Feb 18, 2004--we all owe $23,333.33

[50%Natural]

[QUOTE=Tock]1) You were doing just fine until you got to this point.
Oy vey . . . the National Debt has gone up and down quite radically over the past 35 years. I remember when it hit 500 million. That was quite a thing. Clinton had it down to 1 or 2 Trillion. Today it's 7, and it'll likely double again in another 4 years. When that happens, the gov't will have to borrow lots of money, and as the investors begin to run short of money to lend, competition for the remaining bucks will lead to higher interest rates, which will make it harder for businesses to borrow to run their businesses, which will cut back on jobs, and all sorts of other ills will happen, and the earth will spin off its axis and everyone will look like Michael Jackson. Not a pretty thought.

2) Inflation is something entirely different. I'm not gonna get into this, I gotta go to the gym, but check "Inflation" out elsewhere on the web.

[QUOTE]

Tock, there has not been any dramatic decrease in the national deficeit over the past 35 years. You are so wrong. Maybe 32 years ago there was a slight decrease in the deficeit but in relation to the current problem, it is no where near debatable. Get with it. The debt has been around a lot longer than myself and for a good majority of your life so stop blaming current politics, it's stupid. And I will beg to differ. Inflation is the current value of today's money. The longer one has a debt, the longer inflation keeps up with that debt. Just because you had to go to the gym, don't act like you don't know what inflation is. Here is a copy and paste from dictionary.com

inflation

n 1: a general and progressive increase in prices; "in inflation everything gets more valuable except money" [syn: rising prices] [ant: deflation, disinflation] 2: a act of filling something with air [ant: deflation]


So, a loan, if not repaid at the time will become more valuable. But think back to the times when the deficeit was introduced. The president, regadless of the party, was compelled to spend the money at the time. Thus, a defeict was introduced leading us to current times

[50%Natural]

Just about . Exteme right-wingers always light a fire under me!

Sym

yeah, an extreme non educated left wingers humor me more than you could ever realize.

[Tock]

1) The funny thing is, the people say the same things in each political thread. Its the same thing as moving the EXACT SAME PEOPLE into a different room. Sure the room is different but the people are the same and talking about the same thing.

2) Bring up one thing and it always leads to BUSH and the IRAQi war. It NEVER fails anymore.
Like a funnel. You can pour the liquid anywhere on the funnel but it will always drip down to the same spot and into the same thing.

1) It's a lot like learning French. Ya repeat the same thing over and over, and after a while, folks start catching on. I expect by summer, everyone on this board will be ready to vote for President Tock. Even you, mon petite.

2) Ya, it's funny how Bush is responsible for so much stuff. Lots of jobs are going overseas, the only new jobs created are the ones Halliburton has for folks who don't mind being shot at in Iraq and the 4 slots I'll have open when I open my barber shop next summer, but he didn't do a **** thing to facilitate that . . . quite the contrary.

But that's neither here nor there. Or is it?

--Tock

[50%Natural]

Hurry tock, I'm waiting for some sort of rebutal

[Symian]

yeah, an extreme non educated left wingers humor me more than you could ever realize.

Oops...meant left-wing.

Sym

[bermich]

1) Lots of jobs are going overseas,
--Tock

Yeah. Bush has been president for 3 years and companies are able to just pick up and relocate all their jobs over seas. Something like that takes more than three years to pull off. Just deciding to move jobs over seas takes years. So, Id say that right about when Clinton took office, business's saw how he was gonna screw things up and decided to look overseas for better business matters. By the time Bush got to office was the time the whole process came together.
So how do you blame that on BUSH? Jobs in India and hiring out telephone operators and such to english speaking indians was happening way before Bush was in office. Of course you have an explination for that too.

Everything is so ALL OF A SUDDEN when it comes to Bush. "Since he has been in office" bla bla bla. Jobs, the economy, etc. Yeah 3 years is such a long time. 3 years isnt even enough time to calculate a change in economy or job loss or gain.

What was this thread about anyway? Was this the PEE sitting down or standing up thread???? If it is I think I need to piss all over this thread.

