Gingrich Attacks Obama, Says He Has an Anti-Colonial World View - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sir Muffin;24847637]I'm not going to comment on the subject matter itself, but... Do you even think for yourself? Last time I checked, the Republicans didn't outspend everyone else combined, indebt our grandchildren, or attempt to force us to buy a government service on penalty of a fine...[/QUOTE] HOW 2 DEFENCE BUDGET 101 how 2 war on drus 102 lol, oh youuuuuuuuuuu and yeah, fuck all them gov bitches forcing me to buy auto-insurance. [editline]10:58PM[/editline] how 2 iraq 103 how to be a useless idiot 104 with your professor sir muffin [img]http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/4589/1284487293204.jpg[/img] (hint: 2 are Democrats) How to fail 105, with a similar professor

Dear Sir Muffin, it is usually democrats with the lowest deficit, Bush made Obama do the bailout, and it did end up helping anyway. Love, Tetra PS.[img]http://unastronaut.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/120m4471.jpg[/img]

what are you some kind of commie, Tetra?

Of course

learn to think for yourself. That chart is lying

Clinton was fiscally conservative though. I think it's just that every republican president winds up being the blue laws type willing to spend shitloads regulating social policies. They don't seem to give a shit about the economy until it becomes convenient to blame democrats.

[QUOTE=Chilean;24848695]Clinton was fiscally conservative though. I think it's just that every republican president winds up being the blue laws type willing to spend shitloads regulating social policies. They don't seem to give a shit about the economy until it becomes convenient to blame democrats.[/QUOTE] ahahaha, tax and spend is fiscally conservative?

for a democrat yeah he was that's like saying "OBAMA ISN'T GOING TO LEGALIZE POT HE'S A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE NOW" my point is the chart's acting like democrats and republicans always think on their party lines and that they're always the exact opposite sides of a spectrum

[QUOTE=Sir Muffin;24847637]I'm not going to comment on the subject matter itself, but... Do you even think for yourself? Last time I checked, the Republicans didn't outspend everyone else combined, indebt our grandchildren, or attempt to force us to buy a government service on penalty of a fine...[/QUOTE] Well the War on Drugs is ridiculously expensive and hasn't succeeded on any of it's goals. Also you're not buying a government service, you're buying health insurance.

so it's right to exploit weaker countries for the bettering of a stronger one? [editline]11:27PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Habsburg;24849864]Well the War on Drugs is ridiculously expensive and hasn't succeeded on any of it's goals. Also you're not buying a government service, you're buying health insurance.[/QUOTE] what do you suggest, not do anything about drugs at all? or just legalize them all?

[QUOTE=Amplar;24850104]what do you suggest, not do anything about drugs at all? or just legalize them all?[/QUOTE] Legalize and decriminalize most of em.

[QUOTE=Amplar;24850104]so it's right to exploit weaker countries for the bettering of a stronger one? [editline]11:27PM[/editline] what do you suggest, not do anything about drugs at all? or just legalize them all?[/QUOTE] Legalize, tax, regulate, educate If all of that works fine we'll have less crime (not counting just crimes like "caught with cocaine") because gangs will lose a big portion of their income, and MAYBE less people will die, afterall, banning beer only made things worse for everyone

[QUOTE=Amplar;24850104] what do you suggest, not do anything about drugs at all? or just legalize them all?[/QUOTE] either is good. [editline]12:37AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Chilean;24849284]for a democrat yeah he was that's like saying "OBAMA ISN'T GOING TO LEGALIZE POT HE'S A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE NOW" my point is the chart's acting like democrats and republicans always think on their party lines and that they're always the exact opposite sides of a spectrum[/QUOTE] Clinton is far from conservative. He was the most liberal of the presidents since LBJ

fiscally?

[QUOTE=Ridge;24795919]Seems that reporting Russia baselessly invading an independent nation would demonize itself quite easily...[/QUOTE] Because the artillery bombardment that killed 18 Russian soldiers couldn't be considered an act of war under any circumstance, right? :downs: @ The OP: Really? What the... uhm, wow. Anti-colonial? What the fuck? [editline]07:45PM[/editline] [QUOTE=DamagePoint;24796321]Just found these, lol.[/QUOTE] Is essentially a socialist argument? I'm assuming he doesn't know what socialism is, then.

[QUOTE=Chilean;24850392]fiscally?[/QUOTE] Tax and Spend is not fiscally conservative [editline]12:56AM[/editline] the fuck are you on?

I'll admit I don't know much about Clinton's specific policies all I know is that he's frequently described as "fiscally conservative".

A Fiscally liberal person is someone who doesn't want much regulation. A Fiscal conservative wants more intervention in the financial sector. I'll assume I don't have to define what social conservatism and social liberalism is.

[QUOTE=Chilean;24850735]I'll admit I don't know much about Clinton's specific policies all I know is that he's frequently described as "fiscally conservative".[/QUOTE] depends on what era of the terms you're looking at it.

The only thing I agree with there is the comment: [i]"I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating -- none of which was true," Gingrich continues. "In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve. ... He was authentically dishonest."[/i] He really did play the public to be a far better man than he actually is. Typical of any politician though, though Obama took it to the extremes. I think he'd be quite a good actor.

I guess Clinton's era. You and I both know that modern fiscal conservatives just follow a loose connection of propaganda buzzwords that is fed to them. By modern standards, yeah he looks pretty liberal because the Tea Party is stuck in idealism.

He is pretty moderate though.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;24848181]Dear Sir Muffin, it is usually democrats with the lowest deficit, Bush made Obama do the bailout, and it did end up helping anyway. Love, Tetra PS.[img]http://unastronaut.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/120m4471.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I like how that chart makes Jimmy Carter look like anything other than the worst president in US history. [editline]08:25PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Habsburg;24851175]He is pretty moderate though.[/QUOTE] That's part of the problem. Being moderate doesn't solve things, taking charge and going in the right direction when needed is how you get shit done. Clinton was an example of a president who got shit done.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;24851130]The only thing I agree with there is the comment: [i]"I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating -- none of which was true," Gingrich continues. "In the Alinksy tradition, he was being the person he needed to be in order to achieve the position he needed to achieve. ... He was authentically dishonest."[/i] He really did play the public to be a far better man than he actually is. Typical of any politician though, though Obama took it to the extremes. I think he'd be quite a good actor.[/QUOTE] uh, how?

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;24792378]the world is doomed im off to the moon, ill live in the apollo lander[/QUOTE] Careful where you step you'll fall through

he IS reasonable, normal, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating. The issue is not if he's that or not, if it's the republicans are or are not. And they totally aren't.

not 100% transparent, but I wasn't expecting that.

[QUOTE=DrMortician;24851186]I like how that chart makes Jimmy Carter look like anything other than the worst president in US history.[/quote] Why would it? [quote]That's part of the problem. Being moderate doesn't solve things, taking charge and going in the right direction when needed is how you get shit done. Clinton was an example of a president who got shit done.[/QUOTE] Because he didn't let shit head republicans tank him under. [editline]01:44AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Chilean;24851156]I guess Clinton's era. You and I both know that modern fiscal conservatives just follow a loose connection of propaganda buzzwords that is fed to them. By modern standards, yeah he looks pretty liberal because the Tea Party is stuck in idealism.[/QUOTE] He's left wing, obviously. Liberal and Conservative are terms that are just... all over the place anymore.

Who cares

how does it drop by 104 million in '86