We The Sheeple!!!!

[av8torntn]

An Open Mind

Just had to add one of my favorite youtube links.

 

[brett636]

diesel- Its amazing how the video you posted consist of shoddy journalism, and the missreprentation of facts. Case in point, it doesn't take a big medical issue to keep someone from getting into the military. Big_arrow's video is a true snapshot of liberals and the democractic party. The democratic party has already said that good news for Iraq is bad for their cause, and good news is what is coming from Iraq these days. Its sad that a party's only hope for political success requires them to be invested in defeat on every level of this war.

I don't support Ron Paul because of this Iraq views, but he is not electable so he is nothing to worry about.

 

[diesel96]

diesel- Its amazing how the video you posted consist of shoddy journalism, and the missreprentation of facts. Case in point, it doesn't take a big medical issue to keep someone from getting into the military. Big_arrow's video is a true snapshot of liberals and the democractic party. The democratic party has already said that good news for Iraq is bad for their cause, and good news is what is coming from Iraq these days. Its sad that a party's only hope for political success requires them to be invested in defeat on every level of this war.

I don't support Ron Paul because of this Iraq views, but he is not electable so he is nothing to worry about.

Brett....Your absolutely right, the video I posted was shoddy journalism. But if you couldn't comprehend my commentary I indicated the video was a sterotypical counter to the pathetic video and statement that Big A displayed. But since your so enthralled with Big A's "shoddy" video, don't let me rain on your parade. But do everyone a favor...Don't become a Journalist, and don't speak for the Democratic party. The Dem's political success stems on the blunders, deceptions and the stranglehold the Neo's in charge and far righties have on the Rep's party. I know it's a tough pill to swallow but know need to sugarcoat it, besides, there's always the Kool-Ade option.

Not to put words in his mouth but I think he was advocating something like focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan and actually finding some guy by the name of Osama and his cohorts who actually were behind the 9/11 attacks which began this whole terrorism exercise. I'd tend to agree with that also!

I hope I got that about right Diesel!


BINGO...we have a winner !!...Thx for not having me repeat myself to BIG A.

AV8...That video strikes me of painting the entire Muslim/Islam nation as bad guys. A little over the top don't ya think?

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Not to put words in his mouth but I think he was advocating something like focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan and actually finding some guy by the name of Osama and his cohorts who actually were behind the 9/11 attacks which began this whole terrorism exercise. I'd tend to agree with that also!

I hope I got that about right Diesel!

So we should ignore Iraq? Ignore the fact that thousands of terrorists there are plotting against our troops and their own people? Oh I forgot.....it's our fault that those terrorists are even there right? Even if that were true it's not like that negates that fact that they are there.

diesel- Its amazing how the video you posted consist of shoddy journalism, and the missreprentation of facts. Case in point, it doesn't take a big medical issue to keep someone from getting into the military. Big_arrow's video is a true snapshot of liberals and the democractic party. The democratic party has already said that good news for Iraq is bad for their cause, and good news is what is coming from Iraq these days. Its sad that a party's only hope for political success requires them to be invested in defeat on every level of this war.

I don't support Ron Paul because of this Iraq views, but he is not electable so he is nothing to worry about.

I'm still trying to figure out why Leftys think that the only way to support a war is to enlist in the military. And it's a sad reality that the Democratic Party is depending on failure in Iraq to back their presidential campaigns. It's ironic that Liberal whackos such as the goofball in that video are attempting to smear Republicans for not joining the military while they parade around protesting against our own troops and recruiters. Things are going pretty good in Iraq the past couple months....hence the piping down of the Liberal media's crying about the war. You are right about Ron Paul too. He doesn't have a chance. Even if he did his views on the the war would probably keep him from getting a chunk of votes that he'd surely get otherwise. I've looked over his voting records and all and it impresses me but his stance on the war warrants a no vote.

 

[moreluck]

Didn't know where to put this....

Saudis released 1500 prisoner terrorists....they said they are now reformed.

 

[av8torntn]

AV8...That video strikes me of painting the entire Muslim/Islam nation as bad guys. A little over the top don't ya think?