[bermich]

Clinton got it down to 2 trillion??? NEVER. And it would not happen in 8 years time. There is NO WAY. Where do you get this info from and why do you believe it? Because you want to or because you actually think it is true?

2 Trillion dollars from 5 trillion in only 7 years?? How did he do such a thing??? There is aboslutely NO WAY.

[50%Natural]

Bermich, couldn't have summed up my feelings any better. Why is everything all a sudden? It is so stupid to think that the "mistakes or wrong doings" of this adminstration are the sole faults of GWB himself. Wake up!!!!!!!!!!

[Symian]

If it is I think I need to piss all over this thread.

AMEN

[Tock]

1) I just dont get some of you guys,the deficit is what we owe ourselves,

2) the U.S. has no reason to borrow from another country.

3) On the flip side most countries do owe us very large debts and haven't even bothered to start to pay the interest on any of it.

4) If these countries would pay this would get rid of alot of our deficit.

5) As far as G.bush goes,Like it or not he is our President,

6) His welcome to office was a terrorist attack and several other negatives and did what he thought was best.

7) Did we go to war?**** right,if we didn't attacks would have been a yearly event.

8) G.W. doesn't take any ****,

9) it's about time we had a man like that in office,

10) He's a get it done type not a lets talk this out for a few years type.

11) If Gore was in office right now we would be neck deep in suicide bombers and the economy would be gone.

12) We will end up with G.W. for the next four years,

13) I stand behind him 100%

=======================================

1) There is a difference between a DEFICIT and a DEBT.
A deficit is what you get when your yearly income does not match your yearly budget.
A debt is what you incurr when you borrow money to pay your bills.
The US budget deficit this year will be upwards of 500 billion dollars. The US Government will have to borrow $500 million from somewhere to pay the bills. This debt will be added to the other debts incurred from the government spending more money than it has. The grand total of all this borrowing is called The National Debt. Currently it stands at a tad over $7 trillion. Your share as a citizen is $23,333. At 4% interest, the government will have to tax you an additional $944 just to service the debt. Got that much money to spend on interest? Wouldn't you much rather spend that $944 on a couple of decent cycles? Or maybe a weekend with a couple of buxom female reprobates in a romantic wooded cottage? Well, tough luck, 'cause that $944 you could have kept is going to pay interest on the debt.

Next year, I'm sure you'll be happy to know, the Bush Administration intends on borrowing even more, adding to the National Debt, and increasing that interest payment from $944 to over $1000. And it's going to get worse and worse and worse and worse, according to Bush himself, over the next 5 years. Experts outside the White House say that Bush is dreaming. It's going to get much worse and much worse and much worse and much worse and much worse, thanks to the overly optimistic financial projections he's made (telling the unpleasant truth sure wouldn't get him re-elected), and the tax cuts he's granted to the super-rich and corporations who are, if you haven't noticed, moving jobs to India and China and Mexico. But that's neither here nor there.
What is here or there is the fact that as each of Bush's budget deficits push the National Debt higher and higher, taxes go higher and higher to pay for this overspending. Your taxes, my taxes, BDTR's taxes, and your girlfriend's taxes.

AND . . . it is NOT simply what we owe ourselves.

Where do you think the government goes to borrow $7 trillion? It sure ain't your local 1st National Bank. Well, maybe a little bit, but it gets a heckuva lot from China, Europe, and the Middle East. China and the Middle East are awash in money right now, they want a safe place to keep their money, so they buy US Treasury Bonds. Lots of 'em. Trillions of $$$ worth.
Now let me put a pleasant thought in your mind . . . the European Euro is a new currency, and it's looking better and better to foreign investors as a place to buy safe bonds. If the US government pisses off these investors and they suddenly sell 1 or 2 trillion $$$ of their US Treasury bonds and put them into Euro bonds, you can expect the US economy to spiral off its axis and plunge into chaos. Desperate to borrow more money from somewhere, US interest rates skyrocket (like what happened in the Carter Administration). I'm amazed that Bush's unilateralism hasn't prompted them to do this already; they must know how much crap they'll put up with before taking this drastic action. But it's certainly something they're thinking about.

