CADsortaGUY
Lifer
You're asking how Bush can lose on a message board that is highly populated by liberal extremists?!
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
That's one of those technically-true answers that's intended to divert the discussion. By GAAP standards, there was never a surplus. There was a surplus, however, as measured using the federal government's accounting standards. While this may be misleading, it is equally misleading for all administrations, allowing an accurate apples to apples comparison. By those standards, Clinton was ahead half-a-trillion dollars or so. Bush-lite is in the hole a similar amount, for a net difference of a cool trillion dollars in excess expenditures by Bush-lite.
But if you want to assist on GAAP accounting, one should say Clinton was $1 trillion less in the red than Bush-lite. He didn't have a true surplus, however.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
True none the less though.
No diversion - just not letting someone misrepresent a grossly misunderstood "forecast". Now as you should know by now Bow, just like most people here seem to agree on a more "open" type gov't atleast as far as budget goes, I am greatly in favor of REAL fiscal reform - not just cost shifting and hide the figures games. Bottom line is there was no "surplus" and even in Clinton would have had (God forbid) another 4 more years in office he still wouldn't have had a surplus because of 9/11 and the recession.CkG
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
With all due respect Cad, if your intent were merely to educate the misinformed, you would respond with the correct information while still conceding the overall gist of the comment. Instead, you play games, pedantically insisting they are wrong over and over to divert the overal discussion in another, less threatening direction. It does not contribute to the discussion. It only clouds it and drowns it out in off-topic noise.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
True none the less though.
CkG
Sandorski was correct according to the generally accepted accounting rules used by the federal government. Bush took a huge "surplus" and put us another trillion dollars into the hole by spending like a drunken sailor. (Please do not explain how "drunken sailor" is a sterotype and that Bush was in the Air Guard, therefore it doesn't apply.)
Only an extremist like yourself would be offended by that statement. Perhaps you should just accept your radical wacko views for what they are.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
With all due respect Cad, if your intent were merely to educate the misinformed, you would respond with the correct information while still conceding the overall gist of the comment. Instead, you play games, pedantically insisting they are wrong over and over to divert the overal discussion in another, less threatening direction. It does not contribute to the discussion. It only clouds it and drowns it out in off-topic noise.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
True none the less though.
CkG
Sandorski was correct according to the generally accepted accounting rules used by the federal government. Bush took a huge "surplus" and put us another trillion dollars into the hole by spending like a drunken sailor. (Please do not explain how "drunken sailor" is a sterotype and that Bush was in the Air Guard, therefore it doesn't apply.)
No - there was no "surplus" so again - you suggesting that Bush "took a huge surplus" and did whatever with it is misleading realistically false. THERE WAS NO SURPLUS - PERIOD. I was not "educating" - I was telling him he was FOS just like I'll tell anyone who claims Clinton had a "surplus" they are FOS.
You seem to have some understanding regarding this so I don't understand why you want to pick at things that are imagined. Now it seems as though it has evolved into a debate(or diversion to you) over real vs fake numbers. Sure, I have a surplus too - see
If I take this money and put it over there and add it to this column and call it that then subtract the orininal number from this number which is minus what we put over in the other column and renamed.....see I have a surplus too That was fun - no? Bottom line - there was NO SURPLUS.Next issue.
CkG
Also keep in mind that the supposed "surplus" if there ws one is from the previous Bush, its a cycle Republicans get the economy on track, Democrats ruin it. Granted the current Bush has been trying to play politcs too much but overall hes done well.
As for the veto comment made by Zantac , i wasnt going to waste my time stating the obvious but if the president vetos congress too much then none of his bills will get passed and the liberal media would spin it as the president not cooperating with congress. Politics, we need a president that wont play them and Kerry is DEFINATLY NOT the person. Sharpton on the otherhand is at least straightforward.
Also you can't make a statment like "there was a surplus" without citing something, as for my post most of my ideas are well documented in the book i referenced.
As for the veto comment made by Zantac , i wasnt going to waste my time stating the obvious but if the president vetos congress too much then none of his bills will get passed and the liberal media would spin it as the president not cooperating with congress. Politics, we need a president that wont play them and Kerry is DEFINATLY NOT the person. Sharpton on the otherhand is at least straightforward.
Also you can't make a statment like "there was a surplus" without citing something, as for my post most of my ideas are well documented in the book i referenced.
Original post in plain-text by me.
Original replies by Dari in bold
Rebuttals by me in italics
I edited out redudant information.