No more over the top than someone who thinks we are not focusing on terrorism in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa, or Indonesia just because we are taking care of them in Iraq. No more over the top than someone who thinks those fat kids in the video you posted should serve in the military. Give me a break it is a youtube video. The video you linked to painted all young republicans as people that were afraid to serve in the military. I know this is not a fact. You should be smart enough to know that all citizens of all Muslim nations are not bad guys without me telling you that. You democrats are a bit overly sensitive.

 

[diesel96]

And it's a sad reality that the Democratic Party is depending on failure in Iraq to back their presidential campaigns.


Democrats demanding an exit strategy from Iraq are routinely derided by the Bush Administration as cowards who "cut and run. It's not about failure or presidential campaigns. Namecalling, slogans, and all that rheteric does not deflect actions or willingness for an exit stratgety, nor does Bush's Baghdad Palace Embassy plan. What is it?
(104 acres) and most expensive ($5oo million to a billion) is the American Embassy being built in Baghdad. Surrounded by fifteen-foot-thick walls, almost as large as the Vatican on a scale comparable to the Mall of America.
For security reasons, the new embassy is being built entirely by imported labor. The contractor, First Kuwaiti General Trading and Contracting Co., which was linked to human-trafficking allegations, has hired a workforce of 900 mostly Asian workers who live on the site. In a land where half the population is out of work the United States ought to win countless native hearts and minds with this labor policy.
Instead of cutting and making a run for Kuwait, they intend to cut and run into what amounts to the world's largest bunker, a capacious rat hole where they can wait in safety until all the Iraqis have killed one another or all factions unite, march on this air-conditioned citadel and slit the throats of its irrelevant inhabitants.

 

[wkmac]

And it's a sad reality that the Democratic Party is depending on failure in Iraq to back their presidential campaigns.

Democrats demanding an exit strategy from Iraq are routinely derided by the Bush Administration as cowards who "cut and run. It's not about failure or presidential campaigns. Namecalling, slogans, and all that rheteric does not deflect actions or willingness for an exit stratgety, nor does Bush's Baghdad Palace Embassy plan. What is it?
(104 acres) and most expensive ($5oo million to a billion) is the American Embassy being built in Baghdad. Surrounded by fifteen-foot-thick walls, almost as large as the Vatican on a scale comparable to the Mall of America.
For security reasons, the new embassy is being built entirely by imported labor. The contractor, First Kuwaiti General Trading and Contracting Co., which was linked to human-trafficking allegations, has hired a workforce of 900 mostly Asian workers who live on the site. In a land where half the population is out of work the United States ought to win countless native hearts and minds with this labor policy.
Instead of cutting and making a run for Kuwait, they intend to cut and run into what amounts to the world's largest bunker, a capacious rat hole where they can wait in safety until all the Iraqis have killed one another or all factions unite, march on this air-conditioned citadel and slit the throats of its irrelevant inhabitants.

Diesel,

In relation to monies being spent in Iraq here's some Executive Orders issued by President Bush that you might find of interest. It's not totally conclusive by any stretch at all but if you're willing to dig into gov't documents I can assure you that you will be in for one H3LL of a ride. How bad do you want it?


The first one:
https://web.archive.org/web/2003040...se.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030320-10.html

Then came this:
https://web.archive.org/web/2009011...se.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030522-15.html

The next one of interest although it's focus no surprise and seems to make sense:
https://web.archive.org/web/2009011...use.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030829-1.html

And finally:
https://web.archive.org/web/2009011...use.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040729-2.html

Now this above is but a small brush stroke of a much larger picture as one would also have to research the Federal Register and the Treasury Department Orders known as TDO's to begin to see the big monetary picture but what has happened in Iraq is via Executive Order, Bush placed the entire country of Iraq into recievership and made the Sec. of the Treasury the trustee along with the Sec. of State to some degree. Now this is not untypical throughout history of a victorious nation over another but my point is to establish the fact that our Dept. of Treasury controls the entire pursestrings of the Iraqi nation via Executive Orders by the winning Commander in Chief, President Bush.

There's the beginning so here's your mission if you choose to accept it. (mission impossible theme song playing in the background) From here follow the money trail through various US corp. (United States Persons) and various contractors and you'll see an interesting picture for sure.

This tape won't self destruct but there's enough hardcopy gov't data and documents out there to make a few people here do so!