Clinton had to slash the budget to eliminate the National Debt, and it was well on its way to being eliminated. During the Bush Administration, spending went up, taxes went down, the Debt went up, borrowing from the Middle East and China went up, and now those foreigners have more control over the US economy. Next year they'll have even more, and even more after that.
Unless, of course, they move their US Bonds into Euro Bonds and give the US a good thrashing in the process.


2) Yes it does.

3) What countries? There are several countries indebted to the World Bank, which makes major loans to foreign governments. The US spends around $44 billion in foreign aid (your share was $144), most of it going to the madmen in the middle east. That is a gift (actually, a bribe to make them do what we want them to do) and it ain't coming back.

4) Guess again.

5) I don't like it. But that's neither here nor there.

6) I thought his inaugural festivities were pretty good. Lots of parties and etc. Of course, I wasn't there personally . . . did you get some bad sushi?
If you're speaking about the 9/11 tragedy, ya, he did pretty well. It's everything after that where he screwed up.

7) And now that the US has messed things up in Iraq, they're ready for civil war, and Al Queda (sp?) is re-energized, what makes you think there won't be more attacks? I'd be surprised if there weren't any.

8) He bristles when reporters ask him tough questions, then keeps them out of his press briefings. Ya, takes no xxxx, but isn't smart (or honest) enough to tell things the way they are.

9) I disagree. We need presidents who can work with other countries to get things done, not alienate them and piss 'em off. We need presidents who work to strengthen environmental protection, not let corporations increase pollution levels (as he's done here in Texas). We need presidents who use War as a last resort. Not as a way to avenge what Saddam Hussain did to his father, costing over 500 American lives.

10) I better not respond to this one . . .

11) Well, Bush is in office and the US is under constant threat from terrorists, and the economy is in sad shape. I think anyone with two functioning brain cells would have done better.

12) I think you are correct.

13) With your grasp of the issues, I am not surprised.

[Symian]

I disagree. We need presidents who can work with other countries to get things done, not alienate them and piss 'em off. We need presidents who work to strengthen environmental protection, not let corporations increase pollution levels (as he's done here in Texas). We need presidents who use War as a last resort. Not as a way to avenge what Saddam Hussain did to his father, costing over 500 American lives.

I'm sorry but I resent the fact that you think my brothers in the military died so "Bush could avenge what Saddam Hussain did to his father". First of all, what did Saddam do to him? In the first war Bush kicked Saddam's ass!

I don't presume to know everything about everything, because there's a lot behind doors that we never know about. I'm happy that Bush didn't wait for some lagging countries to back us. If he had it would've ended up in a bunch of democratic rhetoric crap. Especially when the lagging counties, Germany, France and Russia, had secret lucrative deals with Iraq. But they sure do want the contracts now, don't they?

You still haven't answered my question. Were you ever in the military?

Sym

[Tock]

1) Clinton got it down to 2 trillion??? NEVER. And it would not happen in 8 years time. There is NO WAY. Where do you get this info from and why do you believe it? Because you want to or because you actually think it is true?

2 Trillion dollars from 5 trillion in only 7 years?? How did he do such a thing??? There is aboslutely NO WAY.

Ok, I double checked, and you're right, it was in the 5 Trillion range. Now it's 7 and growing. Nevertheless, we're still in deep doo-doo, and what's coming next won't be pretty . . .
Also found out that 39% ($2.7 Trillion) of the debt is owned by foreigners. Costs each American upwards of $4000 a year just to service the debt, much less pay it off.

