LOL, Republican, LOL....
09-04-2008, 02:12 PM
#21
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh, but more Republican rhetoric. What war are we winning? The one that should've never begun...?
How can you honestly be so abrasive and inept as to say we are "winning the war"? I think it's plainly obvious that we are not winning anything. The war on what, Iraq? A war we should have never started to begin with. I certainly don't see Sarah Palin talking about how we are winning the war with Al Qaida, in Afghanistan. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Osama Bin Laden still hiding in a cave somewhere?
Oh, and McCain smashed Obama for being inexperienced and then picks a 2 year Governor from Alaska? I understand and respect John McCain's service to our country, but I don't want another 4 years of Bush/Cheney. McCain is the one who has said he voted with Bush 90% of the time. As for his Maverick campaign, he may have been a Maverick 8 years ago. Now, he has been sculpted by the likes of the Karl Rove's of the oil hungry Republican party.
Nothing against you personally, I just don't agree with the views of the Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin party.
Oh, and McCain smashed Obama for being inexperienced and then picks a 2 year Governor from Alaska? I understand and respect John McCain's service to our country, but I don't want another 4 years of Bush/Cheney. McCain is the one who has said he voted with Bush 90% of the time. As for his Maverick campaign, he may have been a Maverick 8 years ago. Now, he has been sculpted by the likes of the Karl Rove's of the oil hungry Republican party.
Nothing against you personally, I just don't agree with the views of the Bush/Cheney/McCain/Palin party.
09-04-2008, 02:17 PM
#22
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oil hungry Republican party? People are still pushing that line???
Last time I checked Iraq has a 79b surplus from all the oil money they have been making, and we haven't touched it.
As to the war, I do believe we have not had a terrorist attack on american soil since 9/11. I guess if you consider that failure or a bad idea..... not too sure what to tell you.
As to the war, I do believe we have not had a terrorist attack on american soil since 9/11. I guess if you consider that failure or a bad idea..... not too sure what to tell you.
09-04-2008, 03:51 PM
#25
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's odd the war that never should have begun???? I don't recall Obama even being in the Senate
Its easy to oppose a war when you're a state senator.
Given the information provided, the decision was made by a large majority of both parties to invade Iraq. Don't give me that crap about how intelligence was manipulated to support the invasion. Its well documented that Saddam Hussein wanted the outside world to believe he had WMDs. It kept his image of Iraq to be a power in the middle east. It kept Iran off his @ss, and Israel on its toes. He just made a huge error in judgement and didn't think the U.S. would actually invade.
Oil hungry Republicans??? that's moronic. Do you realize even if there were more drilling domestically, all of the oil would hit the global market? Do you know most of the oil from Alaska is exported to other countries? Do you know most of our doesn't even come from the middle east?
BTW, Obama's energy policy has been the Republican policy. Nuclear energy, clean burning coal, increased domestic drilling, oil shale, etc. Guess what one of the biggest obstacles to nuclear energy is?....Harry Reid, the Democrat Senator from Nevada. Congress has decided to store nuclear waste in Nevada but he has adamantly opposed nuclear waste to be stored in his state. Well, guess what? It needs to be stored somewhere. Its the same idiots saying "Not in My Backyard". Sometimes you've got to take one for the team.
Do you remember Jimmy Carter?
Given the information provided, the decision was made by a large majority of both parties to invade Iraq. Don't give me that crap about how intelligence was manipulated to support the invasion. Its well documented that Saddam Hussein wanted the outside world to believe he had WMDs. It kept his image of Iraq to be a power in the middle east. It kept Iran off his @ss, and Israel on its toes. He just made a huge error in judgement and didn't think the U.S. would actually invade.
Oil hungry Republicans??? that's moronic. Do you realize even if there were more drilling domestically, all of the oil would hit the global market? Do you know most of the oil from Alaska is exported to other countries? Do you know most of our doesn't even come from the middle east?
BTW, Obama's energy policy has been the Republican policy. Nuclear energy, clean burning coal, increased domestic drilling, oil shale, etc. Guess what one of the biggest obstacles to nuclear energy is?....Harry Reid, the Democrat Senator from Nevada. Congress has decided to store nuclear waste in Nevada but he has adamantly opposed nuclear waste to be stored in his state. Well, guess what? It needs to be stored somewhere. Its the same idiots saying "Not in My Backyard". Sometimes you've got to take one for the team.
Do you remember Jimmy Carter?
