Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on August 14, 2008, 09:01:27 PM
-
Interesting.... at first it sounds silly... would cheney really engineer a conflict to keep his party in power for 4 more years? IMO it all comes down to whether or not you believe the repubs would stir the shit pot to keep their jobs...
Russians were told over breakfast yesterday what really happened in Georgia: the conflict in South Ossetia was part of a plot by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to stop Barak Obama being elected president of the United States.
The line came on the main news of Vesti FM, a state radio station that — like the Government and much of Russia's media — has reverted to the old habits of Soviet years, in which a sinister American hand was held to lie behind every conflict, especially those embarrassing to Moscow. Modern Russia may be plugged into the internet and the global marketplace but in the battle for world opinion the Kremlin is replaying the old black-and-white movie.
The Obama angle is getting wide play. It was aired on Wednesday by Sergei Markov, a senior political scientist who is close to Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister and power behind President Medvedev.
“George Bush's Administration is promoting interests of candidate John McCain,” said Dr Markov. “Defeated by Barak Obama on all fronts, McCain has one last card to play yet - the creation of a virtual Cold War with Russia . . . Bush himself did not want a war in South Ossetia but his Republican Party did not leave him any choice.” The Americans were now engineering an armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Dr Markov added.
-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4535173.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4535173.ece)
-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4535173.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4535173.ece)
link isn't working
-
I think it's a entirely possible and not to forget this neocon who is McCain's Senior foreign policy adviser who is into Georgia up to his neck. What do we know about the neocons? Uh huh... McCain beats Obama in the polls where security is concern and Obama beats McCain in polls on the economy... This was their October surprise intended on focusing things on security and off the economy. Sounds far fetched until you see that the neocons are indeed right smack in the middle of this even authoring McCain's response. I certainly don't put anything past these guys. McCain is their only chance at not losing power so they'll do anything to win.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=228742.0
If the neocons are in the middle of this and the above link shows they are very clearly, we'd be fools not to suspect exactly what 240 posted.
-
::)
You people give way too much credit to the evil Neo-Con conspiracy machine and zero credit to Vladmir Putin who played Bush and the EU like a violin.
-
::)
You people give way too much credit to the evil Neo-Con conspiracy machine and zero credit to Vladmir Putin who played Bush and the EU like a violin.
hahaha... NOT.... If you knew what you were talking about the fact is that we don't credit their evil enough!!!
-
Interesting.... at first it sounds silly... would cheney really engineer a conflict to keep his party in power for 4 more years? IMO it all comes down to whether or not you believe the repubs would stir the shit pot to keep their jobs...
Russians were told over breakfast yesterday what really happened in Georgia: the conflict in South Ossetia was part of a plot by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to stop Barak Obama being elected president of the United States.
The line came on the main news of Vesti FM, a state radio station that — like the Government and much of Russia's media — has reverted to the old habits of Soviet years, in which a sinister American hand was held to lie behind every conflict, especially those embarrassing to Moscow. Modern Russia may be plugged into the internet and the global marketplace but in the battle for world opinion the Kremlin is replaying the old black-and-white movie.
The Obama angle is getting wide play. It was aired on Wednesday by Sergei Markov, a senior political scientist who is close to Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister and power behind President Medvedev.
“George Bush's Administration is promoting interests of candidate John McCain,” said Dr Markov. “Defeated by Barak Obama on all fronts, McCain has one last card to play yet - the creation of a virtual Cold War with Russia . . . Bush himself did not want a war in South Ossetia but his Republican Party did not leave him any choice.” The Americans were now engineering an armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Dr Markov added.
ever heard of the gulf of tonken.
-
::)
You people give way too much credit to the evil Neo-Con conspiracy machine and zero credit to Vladmir Putin who played Bush and the EU like a violin.
OR
they're all playing us. :-\
-
Reason why I say this is.
Why wouldn't Russian and American governments want another Cold War? There pumping it out like it's nothing. while it's all a big dupe.
The people who believe it are weak.
[240 I know you only posted it, I'm thinking out loud]
-
ever heard of the gulf of tonken.
Exactly!!!
Why do we all of a sudden speak of our government as though it hasn't done shameful things in the past? Are we that uninformed and retartded?
-
If you guys spent half the time looking at real facts instead of wild speculation you might actually come up with some reasonable expectations and predictions for once.
"THEM EEEEEEEVVVVIILLL NEOCONS ARE AT IT AGAIN!!!! OH NO!!!!!"
hahahahahahahahah!!! lol Give it a rest, Jesus Fucking Christ.
It's all okay though.. they listened to Obama and stopped fighting! ;D
-
gulf of tonken isn't a conspiracy theory, though.
we admit that they didn't attack us. we blame a 'middle level mgmt paperwork communication error' on it. We started a massive war over a paperwork error.
we admit that in 1960-61 there was a plot to pull staged terror acts and take down a plane near cuba, to blame cuba and invade. operation northwoods.
It's unclassified after 40 years, kids. It was CT stuff until then. Then, once everyone involved is dead or in diapers, they release it quietly.
I'm sure when we're old, a lot of info about 911 will come out and we'll shake our head and say "wow, they did let it happen, just like the CT nuts said all along". And, when the JFK files are finally released in what, 2030, we'll learn the truth about who did it.
it'll just be a footnote in history. The 40 to 70 year document stall allows people to get away with it. Tis the way things are. have a cookie.
-
If you guys spent half the time looking at real facts instead of wild speculation you might actually come up with some reasonable expectations and predictions for once.
"THEM EEEEEEEVVVVIILLL NEOCONS ARE AT IT AGAIN!!!! OH NO!!!!!"
hahahahahahahahah!!! lol Give it a rest, Jesus Fucking Christ.
It's all okay though.. they listened to Obama and stopped fighting! ;D
This from the person who doesn't think neocons are real... and you're asking us to look at real facts :D Yea, ok skippy, sure thing, we'll get right on that ::)
-
This from the person who doesn't think neocons are real... and you're asking us to look at real facts :D Yea, ok skippy, sure thing, we'll get right on that ::)
Hmm.. you're a lib and you have to lie just to try and make me look bad.
Why am I not surprised?
-
Hmm.. you're a lib and you have to lie just to try and make me look bad.
Why am I not surprised?
What am I lying about to make you look bad?...
-
"Danimal"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ;D
-
What am I lying about to make you look bad?...
Quote me saying that neocons aren't real, please.
-
All this "neocon" nonsense is just that.
Please speak to the contrary so I can destroy your absurdity.
All this "neocon" nonsense is just that.
Please speak to the contrary so I can destroy your absurdity.
All this "neocon" nonsense is just that.
Please speak to the contrary so I can destroy your absurdity.
-
LOL... yea, I guess that he forgot what he said just a short time ago speaks volumes ;D
-
Why would you poons take that as "neocons aren't real" ?
The point was that you were using the moniker inappropriately and I made that clear.
-
Why would you poons take that as "neocons aren't real" ?
The point was that you were using the moniker inappropriately and I made that clear.
ok, I'll play, you believe there are neocons,... In what way did we or I inappropriately voice concerns over neoconservative influence?
-
ok, I'll play, you believe there are neocons,... In what way did we or I inappropriately voice concerns over neoconservative influence?
gimmie the link to the thread and then tell me what your idea of the difference between a conservative and a "neocon" is
..then I shall enlighten you.
