onetrickpony said:
And what was that point -- that there are a lot of problems in the Middle East besides Israel? Thanks for pointing that one out Captain Obvious.
Reasons to Vote 4 Bush and the MAJOR ISSUES!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Scott4USC
- Start date
And what was that point -- that there are a lot of problems in the Middle East besides Israel? Thanks for pointing that one out Captain Obvious.
Who should lead because were at war? Well the war in Iraq the guy there now started. So that shows he was not so bright. The one in Afghan he pulled troops out of to go to Iraq. Again showing he's not to bright.
As for Deficits. Clinton payed off the Reagan, Bush 41 deficits. thats how you got the low interest rates you been enjoying.
And Clinton had unemployment down to 4.2%. So if you still think 5.6% is good. Well tell that to the 3 million folks who want a job they can't find. Look at the Stock Market going no place. Well it's going down now for last 3 weeks. Economy ran by only tax cuts is sure to slow. You can't cut taxes you don't collect.
And of course energy prices GAS are so nice and low. Have you bought a gallon of milk lately. Or does your mother do all the shopping.
As for Deficits. Clinton payed off the Reagan, Bush 41 deficits. thats how you got the low interest rates you been enjoying.
And Clinton had unemployment down to 4.2%. So if you still think 5.6% is good. Well tell that to the 3 million folks who want a job they can't find. Look at the Stock Market going no place. Well it's going down now for last 3 weeks. Economy ran by only tax cuts is sure to slow. You can't cut taxes you don't collect.
And of course energy prices GAS are so nice and low. Have you bought a gallon of milk lately. Or does your mother do all the shopping.
the fact that saddam paid the families of suicide bombers $thousands to have a family memeber(usually a teenager) blow themselves up & kill innocent people with them is enough to take saddam out.
Not good enough. We have had Reb's and Dem presidents not even blink at that type of stuff for years. When you talk war think Germany/Japan/N Korea. Not even Nam. We found out we were used in Nam like poker chips. Remember Afgan is where they train and came form there and Saudi. And Suadi we left off the hook.
I just want to take this time to distance my self as much as possible from Scott's views on both politics and collegel football. Scott is not a normal USC alum (or student?). Most USC alums don't blindly regurgitate right wing propaganda without any insight of their own into the true nature of the situation. Most USC alums also do not waste time antagonizing an online gambling forum with lunatic rants about college football.
If you want to be a neo-con Scott, then go ahead and do so. But please, put some time into educating yourself beyond what is "reported" on the Fox News Channel. And if you want to be a USC fan, then go ahead and do that, too. Just don't make us all look like assholes by getting all bent out of shape over two great seasons.
Remember, we're USC. One National Championship every 25 years should be below our standards.
If you want to be a neo-con Scott, then go ahead and do so. But please, put some time into educating yourself beyond what is "reported" on the Fox News Channel. And if you want to be a USC fan, then go ahead and do that, too. Just don't make us all look like assholes by getting all bent out of shape over two great seasons.
Remember, we're USC. One National Championship every 25 years should be below our standards.
DJV :nono:
The 4.2% was what it was at Clinton's lowest. At the time of Clinton?s re-election, the unemployment was the same % as it is now. And it will trend lower as the current economic growth continues.
Clinton did not pay off the deficits. The economic boom during the Clinton administration and for which he erroneously gets credit for actually began just prior to the 1992 election and it was too late to help Bush 1. The only economic policy that Clinton was able to pass was a tax increase, which everyone knows slows the economy instead of increasing it.
The growing economy paid off the deficits because the Republican Congress did not allow Clinton to raise taxes further and pass huge government spending programs like ?Hillary Care,? which would have caused soaring deficits.
It is far too early to judge the ?brightness? of going into Iraq. When Iraq becomes a stable force in the Middle East, gas and oil prices will sharply decline.
The 4.2% was what it was at Clinton's lowest. At the time of Clinton?s re-election, the unemployment was the same % as it is now. And it will trend lower as the current economic growth continues.
