|
|
Post by Fistor on Aug 1, 2008 13:31:11 GMT -5
Fair enough. I'd dig in to Obama's war spending solutions, because I'm pretty sure his Afghanistan proposal would cost us exponentially less money than what we're spending in Iraq, but I actually have work to do. I'll have to get to it later.
|
|
hotsauce
Bob and Tom's fake laughing
Posts: 39
|
Post by hotsauce on Aug 2, 2008 19:48:27 GMT -5
I agree with you Elrushbo. What the GOP needed to do was put someone up that could run this country like it is the biggest corporation in the world. I'm so tired of lawyers running and ruining this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mad Dog on Aug 2, 2008 21:19:45 GMT -5
Republican economic policy I believe is this: give tax breaks to the richest businesses and individuals because theoretically they are the ones who create wealth. Give them a tax break and their good fortune will "trickle down" to the middle class. The only problem is now because of free trade agreements, those corporations are taking that extra money and using it to create wealth in other countries. Nike doesn't manufacture a single shoe in the United States, because the CEO feels that "Americans don't want to make shoes." I guarantee you there are thousands of unemployed people who would be happy to make shoes. In fact, New Balance does manufacture some product here. I think the main flaw in the conservative laissez-faire economic argument is that businesses and corporations always have the principle of the free market in mind. In the extreme, it's economic anarchism. A completely free economy is unsustainable, as corporations would eventually merge into bigger and bigger entities until monopolies ruled the market. We have historical examples even, just look at the US during the turn of the 20th century where the market was flooded with robber barons. I realize not all republicans and conservatives are libertarians and recognize that some regulation in the market is needed, though. Reganomics doesn't work today because of NAFTA, plain and simple. I think there should be a law that states a corporation should get not one red cent in tax breaks unless a certain percentage of their manufacturing is done right here. Companies like Nike suck wealth from the American market and put nothing back. After all, if every business moved overseas, who would be left to buy those sneakers and t-shirts and cars? Wow scooter that makes alot of sense and I agree with you about tax breaks too American companys that manufacture nothing in America. But mabey I think it 's a little more accurate to say that Reganomics works less. Most American companies are not like Nike but enough are to make a huge dent. However if the standard of living across the globe were to rise because of free trade agreements, then Reganomics would reign as king again as long as the playing feild is kept as fair as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Aug 7, 2008 10:35:51 GMT -5
Ladies and gentlemen, the definition of hypocrisy: Well lets see, a 19 year old who although his parents could easily pay for everything, decides to pay for it himself. I pay for most of my college, my car, my gas, my insurance, everything. And do you know why I do it? It's because i dont like people wiping my ass. It's because i'm a sophomore in college... and my parents paid for my truck, and one of my grandparents gave me the benz.. sweet. Yeah funny because my daily driver is a chevy silverado (13 mpg) and my wknd car is the benz that still only gets 19 city. Im just glad my parents pay for my gas lolSo, elrushbo, will you finally admit you have no idea what you're talking about when speaking about "those lazy poor people who only exist to mooch off the government"? |
|
|
|
Post by speedbump on Aug 7, 2008 10:37:33 GMT -5
Epic post, now maybe he'll stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Aug 7, 2008 10:42:17 GMT -5
wow, epic failure
|
|
|
|
Post by plungerhand on Aug 7, 2008 10:52:38 GMT -5
Wow. That was awesome el fisto !!
