United States Accused Of Desablizing Australia

[Boris Godunov]

Fez, as any Monty Python fan can tell you, participating in an argument isn't just saying "No it isn't!" You have to present facts in support of your position.

Otherwise it isn't an argument, it's just kneejerk antagonism. That's button 1 on your keypad, if you remember...

[Giancarlo]

Edit: I am not in the mood.

I will present this:

I believe in economic progress therefore I hate the democrats. Simple as that. Could there be anything more to it? Nope. The democrats are pretty much against economic progress.

[Boris Godunov]

Fez, then why are you posting at all?

[Giancarlo]

I edited the post.

[Boris Godunov]

Fez, then how do explain the fact that some of America's greatest periods of economic expansion have happened under Democrats? Clinton's economy was everything you should have wanted. And it was FDR who brought about a recovery from the Depression (which was ushered in by Republicans).

Sorry, that just doesn't wash.

[Giancarlo]

Sure, but I can also point out that every time a democrat left office the economy was in recession. I could point that everytime a republican was in power the economy had long period of expansions, such as Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan.

Johnson? Carter? Clinton?

Clinton´s economy? It wasn´t Clinton who was running things but the Federal Reserve. Clinton didn´t even know what he was doing being as stupid as he was. You probably give me the same reason about GWB, but I happen to appreciate him. Also by the time Clinton left the economy was on its way to recession.

And it was FDR who brought about a recovery from the Depression (which was ushered in by Republicans).

Ummm hate to break this to you but it was WWII that ended the Depression not the keynesian "New Deal".

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Fez
Sure, but I can also point out that every time a democrat left office the economy was in recession.

Same thing can be said of Republicans. The one at the end of Eisenhower's term sank Nixon's presidential bid. The one after Nixon is what got Carter. Reagan's was the one that killed Bush Sr.

I could point that everytime a republican was in power the economy had long period of expansions, such as Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan.

Everytime? Hoover? Bush Sr.?

Johnson? Carter? Clinton?

As I said, Carter's was Nixon's residue. Johnson? Don't recall there being a terrible recession in his time. And Clinton...duh, like I said, longets economic expansion in history.

Clinton´s economy? It wasn´t Clinton who was running things but the Federal Reserve. Clinton didn´t even know what he was doing being as stupid as he was.

You don't want to go down this road, because you will have to admit that Reagan was in the same position. And calling Clinton stupid is laughable. He is very smart, agree with him or not. I doubt you will ever be a two-term president of any country. Considering the kinds of logic I've seen you use on these boards, I don't think you have any room to call him stupid.

You probably give me the same reason about GWB, but I happen to appreciate him.

I wouldn't give the same reason to GWB, because he has yet to oversee an economic expansion. In fact, his policies have helped prolong the current recession. You should hate this man. You appreciate his steel tariffs?

I know you appreciate him, because you're a party-driven automaton who is mentally incapable of removing himself from being wedged up the GOP's arse. And that's pretty amazing for a non-U.S. resident!

Also by the time Clinton left the economy was on its way to recession.

Same is true for Eisenhower and Reagan, and would have been for Nixon had the evil bastard not been caught and run out of town.

Ummm hate to break this to you but it was WWII that ended the Depression not the keynesian "New Deal".

Really? Hmmm, I think you'll find ample evidence that the dramatic recovery from the Depression began many, many years before WWII ever began. Unfounded rubbish.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Fez
Edit: I am not in the mood.

I will present this:

I believe in economic progress therefore I hate the democrats. Simple as that. Could there be anything more to it? Nope. The democrats are pretty much against economic progress.

Well at least you PRETENDED to try. That is usupportable. The US does very well economicly with Democratic presidents. It did extremely well for almost the entire Clinton administration. Its having quite a problem under Bush the second and Bush the first didn't do so well either.

Learn some history Fez.

[The Mad Monk]

Ethelred, we didn't think the Democrats were finished before Clinton -- we just thought that Bush was untouchable.

We only thought the Democrats were finished once Clinton handed us both houses of Congress.

[Ethelred]

Ethelred, we didn't think the Democrats were finished before Clinton -- we just thought that Bush was untouchable.

I take you weren't politically aware then. The Republicans acted like they had some sort of god given right to controll both Houses, the Presidency and the then the Supreme Court. You should have heard the disgustingly whiney speach that Senator Bob Dole gave after Clinton won. He made it sound like the voters had betrayed the Republican party.

I was so glad I had allready quit the Republican Party over that appaling fool Greedy Killerwatt that Reagan had as his Secretary of the Interior. I do wonder if he has come to terms with the fact that we are still here and that the Second Coming isn't.

We only thought the Democrats were finished once Clinton handed us both houses of Congress.

The Republicans couldn't even manage to hold on to that. They lost it and it happened because they were becoming intolerent of people that didn't think as the Religious Right wanted them to.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Ethelred


I take you weren't politically aware then. The Republicans acted like they had some sort of god given right to controll both Houses, the Presidency and the then the Supreme Court.

