists and the government, and that pisses me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members gil1 Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by Gristlefist But, to date, all forms share the common outcome of failure. Most countries share the common outcome of failure. America has had the benifit of having a large amount of natural resources, being burn in the begining of the Industrial Era, and having no neighboring aggresive countries. 200 years. Not very long. And Sweden and Canada do pretty well. The common denominator of failure seems to be Government corruption, and that is not isolated to Socialism. When the Government works for the good of the people, the country does well. When the Government works for the benifit of a small number of powerfull people, the country has problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilbo26 Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by gil1 Most countries share the common outcome of failure.America has had the benifit of having a large amount of natural resources, being burn in the begining of the Industrial Era, and having no neighboring aggresive countries.200 years. Not very long.And Sweden and Canada do pretty well.The common denominator of failure seems to be Government corruption, and that is not isolated to Socialism.When the Government works for the good of the people, the country does well. When the Government works for the benifit of a small number of powerfull people, the country has problems. Just ask the Roman Empire. I could be forgetting something, but they didn't have a lot of socialism, especially in the latter years. Corruption, civil wars, over-expansion will kill a government much faster than the most extreme forms of socialism. I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Verne Andru Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 Originally posted by Brian Marshall The administration is already crippled... of course they did get cafta through before the bottom fell out of their support. I dunno, if you square this snippet from todays news: The cost of the war continues to rise, from $48 billion in 2003 to $59 billion in 2004 to $81 billion in 2005 to an anticipated $94 billion in 2006, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). The U.S. government is now spending nearly $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan, up from $8.2 billion a year ago, a new Congressional Research Service report found. Annual war costs in Iraq are easily outpacing the $61 billion a year that the United States spent in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972, in today's dollars. The invasion's "shock and awe" of high-tech laser-guided bombs, cruise missiles and stealth aircraft has long since faded, but the costs of even those early months are just coming into view as the military confronts equipment repair and rebuilding costs it has avoided and procurement costs it never expected. With Tofflers assertions in "War and Anti-war", it appears things are quite on track. According to Toffler, who had the highest access to the military and political brass, especially Newt, the biggest challange to transforming into a third-wave military was getting around the huge costs involved. Up until recently the US has had a "second wave" military and second wave hardware doesn't cut it. Existing inventories of materiels had to be expended "somehow" in order to justify the aquisition of the costly new hi-tech toys and it would appear Dubya/Cheney created the way. By the time the dust settles the military will have been "transformed" [read Rumsfeld's coments vis-a-vis transforming the military], they will be comfortably settled in their new, permenant bases in Iraq [much closer to Middle Eastern and African oil reserves plus they had to get out of the redunant cold-war bases anyway] and they'll have all sorts of fancy new hi-tech gadgets to play with. If you separate his "walk" from his "talk", everything the Bush administration is doing, albeit a contradition to their rhetoric, is exactly what's needed for this fancy new "third wave military" - even the NSA interception of communications. For a "third wave military" is one based on "information". That's why the "system" will not impeach Bush [he's doing everything they want him to] and why it's so important for the population to insist he is impeached so this sad story can be brought into the daylight for all to see. That said, regardless of who is in power, Bushco has managed to dig the US population in so deep that the money will continue to roll for quite some time, enriching those involved in the military-industrial-complex [read: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc]. It's been the worlds greatest bank hiest and it's not only happened in broad daylight, but the victims have been cheering the robbers on. Read Toffler's "War and Anti-War" - I guarantee you'll view current events in a completely different light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members orourke Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 On top of all the other blunders and crimes, I'm surprised how easily the puplic forgot that the Bush administration used the terror alert system to terrorize the American people during the election. Tom Ridge appoligized for it, it's beyond criminal. It may be old news, but it should not be forgetten. I'd like to see some Bush supporter explain this away:http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505D.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members capnbringdown Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 Is this Toffler guy really that great? I have a book by him called "future Shock" sitting on my to read pile forever. Maybe after exams, I'll get around to reading it, if it's worth it.Originally posted by Wilbo26 ...over-expansion will kill a government...Yeah, I think that one's the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wilbo26 Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 The way television news works, before anybody can get too upset about something another scandal comes up, or another hot white chick gets kidnapped, or American Idol kicks off another voter, or Jack Bauer does something hardcore on 24...you see where I'm going. Our nation has the attention span of a 5 year old in a candy store. They know it, and they exploit it with scary efficiency. Nice comments Verde on the military-industrial conspiracy stuff. Some people think we're just positioning our pieces for an inevitable resource war. The Fallout games referenced to that scenario, which I always find interesting. It seems far fetched, but it really isn't that hard to believe if you think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachary vex Posted April 21, 2006 Members Share Posted April 21, 2006 we have a leader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.