Original replies by Dari in bold
Rebuttals by me in italics
Originally posted by: beer
1) Patriot Act
This has a sunset clause. It was a bi-partisan effort that was strangely ready days after September 11. Does it have issues? Yes, but the Act done more good than harm. I don't understand the paranoia among liberals about this law. Nevertheless, it's a catch-up law that can be mended to adapt to our society
It has most certainly not done more good than harm. It is being used against people it was never intended to. Hell, someone that pocesses a single dose of meth is charged with it under a WMD clause! And it is starting to be repealed by the courts leads me to think that it was passed by Asscroft and Co. knowing that eventually it would be overturned by the courts. It had a good intention but the AG office are now prosecuting non-terrorists under terrorist-clauses and that is what scares me the most.
2) Writing discrimination back into the constitution
I disagree with this. I see no reason to explicitly halt homosexuals from getting married. But, this proposal is a non-starter so I doubt that the President will get anywhere with this resolution, even though he may strongly believe in it.
Glad we're in concurrance
3) Disregarding the advice and reorganizing his own science research teams to tell him the news he wants to hear
I don't know what you're talking about here but I doubt it doesn't have anything to do with politics. Furthermore, it's had no major effect on the scientific and economic industries.
Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts (NY Times, free registration required)
4) $500 billion deficit
Terrorist attacks, global war against terrorism, and a recession will force any government to spend. This is common knowledge. The surplus never would've paid of our national debt (and there was no logical reason to speculate either) so I'm not surprised that the deficit has ballooned so much. But, with the economy growing and less spending promised by the administration (this President keeps his word), that deficit that Democrats have always been worried aboutwill eventually fall. What's worse, you seem to believe that John "the ultra-liberal" Kerry will be any better. This man is as reliable and trustworthy as a chronic liar.
I'm not going to touch this with a 10-foot pole, it has already been debated in this thread
5) Lying - Where are the WMDs bush, huh? Remember that promise of NO NATION BUILDING?
Blame the CIA for the missing WMDs. But why attack the President for carrying out official American policy (the removal of Hussein)? the Iraq war may have had some inconstanticies, but was a just war if you care about international peace and stability. As for nation building, the President believe what he said at the time. But when fate throws you some hard curves, you have to respond. I guess you believe that the President should've have invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq, then leave it to some international institution to do the nation-building, right? Well, like it or not, things would've turned out far worse had we left after winning the battles.
Iraq was no longer a regional threat, and this had nothing to do about stability. There was never any evidence of harboring terrorists or WMDs. I can't blame the CIA when the administration kept on prodding for data that the NSA and CIA couldn't find. The administration wouldn't take no for an answer in this case. It has been documented in the news numerous times that the administration kept on urging the CIA to find more evidence, even though there initially was none to support the administration's views. Don't blame the CIA - blame W
6) Appointing John Ashcoft
Give me a better reason than "Appointing John Ashcroft."
You do realize this guy is so far off in right field that he had naked statues covered in cloth because he found it offensive, right? He does not represent mainstream american politics and should not have been appointed to a job where that was a requirement
7) Doing recess appoinments of circuit court judges to circumvent the will (and better sense of) congress
That's an incredibly bias statement. What the President was wholly legal and Congress was playing politics. Come back with a better reason
Congress wasn't playing politics, they realized these judges were far too conservative, once again, for mainstream appointments. Bush acted out of a loophole and it is 'legal' in the same sense of what Ken Lay did to Enron was 'legal.' It's just a stall tactic that Bush did and nothing more, in an attempt to hope that congress gains republican seats in the fall that will allow the appointment to be approved in January 2005
9) Not fixing social security
Social Security is an incredibly sensitive issue that no one really wants to touch. The Republicans came up with a market-oriented solution a couple of years ago, but retreated when the Dow Jones went down. Not everyone will be happy with a remedy but the market one was better than having the gov't pay for all of it. BTW, IMHO, SS shouldn't even be the government's problem. It should be an individual problem. Let people save for their future.
Bottom line is that his ass is making promises that are going to burden future generations. It was fiscally irresponsible to do what he did.
10) Immigration propositions
This isn't Europe. This is America, a nation of immigrant. IF you are against immigrant, then you should be the first to return to whever you came from. Fact is, the new law brings illegal immigrant out of the shadows and into the light, where it is safer. BTW, if you have to compete with illegal immigrants over the same jobs then you aren't taking advantage of all the subsidies and grants the gov't gives you when it comes to education. Either you're too stupid or too lazy, which one is it?