-
gimmie the link to the thread and then tell me what your idea of the difference between a conservative and a "neocon" is
..then I shall enlighten you.
Just answer my question please... In what way did we or I inappropriately voice concerns over neoconservative influence... That is what you leveled, is it not?
-
Just answer my question please... In what way did we or I inappropriately voice concerns over neoconservative influence... That is what you leveled, is it not?
The influence is not the issue.. the LABEL is.
I need the link so I can answer your question. I want to re-read the context of the thread.
-
The influence is not the issue.. the LABEL is.
I need the link so I can answer your question. I want to re-read the context of the thread.
If the Label is what's importantant, it's simple, name in what way we've misused the label? You know well the initial thread, let's go into the issue. Name how we've misused the label? Please, I'm happy to listen, how have I misused the label?
-
If the Label is what's importantant, it's simple, name in what way we've misused the label? You know well the initial thread, let's go into the issue. Name how we've misused the label? Please, I'm happy to listen, how have I misused the label?
No, actually I don't "know well" the thread. If I did I would gladly answer your question at once. Be patient.. neither of us is going anywhere.
I will say your side attacks those you label "neocons" for typical conservative principles (strong nat'l defense, free market capitalism, strict constructionism, minimal handouts, etc). I think you have a problem with the foundations of Reagan conservatism but saying it's the "neocons" sounds worse so you label it as such instead.
-
I will say your side attacks those you label "neocons" for typical conservative principles (strong nat'l defense, free market capitalism, strict constructionism, minimal handouts, etc). I think you have a problem with the foundations of Reagan conservatism but saying it's the "neocons" sounds worse so you label it as such instead.
Neocons like massive federal beaucracies, like DHS.
Constitutional/traiditional repubs do not.
Neocons like nation-building and massive colonialism and consumerism exportation.
Constitutional/traiditional repubs do not.
Neocons like to borrow a ton of money to do it.
Constitutional/traiditional repubs do not.
Neocons like to use the full war machine in multiple countries.
Constitutional/traiditional repubs prefer small teams to take out leaders and replace them with minimal cost or bloodshed.
Neocons lessen consitutional rights (pat act)
Constitutional/traiditional repubs try to expand constitutional rights.
Constitutional/traiditional repubs are urging Bush to get out of Iraq.
(remember the iraq study group).
-
No, actually I don't "know well" the thread. If I did I would gladly answer your question at once. Be patient.. neither of us is going anywhere.
I will say your side attacks those you label "neocons" for typical conservative principles (strong nat'l defense, free market capitalism, strict constructionism, minimal handouts, etc). I think you have a problem with the foundations of Reagan conservatism but saying it's the "neocons" sounds worse so you label it as such instead.
Holy shit you couldn't be more wrong... I'm all for strong national defense. I do not blame neoconservatives for free market capitalism, (that's silly) or minimal handouts. I am very specific in what I have blamed on neocons and it has always been in direct response to their own words and actions as self identified neoconservities... Not only that, but I often side with people like Pat Buchanan in issues relating to neoconservatvies as do many self aware conservatives of which I am not one but sympathize with on occasion when the issue compells me to.
-
Neocons like massive federal beaucracies, like DHS.
Constitutional/traiditional repubs do not.
Conservatives diverging from conservative values, NOT neoconservatism.
Neocons like nation-building and massive colonialism and consumerism exportation.
Constitutional/traiditional repubs do not.
Does free market capitalism allow this? YES. If companies can make a better profit elsewhere who is the gov't to say they cannot? That certainly isn't conservatism. And with Democrats seeking to punish every company making a profit with taxes, taxes, and taxes I can hardly blame them. Business' purpose it TO MAKE A PROFIT... you of all people should know this.
As for nation-building, do we not have a responsibility to help the society greatly affected by OUR conflict? If you say "no" that's fine but I'm just curious how you answer this.
Neocons like to borrow a ton of money to do it.
Constitutional/traiditional repubs do not.
Conservatives diverging from conservative values, NOT neoconservatism.
Neocons like to use the full war machine in multiple countries.
Constitutional/traiditional repubs prefer small teams to take out leaders and replace them with minimal cost or bloodshed.
So fighting a war with ground forces and then following through by helping the country get its shit together afterwards violates conservative principles? I think not. With Iraq, let's say we had Delta assassinate Saddam. How long would it have been before he was replaced with someone just as bad? Destroying a regime like that, especially in that kind of culture, takes the brunt of a full fledged operation. I think you're being a little idealistic.
Neocons lessen consitutional rights (pat act)
Constitutional/traiditional repubs try to expand constitutional rights.
How much the Patriot Act actually affected constitutional rights is debatable. Many conservatives argue it was necessary and how many regular Americans has this impacted their liberties?
Constitutional/traiditional repubs are urging Bush to get out of Iraq.
(remember the iraq study group).
Wrong. Many American conservatives still support what we're doing over there. Even many who think the war shouldn't have happened agree that we have a responsibility to clean up what we started.
-
???
-
Holy shit you couldn't be more wrong... I'm all for strong national defense. I do not blame neoconservatives for free market capitalism, (that's silly) or minimal handouts. I am very specific in what I have blamed on neocons and it has always been in direct response to their own words and actions as self identified neoconservities... Not only that, but I often side with people like Pat Buchanan in issues relating to neoconservatvies as do many self aware conservatives of which I am not one but sympathize with on occasion when the issue compells me to.
I think what you have a problem with is not neoconservatism. Neoconservatism is VERY close to traditional conservativism.
I think you have a problem with irresponsible spending, massive beurocracy, greed, power hungry politicians, and gov't abuse and misinformation in general. None of that is a staple of ANY form of conservatism.
-
I think what you have a problem with is not neoconservatism. Neoconservatism is VERY close to traditional conservativism.
I think you have a problem with irresponsible spending, massive beurocracy, greed, power hungry politicians, and gov't abuse and misinformation in general. None of that is a staple of ANY form of conservatism.
FUCKING WRONG ::) I have always been and will always be very specific in my criticism of neoconservative moves. I am well aware of the differences between conservative and neoconservative and have studdied the movements in depth. Now, fucking name where I have mislabeled as such ;) Now please...
-
FUCKING WRONG ::) I have always been and will always be very specific in my criticism of neoconservative moves. I am well aware of the differences between conservative and neoconservative and have studdied the movements in depth. Now, fucking name where I have mislabeled as such ;) Now please...
I don't think I'm wrong at all. You and your side have been doing it as long as I have seen you on this board. I think your "studies" don't mean a thing next to your hatred for conservativism and you've already shown that you will say anything to make us look bad, truthfully or not.
Without a link to the thread I can't quote what you said and satisfactorily answer your question. You can either wait for RPfan to check this since he obviously knows which one it is or you can find it yourself. The moment I can answer after re-reading the original post I'll be more than happy to.
-
I don't agree with everything here but just some interesting things to consider, from wiki:
Distinctions from other conservatives
Most neoconservatives are members of the Republican Party. They have been in electoral alignment with other conservatives and served in the same presidential administrations. While they have often ignored ideological differences in alliance against those to their left, neoconservatives differ from traditional or paleoconservatives. In particular, they disagree with nativism, protectionism, and non-interventionism in foreign policy, ideologies rooted in American history and exemplified by former Republican paleoconservative Pat Buchanan. Compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which may be non-interventionist, neoconservatism emphasizes defense capability, challenging regimes hostile to the values and interests of the United States[citation needed], and pressing for free-market policies abroad[citation needed]. Neoconservatives also believe in democratic peace theory, the proposition that democracies never or almost never go to war with one another.