Interesting site with all sorts of info on this topic at: http://brillig.com/debt_clock/
--Tock

[bermich]

In reply to #1. Clinton was not even close to eliminating the debt. I keep reading that and it is all bull****.
In reply to #3 You say we pay so many billion in foreign aid. Well I thought we were supposed to have a president help with foreign relations. Thats what you typed in #9. Apparently when we help with that, you seem to over look it and then in #9 you complain that we dont help with foreign relations. See you answer yes to one question and then no later on only because it is worded differently to show a differnt view.
Its like you are showing us a rubbiks cube. You get all the red side done and show us what a great job you did. But the other sides arent done. Someone asks about the blue side and you say, oh wait. You rearrange the pieces until the blue side is done. But then the red side is all messed up but that doesnt matter cause you only need to show the blue side now. Its called back pedaling or thinking people you talk to have a short term memory and only remember the last statement you try to convey.

Back to #3. Bribes to pay off middle east mad men. What men are these?? The same men we pay to get information from to keep us informed on issues??

Reply to #6. Screwing up everything after. That is ALL opinion perceived by whomever views it the way they feel just.

Reply to #7. A civil war? Who is fighting whom? Or is this more news hear say.
The alqueda is "REENERGIZED" Who the hell asked them that? How do we know they are reenergized? For argument sake, say they are. Dont you feel safer knowing we are mobilized in IRAQ right next to their door step? Or are you one of those people who feel we should leave them alone and they will leave us alone.
You are one of those people who feels we MADE THEM attack us. We provoked them. I wont even get into that one cause I think that is in another thread where I felt like ripping your head off for typing such a thing.

Still on #7. Know how big our country is. It seems real easy to plant bombs everywhere but with our CIA and FBI, we prevent most of it and it isnt even reported in the newspapers to keep panic down. Because you dont hear about all the preventions you dont feel have been numerous attempts to attack us. That is called NARROW MINDED. You only rely on what you hear from the media to base decisions. You cant put things together on your own.

#8 Yeah he does suck when it comes to news briefings and speaking to the public. He does seem like an idiot. He cant answer questions on the spot and makes an ass of himself almost everytime we see him.

#9 The patriot act is a push over the top with the constitution. The fresh forest thing or whatever he calls it is a push over the top allowing the major lumber companies free reign in the forests. Im not happy about either of those. He has been pushing his **** kinda far lately. What countries alienated us? France and Russia? BFD. The UN is a bunch of buero trash that amounted to nothing anyway unless their was an earthquake in some country.
Um. I thought the US was in IRAQ for the oil. Not to avenge Saddam Hussain.


#11. The US is under constant threat from terrorists??? Well no S H I T. What do you propose we do about it?? Should we let Clinton laugh it off and hope they dont do it again. If we are under constant attack, where is the attack at in the US?? I dont see any attacks. That must mean BUSH is doing a good job. If he isnt doing a good job of protecting us, then that would mean the terrorists would be attacking us right now since they are RE ENEGIZED. Once again you play the rubbiks cube game. As long as your side is complete you dont need to show that you messed up the other side you once showed.

The economy is in better shape than when Clinton was in office. In CA 60 percent of small businesss filed bankruptcy. Of course, by the time the BKs were complete, Bush took office and that is where you get your crappy stats from.
The ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY thing that SAVED So Calif from a mini depression was the earthquake. Ask ANYONE. Without the earthquake in 94, half the business's in CA today would not be here. LITERALLY HALF.


Sure BUSH sucks. Sure he is bullheaded and stubborn to a point of his major flaw in life just like his dad. If there was a good democrat to vote for, I just might vote for one. But there isnt. So I will vote for the least suckiest. That being Bush.

[Tock]

1) I'm sorry but I resent the fact that you think my brothers in the military died so "Bush could avenge what Saddam Hussain did to his father". First of all, what did Saddam do to him? In the first war Bush kicked Saddam's ass!

2) I don't presume to know everything about everything, because there's a lot behind doors that we never know about. I'm happy that Bush didn't wait for some lagging countries to back us. If he had it would've ended up in a bunch of democratic rhetoric crap. Especially when the lagging counties, Germany, France and Russia, had secret lucrative deals with Iraq. But they sure do want the contracts now, don't they?

3) You still haven't answered my question. Were you ever in the military?

