Baldini Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I think we all know there are political conversations we could really get our teeth into here, and God knows, over a beer there's nothing I'd enjoy more, but as has been pointed out before, the majority of this particular website would like to keep it relatively politically neutral, so fair enough.... I dunno why, after all previous debate & when Jaap has created a place specially for this stuff, people keep starting non-m/c topics in this or other innapropriate forum sections. I've no objection to discussing politics or anything else, but if it's put in the right place it's easier to avoid if you don't want it. Can the moderator please move this to "special place for banter etc". Thanks. KB Link to comment
DeBenGuzzi Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Can the moderator please move this to "special place for banter etc". Thanks. KB DONE and am impressed with how civil everyone has been, gee I guess guzzista really are mellow old hippies after all. get out and have some fun before your dead for cry eye Link to comment
GuzziMoto Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I am intrigued by your definition of "success..." Next task: define "is..." "Success" as in at the start of his 8 years, we were in a deep hole, with record national debt and unemployment. After 8 years of the Clinton way, we had successfully paid off most of the debt aquired in the previous 12 years and unemployment was down to a low level. "Is" as in after 8 years of the Bush way we is in a deep hole again. If you don't like the Democratic moral philosophy I can understand. But clearly on a well being of the country philosophy the country has done better under Clinton then it did under Reagan, Bush, or Bush. I don't understand how the Republicans are supposed to be the party of smaller goverment and fiscal responsibility, yet under them the national debt goes up? Link to comment
felix42o Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Yup! I'm with you Jason. We make our own societies by the way we behave. Our politicians are only a reflection of us. The fuss & hope about the Obama victory is reminiscent of Blair's first win here - & what did that bring us? If we want a better world, first look to ourselves & the way we live our lives. KB Great, more of that "personal responsibility" jibberish. Link to comment
gstallons Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 You do know the two Presidents that gave us defecits with numbers i can't count were Lil GB and RR. The party members of the fiscally responsible. I know Bill was a Mac Daddy but he left with people feeling good and money in the bank. Link to comment
jrt Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Great, more of that "personal responsibility" jibberish. Did you sign the requisite forms? Link to comment
gavo Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Great, more of that "personal responsibility" jibberish. You can't be serious" personal responsibility" in this age of blame someone else---anyone else! --unheard of, it will never become popular Link to comment
Skeeve Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 "Success" as in at the start of his 8 years, we were in a deep hole, with record national debt and unemployment. After 8 years of the Clinton way, we had successfully paid off most of the debt aquired in the previous 12 years and unemployment was down to a low level."Is" as in after 8 years of the Bush way we is in a deep hole again. If you don't like the Democratic moral philosophy I can understand. But clearly on a well being of the country philosophy the country has done better under Clinton then it did under Reagan, Bush, or Bush. I don't understand how the Republicans are supposed to be the party of smaller goverment and fiscal responsibility, yet under them the national debt goes up? Your definition is interesting. The economic growth of his first term that you cite was already in swing at the time he took office. I see this all the time, & wonder at it: how economic momentum is taken credit for & attributed to political parties who were voted in after the fact. Clinton did give us the dot bomb; that came at the end of his second term, so it can be fairly attributed to him. The present economic meltdown has come at the end of Dubya's 2nd term, so again, can fairly be laid at his feet to some extent [the fact that some parts of it are directly attributable to Clinton & going back to Carter's administrations, is also undeniable. Complex forces... but as usual, will be emphatically denied by the left side of the aisle. Interesting that their poster boy JFK was somewhere to the right of the present Rep. stance, but that's also conveniently overlooked.] I also love how you've forgotten that Clinton's era of big economic bliss was a direct result of Ronald Reagan's terms and his facing down the Soviet threat. That "peace dividend" didn't come from anything Klinton ever dreamed of! He was too busy selling us out to his Chinese backers to have contemplated anything besides shutting down the unjustified extra military bases to wound the communities that didn't back his election... How anyone can state "...the country has done better under Clinton than it did under Reagan..." is beyond me. Under Reagan [don't forget: second term results, not his dark dark 1st term spent recovering from Carter's watch] the U.S. rebounded to its position as a world leader in virtually every economic area. Don't think for a minute I'm defending Dubya; his time in office has been a huge & frightening disappointment. Under his watch, the U.S. has become a police state, its citizens allowing themselves to be subjected to unreasonable searches to ride public and private transport. Unfortunately, you can bet that the police state TSA will not be abolished by the new regime, but expanded and given its head. Until the supporters of either party realize they're being had and start focusing on what the U.S. is about (liberty) instead of what they want for themselves inDUHvidually (safety), they're only mortgaging their future & selling their descendants into slavery. Link to comment