Nah. Both parties have always thought that. Okay, maybe not the 'God given' part.

You should have heard the disgustingly whiney speach that Senator Bob Dole gave after Clinton won. He made it sound like the voters had betrayed the Republican party.

Again, that's order-of-the-day.

I was so glad I had allready quit the Republican Party over that appaling fool Greedy Killerwatt that Reagan had as his Secretary of the Interior. I do wonder if he has come to terms with the fact that we are still here and that the Second Coming isn't.

...hah?

The Republicans couldn't even manage to hold on to that. They lost it and it happened because they were becoming intolerent of people that didn't think as the Religious Right wanted them to.

I felt it had more to do with the successful spinning on the Democrats' part. As it so often does, for both parties.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Again, that's order-of-the-day.

So then, you didn't hear it.

It was beyond bad sportsmenship. Way beyond and the Senate Majority Leader should be above mere bad sportmanship in the first place as he had to work with the incoming President. I have never heard the like before or since so it was NOT the order of the day.

...hah?

Greedy Killerwatt. As Secretary of the Interior he was the highest official, short of the President, in charge of conserving our national resources. He thought the End Was Comming in 2000 and that we had a mandate from god to use up all the natural resources before then. I am not kidding. Thats not to mention all the racist remarks the idiot made that finally got Reagan to can the fool.

It was unconsionable for Reagan to have a man like that in charge of a dogpound much less the most important conservation office in the government. I decided that was a clear indication that Reagan was not fit to be President. His later unconstitutional actions in Nicaragua confirmed that.

I actually voted FOR Reagan. Not just for the lesser of two evils. My mistake.

I felt it had more to do with the successful spinning on the Democrats' part. As it so often does, for both parties.

The man that switched was Senator. Do you really think mere spinning would get him to change parties? Idiots rarely become Senators and changing parties is hard to get away with when re-election comes around. Congressman maybe. There are couple of idiots in the Senate but they seem to have started out smarter and remain in by intertia.

I once actually liked the Republican Party. Then the Right Wing got control. When it returns closer to the middle I may return to the party as well. At present I really can't stand the leaders.

Now if only the Democrats can find someone competent. Gore doesn't qualify anymore than Bush does. That was a bad election. An idiot and a guy that doesn't use the brains he has. Same result in the end. There wasn't even a lesser evil choice.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Same thing can be said of Republicans. The one at the end of Eisenhower's term sank Nixon's presidential bid. The one after Nixon is what got Carter. Reagan's was the one that killed Bush Sr.

If I can recall looking at proper sources Eisenhower had a good decent economic boom, 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.

As I said, Carter's was Nixon's residue. Johnson? Don't recall there being a terrible recession in his time. And Clinton...duh, like I said, longets economic expansion in history.

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.

I wouldn't give the same reason to GWB, because he has yet to oversee an economic expansion. In fact, his policies have helped prolong the current recession. You should hate this man. You appreciate his steel tariffs?

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.

I know you appreciate him, because you're a party-driven automaton who is mentally incapable of removing himself from being wedged up the GOP's arse. And that's pretty amazing for a non-U.S. resident!

**** YOU. You are pretty much the same about those democratic asses who squeal all the time when they can get anything they want. You remind me of somebody, ah yes the corrupt PSOE.

Same is true for Eisenhower and Reagan, and would have been for Nixon had the evil bastard not been caught and run out of town.

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

Really? Hmmm, I think you'll find ample evidence that the dramatic recovery from the Depression began many, many years before WWII ever began. Unfounded rubbish.

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

Thanks for that typical idiot's response.

Oh and this might be an interesting read for somebody brainwashed by the democrapic party:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

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

[The Mad Monk]

Oh, I know who Watt is; I just couldn't figure out why you would lay into him out of the blue like that.

Do you have that speech, by any chance?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Oh, I know who Watt is; I just couldn't figure out why you would lay into him out of the blue like that.

Out of the blue? He was the trigger to my quiting the Republican Party and ample evidence that the Republicans don't always have the best interest of America in mind even when they think they do. He shouldn't have been nominated. He shouldn't have been approved. He should have been thrown out of office when he started selling oil leases that even the OIL COMPANIES thought were a bad idea.

Do you have that speech, by any chance?

Only pieces in my head. I tried to find it once. Those sorts of things aren't exactly easy to find years later. I may be misremembering it as I sometimes do other things that I can't check on. What I remember is the tone more than anything else.

If I tried to find it now I bet all I would get would be Dole vs Clinton in 96 and nothing from 92. Try finding stuff on the Web that was directly from the Reagan Admin. Anything more than a few years old starts to disapear and the older stuff was never put on the WEB in the first place. Its probably in newpaper archives somewhere. The key would be to look for stuff the day of the vote and the week after. I don't there is a set of words that would work on Google for a specific speach from a decade ago. It was off the cuff to TV reporters if I am recalling correctly as opposed to a formal speach to a news conference. So it was more what he really thought as opposed to a formal political speach that often is heavily adjusted to sound better.