Neoconservatives disagree with political realism in foreign policy[citation needed], often associated with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Though Republican and anti-communist, Nixon and Kissinger made pragmatic accommodation with dictators and sought peace through negotiations, diplomacy, and arms control. They pursued détente with the Soviet Union, rather than rollback, and established relations with the communist People's Republic of China.
Criticism of the term neoconservative
Some of those identified as neoconservative reject the term, arguing that it lacks a coherent definition, or that it was coherent only in the context of the Cold War.
Conservative writer David Horowitz argues that the increasing use of the term neoconservative since the 2003 start of the Iraq War has made it irrelevant:[citation needed]
Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no 'neo-conservative' movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today 'neo-conservatism' identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.
The term may have lost meaning due to excessive and inconsistent use. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have been identified as leading neoconservatives despite the fact that they have been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney has supported Irving Kristol's ideas).
Some critics reject the idea that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism. Traditional conservatives are skeptical of the contemporary usage of the term and dislike being associated with its stereotypes or supposed agendas. Columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."[39] Jonah Goldberg rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative."
-
Neoconservatism is VERY close to traditional conservativism.
WOW
;D
-
9.5 Trillion Dollars Debt
So Conservative
-
Oh and our open boarders...
I was mistaken, the Bush administrations main objective must be keeping our Country secure.
-
The way these fine Christian men in the White House have increased the size of our government.
Conservatives all the way! 8)
-
The way these fine Christian men in the White House have increased the size of our government.
Conservatives all the way! 8)
Oh and our open boarders...
I was mistaken, the Bush administrations main objective must be keeping our Country secure.
9.5 Trillion Dollars Debt
So Conservative
I'm not a fan of any of those policies. I've been very critical of Bush regarding those, especially immigration and border security. It's a disgrace.
But none of that should be blamed on "those evil neocons" but on conservatives who let DC politics and personal priorities deviate themselves from the conservative movement.
And what's the link to the thread you quoted me in earlier?
-
I don't think I'm wrong at all. You and your side have been doing it as long as I have seen you on this board. I think your "studies" don't mean a thing next to your hatred for conservatism and you've already shown that you will say anything to make us look bad, truthfully or not.
Without a link to the thread I can't quote what you said and satisfactorily answer your question. You can either wait for RP fan to check this since he obviously knows which one it is or you can find it yourself. The moment I can answer after rereading the original post I'll be more than happy to.
Dealing with the first part only, you just made yourself an ass... If that's the person I've shown myself to be here, let the people come forth and confirm... I will listen... I do not think, nor have I had the intention of being what you accuse me of.
-
I think we should maintain focus on exactly what the neocons are at fault with... The neocons are not some catchall for the left. There is a specific set of problems they are directly tied to, I have no intention whatsoever of expanding their ills as their ills are problem enough, they don't need wayward additions. You will not catch me attacking neocons for traditional conservative issues and I challenge anyone to find where I have specifically blamed a neoconservite for a traditional conservative issue. Good fucking luck. Brixton is as usuall talking out his ass.
-
i'm just too bored right now to debate ya line by line, brix.
no true conservative would have allowed to tha pat act, period. Just because all violations are classified, doesn't mean they don't exist.
You still think we're "helping" iraq. All we're doing is helping their new govt to sign a LT oil deal.
Are you from the camp that think the war was about ideals and liberty, and not 50 tril worth of fucking sexy bitch oil?
-
i'm just too bored right now to debate ya line by line, brix.
no true conservative would have allowed to tha pat act, period. Just because all violations are classified, doesn't mean they don't exist.
You still think we're "helping" iraq. All we're doing is helping their new govt to sign a LT oil deal.
Are you from the camp that think the war was about ideals and liberty, and not 50 tril worth of fucking sexy bitch oil?
That's fine... I have neither the time nor the patience to argue by line anyway.
Yes, I think we have a lot of interest in oil over there, rightfully so IMO.
But even if there wasn't any oil over there we have a responsibility to clean up the mess that we incurred, regardless of who feels the act of incurring it was or wasn't justified.
-
Dealing with the first part only, you just made yourself an ass... If that's the person I've shown myself to be here, let the people come forth and confirm... I will listen... I do not think, nor have I had the intention of being what you accuse me of.
I think we should maintain focus on exactly what the neocons are at fault with... The neocons are not some catchall for the left. There is a specific set of problems they are directly tied to, I have no intention whatsoever of expanding their ills as their ills are problem enough, they don't need wayward additions. You will not catch me attacking neocons for traditional conservative issues and I challenge anyone to find where I have specifically blamed a neoconservite for a traditional conservative issue. Good fucking luck. Brixton is as usuall talking out his ass.
You're totally missing the point.
You dislike conservatism as a whole. It's obvious you're a complete leftist and you throw "neocon" around simply because it makes conservatives look bad. No one was using "neocon" in recent years until Iraq happened. Now we have some historically conservative figures who have been corrupted by politics to a big enough extent that libs have recalled some nasty-sounding label. You're using some bad policies and unfortunate realities of the few to attempt to debase the entire conservative movement and paint traditional conservative principles as part of an "evil neocon empire."
It's horse shit from another opportunist trying to use trendy lingo, nothing more. Hell, half the issues people blame on the "neocons" have been committed by the democrats for years (big gov't, big spending, violations of privacy, globalization, etc.) and I don't see you speaking out against them.
-
::) The only thing that's obvious is that you don't know me... ::)
-
::) The only thing that's obvious is that you don't know me... ::)
Unlike 99% of people on this board I've actually admitted when I was proven wrong. You're welcome to enlighten me.
-
I think you have a problem with irresponsible spending, massive beurocracy, greed, power hungry politicians, and gov't abuse and misinformation in general. None of that is a staple of ANY form of conservatism.
Both parties are guilty of that. And with a approval rating lower than the same "neocon" president that liberals point their finger at, the arguement of Bush's mishandling of America falls short of the promises Democrats offered in order to gain control of the house.
This has been by far the best "do nothing congress, but spend" (Lou Dobbs) America has EVER seen. Liberals can throw around the 9.5 trilion in debt, but that is beyond dumb since the democraic congress has approved all of that spending, and furthermore has adde to the spending with absurd social work programs, helping people from helping themselves.
-
Unlike 99% of people on this board I've actually admitted when I was proven wrong. You're welcome to enlighten me.
WTF??? I have also admitted when I'm wrong and have often stated that I'm ok with being wrong if I am wrong. I absolutely will not lock into a misconception on team mentality. I'm dead set against that and have many times made that clear... What the fuck are you bringing this up for? Point to the issue?
-
they're one and the same.
Each party plays the good cop/bad cop role. When anything will happen is beyond me. All the republicans and democrats do is pit American against American. What everyone does is label each other while they are all generally the same. They're playing with your minds.
-
they're one and the same.
Each party plays the good cop/bad cop role. When anything will happen is beyond me. All the republicans and democrats do is pit American against American. What everyone does is label each other while they are all generally the same. They're playing with your minds.
Keeping people distracted in debate by opposing ideological but unimportant issues allows for business as usual.