Sym

1) No need to be sorry. Your opinion is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. That being said, Bush went to war with insufficient reason. Yes, Hussain was (and is) a monster that the world is better off without, but there are other countries similarly afflicted, and no one bothers with them. Personally, just because people in a country put up with an abusive dictator isn't enough reason for US troops to go to war. America isn't the world's policeman.
And yes, it absolutely sucks when US troops die in stuff like this. Had Bush exercised a bit more patience and waited another 30 days for the weapons inspectors to finish their job, France would have (according to its own statement) changed its vote in the United Nations to go to war against Iraq, and Bush wouldn't have had to fight this thing alone, but with lots of UN troops. Bush arrogantly said he wasn't going to wait, then set things in action, and Iraq is in the mess it's in today because of it. Stupid foreign policy. Too xxxx unilateral.

2) whatever . . .

3) I seem to get in trouble when I answer this question, but I will anyway, risking someone's ire (I forget who usually complains) about "always bringing up the GAY issue. But here goes.
Yes, I was in the USAF for 1 year, 10 months, and 5 glorious days. When I enlisted, I didn't know my ass from a hole in the ground (which explains teh problems I had playing golf), and had no idea what "gay" was. After a few months being around lots of other guys, it dawned on me that I am. To make a long story short, the military (back then, anyway) **** on ya if they found out you were gay, so I went to a lawyer and he advised me to volunteer the info. So I did, and they kicked me out. Yep, kicked me out for absolutely no other reason than that I am gay.
What really pisses me off about that is, I used to be a military policeman in the K9 unit. Trained dogs. Police AND sniffer dogs. I had been selected for some experimental small dog project, and they gave me a little Cairn Terrier to train for drugs. And he was great. He could find stuff hidden at the top of flag poles. Anyway, after they kicked me out, they couldn't find anyone to work with the little dog, so instead of tracking me down to see if I wanted him, or giving him to Customs, they killed him. Yep, killed my **** dog just because I am gay.
You have no idea how much that pisses me off. The military is full of gd idiots.

Anyway, to answer your question, yes I was in the military, I liked it a lot, seemed well suited for it, and would have liked to have made a career out of it. But I f'in couldn't.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr . . .

--Tock

[Tock]

Sure BUSH sucks. Sure he is bullheaded and stubborn to a point of his major flaw in life just like his dad. If there was a good democrat to vote for, I just might vote for one. But there isnt. So I will vote for the least suckiest. That being Bush.

Fine. Go ahead and vote for Bush. You can pee in your pants for all I care. Just don't kill my gd dog . . .
It's late and I'm going to bed . .
-Tock

[bermich]

Fine. Go ahead and vote for Bush. You can pee in your pants for all I care. Just don't kill my gd dog . . .
It's late and I'm going to bed . .
-Tock

Howd you know I was planning to kill your dog??

[Symian]

1)Personally, just because people in a country put up with an abusive dictator isn't enough reason for US troops to go to war. America isn't the world's policeman.

2)Had Bush exercised a bit more patience and waited another 30 days for the weapons inspectors to finish their job, France would have (according to its own statement) changed its vote in the United Nations to go to war against Iraq.

3)Anyway, to answer your question, yes I was in the military, I liked it a lot, seemed well suited for it, and would have liked to have made a career out of it. But I f'in couldn't.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr . . .

--Tock

1)Even though I would love to agree with you on this one I can't. I wish we could close our borders and let the world fend for itself, but we can't. Even when we do we always end up getting pulled into it somehow whether its the Korean War, Vietnam, Kosovo, Gulf War I, Somalia, I could go on.

2)Yeah, right! Hindsight is always 20/20.

3)No offense, but this explains your liberal views.

Sym

[Carlos_E]

Yet your inability to contribute speaks volumes...laugh on the side because you know what? You weren't picked to join the team. Just hang out, it's cool.

I don't contribute to political threads because it's pointless. I will not change your political views nor will you change mine. They're nothing but a pissing match. I'll keep my urine to myself, thanks.

Sorry for the interruption ... let the urine flow!