It doesn't bring them out of the woodwork; it binds them to a particular employer for exploitation. The illegal market will still exist. I will defer any further explanation to an article I wish you to read, which reflects my sentiments exactly.
Bush's Immigration Plan Flawed
11) As of a result of #3, complete disregard for the environment, for scientific research, stem cells, underfunding the EPA while ballooning defense spending
It's better to keep politics out of science if you ask me. Besides, the feds only do about 10% of all scientific research in this country. I doubt that the stem cell controversy will have a major impact. Furthermore, it's better to let the private sector deal with the environment than have the gov't regulate everyone to hell.As for defense, why don't you tell the victims of terror and the military that the gov't is spending too much on providing them world-class security and equipment.
Stem cells are a huge field of research and will yield far more beneficial solutions than any other medical field. Too bad that Bush deems it 'immoral' but will continue to let people die from basic diseses, such as the flu, thousandfold each season.
12) Encouraging Tom Delay's illegal texas redistricting
Prove that it's illegal. BTW, why stop at Texas? Look at what the Democrats in Cali have done? Is that legal?
This is an issue that deserves it's own thread and shouldn't be debated here. I haven't familiarized myself with the California situation and I will assume that you are not familiar with the Texas one. Bottom line is that it borders on gerrymandering - I am in the same district, in urban Austin, as a border farmer is. That meets a lot of criteria for gerrymandering right there
13) 'Enemy Combatants' in clear violation of the Geneva Convention and then bitching about the treatment of American POWs
Prove that it is in clear violation of the Geneva Convention. As for American POWS, I don't know where you're from but in my humble opinion, it would be blasphemous for any President or American citizen not to put our own first.
Bush and Powell cried when the Iraqis were showing dead americans on TV when we were doing the exact same thing. Furthermore since the Taliban were a ruling government in Afghanistan, that classifies them into POW status, not 'enemy combatant.' All I need to do to prove that it is illegal is to prove that the Taliban were the ruling government of Afghanistan and therefore made them soldiers of the state. I don't think that is going to be hard considering that Karzai is seen as the ruling government now and things were much mroe stable, if oppressive, under the Taliban. I do not oppose the Afghanistan war because it presented a clear and present danger to the citizens of this country - something that Iraq did not.
14) "Shock and Awe"
That's a military-public relations term. I noticed it earlier but you seem to be an ultr-liberal, who hates everything about the military while at the same time shedding crocodile tears over their loss. You're pathetic.
Personal attack #1. I am not anti-military; contrary, read the first 100 posts of the 235-long post thread entitled 'Indian AF kicked USAF @$$' in Off Topic. I vigerously defend our military. However the idea of trying to immediately overwhelm a sovreign nation *with air power* is just ridiculous - and that is what 'shock and awe' was. And it completely failed. We won the initial conflict with ground troops.
15) Hypocracy of developing a tactical nuclear bunker buster while telling everyone else in the world to cut back their inventories
It may be hyporcisy, but it's in our self-interest. I see nothing about putting American interests first and ordering others to heed our words, do you?
Not if you expect other nations to do as we say, not as we do. The world doesn't work with exceptionalism. They can achieve the same desired effect by focusing on other parts of research, such as hypervelocity weapons from near-earth orbits. It would still serve a national interest and not fall as contraversial WMD elements. And secondly it would be a far more useful reearch program, considering that there is a good chance we can actually use them one day, instead of tactical bunker-busters that will sit in our inventory like the 3000 ICBMs that we have. But the ICBMs provide deterrence, a nuclear-tipped bunker-buster does not. Developing one would serve no purpose since it could never be used as long as we have an international system that condemns WMDs
16) As a successor to #15, pulling out of the ABM treaty and wasting hundreds of billions on a ballistic missile shield when our enemies now are just going to bring a nuke on a container ship and level the western port cities.
But, but, but, I thought you were complaining about security spending? You're the one that's being hypocritical. Fact is, NK can lob a nuclear missile towards Xanadu (Cali). Did you even know that? Or does it not matter so long as America's defense is underfunded, right?
Obviously I know this. I also know that the USSR has thousands of nukes pointed at every city in the US. We kept the peace for 50 years with deterrence. To assume Kim Jung would launch a nuke against one US city (with a good chance of missing) and face complete and outright destruction of his capital (and only major) city is foolish. He is crazy, but he is power-hungry and knows that we have a 100% chance of destroying every building in his capital in retaliation. Furthermore the engineers at Raytheon are encountering serious problems with a land-based missile shield; it is much harder to hit a bullet with a bullet than it would be to hit a bullet with energy as may be possible in 20 years - when ICBM propogation becomes a real threat. Until then the major threat is suitcase bombs which a system would not stop.