|
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Aug 7, 2008 10:53:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Aug 7, 2008 11:05:56 GMT -5
how does that make a difference? Just because you've had more time to eff things up? Just because my parents have money dosent mean that I am blind to politics. And I'm paying for college so I cant afford it and my parents want to help. I dont see how thats a big deal? I think someone is just jealous. So get over it. And the reason I said above that I pay for my car and gas and then said I didnt, was because I payed half for my truck and split the gas. So I can't claim that I "pay" for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Aug 7, 2008 11:11:47 GMT -5
how does that make a difference? Just because you've had more time to eff things up? Just because my parents have money dosent mean that I am blind to politics. And I'm paying for college so I cant afford it and my parents want to help. I dont see how thats a big deal? I think someone is just jealous. So get over it. And the reason I said above that I pay for my car and gas and then said I didnt, was because I payed half for my truck and split the gas. So I can't claim that I "pay" for them. C'mon man, you're dead to rights here. Admit you're out of touch with the empoverished faction of our nation and we might just know what we're talking about when we say it's not as easy as "lazy poor people getting more jobs". Jealous? Hell yes I'm jealous! I admit that freely. I wish I came from a wealthy family and didn't have to worry that some day I might not know how I'm going to feed my kids if/when my job gets taken away from me (which has happened to me twice, by the way). You are very fortunate, and you should be glad. But you should also admit to having a lot more to learn. For your sake, I will chalk up the "you've had more time to eff things up" line to you being backed into a corner and lashing out blindly. |
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Aug 7, 2008 11:16:10 GMT -5
yes that line was lashing out blindly. And I will fully admit that I have a lot more to learn, but this dosen't mean i *don't have a descent grasp on politics. I am pretty intelligent and can think for myself. But everyone has more to learn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Queenie on Aug 7, 2008 11:17:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by speedbump on Aug 7, 2008 11:32:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Aug 7, 2008 11:42:16 GMT -5
yes that line was lashing out blindly. And I will fully admit that I have a lot more to learn, but this dosen't mean i *don't have a descent grasp on politics. I am pretty intelligent and can think for myself. But everyone has more to learn. Thank you, that's all I was after. |
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Aug 7, 2008 11:57:04 GMT -5
how does that make a difference? Just because you've had more time to eff things up? Just because my parents have money dosent mean that I am blind to politics. And I'm paying for college so I cant afford it and my parents want to help. I dont see how thats a big deal? I think someone is just jealous. So get over it. And the reason I said above that I pay for my car and gas and then said I didnt, was because I payed half for my truck and split the gas. So I can't claim that I "pay" for them.  |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Aug 7, 2008 12:01:10 GMT -5
Kindly refrain from piling on. He admitted he has more to learn. I think that took some balls.
|
|
|
|
Post by internkylebusch on Aug 8, 2008 0:16:25 GMT -5
McCain is a bumbling old fool, but Obama is no better. I'm voting for Nader in '08 Fuck off asshole! Nobody cares about Nader. Nader can't do a damn thing for anybody. Don't even waste gas driving to the voting booth! (Bob Costas quotes should take over from here!!!) |
|
|
|
Post by internkylebusch on Aug 8, 2008 0:19:00 GMT -5
Really? If the democrats had their way the government would be a lot bigger than it is now. McCain wants to keep it small as it should be. The government is getting too much power and is wasting too much money. Granted they arent going to shrink the gov't right away, but it would be a step in the right direction. Name the last republican president we had that shrunk the government? Every Republican President. That's why you'll keep waiting. It will be a while before we write down every Republican president that has ever been in office. Don't worry, i'll wait. |
|
|
|
Post by internkylebusch on Aug 8, 2008 0:19:58 GMT -5
Really? If the democrats had their way the government would be a lot bigger than it is now. McCain wants to keep it small as it should be. The government is getting too much power and is wasting too much money. Granted they arent going to shrink the gov't right away, but it would be a step in the right direction. Name the last republican president we had that shrunk the government? Every Republican President. That's why you'll keep waiting. It will be a while before we write down every Republican president that has ever been in office. |
|
|
|
Post by speedbump on Aug 8, 2008 0:21:56 GMT -5
Third times the charm, common, you can do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by internkylebusch on Aug 8, 2008 0:39:22 GMT -5
Here's the quote, in case you want to refute it: Please attempt to defend this irresponsible statement. even though I disagree with most things people say in this thread, i agree that this is ridiculous. How could u say something so degrading to the troops that are protecting your freedom? And even though i'm only 18 and have limited experience (as fistor has pointed out lol) how are you "tired" of dealing with pro Bush people? And it's people with an attitude like that, that are causing a split in politics. "Die with the rest of those buttholes". Hmmm, you obviously really appreciate the different views possessed in this country that makes it what it is. America would not be "America" if people didnt have different opinions and beliefs. It is what makes a democracy work. I am the originator of the whole thread and I am impressed. Those of you who hate war have every right to hate it. I hate it. But I want to WIN the war! I am 18, first time voting, and am going to enlist when I graduate. I am voting for McCain because he is going to do what he has to do to win the war. Barack Obama is going to pull out too early and cause a disaster. His celebrity status is a enigma to me. He never answers any of the questions he is asked during a debate and he does not say what he is going to do. Except for the word change. Just listening to him talk makes me wonder. He just