 

[brett636]

Brett....Your absolutely right, the video I posted was shoddy journalism. But if you couldn't comprehend my commentary I indicated the video was a sterotypical counter to the pathetic video and statement that Big A displayed. But since your so enthralled with Big A's "shoddy" video, don't let me rain on your parade. But do everyone a favor...Don't become a Journalist, and don't speak for the Democratic party. The Dem's political success stems on the blunders, deceptions and the stranglehold the Neo's in charge and far righties have on the Rep's party. I know it's a tough pill to swallow but know need to sugarcoat it, besides, there's always the Kool-Ade option.

While I will concede both videos had morons in them, you only need to look at their placement to understand my point. In Big-A's video the morons were the one's being interviewed, while in your video the maroon was the one doing the interviewing. Maybe its only a coincidence that both sets of morons have the same left leaning liberal views you hold.

When you mentioned speaking for the democratic party I feel that is unnecessary as they speak pretty clearly themselves. In the leadup to the General Petraeus report last September Democrat Jim Clyburn was asked by the Washington Post what good news from Iraq could be mean for the democrat party. His reply "That would be a real big problem for us,". After Bush recieved authorization for the troop surge last spring Senate Majority leader Harry Ried is quoted as saying "the war is lost, the surge has failed", and this was before the troop surge had even begun. Hillary Clinton has been trying to position herself as anti-war, yet she voted for the Iraq war stating that it was necessary, and that Saddam Hussien was a threat to our nation. While I disagree with Ron Paul's stance on the war he still has more credibility than hillary because he was the only republican to vote against it in 2002.

The democrats success in Congress was won with very slim margins, and judging by their current 11% approval rating(lowest in Congressional history) my guess is people aren't happy with how they have handled the marginal success they have recieved. With good news in Iraq, a budget that is well on its way to being balanced, and with the democrats slitting their own throats supporting drivers licenses for illegals and open borders policies expect some decent republican victories in 2008, including the presidency.

 

[wkmac]

So we should ignore Iraq? Ignore the fact that thousands of terrorists there are plotting against our troops and their own people? Oh I forgot.....it's our fault that those terrorists are even there right? Even if that were true it's not like that negates that fact that they are there.

Big,

I've come to the conclusion that no matter what you see, it won't matter. I can stick you face squarely at a pile of gov't manure and you'd still swear up and down it's all roses. I do admire your undying loyality, you have that going for you and you are not alone at all either. Lots of folks on bothsides have this in common.

Let me just say this and then I'm done. You can continue to look through a peephole at the Middle East and you will never completely understand the whole picture and if I had to guess, you are comfortable to do so. Most folks are so you are the norm, not the exception. At the same time you also have a political point of view that you've come to see being represented by a certain party and in contrast to see the opposing party as pure anathema to you beliefs. The opposite is equally true of the other politicial side and again you are no different here than most folks.

IMO to understand what is happening now in Iraq and even elsewhere in the Mideast, you have to understand a much larger hsitorical picture and it takes time and effort. I won't kid you there. Believe it or not, to understand the Middle East as it relate to the Jewish/Arab problem, you literally have to start with your bible and Abraham but you also have to run concurrent at the same with secular history and the cultures of Assyria, Babylonian and Persia and the surrounding areas and don't forget Egypt but it's the first 3 that have more direct impact.

Then as you move through time other factors come into play and then you enter the 20th century and the whole picture of WW1, fall ot the Ottoman Empire and then the post WW1 Mideast. In the late 1920's in Eygpt, you have the Muslim Brotherhood and how all of that is the real seedbed of all islamic extremsim we see in the region today. At the same time you have to know the actions of gov't and private interests going on not only here in America but in Britain as well. And believe me, the French and the Russians play and whole lot more into this that I think you even realize. For example, here's a shocker for Big, Bush and Powell were correct, there was WMD in Iraq but the real picture is far more interesting than the scenario laid out for public consumption.

But all that aside, you loyality to a political party on it's values being like your is admirable but what if it's values really weren't like your's at all. Based on you many post, I take it you like low taxes, small gov't a good strong military to protect us, me too. We both totally agree in principle on this but what about the republican party itself.

