It’s laughably stupid that you guys think it even matters. 2 sides to the same shitty coin. Mega-corps, bankers, and criminals have ruled politics forever. Sure it eventually gets bad enough that the system resets a little bit for a time. But, the end game is always the same. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. You’re essentially voting for who controls the guns to come force somebody to do something they don’t want. Does it really matter which bad guys are doing it? If you really want things to be different then move some place that is different or die trying to actually change it. But hey the peons need their smoke and mirrors to make it look like they matter. There are some really smart people on this board and I can’t believe you guys haven’t figured out this bullshit yet.
[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
Improvements(infrastructure)? Everyone loves Eisenhower, right?[/quote]
If there was ever something which needed lots federal dollars thrown at it, it is the infrastructure.
Unfortunately, i suspect lots of union bullshit and little work ever being done if any money was put towards rebuilding the country.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But, domestically Bush would never have raised taxes the way Obama did (I received a nice tax cut under GW). He never would have sponsored a national health care plan. Bush would have signed off on the pipeline deal. And oh one very important one. Bush would never have instigated black people to riot. And please don’t think for a minute that “community organizer” Obama is not at the heart of those riots. Certainly either way he did nothing responsible to end them…unless you think using the bully pulpit to attack the police was a good idea.
Maybe people should not use such broad brush strokes when comparing. There are bound to be similarities between one President following another. But in reality Obama is the exact opposite of Bush domestically while he is similar foreign policy wise.[/quote]
How is cutting taxes while drastically raising spending a good thing? You’re putting a feather in the cap of the man who decided it would be good to decrease revenue while drastically increasing spending? It’s incredibly irresponsible.
Medicare Part D is a costly national aspect of health care. 852 billion added to the national debt over the next ten years (source: Medicare trustees report).
Continued foreign policies as well as domestic policies. And cutting taxes while increasing spending is not something you should be happy about unless you simply don’t care about future generations paying for today’s recklessness.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I wonder if they feel the same outrage when they see the portraits and illustrations of Muhammad done by fifteenth-century Persian Muslims.[/quote]
Varq, I’m willing to bet if a fanatical group like ISIS (Sunni) ever got in charge in Iran, they’d destroy the illustrations you speak of.
(edit-sorry about the hijack)
Fifteenth-century Persian painting of Muhammad riding the magical horse Bouraq into heaven
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I wonder if they feel the same outrage when they see the portraits and illustrations of Muhammad done by fifteenth-century Persian Muslims.[/quote]
Varq, I’m willing to bet if a fanatical group like ISIS (Sunni) ever got in charge in Iran, they’d destroy the illustrations you speak of.
(edit-sorry about the hijack)[/quote]
I’d say that’s about as likely as the Scientologists taking over the government in the United States.
Regardless, they’d be incredibly frustrated in their attempt, inasmuch as the illustrations in question are not in Iran (nor were they from Iran, but from Herat, in what is now Afghanistan), but in the National Library in Paris.
[quote]GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
It’s laughably stupid that you guys think it even matters. 2 sides to the same shitty coin. Mega-corps, bankers, and criminals have ruled politics forever. Sure it eventually gets bad enough that the system resets a little bit for a time. But, the end game is always the same. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. You’re essentially voting for who controls the guns to come force somebody to do something they don’t want. Does it really matter which bad guys are doing it? If you really want things to be different then move some place that is different or die trying to actually change it. But hey the peons need their smoke and mirrors to make it look like they matter. There are some really smart people on this board and I can’t believe you guys haven’t figured out this bullshit yet.[/quote]
With all that’s been explained on this thread (assuming you’ve read it) and others you are honestly saying that there is absolutely no difference between the two parties?
[quote]H factor wrote:
How is cutting taxes while drastically raising spending a good thing?[/quote]
I was under the impression that we were discussing the differences and similarities of Obama and Bush. Bush lowered taxes, Obama raised taxes. Yet, Obama has raised the debt more than all previous Presidents combined! I’d say that is quite a difference wouldn’t you?