walks around the outside of the question without really answering it. To simply put it, he won't answer questions. I can't understand him. McCain is like my old wise grandfather. That's why I am voting for him; because of his fatherly nature and his experience in knowing what works...and I can understand what he's saying. I can't wait for the debates which is something I have never done. But the most important thing that gives McCain my vote is that he would put his country first before himself. Barack Obama, probably not since he has to defend himself from all of the questions he doesn't aswer. And he will say whatever he has to say to get elected. He puts himself before the good of his country. John McCain wrote a book about putting his country before himself called "Faith of my Fathers" which is a great story. A man who went through what he went through and then come home and become one of the best known Senators deserves to be President at this point in time. Not some guy who has so many questions about his beliefs, experience, and patriotism. How can you fall head over heals in love with Barack Obama with all of those questions? (Bringing up Bush here as an arguement is not legit here, talk about Barack and not George). |
|
|
|
Post by providencecrow on Aug 11, 2008 17:24:39 GMT -5
Really? If the democrats had their way the government would be a lot bigger than it is now. McCain wants to keep it small as it should be. The government is getting too much power and is wasting too much money. Granted they arent going to shrink the gov't right away, but it would be a step in the right direction. Name the last republican president we had that shrunk the government? Every Republican President. That's why you'll keep waiting. It will be a while before we write down every Republican president that has ever been in office. Please, explain to me how bush sr, or reagan even shrunk the federal government. You don't need to give me full detail, but just something. |
|
hotsauce
Bob and Tom's fake laughing
Posts: 39
|
Post by hotsauce on Aug 11, 2008 17:45:03 GMT -5
Republican economic policy I believe is this: give tax breaks to the richest businesses and individuals because theoretically they are the ones who create wealth. Give them a tax break and their good fortune will "trickle down" to the middle class. The only problem is now because of free trade agreements, those corporations are taking that extra money and using it to create wealth in other countries. Nike doesn't manufacture a single shoe in the United States, because the CEO feels that "Americans don't want to make shoes." I guarantee you there are thousands of unemployed people who would be happy to make shoes. In fact, New Balance does manufacture some product here. I think the main flaw in the conservative laissez-faire economic argument is that businesses and corporations always have the principle of the free market in mind. In the extreme, it's economic anarchism. A completely free economy is unsustainable, as corporations would eventually merge into bigger and bigger entities until monopolies ruled the market. We have historical examples even, just look at the US during the turn of the 20th century where the market was flooded with robber barons. I realize not all republicans and conservatives are libertarians and recognize that some regulation in the market is needed, though. Reganomics doesn't work today because of NAFTA, plain and simple. I think there should be a law that states a corporation should get not one red cent in tax breaks unless a certain percentage of their manufacturing is done right here. Companies like Nike suck wealth from the American market and put nothing back. After all, if every business moved overseas, who would be left to buy those sneakers and t-shirts and cars? Wow scooter that makes alot of sense and I agree with you about tax breaks too American companys that manufacture nothing in America. But mabey I think it 's a little more accurate to say that Reganomics works less. Most American companies are not like Nike but enough are to make a huge dent. However if the standard of living across the globe were to rise because of free trade agreements, then Reganomics would reign as king again as long as the playing feild is kept as fair as possible. The best thing to do, I believe, is to tax companies who ship their jobs out of the country. Give tax breaks to companies who keep their jobs in this country. I think if you handle things that way, we will have more companies staying here and maybe bringing jobs back here. Give the companies incentives to stay and employ here. |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Aug 12, 2008 6:56:03 GMT -5
Wow scooter that makes alot of sense and I agree with you about tax breaks too American companys that manufacture nothing in America. But mabey I think it 's a little more accurate to say that Reganomics works less. Most American companies are not like Nike but enough are to make a huge dent. However if the standard of living across the globe were to rise because of free trade agreements, then Reganomics would reign as king again as long as the playing feild is kept as fair as possible. The best thing to do, I believe, is to tax companies who ship their jobs out of the country. Give tax breaks to companies who keep their jobs in this country. I think if you handle things that way, we will have more companies staying here and maybe bringing jobs back here. Give the companies incentives to stay and employ here. Agreed. However, wouldn't this taxation go against NAFTA? I'm no expert. |
|
hotsauce
Bob and Tom's fake laughing
Posts: 39
|
Post by hotsauce on Aug 12, 2008 18:36:01 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I don't really know what NAFTA is.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Aug 13, 2008 8:20:22 GMT -5
you might be correct fistor, i'm no expert on NAFTA. However, if we can't tax them for leaving, we need to give them incentives to stay. If we make the US look just as good as China there won't be a reason to leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by lovegrenade on Aug 13, 2008 12:39:25 GMT -5
Kindly refrain from piling on. He admitted he has more to learn. I think that took some balls. "refrain from piling it on"?! Why would we do that? He was clearly caught lying and he wouldn't even admit to lying. That was an epic fail and he tried to play it off like a regular politician by apologizing without admitting he lied. This kid is going to make an excellent Republican someday. He'll make anything up just to buffer his point of the moment. God I love it when people get caught doing that BS...  |
|