Well, I guess on the one hand you could say for the moment on low taxes they have it right but what about small gov't? Here you have a bit of a problem. Since 2000' gov't size has seen it's largest increase in the history of the nation. Bush and the Republican Congress made the Clinton years look almost Reaganlike as it relates to gov't growth. Since 1980' and the domination of American politics by Republican/Conservative thought, out national debt has gone from $1trillion dollars to now sitting at $9trillion (so much for smaller gov't) and in the longrun, what does that do for low taxation? Logic would suggest IMO that there looms a huge threat to low taxes out on the horizon that has nothing to do with welfare do-gooder programs but rather just to service an out of whack debt. How does this effect our military? With no money, how far do we go in a war on terror or for that fact how do we face other potential problems out there that could come into play?

True conservative values have always started with limited gov't, low taxes and fiscal responsibilty. IMHO, the republican party has turned it's back on those principles long ago and make no mistake the democrats are just as bad. You maintain a loyality to a party that has sold you and your principles out a long time ago. Your principles are good one and I applaud you for it but they have used you and your loyality and at some point you need to sitdown and read the real record and like myself who would have made you look like a piker in republican loyality, walk away and deny them you support until they wake up and come back to what attracted good conservatives to them in the first place.

Best of luck to you.

 

[diesel96]

Diesel,

In relation to monies being spent in Iraq here's some Executive Orders issued by President Bush that you might find of interest. It's not totally conclusive by any stretch at all but if you're willing to dig into gov't documents I can assure you that you will be in for one H3LL of a ride. How bad do you want it?


The first one:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030320-10.html

Then came this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030522-15.html

The next one of interest although it's focus no surprise and seems to make sense:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/08/20030829-1.html

And finally:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040729-2.html

Now this above is but a small brush stroke of a much larger picture as one would also have to research the Federal Register and the Treasury Department Orders known as TDO's to begin to see the big monetary picture but what has happened in Iraq is via Executive Order, Bush placed the entire country of Iraq into recievership and made the Sec. of the Treasury the trustee along with the Sec. of State to some degree. Now this is not untypical throughout history of a victorious nation over another but my point is to establish the fact that our Dept. of Treasury controls the entire pursestrings of the Iraqi nation via Executive Orders by the winning Commander in Chief, President Bush.

There's the beginning so here's your mission if you choose to accept it. (mission impossible theme song playing in the background) From here follow the money trail through various US corp. (United States Persons) and various contractors and you'll see an interesting picture for sure.

This tape won't self destruct but there's enough hardcopy gov't data and documents out there to make a few people here do so!

Mission--Smission....Thats why we have you here. To dig up all this juicy tid bits and tasty morsels.<------Sarcasm. I'll leave the digging thru the Dept of Treasury documents up to you. I will say however the common denominator in the links you posted are the property and funds or "pursestrings" as you referred to it has been confiscated and vested in the Dept of Treasury and at the same time executive order states that theses assets are for the Development Fund for Iraq. Infrastructure repair, humanitarian needs benefitting the Iraqi people and the development of political, administration,and economic institutions of Iraq. Now does diplomatic and consular purposes justify a billion dollar embassy which isn't even benefitting the Iraqi labor force and there's question to whether they even want this super structure on their land.

As Rev. Jesse Jackson would put it
"Acquistion by submission"......"Annexation by domination"

 

[diesel96]

While I will concede both videos had morons in them, you only need to look at their placement to understand my point. In Big-A's video the morons were the one's being interviewed, while in your video the maroon was the one doing the interviewing. Maybe its only a coincidence that both sets of morons have the same left leaning liberal views you hold.
Like Big A, you can't decipher a moderate Dem. from a far left loon liberal. Anyone with different a view than you and is opposed to this Adminstrations foriegn policy is classified a moronic left leaning liberal and can not possibly be holier than thou. At least I feel sorry for and have respect for the tradition Rep's who has seen their party raped and pillaged by the far right Christian wackos and the war mongering neo's. I think traditional Rep's need to grow a backbone and put todays Rep's back in the sock drawer.


The democrats success in Congress was won with very slim margins, and judging by their current 11% approval rating(lowest in Congressional history) my guess is people aren't happy with how they have handled the marginal success they have recieved. With good news in Iraq, a budget that is well on its way to being balanced, and with the democrats slitting their own throats supporting drivers licenses for illegals and open borders policies expect some decent republican victories in 2008, including the presidency.

