why do republicans have their heads up their as$

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

midwestfisherman

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2003
3,564
8
81
Originally posted by: Ameesh
do you conservitive republicans have no foresight?!?

One guys said "who cares about some dumb bears in alaska?"

another says "i love ronald regan"

another says "the kyoto accords , who needs them, i love the greenhouse effect"

yet another says "f-u california"

are you guys just incrediblly stupid or just trolling?!?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
those dumb bears are part of our country why would you want to pollute and destroy the only truelly untouched ecosystem in the conteninatal united states??!?!

ronald regan is a lying bitch who should be shot for the loads of crap he shoveled onto the american public especially the runaway national deficet he so gladly gave us.

bush hates the environments, he is tooo frakin stupid to understand why the kyoto accords were importnat and why the greenhouse affect will hurt the whole world.

and with the california power issues. California has the largest economy of the entire united states. if they go down you will too, no matter where you are. The reprecussions will be felt everywhere


try, please try to have some foresight. care about the earth, care about children, and stop being such money grubbing ($300 is peanuts in a large scheme of things) selfish myopic retards.
we will all regret it if you stay that way.


(if you're wondering)
i consider myself a consrvative democrat. I care about the environment, public education, and equality but i also care about a open and free capatilistic market.

hmmmmmmm........that brings up the question, why are the democrats so out of touch with reality. Big goverment does not equal a better America. Seems to me it's the Dems that have their head up their @sses.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Originally posted by: Tominator
Clinton cut the military a drastic amount and he DID NOT A THING to raise 8.2 million people out of poverty! Everyone KNOWS that once the military is cut at sometime it will need built back up. That is happening now.

A point that is brought up not nearly often enough. Clinton took a good portion of our military and 'pawned' it for pocket change. As anyone who has frequented a pawn shop knows, we're now paying top dollar to get our stuff back.

Prior to Clinton, our military had a long-standing mission objective of sustaining two major conflicts at the same time. A policy that served us well in this little thing called World War 2.
 

SSibalNom

Golden Member
Aug 13, 2003
1,284
0
0
CA is never gonna go away, and I LOVE the smog, it keeps us warm, and if its bad it's like its afternoon all day, and i like afternoons....
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
I am neither Republican nor Democrat but one thing is clear. I will NOT support anyone/party that believe in the Tax and Spend system and then waste on welfare and such. What's wrong with get yourself up by your own self? I came to American with NOTHING, not even a penny in my pocket and right now I have two college degrees and an upper middle class lifestyle. Not filty rich by any means but not dirt poor either.

I am not crazy about Repuplican party either, especially the extreme leftwings such as the Christian Coalition and the Pro Life nazis and the Patriot Act and such. But given a choice between tax and spend or have some money left over, I will pick the party that will tax me LESS.

I think the majority of immigrants would refer Republican party.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,536
336
126
Originally posted by: Phokus
From my Macroeconomics class: Reagan put us into a recession because he wanted to lower taxes, but at the same time he wanted to increase government spending. Because of that, the defecit shot up, sending our economy into a downard spiral.

[......]

Sorry DoubleL, i already got an A in that class. But ask anyone who got a degree in economics and they will all agree that the recession was Reagan's fault.
lol! I recommend that you promptly slap your Macroeconomics instructor in the face for deliberately giving you misleading and politicized information or take the course over again. In either case, whom-ever paid your tuition deserves a refund and an apology.

Of course 'anyone with a degree in economics' will agree the recession was Reagan's fault, because that is precisely what Reagan intended to do. This is not some kind of 'mystery', Reagan supporters freely admit it. Among those Reagan supporters, is one of the most influencial economists of the 20th Century and winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economics - Milton Friedman - who helped architect Reagan's economic and monetary policy.

Properly understanding the reasons why Reagan had little other choice but to force the nation into a recession is what seperates the 'people who got an A in Macroeconomics' from 'people who understand Economics'...

Milton Friedman on Ronald Reagan:
INTERVIEWER: Tell us briefly how Paul Volcker set out to squeeze inflation out of the economy.

MILTON FRIEDMAN: Well, by the time Paul Volcker came along -- this was in 1968-69 [Volcker was undersecretary in the Treasury Department from 1969-74, president of the New York Federal Reseve Bank from 1975-79, and appointed chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board from 1979-87] -- inflation had gotten very high and had gone up close to 20 percent. He was at a meeting of the International Monetary Fund in Yugoslavia in 1979, when the U.S. came under great criticism from the other people there for our inflationary policies. And he came back to the United States and had got the open market committee to announce that they would change their policy and shift from controlling interest rates to controlling the quantity of money. Now, this was mostly verbal rhetoric. What he really wanted to do was to have the interest rate go up very high, to reflect the amount of inflation. But he could do it better by professing that he wasn't controlling it and that he was controlling the quantity of money, and the right policy at that time was to limit what was happening to the quantity of money, and that meant the interest rate shot way up. This is a complex story. It isn't all one way, because in early 1980 President Carter introduced controls on installment spending, and that caused a very sharp collapse in the credit market and caused a very sharp downward spiral in the economy. To counter that, the Federal Reserve increased the money supply very rapidly. In the five months before the 1980 election, the money supply went up more rapidly than in any other five-month period in the postwar era. Immediately after him, Reagan was elected, and the money supply started going down. So that was a very political reaction during that period.


INTERVIEWER: How important was President Reagan's support for Volcker's policies?

MILTON FRIEDMAN: Enormously important. There is no other president in the postwar period who would have stood by without trying to interfere, to intervene with the Federal Reserve. The situation was this: The only way you could get the inflation down was by having monetary contraction. There was no way you could do that without having a temporary recession. The great error in the earlier period had been that whenever there was a little contraction there was a tendency to expand the money supply rapidly in order to avoid unemployment. That stop-and-go policy was really what bedeviled the Fed during the '60s and '70s. That was the situation in 1980, in '81 in particular. After Reagan came into office, the Fed did step on the money supply, did hold down its growth, and that did lead to a recession. At that point every other president would have immediately come in and tried to get the Federal Reserve to expand. Reagan knew what was happening. He understood very well that the only way he could get inflation down was by accepting a temporary recession, and he supported Volcker and did not try to intervene. Now, you know, there is a myth that Reagan was somehow simpleminded and didn't understand these things. That's a bunch of nonsense. He understood this issue very well. And I know -- I can speak with, I think, authority on this -- that he realized what he was doing, and he knew very well that he was risking his political standing in order to achieve a basic economic objective. And, as you know, his poll ratings went way down in 1982, and then, when the inflation seemed to be broken enough, the Fed reversed policy, started to expand the money supply, the economy recovered, and along with it, Reagan's poll ratings went back up.


INTERVIEWER: And the economy has been pretty solid ever since. [As of the year 2000.]

MILTON FRIEDMAN: Yes, absolutely. There is no doubt in my mind that that action of Reagan, plus his emphasis on lowering tax rates, plus his emphasis on deregulating ... I mentioned that the regulations had doubled, the number of pages in the Federal Register had doubled, during the Nixon regime; they almost halved during the Reagan regime. So those actions of Reagan unleashed the basic constructive forces of the free market and from 1983 on, it's been almost entirely up.

INTERVIEWER: What Reagan was doing is almost exactly mirrored in Britain by what Mrs. Thatcher was doing at about the same time. Are the two influencing to each other, or is it just a case of ideas coming into their own?


MILTON FRIEDMAN: Both of them faced similar situations. And both of them, fortunately, had exposure to similar ideas. And they reinforced one another. Each saw the success of the other. I think that the coincidence of Thatcher and Reagan having been in office at the same time was enormously important for the public acceptance, worldwide, of a different approach to economic and monetary policy.
Compare, or rather, contrast Reagan's willingness to harm his political and popular standing for the good of the country to Willy Clinton's Presidency-By-Popularity-Poll Administration, which sat idly by and did nothing about the unsustainable and ultimately doomed Bull Market except try to take all credit for the 'Greatest Economy', while the most notable albiet lone voice of caution came from a Republican (Alan Greenspan).

I won't mention that all of the scandalous corporate 'accounting irregularities' began in the mid-to-late 90s without notice of the then-current Administration. Oops, I guess I just did.

Any half-wit should understand what all this means: Clinton dropped a huge festering clusterf-ck of a mess right into Bush's lap.

Nuff said.
 

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
1
0
Originally posted by: Tominator
I see we have new Idiot-Tree Huggin-Liberal Democrats..posting. WELCOME! We always like handing your type a bucket of truth....not that you would have ANY idea what to do with it! WELCOME!

You mean Bjorn's truth? As far as environmental issues, onservatives are all about ignoring truth. Profit and growth sound damn good.. but they have a price, and at some point it won't be affordable. Believe it or not, statisticians don't know more about science than scientists. But of course, conservatives can only see the short term. "More profits" "More growth" "Fvck the environment".

Here's what I want you conservatives to do. Go outside, and breathe in the air. Chances are it smells decent. It wouldn't if it weren't for "Idiot-Tree Huggin-Liberal Democrats". It would smell like your uncle's old Chevy.

You know what actually is stupid? Exploiting other peoples for profit, exploiting the irreplaceable environment for profit, and cheating your descendents for profit.

Also stupid is the original post.
 

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
1
0
Originally posted by: Eli
He brings up some good points.

It IS mind boggling how some can have such little regard for our environment, and such short sightedness regarding the future.

Instead of being strongly republican, or strongly democratic... why don't we teach our children to be smack dab in the middle, and get rid of both classifications?

What are you talking about? Teach our children to make stupid compromises? I gaurantee it would be only Democrats teaching their children this, then they will end up voting Republican.

Anyway, just because there are two sides to every issue, doesn't mean that the middle ground is right. Ex. There were two sides of the civil rights issue. Does that mean that should be at 50% of where we are today?
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
33,932
1,113
126
Good Lord this thread is old.

Anyway, I'm glad there are people out there who choose to take part in politics, because lately I've realized that I don't care. It seems to futile, nothing ever gets done.

I pay just enough attention to make an informed vote for the least evil candidate. It's getting harder to figure out which one is the smallest joke of a man though.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Since I missed this thread 3 years ago, I will add in my comments now. I have only one thing to say:



rolleye.gif
 

Jeff7181

Lifer
Aug 21, 2002
18,368
11
81
Hey... I hear the air is clear is Afghanistan... the occasional bullet whizzes through it, but no smog! Maybe you'd like it there better?
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
76
Why do democrats have their heads up everybody elses asses and their hands in everyone's wallet?