[hoss827]

I say Bermich should run for president...

As said earlier in the threads...this always turns into a GWB and/or Iraq discussion...look what happend!

[Gaylord Focker]

1)Even though I would love to agree with you on this one I can't. I wish we could close our borders and let the world fend for itself, but we can't. Even when we do we always end up getting pulled into it somehow whether its the Korean War, Vietnam, Kosovo, Gulf War I, Somalia, I could go on.

Not to flame...but could you explain the neccesity for the US to be in any of these wars...I personally feel if others want to blow the **** out of each other let em...what exactly was the direct threat to the US in those situations...

[50%Natural]

I don't contribute to political threads because it's pointless. I will not change your political views nor will you change mine. They're nothing but a pissing match. I'll keep my urine to myself, thanks.

Sorry for the interruption ... let the urine flow!

Actually carlos, sorry I was kinda rude with that reply. I get a little too serious with these political threads but they are fun. Tock makes em that way

[tryingtogetbig]

Not to flame...but could you explain the neccesity for the US to be in any of these wars...I personally feel if others want to blow the **** out of each other let em...what exactly was the direct threat to the US in those situations...

That's a whole different discussion. But, presidents from both parties have contributed to all of these war efforts.

peace,

ttgb

[bermich]

We already tried to close our borders and let the world fend for itself. It was called the beginning of WWII. We tried to stay out of that, but we still got sucked in.

[Tock]

I don't contribute to political threads because it's pointless. I will not change your political views nor will you change mine. They're nothing but a pissing match. I'll keep my urine to myself, thanks.

Sorry for the interruption ... let the urine flow!

Of course they're pointless, just like tennis or football is. But for folks that are into the lively give-and-take of exhanging opinions and pointing out the deficits in other's reasoning, just like slamming a tennis ball back and forth, it can be lots of fun.
It ain't for everybody, though. Some folks prefer poker.
--Tock

[Tock]

3)No offense, but this explains your liberal views.

Sym

What Liberal views?
--Tock

[bermich]

Of course they're pointless, just like tennis or football is. But for folks that are into the lively give-and-take of exhanging opinions and pointing out the deficits in other's reasoning, just like slamming a tennis ball back and forth, it can be lots of fun.
It ain't for everybody, though. Some folks prefer poker.
--Tock

Uh, I kinda see reasoning behind that. Wow.

So you like watching poker on TV. Half an hour to watch the guy light his cigarete

[tryingtogetbig]

I don't contribute to political threads because it's pointless. I will not change your political views nor will you change mine. They're nothing but a pissing match. I'll keep my urine to myself, thanks.

Sorry for the interruption ... let the urine flow!

Yeah but since Tock likes to see himself type...it is good therapy for him.

[markas214]

Explain please markus, what i'm wrong in thinking please. I don't have a problem at all discussing politics with you as you look like a scmuck everytime you go at it...bring it on, I love discussing anything that would require something above an 11th grade education with you. Simple area to address would be the prescription drug bull**** you speak of. Lets analyze that for a sec. Who implementated these policies in the first place? Look at the party who felt the need to jump into the lives of the average citizen in the first place...

You usually have something more intelligent to say. Instead you chose to try insulting me. Here is a fact, Clintons 2000 military budget request was 288 billion. In contrast Bush's 2001 was 305 billion. Not exactly a huge increase.Also do you still want to accuse Clinton of underfunding the military when Bush declared during his campaign that he would increase military spending only 42 billion in 9 years beginning in 2001. That's only 2% a year adjusted for inflation. It wasn't until 2002 post 9/11 that Bush started requesting more money. Why? Because we were attacked. Otherwise I would venture to guess he would have continued spending close to what Clinton did. Oh and Clinton paid cash. He didn't put it on our kids credit cards as Bush is so fond of doing.
So, saying the Dems instituted the welfare policies is justification for Bush borrowing 500 billion for a prescription benefit. Also his tax cuts for his rich cronies will be shouldered by generations to come. Bush is doomed to one term just as was his pappy. He is disliked and mistrusted more and more each day.
Now if you want to dimiss me as uneducated or a liberal you may. That way you can avoid a real discussion. Or just parrot something Rush says or Fox news reports if you wish. I can't wait until November when all you psuedo-conservatives start bad mouthing President Kerry. You guys are such poor losers. Just like little kids with all the crying you do. I also enjoy these threads even though neither one of us will change our opinions maybe we can get our points across to the less rigidly opinionated among us.