Don't forget to add our nat'l debt is 9 trillion gazillion dollars that our kids will get stuck with the tab AND the fiscally ir-responsible Rep's want to cut even more taxes for the rich,the housing and lender markets are in deep doo doo, gas prices at an all time high, and a threat of a recession is dangerouly close. Oh yeah and don't forget our troops are on their 3rd -4th tour of duty in the middle east with no end in sight and no exit stragety on the horizon. "Remain Calm all is well"

 

[wkmac]

Mission--Smission....Thats why we have you here. To dig up all this juicy tid bits and tasty morsels.<------Sarcasm. I'll leave the digging thru the Dept of Treasury documents up to you. I will say however the common denominator in the links you posted are the property and funds or "pursestrings" as you referred to it has been confiscated and vested in the Dept of Treasury and at the same time executive order states that theses assets are for the Development Fund for Iraq. Infrastructure repair, humanitarian needs benefitting the Iraqi people and the development of political, administration,and economic institutions of Iraq. Now does diplomatic and consular purposes justify a billion dollar embassy which isn't even benefitting the Iraqi labor force and there's question to whether they even want this super structure on their land.
As Rev. Jesse Jackson would put it
"Acquistion by submission"......"Annexation by domination"

You actually were doing real well and making good points but then you lost it all when you quoted the SloganMaster!


As for digging, afraid what you might find? Does the very thought that I might actually have something of a valid point scare you?


As for private business interests profitting there are many who do for sure. In warfare of old, empires invaded lands taking all the wealth for spoils and the general rule was to enslave the people by uprooting them from their homeland and mass deporting them to either another area where it would be easier to re-educate and assimulate them into the customs and ways of the empire or they would take them back to the capital lands of the empire for the same thing along with servitude.

Mankind doesn't take this approach anymore (or does he)but instead takes over the economic means and control of wealth thereby subjugating the native peoples to the will of the conquering force. These executive orders although great fun for driving a POV is in reality standing practice among modern means of conquer and governance.

If one studies history and comes to develop a healthy appreciation for high standing of the individual and his/her freedom and liberty in contrast IMO to the lower standing of peoples who gather themselves together in collectives and use force to coerce or compel an individual to comply with group or collective desires or wishes when said individual would not on their own do so in a voluntary manner, I also believe one comes to have a healthy disdain for these types of decrees of a conquering King (historically folks, this is what it is).

It's very easy to be in political opposition of the current King and therefore be a vocal opponent of the King's decrees. However, it is my very honest opinion and I do believe this that a King of the other party could do the same and not a peep of protest would be heard.

Good case in point is from Executive Order 12846 issued by King Clinton on April 25, 1993', just over 3 months after swearing upon the "Stone of Scone" as it relates to economic interests of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12846.pdf

In fairness to King Bill however, he didn't start the ball rolling as the first King Bush did that with Executive Order 12808 which was signed into effect on May 30, 1992' and published in the Federal Register page and date: 57 FR 23299; June 2, 1992. (Finally revoked by King Bush 2 with E.O. 13304, signed May 28, 2003 and published in the Federal Register page and and date: 68 FR 32315, May 29, 2003. King Johnson issued E.O. 11216 which declared Vietnam a combat zone for the purposes on the IRS Code of 1954, Sec. 112 (combat pay for soldiers) and it wasn't until 1996' and King Bill with E.O. 13002 that revoked the status of Vietnam being a warzone. Why did it take nearly 25 years after our involvment in actual armed conflict for this EO to be revoked? What took place during those nearly 25, what we think are, silent years? Hmmm. Why didn't the pacifist King Peanut of Gerogia who loves everyone revoke this during his tenure on the throne? Big Hmmm again!

Back to E.O. 12846, Big Bill just added more meat to the sandwich but the point is, the very nationbuilding and excessive use of both military and economic force we condemn upon the sitting King has been used time and time again by all sides. We've been to busy arguing over the cults of personality and to lazy to search the real record (we have no real media that should be doing this) to see the continuing threads of empire that run through everyone that swears upon the "Stone of Scone!"

Also, I don't know if you've had the chance to read the article linked at the "Halliburton & Bechtel" thread. It's very long but if you can at least reads a few pages I think you will find it of interest and maybe want to read more.

from your favorite iconoclast!