Again, I’d say raising the debt more than all previous Presidents combined is pretty irresponsible.
I agree with you in that respect. But, stealing more of my money and also raising the national debt to record levels is something I’m far less happy with.
Once again there are multiple differences between the democrats and republicans on many issues. While I agree they have both let us down regarding certain issues.
edited.
moved the Muslim talk into the Gellar thread. Seemed like a better place for it.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
in the National Library in Paris.
[/quote]
Rant:
I recently had to secure publication rights for about forty images, one of them owned by the BnF. 39 images were dealt with quickly and efficiently. One of them took months (you can guess which one) – months – and included one of the rudest email exchanges in the history of the internet.
I’ll say one thing: If anybody is looking for a good job, and speaks French, get thee to the BnF. They appear to do about 45 minutes of work per week. I assume that the rest of their time is spent eating cheese and smoking cigarettes.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
How is cutting taxes while drastically raising spending a good thing?[/quote]
I was under the impression that we were discussing the differences and similarities of Obama and Bush. Bush lowered taxes, Obama raised taxes. Yet, Obama has raised the debt more than all previous Presidents combined! I’d say that is quite a difference wouldn’t you?
Again, I’d say raising the debt more than all previous Presidents combined is pretty irresponsible.
I agree with you in that respect. But, stealing more of my money and also raising the national debt to record levels is something I’m far less happy with.
Once again there are multiple differences between the democrats and republicans on many issues. While I agree they have both let us down regarding certain issues.
[/quote]
Saying something over and over again does not make it true.
How much of that big spending was started by his predecessor anyways? Or does that get ignored because it makes Republicans look bad and doesn’t fit the convenient talking point?
President Obama continued the big spending of the man he took over from. That doesn’t really make him better or worse it makes him the same which is the entire point. If you truly think “lowering” taxes while increasing spending is a good thing then you aren’t a fiscal conservative and the point is moot. Not to mention you truly don’t care about the national debt nor the future pains that will come from the cut taxes and spend more mindset.
The Republican party is giggling. You believed they did you a favor by cutting taxes while increasing spending.
Obama is Bush 2.0. Worse in some areas, better in others, largely the same. But hey maybe the next President will spend twice as much. As long as they cut taxes who cares?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Many of you who have read my posts through the years know that I’m a republican, nothing new about that. With that said, I am not in favor of Jeb Bush becoming our next President. The Bush family has a record of talking conservative and ruling somewhere center left. Examples of both former Bush Presidents:
George H. W. Bush once said “read my lips no new taxes” and then within two years of being elected raised taxes. I felt a great amount of betrayal at that point.
George W. Bush and his “no child left behind” was nothing more than government interfering with what I believe should be left to the county’s and states to handle. Granted he did lower taxes and appointed two conservative judges…hold on Roberts was the one who allowed Obamacare to go through so he only gets partial credit for the judges.
Anyway…the way Jeb is talking he’d be one more centrist that talks the talk but when it comes time to get moving doesn’t walk the walk.
I think the country would be far better off with someone like Marco Rubio or John Kasich.
Don’t get me wrong should Jeb be the nominee I will not only vote for him but I will donate money and work for him as well. What many of you seem to forget is that a candidate that you agree with only 25% of the time is better than a candidate that you disagree with almost 100% of the time.
Stop being purists its rare that you will get the ideal candidate of your choice.
Those who stayed home rather than vote for Romney (who they speculated was not much better than Obama) helped Obama get elected. And every time a democrat wins we get more left wingnut judges and a myriad of other things that harm the country. Like Obama not signing the Keystone pipeline legislation which any republican future President, even Bush and Christie would certainly go along with.
So, put your black and white glasses down and understand that there is middle ground. While we may not get our ideal candidate staying home on election day will only allow democrats another four years to do the exact opposite of what the country needs. And I wonder, can we even survive another eight years of runaway liberalism?
