Who'll be the better president?

[DaMulta]

LOL very true

Most of the time I do not drop the F bomb here even when I can. I do drop it when I feel that it is needed.

If you look at my track record at techpowerup most of the time I will #%@%@#% the words.

There is a time and a place for when it is needed to be said IMO.

 

[CyberDruid]

I have to take issue with anyone saying that we needed to be in Vietnam or that the Vietnamese wanted us there. That's just plain ordinary Horse Shit. It's not even Bull shit. Read a GODDAMN BOOK once in a while.

Iraq is our generation's Vietnam.

It's that simple.

 

[DaMulta]

That's why we are a republic and not a democracy: Majority rules with rights of the minority.

And I say that the rights of the Majority are being controlled by who is on top(The minority with all the money and control).

Quite simply, because the Consititution doesn't mandate that they balance the budget.

Tell me this, if everyone comes to collect what we owe, what is going to happen?

Over half of US spending goes to Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare. Both of those programs were authored by Democrats. Both of them combined pose the largest fiscal burden in human history. Both were founded over 30 years ago. Our debt is almost entirely Democrats to blame. I blame the Republicans for not trying harder to fix it being all "conservative" and what not.

Both are good programs. We should stop taking money OUT OF THEM. It was Ronald Regan that made employers double what you pay in to fix the problem. We may need to do that again.

And your party want to give those programs to us individuals the right to F it up on our own....The program was put in place to protect us from ourselves. If we have it back a lot of people are going to end up with noting when it comes time for them to use them.

It doesn't justify the beginning but the beginning, today, is irrelevant. Having people there justifies ending it in victory, not defeat.

We had a reason to go to Vietnam and a reason to finish it but, just like today, damn Democrats wanted it to end just because their stomachs are too weak for war. Vietnam, because of the public opinion, is the largest and deepest scar on the USA.

It could also mean that we need to mind our own damn business when needed as well. Even Bush has said that BEFORE he was President and our Commander and Chief.


I do believe we need to be in Afghanistan, and if we are fighting a war we should be more like Israel and what they did over two people. What do we do if two of our people are taken today.........yep that's it. What party has had the control to take action like that right now, and has for the last 8 years?


And to think that Democrats don't start any wars lol. Look at what Clinton did......there is a time and a place, and a right war to be fighting. We all have different views on this, and that's what makes us great is because we get to pick on what view we have.

 

[DaMulta]

Who is the conservatives again?

 

[laszlo]

any good?

yes ;you can watch on youtube also;even obama and mccain are in

 

[btarunr]

• The tempers are high in this thread, people are resorting to name-calling. Pray why? What good is it going to do to you calling someone something? Isn't it better you make you point without it?
• Please reduce swearing, I understand you're taking this debate seriously, and you should be (its your country, you pwn it), but please let's not get too emotional/passionate about things
• If there's a PUP (potentially useless post), please take the liberty to report it. Due to the sheer number of posts (per day) in this thread, you can make things easy for everyone by keeping things civil, or report anything that isn't, it makes my job a little easier to babysit this thread (though I expected you all wouldn't need someone to babysit it (the way posts earlier down the thread were (didn't require babysitting))).
• Do not embed flash-videos, provide links to it

 

[DaMulta]

I do must admit I require babysitter from time to time

If u lived here btarunr. You would see that these subjects are being written about here, are talked about the same way person to person to here. It's not that we are fighting. It's just how we talk about it

I'll take note on what you have said tho. You have the rights here, not me

 

[CyberDruid]

Who is the conservatives again?

Glad you posted that chart. It should make it clear as day what's been going on and what needs to change.

 

[btarunr]

I do must admit I require babysitter from time to time

Oh yes you we do

If u lived here btarunr. You would see that these subjects are being written about here, are talked about the same way person to person to here. It's not that we are fighting. It's just how we talk about it

...which is why I'm being my flexible best, I agree this is a debate that requires your opinion, and for this reason, this thread has survived lock time and again. We're convinced this thread doesn't deserve a lock, and hence we're trying hard to make sure it stays that way (unlocked) please help us accomplish that. Not all people in this thread are taking things the way they should be taken.