 

[av8torntn]

Don't forget to add our nat'l debt is 9 trillion gazillion dollars that our kids will get stuck with the tab AND the fiscally ir-responsible Rep's want to cut even more taxes for the rich,the housing and lender markets are in deep doo doo, gas prices at an all time high, and a threat of a recession is dangerouly close. Oh yeah and don't forget our troops are on their 3rd -4th tour of duty in the middle east with no end in sight and no exit stragety on the horizon. "Remain Calm all is well"

Don't forget that 50% of our army has not deployed even once yet. Home ownership is at a high.

 

[brett636]

Don't forget to add our nat'l debt is 9 trillion gazillion dollars that our kids will get stuck with the tab AND the fiscally ir-responsible Rep's want to cut even more taxes for the rich,the housing and lender markets are in deep doo doo, gas prices at an all time high, and a threat of a recession is dangerouly close. Oh yeah and don't forget our troops are on their 3rd -4th tour of duty in the middle east with no end in sight and no exit stragety on the horizon. "Remain Calm all is well"

You must be getting desparate, as everything you just mentioned seems to come straight out of the democractic play book. While you believe yourself to be a moderate I will say I've met plenty of moderate democrats, and you sir are much further left than any of them.

Again, I will have to concede to you that the republicans got off track from their fiscally responsible record in the last few years. The national debt is terrorifyingly high, but the national deficit is amazingly low. I've mentioned this to you before, but the government is taking in record levels of tax revenue. Which despite the increase in spending is catching up and in the next five years will surpass government spending giving us a surplus to put towards the national debt. Now, I don't know what you've been reading, but every major democrat running for President has not mentioned fiscal responsibility once. In fact, all of them propose wide sweeping, expensive, government run social programs. You want to see that national debt number double in the next eight years? If we get a democrat in the oval office, you will.

I would really like you to explain what the government has to do with free markets such as gas prices, and the impending recession that has been predicted for us every year for the last 2.5 years. If anything, a lot of the blame can be put on environmentalists who won't let us drill for our own oil that we have right in our own backyard. We have been forced to buy oil overseas allowing islamo facists to control the very substance that keeps our economy moving.

As far as an exit strategy goes, I just cannot comprehend what sense it makes to tell your enemy in wartime just exactly when and where you plan to exit whether you lose or not. It makes no strategic sense unless your a democrat who knows that your policial success hinges on us losing this war. I guess its a good thing that terrorists attacks are down some 50%+, and that reports coming from Iraq are showing people are moving back into their homes creating insurrgent watch groups to help security forces keep Al-Qaeda out of their lives. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Al-Qaeda&spell=1

 

[diesel96]

You must be getting desparate, as everything you just mentioned seems to come straight out of the democractic play book. While you believe yourself to be a moderate I will say I've met plenty of moderate democrats, and you sir are much further left than any of them.


Diesel----->Why yes I am desperate to stand up to Self-indulged nazi republicans who believe that George W. Bush is the devine savior of the US and rest of the world. Usually identified by using the word "liberal" in a negative tone in every spoken or written sentence. Concensus shows you don't have to be a far left liberal to have these views, just ask moderate Rep's and libertarians as well.



Brett636------>Again, I will have to concede to you that the republicans got off track from their fiscally responsible record in the last few years. The national debt is terrorifyingly high, but the national deficit is amazingly low. I've mentioned this to you before, but the government is taking in record levels of tax revenue. Which despite the increase in spending is catching up and in the next five years will surpass government spending giving us a surplus to put towards the national debt. Now, I don't know what you've been reading, but every major democrat running for President has not mentioned fiscal responsibility once. In fact, all of them propose wide sweeping, expensive, government run social programs. You want to see that national debt number double in the next eight years? If we get a democrat in the oval office, you will.


Diesel------>Impressive numbers despite the fact Bush Jr. and Reagan have increased the nat'l debt by twice what their Democratic predecessors had. In the name of economic prosperity, it was the Republicans who largely claimed national debt isn't a matter of importance. I think it also says something about Americans in general considering gov't lack of concern towards the issue is a reflection of its citizens. Tax cuts per say are awesome providing the administration is spending less, and since their ideologies agenda is to cut taxes no matter what their spending levels are, guess what that means gov't has to do to balance out the growing deficit? The same thing the Dems are labeled with, taxing.
The conservative principle in general seems it should work, but since conservatives do nothing but spend, they are even poorer managers of the deficit than the Democrats. At least Dem's spend AND TAX. Republicans spend and cut taxes and say, "See, look at all the money you got back on your tax rebate." But the part about the deficit growing faster with the evil Democrats is a farce. And as gov't under either party will not stop spending. Some taxation is the only course, but America is primarily monetarily conservative and will continue to vote for immediate tax cuts while the deficit grows.