[/quote]
I don’t have a problem with Jeb or the Bush dynasty. He’s not my favorite either, but I am not on the ‘avoid Bush at all costs train’. If he’s running against Hillary, I will vote for him. I just don’t think he will be. I don’t think the country is ready for another Bush.
Carly Fiona is the one I believe is the worst candidate. She’s plain evil.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
How is cutting taxes while drastically raising spending a good thing?[/quote]
I was under the impression that we were discussing the differences and similarities of Obama and Bush. Bush lowered taxes, Obama raised taxes. Yet, Obama has raised the debt more than all previous Presidents combined! I’d say that is quite a difference wouldn’t you?
Again, I’d say raising the debt more than all previous Presidents combined is pretty irresponsible.
I agree with you in that respect. But, stealing more of my money and also raising the national debt to record levels is something I’m far less happy with.
Once again there are multiple differences between the democrats and republicans on many issues. While I agree they have both let us down regarding certain issues.
[/quote]
Saying something over and over again does not make it true.
How much of that big spending was started by his predecessor anyways? Or does that get ignored because it makes Republicans look bad and doesn’t fit the convenient talking point?
President Obama continued the big spending of the man he took over from. That doesn’t really make him better or worse it makes him the same which is the entire point. If you truly think “lowering” taxes while increasing spending is a good thing then you aren’t a fiscal conservative and the point is moot. Not to mention you truly don’t care about the national debt nor the future pains that will come from the cut taxes and spend more mindset.
The Republican party is giggling. You believed they did you a favor by cutting taxes while increasing spending.
Obama is Bush 2.0. Worse in some areas, better in others, largely the same. But hey maybe the next President will spend twice as much. As long as they cut taxes who cares? [/quote]
Okay, you can certainly believe what you want H, we all like to be right. But the facts on this one do not add up on your side.
If you think that Obama raising debt more than the previous 43 Presidents combined is the same as Bush raising debt you are mistaken.
And if you think that one President giving you back more of your own money in the form of a tax cut is the same thing as Obama stealing more of your money… you can think that too but you are once again mistaken. (Yes both raised spending but Obama by far, far more).
As for Israel, ask Benjamin Netanyahu if he thinks there is a difference between having a republican or democrat President…um…you know what he’s going to say.
Stereotyping of a nationality, or race is sloppy thinking and so is the stereotyping of the political system.
Hey H
Unlike the Bush debt (which was far less) you and I didn’t get a piece of it. Obama’s union buddy’s certainly did, various green groups yep. But you and I and other hard working tax payers we didn’t get a cent!
http://godfatherpolitics.com/8360/obamas-borrowed-more-money-than-all-previous-presidents-combined/#
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Many of you who have read my posts through the years know that I’m a republican, nothing new about that. With that said, I am not in favor of Jeb Bush becoming our next President. The Bush family has a record of talking conservative and ruling somewhere center left. Examples of both former Bush Presidents:
George H. W. Bush once said “read my lips no new taxes” and then within two years of being elected raised taxes. I felt a great amount of betrayal at that point.
George W. Bush and his “no child left behind” was nothing more than government interfering with what I believe should be left to the county’s and states to handle. Granted he did lower taxes and appointed two conservative judges…hold on Roberts was the one who allowed Obamacare to go through so he only gets partial credit for the judges.
Anyway…the way Jeb is talking he’d be one more centrist that talks the talk but when it comes time to get moving doesn’t walk the walk.
I think the country would be far better off with someone like Marco Rubio or John Kasich.
Don’t get me wrong should Jeb be the nominee I will not only vote for him but I will donate money and work for him as well. What many of you seem to forget is that a candidate that you agree with only 25% of the time is better than a candidate that you disagree with almost 100% of the time.
Stop being purists its rare that you will get the ideal candidate of your choice.