Clinton did not pay off the deficits. The economic boom during the Clinton administration and for which he erroneously gets credit for actually began just prior to the 1992 election and it was too late to help Bush 1. The only economic policy that Clinton was able to pass was a tax increase, which everyone knows slows the economy instead of increasing it.
The growing economy paid off the deficits because the Republican Congress did not allow Clinton to raise taxes further and pass huge government spending programs like ?Hillary Care,? which would have caused soaring deficits.
It is far too early to judge the ?brightness? of going into Iraq. When Iraq becomes a stable force in the Middle East, gas and oil prices will sharply decline.
Nick Douglas
You seem to imply that Fox News channel is just a right wing propaganda machine. I doubt if you have ever watched any of the programs. Unlike the mainstream media who gives only the liberal perspective of the news, Fox presents both sides of an issue and allows you to form your own opinion.
(fair and balanced)
Instead of speaking in generalities, why don't you challenge me on specific issues with facts so that we can have an honest debate. But that is hard for a liberal to do because there are not any facts that support their views!!!
If you want to see propaganda, see Fahrenheit 7/11 :lol2
You seem to imply that Fox News channel is just a right wing propaganda machine. I doubt if you have ever watched any of the programs. Unlike the mainstream media who gives only the liberal perspective of the news, Fox presents both sides of an issue and allows you to form your own opinion.
(fair and balanced)
Instead of speaking in generalities, why don't you challenge me on specific issues with facts so that we can have an honest debate. But that is hard for a liberal to do because there are not any facts that support their views!!!
If you want to see propaganda, see Fahrenheit 7/11 :lol2
Last edited:
Holy Crap. You cannot be serious, Scott. I freely admit that Farenheit 9/11 is propaganda. You have to be a real dunce not to understand that the Fox News Channel is right wing propaganda, though. By the way, Scott, have you seen Farenheit 9/11? I'm guessing you haven't and that you are just (again) regurgitating what FNC has told you.
FNC is smart because they do it in a subtle way. They present both sides while portraying the right side as rational and/or sympathetic. They express outrage over ideologies from the left and especially from events purportedly coming from "the liberals".
I do watch FNC for a good laugh. I take it for what it is: right wing propaganda portrayed as news. I find it stupid when people declare that they will not watch a certain channel, movie, etc. because it is biased or unfair. Just as there are a nation of bonehead conservatives who have ripped into Farenheit 9/11 without ever seeing it, there are a huge group of equally dim witted liberals who rip FNC without ever watching it.
The perfect example is FNC's biggest start, Bill O'Reilly. I give the guy a huge amount of credit for the work he has done journalistically, but on his show he often makes an ass of himself. One episode *I watched* saw O'Reilly boldly state, "I won't watch Farenheit 9/11 because it's left wing propaganda. I wouldn't watch right wing propaganda, either." Memo to Bill O'Reilly: YOU ARE RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA.
As far as specific issues, I presented them. Increased military spending, a reduction of civil liberties to better monitor the domestic population, a cut in capital gains & inheritance taxes, an increase in national debt, etc. In my inital post in the other thread I didn't argue for or against any of those specific issues, I merely presented them as issues that Bush & the neo-cons are in favor of.
You also mention "facts". Here are the "facts".
-Military spending has increased dramatically under Bush.
-The Patriot Act was passed under Bush.
-We invaded two countries pre-emptively (meaning without those countries invading or declaring war on us).
-Bush favors a reduction in capital gains taxes and the elimination of inheritance taxes (do you know how much money Bush stands to inherit when pop passes, btw?).
-The national debt could reach $7 trillion by year's end. Just two years ago it was targeted at $5 million at that time by some economists.
I know that 9/11 also happened under Bush but it would be irresponsible to put the blame solely on this administration. I also know that some of these "facts" will be argued as being the direct result of 9/11. One could argue back and forth on that topic all day, but my word on it will be: according to conservatives, isn't laying blame on outside events for your actions supposed to be something that only liberals do?
FNC is smart because they do it in a subtle way. They present both sides while portraying the right side as rational and/or sympathetic. They express outrage over ideologies from the left and especially from events purportedly coming from "the liberals".