 

[brett636]

Diesel----->Why yes I am desperate to stand up to Self-indulged nazi republicans who believe that George W. Bush is the devine savior of the US and rest of the world. Usually identified by using the word "liberal" in a negative tone in every spoken or written sentence. Concensus shows you don't have to be a far left liberal to have these views, just ask moderate Rep's and libertarians as well.

Nazi republicans huh? Perhaps you should direct that desparate feeling you have into searching for real facts for your arguments instead of the rhetoric you are fed from your democratic leaders.

Diesel------>Impressive numbers despite the fact Bush Jr. and Reagan have increased the nat'l debt by twice what their Democratic predecessors had. In the name of economic prosperity, it was the Republicans who largely claimed national debt isn't a matter of importance. I think it also says something about Americans in general considering gov't lack of concern towards the issue is a reflection of its citizens. Tax cuts per say are awesome providing the administration is spending less, and since their ideologies agenda is to cut taxes no matter what their spending levels are, guess what that means gov't has to do to balance out the growing deficit? The same thing the Dems are labeled with, taxing.
The conservative principle in general seems it should work, but since conservatives do nothing but spend, they are even poorer managers of the deficit than the Democrats. At least Dem's spend AND TAX. Republicans spend and cut taxes and say, "See, look at all the money you got back on your tax rebate." But the part about the deficit growing faster with the evil Democrats is a farce. And as gov't under either party will not stop spending. Some taxation is the only course, but America is primarily monetarily conservative and will continue to vote for immediate tax cuts while the deficit grows.

I admit that Bush has been a major dissappointment in fiscal responsbility, but I believe his tax cuts have had a major impact in how well our economy has sustained itself in the face of rising energy prices and an unstable housing market. The truth is evident that when people have more money to spend, it goes to businesses and corporations who pay higher tax rates which equates to more tax revenue for the government. Your last statement couldn't be further from the mark as the deficit has been shrinking over the last few years and will turn into a surplus in the coming years. This is despite the over spending by congress, and the costs of the Iraq war. National debt is not a bad thing, but if its allowed to grow to too big of percentage of GDP it could be a big problem. Raising taxes is not the answer as we pay too much in taxes already.

 

[wkmac]

You must be getting desparate, as everything you just mentioned seems to come straight out of the democractic play book. While you believe yourself to be a moderate I will say I've met plenty of moderate democrats, and you sir are much further left than any of them.


Diesel----->Why yes I am desperate to stand up to Self-indulged nazi republicans who believe that George W. Bush is the devine savior of the US and rest of the world. Usually identified by using the word "liberal" in a negative tone in every spoken or written sentence. Concensus shows you don't have to be a far left liberal to have these views, just ask moderate Rep's and libertarians as well.

That is fairly true about moderate Repubs and Libertarians although there is a faction of libertarians that support the Bush effort in Iraq. It's not a big faction and some hardline libertarians claim these folks were never libertarian to begin with and were neo-cons in denial. I laugh at that but it does have a slight bit of truth to it.



Brett636------>Again, I will have to concede to you that the republicans got off track from their fiscally responsible record in the last few years. The national debt is terrorifyingly high, but the national deficit is amazingly low. I've mentioned this to you before, but the government is taking in record levels of tax revenue. Which despite the increase in spending is catching up and in the next five years will surpass government spending giving us a surplus to put towards the national debt. Now, I don't know what you've been reading, but every major democrat running for President has not mentioned fiscal responsibility once. In fact, all of them propose wide sweeping, expensive, government run social programs. You want to see that national debt number double in the next eight years? If we get a democrat in the oval office, you will.

Brett, I'm like you that I don't see any democrat being truly fiscally responsible over the long haul and that they've adopted the mantra only because long ago the Repubs abandoned the issue that IMO proved what they were to begin with. Traitiors. At least the democrats in the end we know are loyal to what they are and for that I can respect them even though on policy I very much diagree. The repubs however are IMO out and out traitors and should be dealt with in the most harsh of ways. 2006' elections results were a good start IMO.