 

[laszlo]

calm down people you don't have any power even if you vote...

a dead terrorist..:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouDRDzqTu0M

 

[DaMulta]

@Damulta

The same goes for "welfare" people. We've all seen it. The family that lives in a trailer, drives a Cadillac and gets a ton of government assistance. While we may think those people have the same legal rights as everyone else most people do not consider them to be equal in a more general or across the board sense.
.

What about that guy that is down on his luck and needs some help to get back on his feet, and make us more tax money?

Why do we need to let our own people suffer, and then tell the rest of the world that's not the right thing to do?

 

[Bigjohn]

Who is the conservatives again?

Hmm.
Check who was in CONGRESS during those years. Presidents can propose policy and veto bills, but CONGRESS spends the money. You'll find that in your copy of the constitution.
http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html
Democrats controlled the huge increases in spending on almost every line of that chart...

 

[CyberDruid]

Hmm.
Check who was in CONGRESS during those years. Presidents can propose policy and veto bills, but CONGRESS spends the money. You'll find that in your copy of the constitution.
http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html
Democrats controlled the huge increases in spending on almost every line of that chart...

That has nothing to do with the Trillions in debt. Almost all the war spending has been outside the loop of congressional approval in the form of "Emergency Allotments". And that's a fact. I will fault Congress for not having ther balls to stand up to Bush and his advisors.

Congress did not put us in this hole: you can thank GW Bush for that one. In fact Bush and the Fed have bullied Congress into spending yet another Trillion right as he is getting out of office. You can see how well the bail out is working.

GWB has singlehandedly bancrupted out nation. It's not a Democratic Congress spending the money...it's Bush and his stupid war in Iraq that he lied to us about to get us behind. The agenda there is about getting all of the Bush cronies rich. He's accomplished his mission: taking care of all the guys that got him into office.

 

[Palit_Guy]

Great post BigJohn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here's teh data for those that don't check your link. From 1955-1995 there were more Dems than Reps in Congress. From 1995-2007 there were more Reps than Dems. The Dems currently control congress.

interested people should also take a minute to understand what the national debt is. you can read more about it here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm

The short version is:
You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. The on-budget deficits require the U.S. Treasury to borrow money to raise cash needed to keep the Government operating. We borrow the money by selling securities like Treasury bills, notes, bonds and savings bonds to the public.

In plain terms:
The national debt is similar to like getting a cash advance on your check. The fed issues a treasury bill or savings bond etc., you buy it and after a certain period of time you get your money back plus a little bit.

That ultimately leaves a little less in the budget than otherwise would have been there BUT, it provides the cash the government needs to have in its account to pay whatever it is that needs paid. it's supposed to just be a way to manage cash flow in the same way any business would do so.

If everyone cashed in their bonds and bills at the same time, well, that would be bad. Basically all the government employees and other payees of federal funds would have to wait until everyone paid their taxes for the government had enough money in their checking account.

In more recent years this borrowing has become common place as a stop-gap measure to get agencies through until a budget can be agreed upon and passed or to temporarily cover a problem where it spent more money than it actually had.

As everyone who has ever done a "payday" loan knows, it's not really a sustainable business model. Eventually you have to get caught up.

 

[newconroer]

Who is the conservatives again?

This is a fruitless chart.

A better one, would be something that shows just what the presidents allowed to contribute to the national debt, and maybe more importantly, who put those programs in place originally.


Please do not confuse real conservatives a.k.a. Constitutionalists, with post 1950s neo-cons.

 

[Palit_Guy]

That has nothing to do with the Trillions in debt. Almost all the war spending has been outside the loop of congressional approval in the form of "Emergency Allotments". And that's a fact. I will fault Congress for not having ther balls to stand up to Bush and his advisors.

Congress did not put us in this hole: you can thank GW Bush for that one. In fact Bush and the Fed have bullied Congress into spending yet another Trillion right as he is getting out of office. You can see how well the bail out is working.

GWB has singlehandedly bancrupted out nation. It's not a Democratic Congress spending the money...it's Bush and his stupid war in Iraq that he lied to us about to get us behind. The agenda there is about getting all of the Bush cronies rich. He's accomplished his mission: taking care of all the guys that got him into office.

This isn't really true. The nation isn't bankrupt.

Can you site your source that shows how much money, even in rough figures, has been spent outside the jurisdiction or approval of congress?

 

[Palit_Guy]

This is a fruitless chart.

A better one, would be something that shows just what the presidents allowed to contribute to the national debt, and maybe more importantly, who put those programs in place originally.


