Thread: McCain Aides Say Palin Is "Clueless".

No he didn't, he just happened to be president when their economy collapsed because of a runaway military budget like the US is heading towards if Bush is elected again.

Clinton produced the largest surplus in american history and the lowest poverty and unemployment rates since Kennedy.

I like this game. Bush?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No he didn't, he just happened to be president when their economy collapsed because of a runaway military budget like the US is heading towards if Bush is elected again.

Clinton produced the largest surplus in american history and the lowest poverty and unemployment rates since Kennedy.

I like this game. Bush?

Reagan used the arms race to drain the Soviet Union's pitiful socialist economy many times faster than otherwise. He gets the Cold War MVP award.

Clinton had a Republican Congress and the residuals of Bush Sr. and Reagan.

Bush is the liberator of Iraq and Afghanistan and the man who began the great liberation and advancement of the Middle East.

Obama?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Bush is the liberator of Iraq and Afghanistan and the man who began the great liberation and advancement of the Middle East.

lawl

I think history will show that Bush stirred up a shit storm that set the middle eastern cultural progression back 50-100 years.

Yeah, the furthest anyone got in the middle east was Jimmy Carter. Liberator of Iraq? No, he was the invader and occupier of Iraq.

The Soviet Union was on its way down by the time Reagan got there. Runaway military budgets always cause the end of a powerful country. Clinton had a republican congress for the second half of his term. The clean air act, "don't ask, don't tell" act (don't feel like looking up it's title) were all done with a liberal congress.

If you want to talk about what a conservative congress can do we can look at the damage it caused from 2000 - 2006.


Obama pushed E85 fuel, and gave tax credits to fuel dealers who carried it. He helped pass legislation that makes the congress budget public. He also sponsored legislation that was to stop predatory loans. He picked a VP candidate who knows more about foreign policy than anyone. He also almost never voted with George W Bush, the worst president in american history.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Clinton had a Republican Congress and the residuals of Bush Sr. and Reagan.

I love this line. "Clinton's surplus was based on Reagan and Bush Sr.'s policies (even though they both had a deficit). Bush Jr.'s deficit was based on Clinton's policies (even though he's had two market crashes and has failed to show any improvement to the economy in eight years, while introducing many of the policies that have put the world on the brink of total economic collapse)"

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Obama pushed E85 fuel, and gave tax credits to fuel dealers who carried it.

Going to have to stop you there. Supporting ethanol is nothing to brag about. ethanol production uses more fossil fuel than it saves and is one of the leading causes of the current food shortages in this country and around the globe. It was a quick fix that made it look like people were helping the environment but really just gave new refinery plant contracts to oil companies as well as the tax credits you mentioned. I've done research on this so if you want some sources, I'll pull them out for you.

You need to do a little bit more research. Ethanol is not made out of the same type of corn that people eat, it's made out of the type of corn that is fed to animals. The government actually buys tons and tons of corn and destroys them to keep the market prices competitive. All of that should be going towards E85 fuel.

All advances in energy initially start in a deficit, however that is no longer the case, it no longer takes more energy to create as is saved by its use. All fuel in the US (I think) has up to 10% ethanol in it. E85 is temporary, fuel cell cars won't take off until the oil companies are out of the white house.

Mass production streamlines the assembly line. It's more efficient now.

The tax credits did not go to the oil companies, it went to the dealers, which are owned by individuals, not faceless corporations.

What pisses me off is that it doesn't seem like many Americans care enough to keep up with politics or world news. When you look at the evidence, it doesn't take a genius to say that McCain and Palin are bad news for this country.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I love this line. "Clinton's surplus was based on Reagan and Bush Sr.'s policies (even though they both had a deficit). Bush Jr.'s deficit was based on Clinton's policies (even though he's had two market crashes and has failed to show any improvement to the economy in eight years, while introducing many of the policies that have put the world on the brink of total economic collapse)"



Going to have to stop you there. Supporting ethanol is nothing to brag about. ethanol production uses more fossil fuel than it saves and is one of the leading causes of the current food shortages in this country and around the globe. It was a quick fix that made it look like people were helping the environment but really just gave new refinery plant contracts to oil companies as well as the tax credits you mentioned. I've done research on this so if you want some sources, I'll pull them out for you.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You need to do a little bit more research. Ethanol is not made out of the same type of corn that people eat, it's made out of the type of corn that is fed to animals. The government actually buys tons and tons of corn and destroys them to keep the market prices competitive. All of that should be going towards E85 fuel.

All advances in energy initially start in a deficit, however that is no longer the case, it no longer takes more energy to create as is saved by its use. All fuel in the US (I think) has up to 10% ethanol in it. E85 is temporary, fuel cell cars won't take off until the oil companies are out of the white house.

Mass production streamlines the assembly line. It's more efficient now.

The tax credits did not go to the oil companies, it went to the dealers, which are owned by individuals, not faceless corporations.