GuzziMoto Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Your definition is interesting. The economic growth of his first term that you cite was already in swing at the time he took office. I see this all the time, & wonder at it: how economic momentum is taken credit for & attributed to political parties who were voted in after the fact. Clinton did give us the dot bomb; that came at the end of his second term, so it can be fairly attributed to him. The present economic meltdown has come at the end of Dubya's 2nd term, so again, can fairly be laid at his feet to some extent [the fact that some parts of it are directly attributable to Clinton & going back to Carter's administrations, is also undeniable. Complex forces... but as usual, will be emphatically denied by the left side of the aisle. Interesting that their poster boy JFK was somewhere to the right of the present Rep. stance, but that's also conveniently overlooked.] I also love how you've forgotten that Clinton's era of big economic bliss was a direct result of Ronald Reagan's terms and his facing down the Soviet threat. That "peace dividend" didn't come from anything Klinton ever dreamed of! He was too busy selling us out to his Chinese backers to have contemplated anything besides shutting down the unjustified extra military bases to wound the communities that didn't back his election... How anyone can state "...the country has done better under Clinton than it did under Reagan..." is beyond me. Under Reagan [don't forget: second term results, not his dark dark 1st term spent recovering from Carter's watch] the U.S. rebounded to its position as a world leader in virtually every economic area. Don't think for a minute I'm defending Dubya; his time in office has been a huge & frightening disappointment. Under his watch, the U.S. has become a police state, its citizens allowing themselves to be subjected to unreasonable searches to ride public and private transport. Unfortunately, you can bet that the police state TSA will not be abolished by the new regime, but expanded and given its head. Until the supporters of either party realize they're being had and start focusing on what the U.S. is about (liberty) instead of what they want for themselves inDUHvidually (safety), they're only mortgaging their future & selling their descendants into slavery. Not only did we not recover under Reagan, but we suffered for four more years under Bush senior. There was no ray of sunshine at the end of Reagans terms, the only people who did well under him and B.S. (Bush senior) were people who already had money. The lower and middle classes suffered until Clinton. Don't get me wrong, I am not a left wing liberal nut. I am somewhere in the middle of the road. But I come from lower middle class roots and still live there. My family suffered under Reagan. My wifes family suffered under Reagan. Things were good under Clinton. Politics and indescretions (I don't care who is f*ing the president, as long as he isn't screwing us)aside,under Reagan and B.S., debt went up and GNP went down. Under Clinton, the debt went down and the GNP went up. Now we're back in debt and out of work. Will the new president be able to turn things around like Clinton did? I doubt it but I hope so. Link to comment
dlaing Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Oh well, at least Obama's not likely to chase ugly skirts and commit Arkancides while he's in control: there's that much to be said in his favor! Yah, I guess it is better if the skirts are prettier and chase him. Arkancides will be replaced by Palestinogenocides, continuing us down the path towards another 9/11 EDIT Not saying Palestinogenocides didn't occur under Clinton or any recent US President. Nor am I agreeing that Arkancides occurred, just as I can't say the Bushocides definitely happened. But otherwise Obama's intents look great and he is already making positive changes by outlawing torture. I suspect he'll also be weak on gay rights, but nobody is perfect. Apparently fisting is the new cigar in the oval office http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neCIg0BiXbE Link to comment
dlaing Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I am impressed (negatively) by his track record on civil rights; I only hope that he has his hands too full with trying to rescue our nation from its impending economic doom to set us back another 10 years. Obama has the best pre-presidency track record on domestic civil rights of any elected US president (perhaps arguably) ever!!!! (that I know of). What is this bad track record that you are alleging? As for hoping that his hands are too full dealing with economic problems, I trust you are not implying that you are hoping he does not QUICKLY fix the economy. Or are you rooting for his failure?!? Link to comment
Skeeve Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Obama has the best pre-presidency track record on domestic civil rights of any elected US president (perhaps arguably) ever!!!! (that I know of).What is this bad track record that you are alleging? As for hoping that his hands are too full dealing with economic problems, I trust you are not implying that you are hoping he does not QUICKLY fix the economy. Or are you rooting for his failure?!? Don't be daft: any legislator who conveniently overlooks their oath of office to promulgate more gun laws should be impeached for treason. I'm not talking just Presidents, per se: they don't write the laws, Senators & Congresscritters do. Your poster children of Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, et al should literally be dragged thru the streets & hanged for treason: they *know* what they're doing is wrong, but they don't care, their rights aren't in danger - after all, they're part of the problem...er, government! As for Obama quickly fixing the economy, don't hold your breath: it took years to get us here, getting us out won't happen overnight. Now, go back & reread my post above, & this time, pay attention... Link to comment
gstallons Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 The problem we now have reminds me of this story. There are some people in a boat far away from the shore. The boat develops a hole in the hull and starts taking on water. The man sitting over the leak starts complaing about the water. The other passengers respond in unison "it's on your side,that's not our problem". Link to comment
Guest ratchethack Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Change Clusterfest '09 Are we having "change" yet?? The "cowboy days" are over!? http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh...bamas-inaugural How about "spare change"?? Hm. . . . no thanks, just keep the "change". . . Link to comment
John in Leeds Posted January 26, 2009 Author Share Posted January 26, 2009 Change Clusterfest '09 Are we having "change" yet?? The "cowboy days" are over!? http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jh...bamas-inaugural How about "spare change"?? Hm. . . . no thanks, just keep the "change". . . Link to comment
Recommended Posts