17) Where are the jobs, Bush? Motherfcueker?
Jobs are being creating left and right. But you won't get www.iwetmypants.com, www.petstore.com, www.i'mstartingacompanywithnobusinessplan.com, or www.i'vedugallthisfiberbutihavenouseforit.com. True, we've lost 2.3M jobs, but most of those were "bubble" jobs that would've eventually been lost. As for the outsourcing, it has been happening for centuries. There's nothing you can do about it except stop the engines of international trade. This brings out another liberal hyporcisy: they care about those living in the Third World so long as it doesn't affect their jobs at home. Can't have it both ways, stupid
Centuries of oursourcing, eh? You know, 100 years ago when the only way to communicate across the atlantic was by ship?
18) Jenna Bush being a bitchy Theta here in Austin
You've got issues. Me thinks you need to get laid.
Personal attack #2. I'm actually surprised you replied to this
19) Making enemies out of just about every former ally, including Western Europe powers such as Germany, France, the general population of the UK (who are going to vote Labour out and there goes the UK' official support of us)
Enemies? You're not only a liberal, but a liberal moron.
Go to the UK and see if people there feel anything positive with Bush. This is personal attack #3 against me, by the way. And time will run it's course on which of us is right - if they re-elect Labour then I will concede defeat, but I suggest that may not be the case and a prime implication from their deception over WMDs (remember the '45-minute 'claim of WMDs to the UK? That's having the same effect as Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' stunt had here)
I edited out redudant information.
Originally posted by: beer
Original post in plain-text by me.
Original replies by Dari in bold
Rebuttals by me in italics
Originally posted by: beer
1) Patriot Act
This has a sunset clause. It was a bi-partisan effort that was strangely ready days after September 11. Does it have issues? Yes, but the Act done more good than harm. I don't understand the paranoia among liberals about this law. Nevertheless, it's a catch-up law that can be mended to adapt to our society
It has most certainly not done more good than harm. It is being used against people it was never intended to. Hell, someone that pocesses a single dose of meth is charged with it under a WMD clause! And it is starting to be repealed by the courts leads me to think that it was passed by Asscroft and Co. knowing that eventually it would be overturned by the courts. It had a good intention but the AG office are now prosecuting non-terrorists under terrorist-clauses and that is what scares me the most.
2) Writing discrimination back into the constitution
I disagree with this. I see no reason to explicitly halt homosexuals from getting married. But, this proposal is a non-starter so I doubt that the President will get anywhere with this resolution, even though he may strongly believe in it.
Glad we're in concurrance
3) Disregarding the advice and reorganizing his own science research teams to tell him the news he wants to hear
I don't know what you're talking about here but I doubt it doesn't have anything to do with politics. Furthermore, it's had no major effect on the scientific and economic industries.
Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts (NY Times, free registration required)
4) $500 billion deficit
Terrorist attacks, global war against terrorism, and a recession will force any government to spend. This is common knowledge. The surplus never would've paid of our national debt (and there was no logical reason to speculate either) so I'm not surprised that the deficit has ballooned so much. But, with the economy growing and less spending promised by the administration (this President keeps his word), that deficit that Democrats have always been worried aboutwill eventually fall. What's worse, you seem to believe that John "the ultra-liberal" Kerry will be any better. This man is as reliable and trustworthy as a chronic liar.
I'm not going to touch this with a 10-foot pole, it has already been debated in this thread
5) Lying - Where are the WMDs bush, huh? Remember that promise of NO NATION BUILDING?
Blame the CIA for the missing WMDs. But why attack the President for carrying out official American policy (the removal of Hussein)? the Iraq war may have had some inconstanticies, but was a just war if you care about international peace and stability. As for nation building, the President believe what he said at the time. But when fate throws you some hard curves, you have to respond. I guess you believe that the President should've have invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq, then leave it to some international institution to do the nation-building, right? Well, like it or not, things would've turned out far worse had we left after winning the battles.
Iraq was no longer a regional threat, and this had nothing to do about stability. There was never any evidence of harboring terrorists or WMDs. I can't blame the CIA when the administration kept on prodding for data that the NSA and CIA couldn't find. The administration wouldn't take no for an answer in this case. It has been documented in the news numerous times that the administration kept on urging the CIA to find more evidence, even though there initially was none to support the administration's views. Don't blame the CIA - blame W
6) Appointing John Ashcoft
Give me a better reason than "Appointing John Ashcroft."