Please do not confuse real conservatives a.k.a. Constitutionalists, with post 1950s neo-cons.

I hear you on that one! It's all relative but I would agree that the level of conservatism in republicans has been dwindling for years.

 

[newconroer]

The really shit thing about Bush Jr's position after 9/11, is that "WMD" or not, he had to answer back; which meant going over Congress, and declaring war without their approval (or at least proper approval).

I don't know what other option he had, to save Americans from rioting.

Having said that, he should have close the book several years ago, or at least when Saddam was caught and convicted. That could have been the 'victory,' and people were calmed down by then.


What gets me about these arguements, is not that they always go off on tangents.. I expect that; and not that they draw upon the past, I expect that too. What strikes me as ludicrous, is how despite all of the good points made, NOTHING will change, because each side is W R O N G.

America used to = Primarily Protestant rooted freedom fighters, erecting the most promising nation ever, whilst allowing people who didn't agree entirely with their views, to still share the fruits of their labor and detachment from oppression as long as they didn't try to entirely undermine the common goal that all were trying to achieve.

America now = Whiny, snivelling, ungrateful, ass-whiped, loud-mouth, peckerheads, of all walks of life, race, creed and religion, who have no respect for the Constitution, or the purpose of America, or the sacrifices made, whilst carrying on this masquerade about 'peace' and 'tolerance' and 'equality,' when they're really just fueling their own hidden agenda, that revolves solely around 'me! me! me!,' and they are willing to completely undermine the sole purpose of what the forefathers were trying to accomplish.


How Americans can still allow themselves to be so mis-represented is appaulling, and what's more appaulling, is that their shooting star is fizzling out, while they argue about gun control, and gay marriage and abortion.
Are you ******* kidding me???????? GAY MARRIAGE? When shit hits the fan from a plummeted economy, a thinned out military and a foreign attack on American soil, WHO GIVES A FLYING FU** if gay people can marry, or if a woman can have an abortion...there won't be any churches or any clinics left, and no people to run them.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Ford was making the argument that a court marshal was probably preferable to continuing to serve in the hellhole that is Iraq. Though I agree with his sentiment, I differ with his methods.

Sorry, I know I am 5 pages behing now, leave the forums for 12 hours and I have 5 pages of reading to catch up on :shadedshu...........I am not so sure about a Courts martial in so much as, you, as well as the UK, still have a death sentance for certain military crimes, not sure if "desertion in the face of the enemy" is one of them.

Ohhhh and before anyone from the UK gets on my case.....yes we do still actually have the death sentance in the UK (military law) for 4 particular offenses.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Try telling that to the men and women on the ground--of which, most WANT to be there. They'd kick you in the balls if they had a chance so I'll do it again, on their behalf.



There are three problems with that:
1) Nothing is "Un-American."
2) The troops are the war so you can't support one and not the other. To do so is through shear ignorance.
3) The House speaks on the behalf of the people, the people we elect. They voted in favor of intervening in Iraq. If you have a problem with that, then you need to find a Representative that stands for you beliefs.

?????? Where did you get that from........Most of the US Army I served with in both Iraq (2003 and 2004), and Afghanistan (2002) did NOT want to be there (as most Brits dont either). What they say more publically and what they say personally often are 2 very different things.

 

[Rammsteiner]

?????? Where did you get that from........Most of the US Army I served with in both Iraq (2003 and 2004), and Afghanistan (2002) did NOT want to be there (as most Brits dont either). What they say more publically and what they say personally often are 2 very different things.

What's new. It's a bunch of rednecks who want to be there to kick ass against the evil terrorists, which they can hardpy spell, let alone define, and that's about it.

But well, I hope those war ends quick. This will on most fronts increase things positively globally, but also for USA economically and globally, but maybe it's already too late to prevent a 2nd 9/11 from those actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan + surrounding countries. I hope it's not too late, but well, only time will tell.

 

[SK-1]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/111661/Gallup-Daily-Obama-52-McCain-42-Among-Likely-Voters.aspx

The latest latest poll. Obama up a bit.

 

[WarEagleAU]

I assume he will be up a bit up until the election. Who knows what will happen on Tuesday, but I surmise he will win. I am not going to vote for him however

 

[DaMulta]

 

[Palit_Guy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMwKPmsbWE

Go Damulta!