-
WTF??? I have also admitted when I'm wrong and have often stated that I'm ok with being wrong if I am wrong. I absolutely will not lock into a misconception on team mentality. I'm dead set against that and have many times made that clear... What the fuck are you bringing this up for? Point to the issue?
That wasn't directed towards anyone in particular (maybe 240, lol). You said I didn't know you so if my opinion regarding your political leanings and intentions is wrong let's hear it.
-
Yes, I think we have a lot of interest in oil over there, rightfully so IMO.
In that case, I'd buy you a beer for your service to our country and your honesty.
Then I'd buy Hugo a beer and laugh as I watched the 2 of you argue all day.
-
Yes, I think we have a lot of interest in oil over there, rightfully so IMO.
In that case, I'd buy you a beer for your service to our country and your honesty.
Then I'd buy Hugo a beer and laugh as I watched the 2 of you argue all day.
Why endorse the stereotypes regarding native americans, you prick?
-
Why endorse the stereotypes regarding native americans, you prick?
Berserker is actually Rush Limbaugh's gimmic account.
-
Berserker is actually Rush Limbaugh's gimmic account.
Nothing wrong with a healthy addiction. Got him millions of sheep followers and a $400 million contract. Maybe I should take up drugs. Seems to take one places!
-
Nothing wrong with a healthy addiction. Got him millions of sheep followers and a $400 million contract. Maybe I should take up drugs. Seems to take one places!
no shit. All the greats seem to use drugs to reach great heights. Hendrix, Cobain, and now Limbaugh.
-
Nothing wrong with a healthy addiction. Got him millions of sheep followers and a $400 million contract. Maybe I should take up drugs. Seems to take one places!
Funny how those who criticize him never listen to the show. Doesn't stop them from judging every time he makes the news.
-
[...]Maybe I should take up drugs.[...]
You mean you're not already taking them?!
-
Funny how those who criticize him never listen to the show. Doesn't stop them from judging every time he makes the news.
i listened to him for years and still do, now and then.
His anger now clouds his position on issues. He's more of a cartoon figure than a serious pundit now.
-
i listened to him for years and still do, now and then.
His anger now clouds his position on issues. He's more of a cartoon figure than a serious pundit now.
How do you figure?
I have a hard time believing that when the media and a great deal of politicians still tune in daily. I think Ann Coulter has suffered a fate more like that which you describe but not so much Rush.
-
How do you figure?
I have a hard time believing that when the media and a great deal of politicians still tune in daily. I think Ann Coulter has suffered a fate more like that which you describe but not so much Rush.
politicans still tune in.man rush must be on the up and up then huh.WOW!
-
politicans still tune in.man rush must be on the up and up then huh.WOW!
Just do what we all do: Say yes. Eventually he will go away.
-
Just do what we all do: Say yes. Eventually he will go away.
That's what they say about Rush now after trying everything in the book to drive him out of business.
Still here thanks to a huge popularity rating.
;D
-
Ann Coulter, when she calms down, and takes a look at the situation she makes more sense, sometimes she gets caught up in the firestorm.
-
That's what they say about Rush now after trying everything in the book to drive him out of business.
Still here thanks to a huge popularity rating.
;D
good ratings dont make someone good.theres alot of popular assholes.
-
Ann Coulter, when she calms down, and takes a look at the situation she makes more sense, sometimes she gets caught up in the firestorm.
True.. and she marginalizes herself by doing this.
But she gets libs so fucking mad.. hahahah!! Good stuff.
-
How do you figure?
I have a hard time believing that when the media and a great deal of politicians still tune in daily. I think Ann Coulter has suffered a fate more like that which you describe but not so much Rush.
Remember him singing about dreaming of riots in an American city?
Remember him twitching, mocking Michael J Fox for his disease?
There are probably a million more that don't come to mind at the moment.
He's an entertainer. Some people bust up laughing at the thought of riots on US soil. Some think mocking a guy with a disease is nutcracking funny. Those people are twats.
-
good ratings dont make someone good.theres alot of popular assholes.
He might be one of them. I guess it depends on who's asking. But he keeps proving himself right on almost every issue and he's entertaining. Win/win for him, I guess.
-
Remember him singing about dreaming of riots in an American city?
Remember him twitching, mocking Michael J Fox for his disease?
There are probably a million more that don't come to mind at the moment.
He's an entertainer. Some people bust up laughing at the thought of riots on US soil. Some think mocking a guy with a disease is nutcracking funny. Those people are twats.
Those who don't like him don't have to listen. His opponents have certainly said much worse.
I don't think he actually WANTED riots.. he was making a point. And as far as I know Parkinsons doesn't care if you're a dipshit or not. MJF could very well be just that.
-
Those who don't like him don't have to listen. His opponents have certainly said much worse.
I killed 5 people. But Ted Bundy killed like 14. So I'm gonna bring him up in court when the judge asks me about the 5 I killed.
-
I don't think he actually WANTED riots.. he was making a point. And as far as I know Parkinsons doesn't care if you're a dipshit or not. MJF could very well be just that.
Hey, osama bin laden, air america, mike savage, and hannity all have big audiences, and they are all dipshits to someone.
the point here is that Rush isn't a serious voice anymore, just as Olbermann and hannity are not either. They are one-sided opinion entertainers.
-
I killed 5 people. But Ted Bundy killed like 14. So I'm gonna bring him up in court when the judge asks me about the 5 I killed.
Murder > Slander
And Rush's worst detractors are public figures and media personalities themselves.
-
True.. and she marginalizes herself by doing this.[...]
You know what's really funny about Ann Coulter? No sooner she calls another democrat a homo a republican is found to either be downloading pedophile material of caught by the police giving a blow job to some flaming Fire Island "stud", while democrats are busy hitting the puss 24/7. Eventually people traspose the thought that if this chick cannot tell which one is the gay guy then maybe her judgement is really not that good.
-
Hey, osama bin laden, air america, mike savage, and hannity all have big audiences, and they are all dipshits to someone.
the point here is that Rush isn't a serious voice anymore, just as Olbermann and hannity are not either. They are one-sided opinion entertainers.
Agreed about the first part. But considering the scope and numbers of his audience I think you're grossly understating how "serious" his voice is.
-
You know what's really funny about Ann Coulter? No sooner she calls another democrat a homo a republican is found to either be downloading pedophile material of caught by the police giving a blow job to some flaming Fire Island "stud", while democrats are busy hitting the puss 24/7. Eventually people traspose the thought that if this chick cannot tell which one is the gay guy then maybe her judgement is really not that good.
That's a very small percentage of politicians even if you combine the parties and a very small and largely irrelevant part of her positions.
-
Agreed about the first part. But considering the scope and numbers of his audience I think you're grossly understating how "serious" his voice is.
fact is, if Osama bin laden started a radio show tomorrow, it would be the most listened to show on earth, right? i mean, a billion muslims and a lot of americans (hating of course) would listen.
audience = zero credibility. It just means you have notoriety and know how to push buttons.
-
He might be one of them. I guess it depends on who's asking. But he keeps proving himself right on almost every issue and he's entertaining. Win/win for him, I guess.
charley manson is probably a good guy once u get to know him.
-
Remember him singing about dreaming of riots in an American city?
Remember him twitching, mocking Michael J Fox for his disease?
There are probably a million more that don't come to mind at the moment.
He's an entertainer. Some people bust up laughing at the thought of riots on US soil. Some think mocking a guy with a disease is nutcracking funny. Those people are twats.