You do realize this guy is so far off in right field that he had naked statues covered in cloth because he found it offensive, right? He does not represent mainstream american politics and should not have been appointed to a job where that was a requirement
7) Doing recess appoinments of circuit court judges to circumvent the will (and better sense of) congress
That's an incredibly bias statement. What the President was wholly legal and Congress was playing politics. Come back with a better reason
Congress wasn't playing politics, they realized these judges were far too conservative, once again, for mainstream appointments. Bush acted out of a loophole and it is 'legal' in the same sense of what Ken Lay did to Enron was 'legal.' It's just a stall tactic that Bush did and nothing more, in an attempt to hope that congress gains republican seats in the fall that will allow the appointment to be approved in January 2005
9) Not fixing social security
Social Security is an incredibly sensitive issue that no one really wants to touch. The Republicans came up with a market-oriented solution a couple of years ago, but retreated when the Dow Jones went down. Not everyone will be happy with a remedy but the market one was better than having the gov't pay for all of it. BTW, IMHO, SS shouldn't even be the government's problem. It should be an individual problem. Let people save for their future.
Bottom line is that his ass is making promises that are going to burden future generations. It was fiscally irresponsible to do what he did.
10) Immigration propositions
This isn't Europe. This is America, a nation of immigrant. IF you are against immigrant, then you should be the first to return to whever you came from. Fact is, the new law brings illegal immigrant out of the shadows and into the light, where it is safer. BTW, if you have to compete with illegal immigrants over the same jobs then you aren't taking advantage of all the subsidies and grants the gov't gives you when it comes to education. Either you're too stupid or too lazy, which one is it?
It doesn't bring them out of the woodwork; it binds them to a particular employer for exploitation. The illegal market will still exist. I will defer any further explanation to an article I wish you to read, which reflects my sentiments exactly.
Bush's Immigration Plan Flawed
11) As of a result of #3, complete disregard for the environment, for scientific research, stem cells, underfunding the EPA while ballooning defense spending
It's better to keep politics out of science if you ask me. Besides, the feds only do about 10% of all scientific research in this country. I doubt that the stem cell controversy will have a major impact. Furthermore, it's better to let the private sector deal with the environment than have the gov't regulate everyone to hell.As for defense, why don't you tell the victims of terror and the military that the gov't is spending too much on providing them world-class security and equipment.
Stem cells are a huge field of research and will yield far more beneficial solutions than any other medical field. Too bad that Bush deems it 'immoral' but will continue to let people die from basic diseses, such as the flu, thousandfold each season.
12) Encouraging Tom Delay's illegal texas redistricting
Prove that it's illegal. BTW, why stop at Texas? Look at what the Democrats in Cali have done? Is that legal?
This is an issue that deserves it's own thread and shouldn't be debated here. I haven't familiarized myself with the California situation and I will assume that you are not familiar with the Texas one. Bottom line is that it borders on gerrymandering - I am in the same district, in urban Austin, as a border farmer is. That meets a lot of criteria for gerrymandering right there
13) 'Enemy Combatants' in clear violation of the Geneva Convention and then bitching about the treatment of American POWs
Prove that it is in clear violation of the Geneva Convention. As for American POWS, I don't know where you're from but in my humble opinion, it would be blasphemous for any President or American citizen not to put our own first.
Bush and Powell cried when the Iraqis were showing dead americans on TV when we were doing the exact same thing. Furthermore since the Taliban were a ruling government in Afghanistan, that classifies them into POW status, not 'enemy combatant.' All I need to do to prove that it is illegal is to prove that the Taliban were the ruling government of Afghanistan and therefore made them soldiers of the state. I don't think that is going to be hard considering that Karzai is seen as the ruling government now and things were much mroe stable, if oppressive, under the Taliban. I do not oppose the Afghanistan war because it presented a clear and present danger to the citizens of this country - something that Iraq did not.
14) "Shock and Awe"
That's a military-public relations term. I noticed it earlier but you seem to be an ultr-liberal, who hates everything about the military while at the same time shedding crocodile tears over their loss. You're pathetic.
Personal attack #1. I am not anti-military; contrary, read the first 100 posts of the 235-long post thread entitled 'Indian AF kicked USAF @$$' in Off Topic. I vigerously defend our military. However the idea of trying to immediately overwhelm a sovreign nation *with air power* is just ridiculous - and that is what 'shock and awe' was. And it completely failed. We won the initial conflict with ground troops.