How 'bout both of you cite your fucking sources or don't say anything if you don't have any.

http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode...FE3EB8DBBAA57D
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...le-and-climate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol...nd_controversy

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Yeah, the furthest anyone got in the middle east was Jimmy Carter. Liberator of Iraq? No, he was the invader and occupier of Iraq.

Invasion was necessary to overthrow the Hussein regime, and occupation has been necessary to get the new government off the ground. There was no other way to do it.

The people of Iraq have a democratic government now. They have been liberated. The same is true of Afghanistan. If nothing else, they both have a shot at having a great country. Aren't you glad about at least that much? They would have never had that under the Hussein regime.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The Soviet Union was on its way down by the time Reagan got there. Runaway military budgets always cause the end of a powerful country. Clinton had a republican congress for the second half of his term. The clean air act, "don't ask, don't tell" act (don't feel like looking up it's title) were all done with a liberal congress.

Reagan ran away their military budget.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

If you want to talk about what a conservative congress can do we can look at the damage it caused from 2000 - 2006.

Yeah, I was very disappointed in what they did in that time. It was their big chance to prove something, and they had their heads up their asses. It was pathetic.

http://agebb.missouri.edu/mgt/insurance.htm

I never said that the government buying crops is a bad thing, it keeps the farmers in business when they make too much of it.

Where Obama's tax credits went is public information, you can find it in the congress budget.

It's true that there was no other way to do it. The question is why did they do it. It wasn't about WMAs or terrorism. They can't say it's about revenge so they say that it's about freeing the Iraq people. What about the people of Darfur or central africa? Why aren't those our interests? we've got what, 100 peacekeepers there and 100,000 troops in Iraq that wasn't treating it's people well, but wasn't committing genocide (anymore) either.


It really doesn't look like Reagan had any effect on the derivative of the curve at all. The USSR had been overspending for 40 years, that's why it fell apart. If it weren't for the balanced budget between Vietnam and Reagan, the american economy would have collapsed too like it's doing now.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Invasion was necessary to overthrow the Hussein regime, and occupation has been necessary to get the new government off the ground. There was no other way to do it.

The people of Iraq have a democratic government now. They have been liberated. The same is true of Afghanistan. If nothing else, they both have a shot at having a great country. Aren't you glad about at least that much? They would have never had that under the Hussein regime.

Those are the positives. Now let's look at the negatives. The wars have costed billions and billions of dollars playing a part in our current crappy economy, many thousands of people on all three sides (Coalition forces, insurgents/terrorists, and civilians) have been killed as a direct result of the war, and people around the world hate us unreasonably. That's not all the negatives, I know.

I think it's safe to say we either didn't have enough information to make assumptions or we were just straight-up lied to concerning the original reason we went into the war in the first place.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

It really doesn't look like Reagan had any effect on the derivative of the curve at all. The USSR had been overspending for 40 years, that's why it fell apart. If it weren't for the balanced budget between Vietnam and Reagan, the american economy would have collapsed too like it's doing now.

Look at what happened from 1986 to 1988. Then notice the historic nose dive that happened right after that. Like I said, Reagan gets the MVP award. He had other policies that led to Soviet demise, and he followed a long line of people who played their parts. Reagan did more than the others, and he was president when the shit finally hit the fan.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Those are the positives. Now let's look at the negatives. The wars have costed billions and billions of dollars playing a part in our current crappy economy, many thousands of people on all three sides (Coalition forces, insurgents/terrorists, and civilians) have been killed as a direct result of the war, and people around the world hate us unreasonably. What did I miss?

I think it's safe to say we either didn't have enough information to make assumptions or we were just straight-up lied to concerning the original reason we went into the war in the first place.

Decades from now, you will be able to see that it was clearly worth it.

I don't see anything there that shows that Reagan's runaway military budget had any effect on the Soviet Union, they had been draining themselves for 40 years, Reagan was president at the right time to take credit for the collapse. You're also flipflopping on your opinion of what caused the collapse. First it was communism, now you agree with me that it was their military budget.

No, decades from now it will be seen the same way it is now. Just like Vietnam.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I don't see anything there that shows that Reagan's runaway military budget had any effect on the Soviet Union, they had been draining themselves for 40 years, Reagan was president at the right time to take credit for the collapse. You're also flipflopping on your opinion of what caused the collapse. First it was communism, now you agree with me that it was their military budget.

It was both... plus other things. You keep assuming that things can only have one reason behind them. You keep doing it with the war in Iraq too.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, decades from now it will be seen the same way it is now. Just like Vietnam.

You are going to have to rationalize your ass off pretty hard to have that view in 50 years.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Decades from now, you will be able to see that it was clearly worth it.

Are you willing to take that risk? History has shown it can go both ways. I sure don't want to play Russian roulette with the economy.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Are you willing to take that risk? History has shown it can go both ways. I sure don't want to play Russian roulette with the economy.

I am not at all talking about Russian roulette. I am just saying look back on this war in 50 years.