Rush is a republican shock jock. He knows as well as Anne knows that their positions need to be extreme in order to create controversy, so one side of the conservative party steps in as a mediator, or someone form the democratic party puts their foot in their mouth which they always seem to do, once fired up.
-
charley manson is probably a good guy once u get to know him.
If you think that you should probably be in there with him.
-
Rush is a republican shock jock.
That was worded perfectly, thank you!
-
That was worded perfectly, thank you!
I really don't see what's so shocking about him. Stern is shocking. Micheal Moore is shocking. Coulter is shocking. Dennis Rodman is shocking. Rush may be inflammatory, cocky, and sometimes humorous in his sexism but shocking is pushing it.
-
That was worded perfectly, thank you!
Same can be said for Stern and even to a percent Hugh Hefner, who was left and would push for women's rights during the 70's, and civil.
The important thing about Rush, Anne, Stern etc. is that they push and raise issues that need to be confronted, too much PC to straighten out tough issues that are hurting America.
Hell no one except Obama and company can talk about race issues, he's already pelted Clinton, and McCain with the race card.
-
I really don't see what's so shocking about him. Stern is shocking. Micheal Moore is shocking. Coulter is shocking. Dennis Rodman is shocking. Rush may be inflammatory, cocky, and sometimes humorous in his sexism but shocking is pushing it.
That is just it, it's not that he or any of the above people are shocking, they are just pushing the envelope, letting things come out that should be out, not so much Rodman he should do that in private. But it helps people get past a certain threshhold, once they hear it they are conditioned and can handle things better and more calmly next time around. These people cloud the issues, but help the majority make sense of them through time.
That is why this MSM coverage of Obama is going to show us in the future that this hurt America. A small percentage Beck, Hannity are telling us, "what's going on here, why was this not reported on when it happend?"
-
Hell no one except Obama and company can talk about race issues, he's already pelted Clinton, and McCain with the race card.
all of them played it.
then, all of them acted like offended bitch little cnuts when the others used it.
seriously, you want to be President? You wanna be the baddest mofo on earth? how about toughening up and not being the voice of "we're so so offended".
I want Clint eastwood in the white house. I don't want some whiner with a laundry list of all the ways he, as an old white male, was offended that obama brought up race.
This goes for hannity and them too... he mentions once a night that he should sue somebody. He's 'deeply offended' 3-4 times a show by something someone says. Man the Fck up, ya whiny bitches.
-
all of them played it.
Where did ANY one play it other than Obama?
-
I want Clint eastwood in the white house. I don't want some whiner with a laundry list of all the ways he, as an old white male, was offended that obama brought up race.
Clint Eastwood backs McCain so there you go.
McCain called Obama for playing the race card, as he should have. Obama, a HLS educated man should have better things to say but he does not. Ex. Flipping Hillary Clinton off, not being able to tell America why he wants to be president, and playing the race card.
I never hear that from Hannity. But that is good, he is calling for justice due to something, instead of a liberal saying "the government should take it over"
-
This goes for hannity and them too... he mentions once a night that he should sue somebody. He's 'deeply offended' 3-4 times a show by something someone says. Man the Fck up, ya whiny bitches.
Once a night? I don't think it's once a week.
Hannity makes a point to point out hypocrisy left and right and he's very good at it.
-
Where did ANY one play it other than Obama?
this is where i google 'mccain race card' and see two dozen analysis of his quotes. we then debate each one, the intent of the author, then someone rolls eyes, another calls names, blah blah.
both parties are using it, both are being whiny bitches. I'm going to go cook a cheeseburger now, and would be very grateful if anyone could share a good recipe for cheeseburger. I need something different.
-
this is where i google 'mccain race card' and see two dozen analysis of his quotes. we then debate each one, the intent of the author, then someone rolls eyes, another calls names, blah blah.
both parties are using it, both are being whiny bitches. I'm going to go cook a cheeseburger now, and would be very grateful if anyone could share a good recipe for cheeseburger. I need something different.
Have an Obama burger. It's a burger with bread, lettuce, and tomato, throw a slice of potato in the middle. No meat in the burger since it's customary communism tradition not to feed meat to prisoners of the gulag.
Plus Obama does not want that meat to ramp up your metabolism causing you to get hot, thereby increasing your desire to turn your air conditioner below 80 degrees.
-
Have an Obama burger. It's a burger with bread, lettuce, and tomato, throw a slice of potato in the middle. No meat in the burger since it's customary communism tradition not to feed meat to prisoners of the gulag.
Plus Obama does not want that meat to ramp up your metabolism causing you to get hot, thereby increasing your desire to turn your air conditioner below 80 degrees.
I like these criticisms. witty and funny.
it's the racist taunts that i don't enjoy. I'm not offended, as some pussy white folks might claim to be. I just think it demotes the conversation into garbage, when his globalist agenda is more important to the topic.
here's a Q... If obama wants to make 1- world government.. but the USA is in charge of it... is that such a bad thing?
-
this is where i google 'mccain race card' and see two dozen analysis of his quotes. we then debate each one, the intent of the author, then someone rolls eyes, another calls names, blah blah.
I'm glad you predicted a debate involving the intent of the author since before even reading any of the analysis' I see the very obvious slant of the sites posting them.
The truth is McCain hasn't played any race card. And despite what most of those sites are so upset about I'm glad McCain and Clinton both called Obama out for using it himself.
-
here's a Q... If obama wants to make 1- world government.. but the USA is in charge of it... is that such a bad thing?
Yeah.. unless he, or any other socialist, isn't in charge of it.
And I think he'd more likely choose the US to be governed by the corrupt, globalist, inept, and borderline socialist organization known as the UN.
-
here's a Q... If obama wants to make 1- world government.. but the USA is in charge of it... is that such a bad thing?
Unrealistic, seeing as who is in his corner - Soros, Kenya, South America, Rev. Phfleger, Pastor Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.
Please don't make me go on to discredit your question, as none of these people have America's best interest at heart!!
-
Yeah.. unless he, or any other socialist, isn't in charge of it.
And I think he'd more likely choose the US to be governed by the corrupt, globalist, inept, and borderline socialist organization known as the UN.
Actually, his old mentor Zbig is all about a 1-world gov, with the US running shit, and Russia getting bitchslapped down. Even minimal Isr control, i believe.
Zbig is an interesting guy. All about US power. I saw him on Daily Show, and wow... he wants the US to run the world. Not a bad thing?
-
Unrealistic, seeing as who is in his corner - Soros, Kenya, South America, Rev. Phfleger, Pastor Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.
You're talking small names here.
Research the man brzenski who set up everything in this presidential run for obama. One of America's original planners. he's a BFD (big fuckin deal). Rev wright is a footnote distraction for amusement. Zbig Brzenski has been crushing commies for 60 years.
-
Actually, his old mentor Zbig is all about a 1-world gov, with the US running shit, and Russia getting bitchslapped down. Even minimal Isr control, i believe.
Zbig is an interesting guy. All about US power. I saw him on Daily Show, and wow... he wants the US to run the world. Not a bad thing?
You say this yet you claim to support RP?
All of that is interesting I'm sure but knowing you you're leaving some things out. Any "mentor" of Barack already has the blood of tragedy and disgrace on his hands.
-
You say this yet you claim to support RP?
All of that is interesting I'm sure but knowing you you're leaving some things out. Any "mentor" of Barack already has the blood of tragedy and disgrace on his hands.