Diesel------>Impressive numbers despite the fact Bush Jr. and Reagan have increased the nat'l debt by twice what their Democratic predecessors had. In the name of economic prosperity, it was the Republicans who largely claimed national debt isn't a matter of importance. I think it also says something about Americans in general considering gov't lack of concern towards the issue is a reflection of its citizens. Tax cuts per say are awesome providing the administration is spending less, and since their ideologies agenda is to cut taxes no matter what their spending levels are, guess what that means gov't has to do to balance out the growing deficit? The same thing the Dems are labeled with, taxing.
The conservative principle in general seems it should work, but since conservatives do nothing but spend, they are even poorer managers of the deficit than the Democrats. At least Dem's spend AND TAX. Republicans spend and cut taxes and say, "See, look at all the money you got back on your tax rebate." But the part about the deficit growing faster with the evil Democrats is a farce. And as gov't under either party will not stop spending. Some taxation is the only course, but America is primarily monetarily conservative and will continue to vote for immediate tax cuts while the deficit grows.

Actually from reagan to Bush 2 the deficit has way more than doubled. You might be attempting to be to kind! NAH!!!!! LOL! During the early Reagan years the national debt passed the $1trillion mark and just recently with Bush 2 it has surpassed $9 trillion. During the Clinton years after the Republicans got control of Congress, I think the heat was on everyone so we had a couple of balanced budgets and I think most of that was a result of a good economy too. However, the national debt continued to climb but had the 2 parties gotten together to understand the better good of the country over the greater good of party power, it's possible a series of back to back balanced budgets would have happend and then it's possible a surplus would result in which the excess should go to paying down the debt, not to tax cuts that I myself might even enjoy. I'll all about eliminating all federal level taxation but because of both parties we are strapped with this massive debt and fiscal irresponsibility and until we get that under control, tax elimination or other tax shifting schemes such as the FairTax will have no longterm positive effect and in the end things will get worse.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Nazi republicans huh? Perhaps you should direct that desparate feeling you have into searching for real facts for your arguments instead of the rhetoric you are fed from your democratic leaders.



I admit that Bush has been a major dissappointment in fiscal responsbility, but I believe his tax cuts have had a major impact in how well our economy has sustained itself in the face of rising energy prices and an unstable housing market. The truth is evident that when people have more money to spend, it goes to businesses and corporations who pay higher tax rates which equates to more tax revenue for the government. Your last statement couldn't be further from the mark as the deficit has been shrinking over the last few years and will turn into a surplus in the coming years. This is despite the over spending by congress, and the costs of the Iraq war. National debt is not a bad thing, but if its allowed to grow to too big of percentage of GDP it could be a big problem. Raising taxes is not the answer as we pay too much in taxes already.

I don't know why anyone would like mentioning Clinton's "surplus" so well. I usually just counter with the statement that while he was increasing our surplus he was reducing our military. And I usually follow it up by pointing out his bang up job (<----sarcasm for sure) on dealing with Bin Laden and his wonderful creation of "Don't Ask Don't tell."

 

[wkmac]

I don't know why anyone would like mentioning Clinton's "surplus" so well. I usually just counter with the statement that while he was increasing our surplus he was reducing our military. And I usually follow it up by pointing out his bang up job (<----sarcasm for sure) on dealing with Bin Laden and his wonderful creation of "Don't Ask Don't tell."

Just a point of order there Big. During those "Clinton Surplus Years" you also had a republican Congress and it was this divided gov't that in all likelihood was behind the surplus. Sad we didn't realize how much this divided process did keep things a bit more honest. If Clinton did cut the military as you say, then it was with the full Congressional approval of the republicans. Besides was it not the Republican Donald Rumsfeld who also believe in advancing US military might on the cheap? Iraq was DOA until Rumy was gone and they sent more troops (spent more money) and now even Murtha has had to admit the Surge is showing success and it is.

Speaking of keeping things more honest, I'd like to suggest we go back to the original intent of the organic Constitution where the leading electoral vote getter became President and the runner up became VP. Art. 2 Sec 1. replaced in 1804 with the 12th amendment. Did our founding fathers know something we don't? Talk about checks and balance. Also abolished the 17th amendment while we are at it.