United States Accused Of Desablizing Australia

[The Mad Monk]

There you go again!

As bad as Watts was, and as important as he was to your leaving the Republican party, neither has much if anything to do with what impact Clinton had on the Republican party.

Hence, 'out of the blue'.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
There you go again!

As bad as Watts was, and as important as he was to your leaving the Republican party, neither has much if anything to do with what impact Clinton had on the Republican party.

Hence, 'out of the blue'.

Not out of the blue. It was an aside intended to show that I was a Republican and then learned better.

Besides Watt is always worth mentioning when someone is claiming the Republicans are better than Democrats. The Right Wingers like to pretend that the Left Wing IS the Democratic Party so I like to bring in the wackos that the Repulicans have put in high office.

Besides Reagan is still ahead on convictions. 29 to 1.

The reason Bush is President is the same reason that Clinton won. The economy was down at the time of the election and for a bit before. The party that is in almost looses under those conditions. He barely won even with that helping him.

[Verto]

Clinton wasn't responsible for the economic boon. The repression that occurred under Bush I. was already coming around towards the end of his administration. Most people didn't know this, and that was one of the reasons he lost the election.

Reagan said this: "Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses HIS."

Carter said that inflation and gas prices were all just something we had to learn to live with. He had his misery index. He was well intentioned, maybe, but incompetent.

Reagan cut taxes; he ended the Keynesian theory that had been used and replaced it. Inflation dropped, people could afford home mortgage rates, and people on welfare were obligated to work. People were getting richer. Remember the Disappearing Middle Class? They were moving on up.

Besides that, he reversed the Soviet's expansion and ultimately forced them to commit suicide.

Also, it is true about Watts. Reagan even talked with some ministers about the Second Coming, Armageddon, and possibly using Revelations to predict the future. But he never used it to dictate policies.

[DinoDoc]

You mean recession.

[KrazyHorse]

I tend to believe he means what he said.

[Giancarlo]

Ah yes the Carter misery index... isn't that where he added the inflation and unemployment together in the 1977 elections it was? He did that to criticize Ford. Well... I wouldn't even want to think what the misery factor was in 1980 when Carter left and tried to run again. Infact he never brought up in that election.

And to prove Verto's point:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html - Libertarian Source... beat that you democratic hotshots!

[Verto]

It could work both ways.

Of course, if I was perfect, you would be bowing to me. Good thing I'm not perfect.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Fez
If I can recall looking at proper sources Eisenhower had a good decent economic boom

Yes, but at the end of his 2nd term there was a recession, and that helped Nixon lose the 1960 Presidential race.

and so did Nixon (though that one was shorter lived). And during Carter's regime there was double digit inflation and unemployment and a deep recession.

The recession in Carter's admin was the cicular downturn from Nixon's boom.

Clinton was not responsible for that. And you know what Presidents are not responsible for the economy at all, the investors and federal reserve are. All Presidents can do is cut taxes and other minor things.

So you admit your initial post was a load of bull****, since you accused Democratic presidents of being bad for the economy. If Democratic presidents can't get credit for their booms, neither can Republican.

You are the biggest bull****er I have ever seen. Bush is trying to make the recession as short as possible such as the tax cuts. Only a dumb idiot would argue against tax cuts.

When did I mention tax cuts?

**** YOU. You are pretty much the same about those democratic asses who squeal all the time when they can get anything they want.

I believe it is the GOP who takes the cake in this regard. Ethelred already brought up Dole's whiney senate speech. And let's not forget Buchanan's glorious 1992 speech at the GOP convention. You really don't mind being associated with a party that tolerates that kind of hatemongering?

You remind me of somebody, ah yes the corrupt PSOE.

Well, you remind me of a clueless 17 year old who knows jack sh*t about which he speaks. DING DING! Good answer! Good answer!

Nixon is one of the greatest leaders ever to walk. He might of been paranoid but besides he was good.

Now we see the bull**** going off the charts!

Nixon wasn't our worst president, but to deify him as some sort of gift to the world is ridiculous. Way to go into hyperbole!

You are messing up the facts as any democrat would do.

Ah yes, Republicans are sooo truthful. Just look at Rush Limbaugh, he wouldn't lie, would he? Or Reagan (Mr. "I don't recall")? Or Nixon?

It is clear the depression turned into a recession (a milder period of negativity) during the later 30s and was finally ended by the increase in production in the 40s (when car companies were producing tanks instead of cars) Roosevelt didn't even really have the support of the congress before the war.

America began a noticable recovery from the depression in 1934. This recovery continued until a temporary contraction in May of 1937, but that lasted only briefly. By 1938 the U.S. was well into recovery again, long before involvement in the war. The war certainly accelerated the growth, but to assert that Roosevelt's economic policies had nothing to do with the recovery is a bald-faced lie.

Certainly the American people thought highly of him, considering his three reelection wins.

Thanks for that typical idiot's response.

Thank you for proving all I've said before about your being a knee-jerk automaton of the GOP.

Don't turn down CATO as they are actually more libertarian.

Bull**** again. They are a conservative mouthpiece and you know it. Here, let me get you a page from the New Republic and see how you trust it...