[jammergsxr]

If Tock knew 25% of what he thought he knew,it would almost be worth breaking it down but I dont have the time nor the desire to explain it to such a confused young man.

[markas214]

I'm sorry but I resent the fact that you think my brothers in the military died so "Bush could avenge what Saddam Hussain did to his father". First of all, what did Saddam do to him? In the first war Bush kicked Saddam's ass!

I don't presume to know everything about everything, because there's a lot behind doors that we never know about. I'm happy that Bush didn't wait for some lagging countries to back us. If he had it would've ended up in a bunch of democratic rhetoric crap. Especially when the lagging counties, Germany, France and Russia, had secret lucrative deals with Iraq. But they sure do want the contracts now, don't they?

You still haven't answered my question. Were you ever in the military?

Sym

My nephew just came back from 10 months in Mosul (82nd Airborne), He calls it a war for GWs dad and said "nobody likes him" refering to the way his fellow soldiers view Bush. I will guarentee you none of his "brothers" wanted to die for GWs daddy's vendeta against Saddam. Now he and his comrades were good men and soldiers so they went but not in the spirit of those who volunteerd after Pearl Harbor.

[Tock]

If Tock knew 25% of what he thought he knew,it would almost be worth breaking it down but I dont have the time nor the desire to explain it to such a confused young man.

That's as unspecific and all-encompassing a criticism as I've ever seen.
And, I daresay, unfounded as well.

[bermich]

In reply to Markus about Bush. I cant tell whether you are helping Bush with the statements about his military spending or if you are bashing on him. You say he did not up the spending then you go around and say that is a bad thing. Then you say Clinton upped it and Bush upped it a little more and that was also a bad thing.
Then you say that Bush didnt up military spending before 911. Is that a complaint or are you trying to help him??? You are trying to trick us into thinking you are on both sides you clever bastard. Im onto you.

About 911. You say he didnt up the military until then. So. And good for him. If he upped it before then, the demos would have complained about it. And he wasnt even in office for 2 years yet. Give the guy a break. He cant increase everything in 2 years. Give him time.

[mfenske]

Thought I'd add a funny Bush joke I saw on Letterman the other night. Something to the effect of " There is talk that President Bush had a nose job" then Dave said "Well, he finally created a job while in office". Too funny. Mark

[lloyd_cannon]

I'd just like to say tock got embarrased on this thread. Every narrow minded ill based lie was vanquished. Besides, he said football was pointless I don't think he is American or a man to say the least.

[markas214]

In reply to Markus about Bush. I cant tell whether you are helping Bush with the statements about his military spending or if you are bashing on him. You say he did not up the spending then you go around and say that is a bad thing. Then you say Clinton upped it and Bush upped it a little more and that was also a bad thing.
Then you say that Bush didnt up military spending before 911. Is that a complaint or are you trying to help him??? You are trying to trick us into thinking you are on both sides you clever bastard. Im onto you.

About 911. You say he didnt up the military until then. So. And good for him. If he upped it before then, the demos would have complained about it. And he wasnt even in office for 2 years yet. Give the guy a break. He cant increase everything in 2 years. Give him time.

Give him time? He only has 10 months left. Then back to raising tumble weeds on his Texas ranch. Oh, I'm sorry you don't understand. Try reading it a few times. The points I was making in my post were, Clinton's spending was on par with Bush and Clinton didn't put my kids deeper in debt doing it. Bush is a puppet of the financial interests who put him in office. Don't forget a majority of Americans voted for Gore. The Supreme Court made sure the electoral votes went GWs way. People are still angry over this. Bush will not be reelected!