I do watch FNC for a good laugh. I take it for what it is: right wing propaganda portrayed as news. I find it stupid when people declare that they will not watch a certain channel, movie, etc. because it is biased or unfair. Just as there are a nation of bonehead conservatives who have ripped into Farenheit 9/11 without ever seeing it, there are a huge group of equally dim witted liberals who rip FNC without ever watching it.
The perfect example is FNC's biggest start, Bill O'Reilly. I give the guy a huge amount of credit for the work he has done journalistically, but on his show he often makes an ass of himself. One episode *I watched* saw O'Reilly boldly state, "I won't watch Farenheit 9/11 because it's left wing propaganda. I wouldn't watch right wing propaganda, either." Memo to Bill O'Reilly: YOU ARE RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA.
As far as specific issues, I presented them. Increased military spending, a reduction of civil liberties to better monitor the domestic population, a cut in capital gains & inheritance taxes, an increase in national debt, etc. In my inital post in the other thread I didn't argue for or against any of those specific issues, I merely presented them as issues that Bush & the neo-cons are in favor of.
You also mention "facts". Here are the "facts".
-Military spending has increased dramatically under Bush.
-The Patriot Act was passed under Bush.
-We invaded two countries pre-emptively (meaning without those countries invading or declaring war on us).
-Bush favors a reduction in capital gains taxes and the elimination of inheritance taxes (do you know how much money Bush stands to inherit when pop passes, btw?).
-The national debt could reach $7 trillion by year's end. Just two years ago it was targeted at $5 million at that time by some economists.
I know that 9/11 also happened under Bush but it would be irresponsible to put the blame solely on this administration. I also know that some of these "facts" will be argued as being the direct result of 9/11. One could argue back and forth on that topic all day, but my word on it will be: according to conservatives, isn't laying blame on outside events for your actions supposed to be something that only liberals do?
nick as a matter of fact o'relly saw moore's movie.
he was invited to the nyc premere.
and there is film of him at the showing.
he was invited to the nyc premere.
and there is film of him at the showing.
Nick Douglas
It is very easy to label someone left wing or right wing propaganda, but please give me an
example(s) of O'Reilly's right wing propaganda.
Fahrenheit 7/11 is full of lies and distortions of the truth in order to promote Michael Moore's fantasy view of the world.
I am glad you brought up Bill O'Reilly. He has a point of view on the conservative side but he also has a point of view on the liberal side as well. Such as his opposition to capital punishment. When O'Reilly gives his opinion, it is based on facts that are substantiated from research by his staff. If the facts are occasionally wrong, he admits it on his program. Michael Moore uses lies & distortions of the truth to promote his fantasy view of the world. Which is Moore's only option because facts do not support his opinions. O'Reilly will have a person with an opposite view on his program and the viewer can make up his mind on who he believes is more accurate.
Now onto your specific issues.
You acknowledged that some of these facts (increase military spending, Patriot Act, rise in national debt) are the direct result to 9/11 (you are damn right) which is exactly what I have been saying.
I take issue on your statement that the "US invaded two countries pre-emptively."
You and Michael Moore are the only ones I know of that consider the invasion of Afghanistan was done pre-emptively after a blatant act of war was committed on the Twin Towers. :lol2
I have a question for you. Where do you get your "un-biased" news? :lol2
It is very easy to label someone left wing or right wing propaganda, but please give me an
example(s) of O'Reilly's right wing propaganda.
Fahrenheit 7/11 is full of lies and distortions of the truth in order to promote Michael Moore's fantasy view of the world.
I am glad you brought up Bill O'Reilly. He has a point of view on the conservative side but he also has a point of view on the liberal side as well. Such as his opposition to capital punishment. When O'Reilly gives his opinion, it is based on facts that are substantiated from research by his staff. If the facts are occasionally wrong, he admits it on his program. Michael Moore uses lies & distortions of the truth to promote his fantasy view of the world. Which is Moore's only option because facts do not support his opinions. O'Reilly will have a person with an opposite view on his program and the viewer can make up his mind on who he believes is more accurate.