Those who stayed home rather than vote for Romney (who they speculated was not much better than Obama) helped Obama get elected. And every time a democrat wins we get more left wingnut judges and a myriad of other things that harm the country. Like Obama not signing the Keystone pipeline legislation which any republican future President, even Bush and Christie would certainly go along with.
So, put your black and white glasses down and understand that there is middle ground. While we may not get our ideal candidate staying home on election day will only allow democrats another four years to do the exact opposite of what the country needs. And I wonder, can we even survive another eight years of runaway liberalism?
[/quote]
I don’t have a problem with Jeb or the Bush dynasty. He’s not my favorite either, but I am not on the ‘avoid Bush at all costs train’. If he’s running against Hillary, I will vote for him. I just don’t think he will be. I don’t think the country is ready for another Bush.
Carly Fiona is the one I believe is the worst candidate. She’s plain evil.
[/quote]
The very few times that I’ve heard Fiona speak I was not impressed. She seemed just a tad on the nutty side. But evil? I’d like to know why you think that she’s evil.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
If you truly think “lowering” taxes while increasing spending is a good thing then you aren’t a fiscal conservative and the point is moot. Not to mention you truly don’t care about the national debt nor the future pains that will come from the cut taxes and spend more mindset.
If you think that Obama raising debt more than the previous 43 Presidents combined is the same as Bush raising debt you are mistaken.
[/quote]
Please Zeb…
The national debt when GW took office was 5.7T when he left it was 11.8. (6.1 trillion) When Obama took office 11.8T today 18T. (6.2 trillion)
Same shit…different party.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
If you truly think “lowering” taxes while increasing spending is a good thing then you aren’t a fiscal conservative and the point is moot. Not to mention you truly don’t care about the national debt nor the future pains that will come from the cut taxes and spend more mindset.
If you think that Obama raising debt more than the previous 43 Presidents combined is the same as Bush raising debt you are mistaken.
[/quote]
Please Zeb…
The national debt when GW took office was 5.7T when he left it was 11.8. (6.1 trillion) When Obama took office 11.8T today 18T. (6.2 trillion)
Same shit…different party.
[/quote]
But they are oh so different! You just gotta be willing to look past all those similar facts!
[quote]H factor wrote:
But they are oh so different! You just gotta be willing to look past all those similar facts! [/quote]
As I have stated and restated there are similarities. One of them is the growing national debt which both parties are responsible for to be sure. And you seem to be stuck on that one point.
Now take a look at the list of differences between the two parties that I’ve posted which you have not responded to. Tell me again how being similar on one or two points makes the two parties the same.
How silly.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The very few times that I’ve heard Fiona speak I was not impressed. She seemed just a tad on the nutty side. But evil? I’d like to know why you think that she’s evil.
[/quote]
She was the CEO of HP and during her run she was known as the ax murderer. She made some bad decisions and whacked well over 30,000 jobs. People there were constantly threatened with massive lay-offs. She sent thousands of jobs overseas, etc. Everybody was running for the hills when she was in charge. She’s a cold bitch.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If it ends up being Bush vs Clinton, it means we are scraping the bottom of the sewer.[/quote]
That’s what politicians have become. The best and brightest have no chance at getting votes from the average dumbass voter. They’re looking for someone to tell them nothing is their fault, and then go take selfies with jayz. [/quote]
So much truth. Plus the best and brightest are busy making money, curing diseases and inventing wonderful new things to make our lives better. IE: actually contributing to the world rather than leeching off it like an elected official.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The very few times that I’ve heard Fiona speak I was not impressed. She seemed just a tad on the nutty side. But evil? I’d like to know why you think that she’s evil.
[/quote]
She was the CEO of HP and during her run she was known as the ax murderer. She made some bad decisions and whacked well over 30,000 jobs. People there were constantly threatened with massive lay-offs. She sent thousands of jobs overseas, etc. Everybody was running for the hills when she was in charge. She’s a cold bitch.[/quote]
Ah I see.
Thank you for enlightening me.