[50%Natural]

You usually have something more intelligent to say. Instead you chose to try insulting me. Here is a fact, Clintons 2000 military budget request was 288 billion. In contrast Bush's 2001 was 305 billion. Not exactly a huge increase.Also do you still want to accuse Clinton of underfunding the military when Bush declared during his campaign that he would increase military spending only 42 billion in 9 years beginning in 2001. That's only 2% a year adjusted for inflation. It wasn't until 2002 post 9/11 that Bush started requesting more money. Why? Because we were attacked. Otherwise I would venture to guess he would have continued spending close to what Clinton did. Oh and Clinton paid cash. He didn't put it on our kids credit cards as Bush is so fond of doing.
So, saying the Dems instituted the welfare policies is justification for Bush borrowing 500 billion for a prescription benefit. Also his tax cuts for his rich cronies will be shouldered by generations to come. Bush is doomed to one term just as was his pappy. He is disliked and mistrusted more and more each day.
Now if you want to dimiss me as uneducated or a liberal you may. That way you can avoid a real discussion. Or just parrot something Rush says or Fox news reports if you wish. I can't wait until November when all you psuedo-conservatives start bad mouthing President Kerry. You guys are such poor losers. Just like little kids with all the crying you do. I also enjoy these threads even though neither one of us will change our opinions maybe we can get our points across to the less rigidly opinionated among us.

Actually, I don't find you uneducated, I find you mislead. I won't have a problem at all if Kerry is elected. Fine have a good time with it. I think he is a good democratic representative. I find myself middle of the road but will vote conservative over liberal. My only problem I have, and I've stated this numerous times, is that when people bad mouth a current administration, you have to look at why he is forced to do some of the things he was in the first place. Just wait, if Kerry is elected, and we enter a recession era and people blame kerry for it, i'll sit here and say the same thing. It is unavoidable, the president can't control the economy no matter how much you think he can. He can try to influence it by passing bills, tax cuts or whatever, but the investors and foreign markets determine where our economy goes. That is it. I don't argue for anything else but that. The bottom line is just that. A president can lead us through bad times or what not, but really, he has no control over how the market does. That is what determines what direction the economy/country takes. Now, I have never argued that I like that Bush invaded, or spent lots of money, I only defend him doing it because he was forced to do that. But liberal minded people can argue all they want that bush sucked or whatever, I know that mainstream America is not educated to realize certain things. That is the pity, the media can come out with graphs and charts and other crap that tries to tell the tale of an entire administration and people will jump all up on it like you and Tock like to do. Pull out figures that don't tell jack ****. They really don't. They say one thing and it is up to you and I to interpret what that one thing is and that is where the debating such as we have done comes in. Bush rolled with the punches and that was all he could have ever done or Gore for that matter...

[50%Natural]

Give him time? He only has 10 months left. Then back to raising tumble weeds on his Texas ranch. Oh, I'm sorry you don't understand. Try reading it a few times. The points I was making in my post were, Clinton's spending was on par with Bush and Clinton didn't put my kids deeper in debt doing it. Bush is a puppet of the financial interests who put him in office. Don't forget a majority of Americans voted for Gore. The Supreme Court made sure the electoral votes went GWs way. People are still angry over this. Bush will not be reelected!

Who still talks about the electoral votes anymore? I haven't honestly heard anything about that in a long while...I'm curious?

[Carlos_E]

Besides, he said football was pointless I don't think he is American or a man to say the least.

Football sucks ass!

That is my contribution to this thread.

[50%Natural]

Football sucks ass!

That is my contribution to this thread.

Nice Los

[jammergsxr]

That's as unspecific and all-encompassing a criticism as I've ever seen.
And, I daresay, unfounded as well.

I'll break it down for ya,Many of your previous statements and facts are untrue with no proof to back them.You post so called facts that are 75% B.S. or you surround them with large words to try and create an illusion of someone who knows his ****.So you are a great political speaker and I see a future in it for ya.If you cant dazzle them with brilliance,Baffle them with bull****!