Fez, one day you'll be an adult and realize that this unswerving loyalty to a political party is an empty, meaningless existence. The GOP is a soulless organization, as is any political party with power. To devote all this mindless obedience to it reminds me, frighteningly, of the Hitler Youth. Keep in mind that it has been Republicans who have had the worst problems with scandal and corruption, not Democrats. 29 members of the Reagan administration jailed (the most in history). Are the Democrats perfect and wonderful? Not by a longshot. No one's asking you to like the Democrats, either. But the Republicans aren't better, and in many ways (corporate whoring, hatred and bigotry) are much worse. Wouldn't you rather think for yourself than have Rush Limbaugh do it for you?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Verto
Reagan cut taxes; he ended the Keynesian theory that had been used and replaced it.

With massive deficits that WE are still paying off.

Inflation dropped, people could afford home mortgage rates, and people on welfare were obligated to work. People were getting richer. Remember the Disappearing Middle Class? They were moving on up.

The cause is related to the one that destroyed Jimmuh's Election chances. Oil prices. When Jimmuh got into office the oil prices were climbing rapidly which was the cause of the inflation. Raising oil from a few bucks a barrel to 40 dollars couldn't do anything except cause inflation and damage to the world economy.

The cost of oil went back down some during the Reagan administration thus ending the main cause of inflation. This was not due to some brilliant manuever by Reagan either but at least partly due to the avarice of Saddam Hussein and his need to sell oil to pay for his war with Iran.

Besides that, he reversed the Soviet's expansion and ultimately forced them to commit suicide.

He didn't reverse it. It had allready stopped. What he did do was con them into spending more than they could afford to try to keep up. Some of it was a clever disinformation campaign and on this I commend the Reagan Administration. However its US that are still paying for that. I don't mind the expense considering the alternative but lets stop pretending that it wasn't Reagan that generated the massive deficits with his vodoo economics.

He cost over 100 billion with his idiotic deregulation of the S&Ls as well. He and Bush hid the crissis untill after Bush was elected which increased the cost of the disaster.

Also, it is true about Watts. Reagan even talked with some ministers about the Second Coming, Armageddon, and possibly using Revelations to predict the future. But he never used it to dictate policies.

Reagan wasn't exactly a religious man. He wasn't the one pushing family values either. In fact the people that screamed against Bush as being a liberal in comparison to Reagan were spouting nonsense. Reagan was always more liberal in action than in speach. Less so as president than as governor though. He talked conservative but usually was pragmatic when it came time to act. Usually. Then again vodoo economics wasn't in the least bit conservative. Spending what you haven't got is hardly a conservative thing to do.

Guess who signed California's law that legalized abortions?

Reagan.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Bull**** again. They are a conservative mouthpiece and you know it.

I always thought that they were a libertarian mouthpiece.

[Ethelred]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html - Libertarian Source... beat that you democratic hotshots!

Beat what? That site is about the worst one you could post to support you. Its a crackpot site. The Cato Institute uses distorted English to hide things. They use bogus terms to describe themselves as Classical Liberals. There is NOTHING on that site that even hints of liberalism. Its a hidebound, closed mind, radical conservative site that even tries to pretend the gold standard make sense and that taxes should be volontary.

There isn't enough gold in the world to support the US economy much less the word economy. Volontary taxes is a sure road to chaos. We tried some of the stuff they spout a long time ago. The first US government failed and it DID follow much of the crap on that site. The Articles of Confederation were a dismal failure and if the Cato Insane Asylum was to have its way we would do the same stupid failed things again.

[Giancarlo]

Boris is foaming at the mouth again with ****ing bald assertion lies.

[Giancarlo]

And btw fools, CATO IS libertarian so stop with this bull****. Pardon my language but I am tired of these lies and stupid remarks.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Fez
with ****ing bald assertion lies.

Me:

Roosevelt's economic policies had nothing to do with the recovery is a bald-faced lie.

Isn't it adorable how he mimics the same language you use to expand his vocabulary of baseless, empty accusations?



Fez, I presented facts to you, and they are supported by an argument. Cato institute is conservative. They may have a libertarian bent, but they have always been a conservative publication.

At any rate, a libertarian org is, of course, going to be more gung-ho about supply-side economics, because libertarians want to get rid of taxes entirely. They'll say anything to do so.

It's interesting to note that even the two men who founded the theory of supply-side later recanted and called it what it was: bull**** economics.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Fez
And btw fools, CATO IS libertarian so stop with this bull****. Pardon my language but I am tired of these lies and stupid remarks.

Cato is what I said it was. That is exactly what a radical libertarian is, STUPID. Private Police ONLY. Privite schools ONLY. STUPID mindless self interest and pure unadulterated rapacious greed is what it is. Enlightened self-interest is what it isn't.

There is no excuse for an inteligent rational thinking person to get sucked into something as narrow minded and self-centered as radical libertarianism.

Can you tell I am sick of Libertarians pretending to have the best interests of the US at heart? The only thing they care about is their wallet when it gets down to policy and past the platitudes. Fez, surely you aren't that desperate to avoid taxes?