Now onto your specific issues.
You acknowledged that some of these facts (increase military spending, Patriot Act, rise in national debt) are the direct result to 9/11 (you are damn right) which is exactly what I have been saying.
I take issue on your statement that the "US invaded two countries pre-emptively."
You and Michael Moore are the only ones I know of that consider the invasion of Afghanistan was done pre-emptively after a blatant act of war was committed on the Twin Towers. :lol2
I have a question for you. Where do you get your "un-biased" news? :lol2
If O'Rilley went why does he keep saying he will not go. And Scott if you think Bush 41 had it going the right way for this country boy have you been brain washed. And when Clinton left office Unemployment was still less then 5%.
And he had 22 million job growth in his 8 years. I don't care if he was lucky or not. The guy we got now is still down over 2.5 million jobs. And his tax cuts are just about shot. If you don't take in what you need to pay your bills what happens Scott. Think about it. How long can you live spending more then you make till your dead broke and lose everything. Sooner or later your not allowed to borrow. Unless you don't mind paying real high interest rates because you are a risk. The cycle is starting.
And he had 22 million job growth in his 8 years. I don't care if he was lucky or not. The guy we got now is still down over 2.5 million jobs. And his tax cuts are just about shot. If you don't take in what you need to pay your bills what happens Scott. Think about it. How long can you live spending more then you make till your dead broke and lose everything. Sooner or later your not allowed to borrow. Unless you don't mind paying real high interest rates because you are a risk. The cycle is starting.
Bush gave the tax cut to the wrong folks. Giving the rich more money does not create jobs. Because when you give the rich money they are not going to go out and buy something with it. You need to give the tax break to the working stiff. The guy who is saving up for a new stove, his car has 150,000 miles on it and he could really need some new clothes but he has a daughter that is starting college and all his money is going to fund that. Give this guy a tax break and he will spend the money. He will buy that new stove that will create jobs for the stove makers. That creates a snowball effect which will spur on the economy. The trickle down theory aint working.
What is helping Bush is the wars and the low interest rates. A lot of working stiffs refinanced to take advantage of the low rates. They bought things with their money and created a few jobs. But that money is gone and rates are on the way up. A lot of working stiffs will find themselves with upside down mortgages as rates rise. They will owe more on the house than the houses are worth. The middle class is in desperate need of tax relief. The rich....well they did pretty good under Clinton too.
What is helping Bush is the wars and the low interest rates. A lot of working stiffs refinanced to take advantage of the low rates. They bought things with their money and created a few jobs. But that money is gone and rates are on the way up. A lot of working stiffs will find themselves with upside down mortgages as rates rise. They will owe more on the house than the houses are worth. The middle class is in desperate need of tax relief. The rich....well they did pretty good under Clinton too.
StevieD said:
naw....they bury it in the sand....thats how they got rich
by the way....the freeze family enjoyed our tax cut....we make somewhat under the 50 grand per year mark....i guess we are either rich or we really didnt get a tax cut....
by the way Steve....how is it fair that 1% pays for 27% of the burden and 5% pays for 50%?
you never do answer that question....seems to me thats a little unfair
Nice article Kdogg. I hope our Conservative friends read it.
Freeze, I don't know where you get those figures and they really don't make any difference to me what they are. Reagan reduced a tax rate of almost 70% on the rich. I will agree that is unfair. But Bush reduced a tax rate that was no where near that. Therefore it was less effective and unnecessary.
Freeze, I don't know where you get those figures and they really don't make any difference to me what they are. Reagan reduced a tax rate of almost 70% on the rich. I will agree that is unfair. But Bush reduced a tax rate that was no where near that. Therefore it was less effective and unnecessary.
StevieD- I remember this has been your consistant stance on tax cuts and to your credit you haven't wavered and make a lot of sense.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005312
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005312
Scotty, it is official. Not only have talked some much sh.it about the pac 1 and its dominance. You have now managed to piss off people on your own team except for mansa musa, whom i am convinced is your alias