I liked RP's domestic positions, but felt his view of the world politics was unrealistic. Close 800 bases and give up every strategic adnvatage we have? Nah.
Please read about this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
All about US military strength thru undermining our enemies. He needed to help bring down the soviet empore. So, he convinced USSR to invade afghanistan, then convinced the US to fund the mujahadeen to undermine them. It helped destroy USSR.
He was the man who created the Obama we see today. If you believe Obama was created by some dimestore pastor, you don't know a lot about a lot...
-
yes, people read about Brzezinski!
-
I liked RP's domestic positions, but felt his view of the world politics was unrealistic. Close 800 bases and give up every strategic adnvatage we have? Nah.
Please read about this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
All about US military strength thru undermining our enemies. He needed to help bring down the soviet empore. So, he convinced USSR to invade afghanistan, then convinced the US to fund the mujahadeen to undermine them. It helped destroy USSR.
He was the man who created the Obama we see today. If you believe Obama was created by some dimestore pastor, you don't know a lot about a lot...
Yes, I've heard quite a lot about him and I disagree with the majority of the positions I have seen or heard from him. Although, he's certainly more hawkish than most Dems, which I like.
I'm not so much worried about what Obama would do outside of the US as much as inside of it. I don't understand why you claim to be conservative yet you seemingly defend a man you MUST know stands for the destruction of almost every conservative principle.
-
I'd vote Clint in a heart beat.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/listverse/antihero/noname.jpg)
"It's no joke Tuco, it's a rope. And your neck's goin in it."
-
what about russia/georgia?
-
Yes, I've heard quite a lot about him and I disagree with the majority of the positions I have seen or heard from him. Although, he's certainly more hawkish than most Dems, which I like.
I'm not so much worried about what Obama would do outside of the US as much as inside of it. I don't understand why you claim to be conservative yet you seemingly defend a man you MUST know stands for the destruction of almost every conservative principle.
I'm about a strong national defense, but strong rights at home as well.
Bush turned into a liberal the moment he signed the patriot act.
Then he borrowed 5 trillion dollars. Lib again.
Mccain is trying to defend the positions to keep his donors rolling in, but I can't see how any responsible adult can stand there and say borrowing a trillion dolalrs a year and keeping taxes low is a great idea. As a guy with an MBA, I see it as a horrible business model. Just horrible. ANY other business would go under by now, with that kind of borrowing and minimal profits.
It's irresponsible. Obama is going to tax like a buitch, and yeah, it's gonna suck. But mccain is gonna keep spending likea d runken sailor and borrowing nonstop, and not taxing to pay for it.
Neither guy is right. personally I'd prefer if we're gonna blow all this $ (which both men say we'll do), we'd better pay for it. Also, obama went to germany and told the world it's time THEY start chipping in on the war in afghanistan. Mccain won't do that. Obama is going to smile, make friends, and tell the leader they need to help shoulder the costs of this war. That's a smart thing to do.
-
I'm about a strong national defense, but strong rights at home as well.
Bush turned into a liberal the moment he signed the patriot act.
Then he borrowed 5 trillion dollars. Lib again.
Mccain is trying to defend the positions to keep his donors rolling in, but I can't see how any responsible adult can stand there and say borrowing a trillion dolalrs a year and keeping taxes low is a great idea. As a guy with an MBA, I see it as a horrible business model. Just horrible. ANY other business would go under by now, with that kind of borrowing and minimal profits.
It's irresponsible. Obama is going to tax like a buitch, and yeah, it's gonna suck. But mccain is gonna keep spending likea d runken sailor and borrowing nonstop, and not taxing to pay for it.
Neither guy is right. personally I'd prefer if we're gonna blow all this $ (which both men say we'll do), we'd better pay for it. Also, obama went to germany and told the world it's time THEY start chipping in on the war in afghanistan. Mccain won't do that. Obama is going to smile, make friends, and tell the leader they need to help shoulder the costs of this war. That's a smart thing to do.
great post
-
I'm about a strong national defense, but strong rights at home as well.
Bush turned into a liberal the moment he signed the patriot act.
Then he borrowed 5 trillion dollars. Lib again.
Mccain is trying to defend the positions to keep his donors rolling in, but I can't see how any responsible adult can stand there and say borrowing a trillion dolalrs a year and keeping taxes low is a great idea. As a guy with an MBA, I see it as a horrible business model. Just horrible. ANY other business would go under by now, with that kind of borrowing and minimal profits.
It's irresponsible. Obama is going to tax like a buitch, and yeah, it's gonna suck. But mccain is gonna keep spending likea d runken sailor and borrowing nonstop, and not taxing to pay for it.
Neither guy is right. personally I'd prefer if we're gonna blow all this $ (which both men say we'll do), we'd better pay for it. Also, obama went to germany and told the world it's time THEY start chipping in on the war in afghanistan. Mccain won't do that. Obama is going to smile, make friends, and tell the leader they need to help shoulder the costs of this war. That's a smart thing to do.
Calling Bush a lib is ridiculous. I can't understand why you're so quick to put formerly conservative politicians with SOME liberal bad habits on the same line with outright socialists. You're so quick to blur the lines that I think you've proven yourself to be more liberal than even you would like to admit (or will ever). Being 50% liberal by policy platform IS drastically different than being 100% liberal despite what you seem to believe.
The debt must be taken care of in the long run, fine. Obama will adopt every socialist policy in the books, drastically increase taxes, and grow the gov't. McCain MAY do the same or MAY NOT. Wouldn't you rather pull for the potential? You're guaranteed institutionalized wealth redistribution, punishment for profits, and bigger gov't with Obama and you sit here to defend those very things that destroy prosperity. The fact that you actually believe half of what he says is hilarious.
You blame the gov't for spending like it does yet instead of holding politicians accountable and pulling for people to vote more based on taxes in the upcoming years you would rather just let the biggest form of bureaucracy tax the hell of us to pay for an already inflated mess of waste and gov't irresponsibility.
-
this is the worst 8 year run in presidential history McCain Will continue that trend.
-
I leave for 5 minutes and the thread goes down the drain.
-
this is the worst 8 year run in presidential history McCain Will continue that trend.
Not at all. He may be the most unpopular president at the moment and the most divisive but he isn't the worst. Two years of a democratic congress has done more damage and/or accomplished less than eight years of Bush.
Ten years from now we'll see what people's opinion is and how his policies set in the long run. I think it will be mostly positive.
-
Two years of a democratic congress has done more damage and/or accomplished less than eight years of Bush.
Can you quantify this in any way?
or just kinda a gut feeling thing?
-
Can you quantify this in any way?
or just kinda a gut feeling thing?
Promised to fix gas.. did nothing.
Promised to fix economy.. bailed out homeowners who shouldn't have been bailed.
Promised to do something about debt.. voted for most of the spending along with the people they blame for it.
Same story on border security, etc. It's a complete waste. I've never seen a bunch of people whose only concern is re-election.
-
Not at all. He may be the most unpopular president at the moment and the most divisive but he isn't the worst. Two years of a democratic congress has done more damage and/or accomplished less than eight years of Bush.
Ten years from now we'll see what people's opinion is and how his policies set in the long run. I think it will be mostly positive.
Bush's presidential term mostly positive huh.your delusional!
-
Not at all. He may be the most unpopular president at the moment and the most divisive but he isn't the worst. Two years of a democratic congress has done more damage and/or accomplished less than eight years of Bush.
Ten years from now we'll see what people's opinion is and how his policies set in the long run. I think it will be mostly positive.
You sure show your age on this reply ::)
-
Promised to fix gas.. did nothing.
Promised to fix economy.. bailed out homeowners who shouldn't have been bailed.
Promised to do something about debt.. voted for most of the spending along with the people they blame for it.
Same story on border security, etc. It's a complete waste. I've never seen a bunch of people whose only concern is re-election.
The democrats utterly failed on Iraq.
It's the Iraq failure that undercut their integrity. The Dems took the majority in Congress b/c of that issue and they failed to end the war.
Bush's run has been a failure....doubled the national debt, the single biggest foreign policy blunder in history re Iraq, and he helped enable the mortgage scandal by killing state oversight of mortgage practices.
Any way you slice that, it comes up failure.
-
he helped enable the mortgage scandal by killing state oversight of mortgage practices.
Right, because the gov't has to regulate everything. ::) ::)
The mortgage crisis was brought on by people who couldn't afford the home they purchased and banks dumb enough to lend them the money knowing they couldn't afford it. The gov'ts only failure would be bailing these idiots out.
Only a lib would blame something like that on the gov't.
-
anybody see last week when georgia and russia played each other in beach volleyball? how awkward must that have been
-
Right, because the gov't has to regulate everything. ::) ::)
The mortgage crisis was brought on by people who couldn't afford the home they purchased and banks dumb enough to lend them the money knowing they couldn't afford it. The gov'ts only failure would be bailing these idiots out.
Only a lib would blame something like that on the gov't.
Who's holding the greedy borrowers harmless? You erroneously oversimplify the problem by acknowledging only one aspect of the problem. The Bush people preempted state oversight laws with federal oversight laws and left those laws unenforced so that the prison guard was removed from guarding the prison. I guess that's free market faith.
Only a rightwinger would decry gov. as hopelessly incompetent while tacitly bowing before government inaction benefiting business interests.
-
anybody see last week when georgia and russia played each other in beach volleyball? how awkward must that have been
nah I only saw last night where Georgia played US
-
nah I only saw last night where Georgia played US
Did Biden stop by to give the Georgia team homemade chocolate chip cookies?
-
Who's holding the greedy borrowers harmless? You erroneously oversimplify the problem by acknowledging only one aspect of the problem. The Bush people preempted state oversight laws with federal oversight laws and left those laws unenforced so that the prison guard was removed from guarding the prison. I guess that's free market faith.
Only a rightwinger would decry gov. as hopelessly incompetent while tacitly bowing before government inaction benefiting business interests.
Your comment was just another thing you could try to twist and blame on Bush. The gov't is not the answer for everything and doesn't have to regulate everything. The idiots shouldn't have gotten themselves into loans they couldn't afford and the banks bit the bullet for taking the risk. People and have to take responsibility for their stupidity in a free market, not depend of the gov't. If that's what you want go live in Europe or anywhere that is even more socialist but stop trying to tax, regulate, manipulate a proven and superior economic system in capitalism.
Only a liberal would blame all those but the people actually responsible.
-
Your comment was just another thing you could try to twist and blame on Bush. The gov't is not the answer for everything and doesn't have to regulate everything. The idiots shouldn't have gotten themselves into loans they couldn't afford and the banks bit the bullet for taking the risk. People and have to take responsibility for their stupidity in a free market, not depend of the gov't. If that's what you want go live in Europe or anywhere that is even more socialist but stop trying to tax, regulate, manipulate a proven and superior economic system in capitalism.
Only a liberal would blame all those but the people actually responsible.
You do know that our 'Free Market' is moderated by governnmental regulation b/c laissez faire economics does not work. It kills competition. Without government oversight of the economy, the US would turn into a 3rd world country of Ultra Rich owners and plebian workers.
Look at how Bush's policies of deregulation, unenforced regulation and making the US federal government a tool of big business have widened the economic inequality of our country to the extent not seen since the Gilded Age.
Are you aware that Big Business in america loves Big Government? They only piss and moan when regulation becomes an inconvenience...like the regulatory oversight of unethical lending practices. I notice when governmental R&D is socialized to the benefit of Big Business or no-bid contracts for substandard work are handed out, Big Business is all smiles and Big government is just great.
The people taking advantage of 'Big Socialized Government' have promulgated rhetoric of the superiority of the "Free Market" when it only suits their own interests.
-
You do know that our 'Free Market' is moderated by governnmental regulation b/c laissez faire economics does not work. It kills competition. Without government oversight of the economy, the US would turn into a 3rd world country of Ultra Rich owners and plebian workers.
In a complete lack of gov't I would agree, but our free market allows for minimal gov't intervention in order to prevent that. MINIMAL
Look at how Bush's policies of deregulation, unenforced regulation and making the US federal government a tool of big business have widened the economic inequality of our country to the extent not seen since the Gilded Age.
You're still overreaching to put the blame on his admin. Taxing the shit out of American business, raising the minimum wage too high and too quickly, and giving almost every business based in the US good reasons to move job elsewhere have been more responsible for that gap than anything else. And guess which side of congress that falls to.
Are you aware that Big Business in america loves Big Government? They only piss and moan when regulation becomes an inconvenience...like the regulatory oversight of unethical lending practices. I notice when governmental R&D is socialized to the benefit of Big Business or no-bid contracts for substandard work are handed out, Big Business is all smiles and Big government is just great.
Big business loves state-owned economic forces? Big business loves regulation? Your argument is 100% backwards on the taxes issue alone.
The people taking advantage of 'Big Socialized Government' have promulgated rhetoric of the superiority of the "Free Market" when it only suits their own interests.
You're right.. god forbid anyone, from individual citizens to private companies, get to look out for themselves and make decisions that benefit themselves. That's what we have gov't for.. how silly of me. ::)
-
....
You're still overreaching to put the blame on his admin. Taxing the shit out of American business, raising the minimum wage too high and too quickly, and giving almost every business based in the US good reasons to move job elsewhere have been more responsible for that gap than anything else. And guess which side of congress that falls to.
Any economic or regulatory obligation to big business is too cumbersome for these guys. As far as taxing the shit out of American business, corporate tax rates for US businesses are not out of the norm comparatively speaking.
Big Business will move jobs to places where the bottom line can be improved. Globalization facilitates this race to the bottom for worker wages, environmental protections and quality of life. What I really find appalling are these companies that keep their business in the country but reincorporate in another country to save on taxes. That saves on their tax bill but they are using American infrastructure without paying for it. That's what business does. The rise of corporate monoliths will destroy this country someday. Why? At some point, it will be profitable to do so.
Big business loves state-owned economic forces? Big business loves regulation? Your argument is 100% backwards on the taxes issue alone.
When governmental assets are given or used to bolster Big Business, I think you'd be hardpressed to find one single businessman that would refuse. Why is that 100% backwards?
You're right.. god forbid anyone, from individual citizens to private companies, get to look out for themselves and make decisions that benefit themselves. That's what we have gov't for.. how silly of me. ::)
Businesses already act in self interest for their own benefit. Sometimes that action is detrimental the market, the consumer or the environment. The free market is never free and if the US wants to preserve its way of life, we need referees (oversight agencies) to make sure the rules of the game aren't violated (regulations).