09-04-2008, 04:05 PM
#26
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep -- what happened to the conservation in Fiscal Conservatism?
<center><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Yg7NDtgzu4I/R7zjIT6WPHI/AAAAAAAAAMs/RooIAbHhk1Q/s1600/election1800.jpg"></center><p>
Oh yeah -- lobbyists and big time earmarks happened.
Citing Wikipedia is weak, but here ya go -- the latest economic decline started 20+ years ago and it's not all Carter's fault nutty peanut farmer that he is.
"The Democratic-Republican Party <i>(confusingly renamed, but rather ironic)</i> of Thomas Jefferson supported a weak central government and a more laissez-faire approach than that of Hamilton's rival party, the Federalists. They opposed Hamilton's plan to pay off the debts owed by the states for the expense of the American Revolution, because some of the debt was held by financiers and speculators (rather than the original holders) and because most of the debt was held by northern states. Hamilton passed his legislation and set up taxes to pay the debts (in exchange, he agreed to let Jefferson move the nation's capital to Washington, DC). Jefferson in particular strongly opposed having any national debt, although he relented in 1803 for the sake of the Louisiana Purchase."
"In the mid-1800s, a new fiscal conservative political party emerged, the Republican Party. Unlike the modern fiscal conservatives, these fiscal conservatives were paleoconservative supporters of protectionism and tariffs, similar in some ways to today's Reform Party."
"By the end of Reagan's second term the national debt held by the public ballooned from 26 percent of the GDP in 1980 to 41 percent in 1989."
"The country owed more to foreigners than it was owed, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation."
I know that this was largely due to cold war military spending and hey the Berlin Wall fell after that, but was it worth it to lose such economic might as being the world's top creditor? The start of a slow decline to where our economy is today and a spot we will not recover. Puts us <b>as a country</b> (political affiliations aside) on a similar path to the decline of the British Empire. Not that being rich in Britain sucks that bad, hey those guys got to buy and drive bloody B5 RS4s, but Britain has never recovered its place in the world and that's what we put at risk -- not little short terms dings like more taxes or promiscuous teens.
Oh yeah -- lobbyists and big time earmarks happened.
Citing Wikipedia is weak, but here ya go -- the latest economic decline started 20+ years ago and it's not all Carter's fault nutty peanut farmer that he is.
"The Democratic-Republican Party <i>(confusingly renamed, but rather ironic)</i> of Thomas Jefferson supported a weak central government and a more laissez-faire approach than that of Hamilton's rival party, the Federalists. They opposed Hamilton's plan to pay off the debts owed by the states for the expense of the American Revolution, because some of the debt was held by financiers and speculators (rather than the original holders) and because most of the debt was held by northern states. Hamilton passed his legislation and set up taxes to pay the debts (in exchange, he agreed to let Jefferson move the nation's capital to Washington, DC). Jefferson in particular strongly opposed having any national debt, although he relented in 1803 for the sake of the Louisiana Purchase."
"In the mid-1800s, a new fiscal conservative political party emerged, the Republican Party. Unlike the modern fiscal conservatives, these fiscal conservatives were paleoconservative supporters of protectionism and tariffs, similar in some ways to today's Reform Party."
"By the end of Reagan's second term the national debt held by the public ballooned from 26 percent of the GDP in 1980 to 41 percent in 1989."
"The country owed more to foreigners than it was owed, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation."
I know that this was largely due to cold war military spending and hey the Berlin Wall fell after that, but was it worth it to lose such economic might as being the world's top creditor? The start of a slow decline to where our economy is today and a spot we will not recover. Puts us <b>as a country</b> (political affiliations aside) on a similar path to the decline of the British Empire. Not that being rich in Britain sucks that bad, hey those guys got to buy and drive bloody B5 RS4s, but Britain has never recovered its place in the world and that's what we put at risk -- not little short terms dings like more taxes or promiscuous teens.
09-04-2008, 04:37 PM
#27
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Relevant quote from everyone's favorite Freemason...
<center><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Square_compasses.svg/220px-Square_compasses.svg.png"></center><p>
"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination."
-Mark Twain
So its good to discuss, but don't get overheated 'cos the person you are arguing with likely has no first hand understanding of how politics and macro economics function -- but will never admit to it.
"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination."
-Mark Twain
So its good to discuss, but don't get overheated 'cos the person you are arguing with likely has no first hand understanding of how politics and macro economics function -- but will never admit to it.