15) Hypocracy of developing a tactical nuclear bunker buster while telling everyone else in the world to cut back their inventories
It may be hyporcisy, but it's in our self-interest. I see nothing about putting American interests first and ordering others to heed our words, do you?
Not if you expect other nations to do as we say, not as we do. The world doesn't work with exceptionalism. They can achieve the same desired effect by focusing on other parts of research, such as hypervelocity weapons from near-earth orbits. It would still serve a national interest and not fall as contraversial WMD elements. And secondly it would be a far more useful reearch program, considering that there is a good chance we can actually use them one day, instead of tactical bunker-busters that will sit in our inventory like the 3000 ICBMs that we have. But the ICBMs provide deterrence, a nuclear-tipped bunker-buster does not. Developing one would serve no purpose since it could never be used as long as we have an international system that condemns WMDs
16) As a successor to #15, pulling out of the ABM treaty and wasting hundreds of billions on a ballistic missile shield when our enemies now are just going to bring a nuke on a container ship and level the western port cities.
But, but, but, I thought you were complaining about security spending? You're the one that's being hypocritical. Fact is, NK can lob a nuclear missile towards Xanadu (Cali). Did you even know that? Or does it not matter so long as America's defense is underfunded, right?
Obviously I know this. I also know that the USSR has thousands of nukes pointed at every city in the US. We kept the peace for 50 years with deterrence. To assume Kim Jung would launch a nuke against one US city (with a good chance of missing) and face complete and outright destruction of his capital (and only major) city is foolish. He is crazy, but he is power-hungry and knows that we have a 100% chance of destroying every building in his capital in retaliation. Furthermore the engineers at Raytheon are encountering serious problems with a land-based missile shield; it is much harder to hit a bullet with a bullet than it would be to hit a bullet with energy as may be possible in 20 years - when ICBM propogation becomes a real threat. Until then the major threat is suitcase bombs which a system would not stop.
17) Where are the jobs, Bush? Motherfcueker?
Jobs are being creating left and right. But you won't get www.iwetmypants.com, www.petstore.com, www.i'mstartingacompanywithnobusinessplan.com, or www.i'vedugallthisfiberbutihavenouseforit.com. True, we've lost 2.3M jobs, but most of those were "bubble" jobs that would've eventually been lost. As for the outsourcing, it has been happening for centuries. There's nothing you can do about it except stop the engines of international trade. This brings out another liberal hyporcisy: they care about those living in the Third World so long as it doesn't affect their jobs at home. Can't have it both ways, stupid
Centuries of oursourcing, eh? You know, 100 years ago when the only way to communicate across the atlantic was by ship?
18) Jenna Bush being a bitchy Theta here in Austin
You've got issues. Me thinks you need to get laid.
Personal attack #2. I'm actually surprised you replied to this
19) Making enemies out of just about every former ally, including Western Europe powers such as Germany, France, the general population of the UK (who are going to vote Labour out and there goes the UK' official support of us)
Enemies? You're not only a liberal, but a liberal moron.
Go to the UK and see if people there feel anything positive with Bush. This is personal attack #3 against me, by the way. And time will run it's course on which of us is right - if they re-elect Labour then I will concede defeat, but I suggest that may not be the case and a prime implication from their deception over WMDs (remember the '45-minute 'claim of WMDs to the UK? That's having the same effect as Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' stunt had here)
I edited out redudant information.
OMG, I agree with a Texan. Stop the planet, I need to get off.
:beer:
If you're ever in the NW, I'll buy you a real one...hell I'll buy you a keg.
We Texans aren't all that bad. We have no income tax and these winters sure are pretty
:beer:
:beer:
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
There wasn't. That graph isn't showing what you think it is. Nice try though. Even Bowfinger knows the "surplus" didn't really exist.
CkG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
About what? This has been discussed in multiple other threads. If you don't understand how there really wasn't a "surplus" then you need to read and educate yourself on how the gov't balance sheets work(or rather play a game of "hide the money")
Bowfinger even said this: "That's one of those technically-true answers that's intended to divert the discussion. By GAAP standards, there was never a surplus."
Now he went on to make excuses for the gov'ts accounting practices and tried to "compare"(which wasn't my point) but lets just say that if you, I, or any business tried to use the gov't accounting methods we wouldn't get very far
CkG
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter