Republican or Democrat

[Forgotten Show]

Quote War Authorization Act of 2010

the republican party brought us into the Iraq war....

The war and decision to invade was made in the Clinton administration via the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

i mean if that war never happened i think we could afford obamas health care plan no problem

The Obama administration has already out spent the Bush administration, and not by a little bit.

, they brought the recession and the reason why the economy is so bad is because of republicans

Both parties have equal blame in the economic decisions that brought us where we are now. It didn't just "happen" in 8 years.

now they actually have tea parties....lol this is how i know you have to be slow to be a republican, whats taxation without representation have to do with there parties?

The Tea Party protests of 2009 specifically targetted the "stimulus" bills and Obama's rapid spending.

they have representation but they listen to hypocrites like rush limbaugh and glenn beck and don't even realize this

To which I reference the 2009 town hall meetings where it was very, very clear that the politicians were not representing their constituents very well.

, you have ppl screaming don't tax me not realizing only ppl making 250,000 a year get taxed

I don't make anywhere near $250,000 per year and I most certainly get taxed.

they funny thing is republicans try to explain how 250,000 a year really isn't that much money lol.

Source?


(And all of this is precisely why I support voting tests...)



Bad Memory

[Cobra Commander]

250,000 isn't a lot of money. If you're a successful business. I make about 20,000 a year. I get taxed.

I'm not even going to quote and respond the rest of that mess you're passing off as a paragraph, Duck, because it just comes off as childish shrieking. And you keep saying the same crap over and over again, as if that somehow makes your opinion the correct one.

How did religion even come into this? Oh, wait, you started throwing attacks and insults around for no apparent reason.

Good debate. I mean that as sarcastically as possible.

[Simon Phoenix]

mypoints are correct and favored, ya knoow why? look at the poll and look who's the president.now democrats have to fix the problems the republicans made, lol bill clinton, i didn't knoiw clinton was pres in 2003 and ignored the UN when the correctly said no WMDS..o yea what ever happened to those WMDS the republicans were so sure were there?never mind the bush admin raising the terror level at the election in 04.i'm right you're wrong, just look at the numbers ya know that thing republicans don'twant to face, your top rung is ppl like sarah palin and rush limbaugh, you only elected a black person to head your party cuz the presidents black.you don't want to do anything for health care, you think things are fine as they are.and your only hope is to fillabuster to slow down real production the very thing you complained about when democrats did it, and what ever happened to those evil protestors from the bush days?now they're great tea party citizens...if ya call yourself the tea party and have reprensentation you need a book.......now i know you don't wanna agree with the facts i put forth, but ya have to cuz like real life the numbers are in my favor.

[Skylar1]

I disagree and find his point well-grounded in the realities of this forum. Stop and consider general demographic information about the active members here. The 13-year-old from the Netherlands who by her own admission doesn't know much about American politics but still voices her opinion kinda proves my, and Kishiro's, point.

Regardless of how extenisve one's knowlegde of politics are, everyone still knows very well their own personal ideology and vaules very well. While not knowing much about politics makes their opinions less vaild perhaps, they can not be excluded entirely.

Just as you yourself have said, even uneducated, and or people who know nothing about government or the political system can still beat someone in an arguement on the topics they feel strongly about.

So.. yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with your disagreement. lol

if you're against gay marriage because you believe it's a sin or point to the bible and your fat you're just a hypocrite as i mentioned b4, these gluttons like rush limbaugh,glenn beck,and that fat pastor are the one's breaking commandments and deadly sins yet rail against gays because of the bible, and if they actually read the thing they'd know there bigger sinners.

While being overweight and adhearing to the "gluttony" commandment may be hypocritical, it has absoultely nothing to do with being against same-sex marriage. Being hypocritical on one issue does not automatically make you a hypocritic in something completely unrelated.

[Simon Phoenix]

if you preach the bible and scoff at ppl for not following when you yourself to a greater degree don't follow it you're a hypocrite.

[Skylar1]

if you preach the bible and scoff at ppl for not following when you yourself to a greater degree don't follow it you're a hypocrite.

Then wouldn't every single person that believes in religion and is not a fundemental extremist be a hypocritic by your definition? I highly doubt that there are many people that follow scripture absolutely 100% as it says.

[Simon Phoenix]

Then wouldn't every single person that believes in religion and is not a fundemental extremist be a hypocritic by your definition? I highly doubt that there are many people that follow scripture absolutely 100% as it says.

thats my point, but instead of fixing the sin in there lives they try and stop other ppl(gays)from leading theres the way they want to.every person at rallies against gay ppl should look at there own sins that are actual listed in the 10 commandments and seven deadly sins instead of bothering ppl who's "Sins" aren't.

[Forgotten Show]

Regardless of how extenisve one's knowlegde of politics are, everyone still knows very well their own personal ideology and vaules very well. While not knowing much about politics makes their opinions less vaild perhaps, they can not be excluded entirely.

Just as you yourself have said, even uneducated, and or people who know nothing about government or the political system can still beat someone in an arguement on the topics they feel strongly about.

You missed my point, which is that it is forums like these where you will be more likely to encounter folks who have a lot of opinions but very little subject matter knowledge. And quite contrary to your statements, very few people know their own personal ideologies and values very well at the average age of AF forumites. Young folks just don't have it all figured out yet (which comes from life experience).

mypoints are correct and favored, ya knoow why? look at the poll and look who's the president.now democrats have to fix the problems the republicans made, lol bill clinton, i didn't knoiw clinton was pres in 2003 and ignored the UN when the correctly said no WMDS..o yea what ever happened to those WMDS the republicans were so sure were there?never mind the bush admin raising the terror level at the election in 04.i'm right you're wrong, just look at the numbers ya know that thing republicans don'twant to face, your top rung is ppl like sarah palin and rush limbaugh, you only elected a black person to head your party cuz the presidents black.you don't want to do anything for health care, you think things are fine as they are.and your only hope is to fillabuster to slow down real production the very thing you complained about when democrats did it, and what ever happened to those evil protestors from the bush days?now they're great tea party citizens...if ya call yourself the tea party and have reprensentation you need a book.......now i know you don't wanna agree with the facts i put forth, but ya have to cuz like real life the numbers are in my favor.

Just... wow. Way to represent everything wrong with this latest crop of new voters (ad hominem attacks, clear lack of subject matter knowledge, polarized "with or against us" arguments, and stereotypical American short-memory and short-sightedness). All in one poorly-formatted paragraph. Well done.


Bad Memory

[Simon Phoenix]

well , i got the votes so well done indeed,lol, wrong with new voters, i think voters noticed they voted for republicans and got drug into the iraq war and and 1 of the largest finacial collapses in history.......also Mccain didn't want to debate remeber he suspended his campaign to fix the problem and voted in line anyway.......lol typical republican cornyness.

[Skylar1]

You missed my point, which is that it is forums like these where you will be more likely to encounter folks who have a lot of opinions but very little subject matter knowledge. And quite contrary to your statements, very few people know their own personal ideologies and values very well at the average age of AF forumites. Young folks just don't have it all figured out yet (which comes from life experience).

Fair enough. Then again, most of the members that actually post in these sort of threads often are 18+, which usually by 18 -21 years of age, a person has a pretty good idea of where they stand ideologically.

well , i got the votes so well done indeed,lol, wrong with new voters, i think voters noticed they voted for republicans and got drug into the iraq war and and 1 of the largest finacial collapses in history.......also Mccain didn't want to debate remeber he suspended his campaign to fix the problem and voted in line anyway.......lol typical republican cornyness.

It also has to do with the emerging younger generations. (refer back to my earlier post about the divides between generational constituencies for more information).

[Eris]

Snuff out the flame war or I'll close the thread. This is your only warning.

[unspun]

I think it kind of sucks that Reps and Dems seem to be the only "real" option people think we have. The reason nobody knows any more than "independent" is because people still only say "Reps or Dems". Libertarians are on the rise most definitely and you'd do good for yourself and everyone else if you recognize that.
Say it in your head. Republicans, Democratics, Libertarians...See? Not so bad.

[Forgotten Show]

well , i got the votes so well done indeed,lol, wrong with new voters, i think voters noticed they voted for republicans and got drug into the iraq war and and 1 of the largest finacial collapses in history.......also Mccain didn't want to debate remeber he suspended his campaign to fix the problem and voted in line anyway.......lol typical republican cornyness.

The votes? All 49 of them on Anime Forum? You're something else. Let me help you understand a few things.


Iraq
The Iraq conflict was not started by Republicans as a party. Our involvement with the country started after WWII with the Baghdad Pact (1955). Eisenhower was president at the time, and Congress was about dead split between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the House favored Democrats by about 20 votes. Not exactly “partisan”. Anyway, getting Iraq involved in the Baghdad Pact was supposed to keep a solid, pro-Western ally in the Middle East as a hedge against Soviet influence (remember, Cold War era). In 1958 the pro-West government was overthrown by Abd al-Karīm Qāsim. In 1959, a Ba’athist group, of which Saddam Huissein was also a part, failed in their own coup against Qāsim. Qāsim was eventually overthrown by Abd al-Salam Arif in 1963 (Kennedy/Johnson years, with a solidly Democratic Congress) with a little help from the CIA. The CIA also encouraged and supported the next Ba’ath coup in 1968 (Johnson/Humphrey years, solidly Democratic Congress). By the late ‘70s Saddam Huissein was now doing his dictator thing.

In the ‘80s Huissein took advantage of the West’s general lack of care and the chaos of the Iranian revolution to start a war with Iran. The U.S. (Carter/Mondale years, still solidly Democratic Congress) supported Iraq because the new power tin Iran ousted the Shah, who we liked, and represented and was supported by radical/militant Islam. Through the ‘80s Reagan/Bush Sr. (with a slightly Republican Senate and solidly Democratic House) stayed the course. The Iraq-Iran disaster ends, Huissein is left in huge debt, and picks a fight with Kuwait in 1990 hoping to recoup losses and speed up recovery. In 1991 the first Gulf War occurs (Bush Sr./Quayle years, solidly Democratic Congress) and Iraq is thrown out of Kuwait. The UN created inspection policies to “clean out” Iraq, Huissein spent years dodging UN demands, and UN inspections dug up a lot of the nerve gas VX. In 1998, after the discovery of the VX, Iraq stopped cooperating with the UN again and Clinton (with a slightly Republican Congress) issued the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. While it is not known if Huissein had any connections to Al Qaeda (very unlikely for ethnic reasons), it is known that Huissein openly supported Palestinian suicide bombers and terrorists, including a failed assassination attempt on Bush Sr. Trade Towers are hit, and the dialogue for invading Iraq became loud and clear. Bush Jr. and a very balanced Congress push the WMD (partially correct) & Al Qaeda (highly unlikely) connection to invade Iraq. Congress votes to go for it.

I hope by now it’s abundantly clear that it’s flat stupid to blame one party over the other for going into Iraq. It was going to happen, the stage had been set for decades, and the only thing “questionable” about it is the explanation for going into Iraq.


Economics

I’ll start with a visual.



According to the Department of the Treasury, our debt had gone up to $454.8 billion in the fiscal year 2008. Now look very carefully (also a Dept. of Treasury source) at the spending increases during fiscal year 2009. Every projection, including those of the Department of Treasury, project huge increases in national debt (both total debt and debt as percentage of gross domestic product).

As of 2008, we spent about the same on the Department of Defense as we did on the Departments of Health and Human Resources (both about 20% of federal spending), and almost as much for social security (18% and change) (US Government Accountability Office). Given the knowledge I’ve armed you with, can you say with a straight face that it is Bush’s fault we can’t afford the health care plan President Obama wanted?

I recommend spending some time studying the concentration of U.S. health care expenditures and the big pharmaceutical companies’ influence on politics. Whatever you might think of his campaign, Ron Paul (a physician by trade) also wrote an outstanding book illustrating the differences between health care now and when he first started practicing.



Gizmo, whatever your background is, it's pretty clear that it is not one that emphasizes fact-checking. My own personal positions notwithstanding (I'm not a Republican, despite your apparent belief to the contrary), there are facts out there on all of these subjects. I get nothing for lying and an online pat on the back isn't worth my time. What is worth my time is helping someone with a lot of opinions but not a lot of knowledge find that knowledge. Why? Because people like you, who aren't doing your homework and who are satisfied with unsubstantiated opinions, vote. This bothers me; it has a direct impact on me and my quality of life. Poor voting choices got us where we are now, and a choice will never be a good choice simply because someone has a D or an R next to their name. Both parties have done their fair share at hurting this country.

I'm more than willing to debate intelligently with you, but if you're not willing to step up and argue maturely then I'm done here.



Bad Memory

[Simon Phoenix]

lol, i like how you said iraq having WMDS was partially true, i have a question, seeing most of the 9/11 hijackers came from saudi arabia how come we didn't invade them?also, ever hear of HALIBURTON?basically your graph showed me during reagan,and BUSH terms the debt went up, but during democrat terms it goes down.now you try to extend blame back to the 50's instead of realizing 2 presidents lied, but when clinton lied noone died.iraq had no WMDS, and when the inspectors found none we invaded anyway.then claimed victory lol, while not really ending the war because than we'd have to release the POWs.obama will fix bushs mistakes and history will show another democrat fixing the republicans mess just like your graph showed clinton fixing bush's.

[Forgotten Show]

lol, i like how you said iraq having WMDS was partially true,

Because it is. Nerve gas was found in the late '90s and it was used in combat years prior. Elements of what may have been nuclear material were found post 9/11 (what does "yellow cake" mean to you?); we have to remember that they were well on their way to having nuclear capabilities until the Israelis decided "No can do" and destroyed their facility.

We didn't invade Saudi Arabia for a variety of reasons; namely, they wren't harboring Al Qaeda and invading them doesn't benefit our nation in any way. Jihadists aren't picky about where their guys are from. Given the extensive planning that went into the Sept 11 attacks, it's more than 'plausable' that they made the cut because they were the most efficient folks for the job.

Sure, I'm familiar with Halliburton. Oilfield guys. If you think they're they only example of no-bid contract abuse then you're nuts, so I'm not sure what your point is mentioning them. Past this your post started rambling into nonsense; I can't respond to incoherent sentences.


Edit: Here's a more clear view of the gross public debt compared to the public debt adjusted for inflation, hosted by Wiki and taken from WhiteHouse.gov. Gross public debt is arguably more important than inflation-adjusted debt, since it indicates the rate at which we're devaluing our money (among other things).





Bad Memory

[Simon Phoenix]

Because it is. Nerve gas was found in the late '90s and it was used in combat years prior. Elements of what may have been nuclear material were found post 9/11 (what does "yellow cake" mean to you?); we have to remember that they were well on their way to having nuclear capabilities until the Israelis decided "No can do" and destroyed their facility.

We didn't invade Saudi Arabia for a variety of reasons; namely, they wren't harboring Al Qaeda and invading them doesn't benefit our nation in any way. Jihadists aren't picky about where their guys are from. Given the extensive planning that went into the Sept 11 attacks, it's more than 'plausable' that they made the cut because they were the most efficient folks for the job.

Sure, I'm familiar with Halliburton. Oilfield guys. If you think they're they only example of no-bid contract abuse then you're nuts, so I'm not sure what your point is mentioning them. Past this your post started rambling into nonsense; I can't respond to incoherent sentences.


Edit: Here's a more clear view of the gross public debt compared to the public debt adjusted for inflation, hosted by Wiki and taken from [url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf]WhiteHouse.gov. Gross public debt is arguably more important than inflation-adjusted debt, since it indicates the rate at which we're devaluing our money (among other things).





Bad Memory

are you talking about the yellow cake from nigeria that proved to be wrong?also of course iraq had chemical weapons in the 90's, we gave it to them to fight the iranians.also saudi arabia is the biggest threat to america, the birth place of osama bin laden breeds terror and is way more oppressive than saddam ever was.saddam was actually the perfect leader for us in that kind of culture, he was non religious, his vice president was catholic, how many catholic ppl you know who hold power in muslim countries?and of course saudi arabia harbors al-queda, where do you think the teachings and money for them comes from?invading iraq was bushs #1 goal because his father didn't "finish the job" now we see why cuz senior knew the long drawn out process of this war.trust me, if al gore was president in 2003 we would not have attacked iraq so i don't see how it was a forgone conclusion.and don't use the free the ppl argument, the iraqi ppl are worse off than ever, religious law has taken and will take more of an effect in the country because of the religious and ethnic divide, when saddam was in power there were no suicide bombings, there was no basic liberties taken away from women, but with "Democracy"that goes away.

[-GAZKUL-]

frankly i dont give a .....

[Simon Phoenix]

^^^oh