-
Any economic or regulatory obligation to big business is too cumbersome for these guys. As far as taxing the shit out of American business, corporate tax rates for US businesses are not out of the norm comparatively speaking.
Big Business will move jobs to places where the bottom line can be improved. Globalization facilitates this race to the bottom for worker wages, environmental protections and quality of life. What I really find appalling are these companies that keep their business in the country but reincorporate in another country to save on taxes. That saves on their tax bill but they are using American infrastructure without paying for it. That's what business does. The rise of corporate monoliths will destroy this country someday. Why? At some point, it will be profitable to do so.
When governmental assets are given or used to bolster Big Business, I think you'd be hardpressed to find one single businessman that would refuse. Why is that 100% backwards?
Businesses already act in self interest for their own benefit. Sometimes that action is detrimental the market, the consumer or the environment. The free market is never free and if the US wants to preserve its way of life, we need referees (oversight agencies) to make sure the rules of the game aren't violated (regulations).
I totally disagree with everything you said and with good reason..
..but I just don't have time to argue anymore and we both know neither of us is changing the others mind.
I'll go convince some swing voters.. ttyl.
-
jesus... can you guys please look at where the thread started, look at the title and the initial post and explain why the fuck the topic landed completely unrelated. I swear to god so many threads are ending up like this. Maybe, just maybe, when we feel like deviating so far from the thread topic, we should just start a new fucking thread. ::)
-
I totally disagree with everything you said and with good reason..
..but I just don't have time to argue anymore and we both know neither of us is changing the others mind.
I'll go convince some swing voters.. ttyl.
i hope your getting paid for all this campaign for mccain
-
i hope your getting paid for all this campaign for mccain
No.
But he won't tax the shit outta me just to inflate gov't (and possibly fund reparations) so it might work out for me anyway.
-
No.
But he won't tax the shit outta me just to inflate gov't (and possibly fund reparations) so it might work out for me anyway.
how would you address the national deficit.we had a surplus when Clinton left office.
-
how would you address the national deficit.we had a surplus when Clinton left office.
no to attack him for his age - but Brix is 24 or so? He was 16 when Clinton left office.
If he acknowledges Bush's dangerous borrowing, we can let him off the hook :)
-
how would you address the national deficit.we had a surplus when Clinton left office.
Cut wasteful spending and downsize the federal gov't. Some state gov'ts are out of control as well (MD for example). The founding fathers would be disgusted with the size and waste this gov't has turned into, even when compared to the increase in population.
-
no to attack him for his age - but Brix is 24 or so? He was 16 when Clinton left office.
If he acknowledges Bush's dangerous borrowing, we can let him off the hook :)
that explanes alot i had it all figured out when i was 24 to now that I'm older not so much.
-
Both sides are to blame. I think the Dems seek to make it larger on purpose while the GOP turns the other cheek and does nothing about it. This is from 2001 but a good article nontheless.
--
With the Democrat takeover of the Senate, perhaps – just perhaps – we will have an open discussion on the size of our government. This year, we will reach a new milestone: For the first time in our history, total U.S. government spending will go over the $3 trillion dollar mark. Philosophically, Democrats think government should be larger; Republicans think it should be smaller. But how big is too big?
In a pre-release copy of a study for the Institute for Policy Innovation in Lewisville, Texas, economist Stephen Moore says that today, government in the United States is larger than the entire gross domestic products of all but five nations.
In 1913, when the 16th Amendment to our Constitution was passed and the individual income tax became permanent, the rates ranged from 1 to 7 percent. In 1944, during World War II the top rate reached 94 percent. However, by 1950, the top rate remained at 91 percent.
In 1981, when Ronald Reagan came to power, he reminded us that government is the problem, not the solution. He took a mandate from the people and successfully rolled back the top tax rate to 28 percent. Over the years, the top marginal rate inched back up to 39 percent – and look at what happened to the growth of government!
In "The Most Expensive Government in World History," Moore states: "In the 20 years since the Reagan revolution began, the federal budget has almost quadrupled. Even adjusting for inflation, the federal enterprise is twice as large as it was in 1980."
To put this in perspective, Moore points out that, over the next five years, the federal government is expected to spend more money than was spent on World Wars I and II, the Civil War and the Revolutionary War, even after adjusting for inflation.
The climb in federal spending has produced a parallel climb in the size of the government workforce. In 1992, for the first time ever, the United States had more civilian public sector employees than manufacturing employees. Today, approximately one million more Americans work for the government than for manufacturers – and the government doesn't produce anything!
It is not surprising to discover that government workers receive 30 to 40 percent higher total compensation than do comparably skilled workers in the private sector. Why? The government doesn't have to worry about market trends, balance sheets and bottom lines. When it comes to government, there is no bottom line. There always is more money available from the American taxpayers, as long as you and I don't stop to do the math and count the costs.
When our Founding Fathers set up our government, they envisioned a national government with limited power and responsibility. Those responsibilities were outlined in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution: national defense, a court system, roads, post office and the ability to repay debt that might occur due to war.
National defense is by far the most important function of our federal government. In 1800, defense constituted more than half of total federal outlays. Today the defense of this country receives barely one-sixth of federal outlays, while social welfare transfer payments soak up almost 40 percent.
America is a rich country and the argument has been made that our bloated government has not had a negative effect on prosperity. If fact, many believe it may have contributed to the nation's rapid economic growth. Moore debunks those arguments and offers proof that periods of government expansion produced periods of slow or negative economic growth.
With our progressive tax system, the burden falls increasingly on the wealthy. However, Moore correctly points out that the tax system camouflages from voters at all economic levels the real burden of paying for our government.
During times of economic growth, the tax burden rises at a faster rate than income because of bracket creep. As more of us move into the 28, 31 and 36 percent tax brackets our incomes are taxed at a higher marginal tax rate than our average tax rates. As a result, between 1995 and 2000, taxes rose from 18 to 21.5 percent of GDP.
More Americans are working harder and longer than ever before in an attempt to keep up their standard of living and pay their tax bills. In 1998, for the first time, the Census Bureau reported that families with children, in which both the husband and wife work, became the majority of all married-couple families. Furthermore, Scott Hodge of the Tax Foundation reports that 55 percent of these dual income couples had annual incomes of $50,000 and over.
Bob's Note: Don't forget: this is after 6 years of the Clinton's "best economy in history."
While the perception is that only the super rich pay for the cost of government, the truth is there aren't enough of them to make a real difference. Hodge points out that a married couple consisting of an average-paid kindergarten teacher and an entry-level firefighter would easily find themselves within the top 25 percent of taxpayers, who pay about 83 percent of all income taxes.
Nevertheless, this perception leaves many Americans feeling taxes aren't that excessive. Moore says, "If we relieve an even larger share of Americans from the burden of paying at least some share of the cost of government, they doubtless will demand more and more of this 'free good.'"
Although Republicans sign on to the principle that a smaller government is the best government, as congressional leaders their record has not matched their rhetoric. It is interesting that the budget President George W. Bush just proposed did not attempt to shrink government, it only asked Congress to hold the growth to 4 percent.
It is time this nation has a frank and open discussion about the size and cost of government before we reach the point of no return.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
-- Prof. Alexander Tyler (on the history of Ancient Greece) 1770
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/howbigis.htm
Tuesday, June 5, 2001
By Jane Chastain
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
Jane Chastain is a WorldNetDaily columnist.