Sure, a political discussion is fine - rambling on in an endless argument that is borderline spam isn't.
[QUOTE=Ragamuffin..;24396331]bro, you seem angered by my comment - can I interest you in a cup of tea to calm your nerves?
Look, that guy enjoys terrible puns - he obviously likes lolcatz and is a dumbass. :downs:[/QUOTE]
i'm implying you're a dumbass because you come to a forum about discussing the news only for shitty puns.
at least go to a good pun site. like somuchpun.com
love that shit
[QUOTE=Ragamuffin..;24396510]Sure, a political discussion is fine - rambling on in an endless argument that is borderline spam isn't.[/QUOTE]
I see no "borderline spam".
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;24396550]I see no "borderline spam".[/QUOTE]
People repeating the same points over and over.
[QUOTE=Warhol;24393132]High poverty line, massive inflation, tax cuts to the rich, increased taxes to the poor, unemployment and social fascism... Yeah, I'd say that's booming.
[/QUOTE]
You are going to call Carter a better president than Ronald Reagan?
Unemployment, social fascism . . . ridiculous.
Do you even know anything about his presidency or do you just like to throw out figures because he wasn't a liberal?
He inherited a 7.5 % unemployment rate from Carter which fell to 5 % by the end of his presidency I don't see how that is increasing rates of unemployment.
Increased taxes to the poor? Wrong
The recession we face today is nothing compared to the recession that came with Carter in fact it was the worst since the great depression.
Reagan pulled us out of this recession leading to a booming industry.
Our GDP grew highest since World War 2.
He cut taxes that created jobs resulting in federal revenue.
Give me some figures and maybe you can change my mind but until then you have no argument.
[editline]11:56PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Warhol;24393132]Source.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html[/URL]
Of course former president Clinton is not the only one to blame for the US's current recession but in no way was Reagan's administration responsible.
It was a huge fuck up by the banks, spending, hell pretty much everyone is to blame.
[editline]11:57PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ragamuffin..;24396568]People repeating the same points over and over.[/QUOTE]
It's called clarifying, examining, and looking further into the argument.
No one is keeping you in this thread.
[QUOTE=Cassettic;24396623]You are going to call Carter a better president than Ronald Reagan?
Unemployment, social fascism . . . ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
I'll just focus on the social "fascism" aspect of reagans presidency because that's what I know best, but he was a social conservative and was one of the biggest social conservatives at the time. It wasn't social fascism, but he was extreme, and extremely wrong in his social governance.
[QUOTE=Cassettic;24396623]You are going to call Carter a better president than Ronald Reagan?
Unemployment, social fascism . . . ridiculous.
Do you even know anything about his presidency or do you just like to throw out figures because he wasn't a liberal?
He inherited a 7.5 % unemployment rate from Carter which fell to 5 % by the end of his presidency I don't see how that is increasing rates of unemployment.
Increased taxes to the poor? Wrong
The recession we face today is nothing compared to the recession that came with Carter in fact it was the worst since the great depression.
Reagan pulled us out of this recession leading to a booming industry.
Our GDP grew highest since World War 2.
He cut taxes that created jobs resulting in federal revenue.
Give me some figures and maybe you can change my mind but until then you have no argument.
[editline]11:56PM[/editline]
[URL]http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html[/URL]
Of course former president Clinton is not the only one to blame for the US's current recession but in no way was Reagan's administration responsible.
It was a huge fuck up by the banks, spending, hell pretty much everyone is to blame.
[editline]11:57PM[/editline]
It's called clarifying, examining, and looking further into the argument.
No one is keeping you in this thread.[/QUOTE]
Providing sources to all of your arguments and going into depth more is examining - it's not like you need to clarify for the 5th time now is it?
[QUOTE=Ragamuffin..;24396915]Providing sources to all of your arguments and going into depth more is examining - it's not like you need to clarify for the 5th time now is it?[/QUOTE]
If people aren't understanding or agreeing with him, I'm glad he's one of the few people that's on the right of every argument that actually cares enough to source once, let alone all the times he has.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;24396885]I'll just focus on the social "fascism" aspect of reagans presidency because that's what I know best, but he was a social conservative and was one of the biggest social conservatives at the time. It wasn't social fascism, but he was extreme, and extremely wrong in his social governance.[/QUOTE]
Sorry that's what I'm not too familiar with but I'd like to learn.
I'm definitely not into social governance and I mainly focus on Reagan for his economic and military implications.
I believe in smaller government in both the financial and social sector which is why I often am at odds with presidents of all kinds because they usually believe in one and not the other.
[QUOTE=Cassettic;24397037]Sorry that's what I'm not too familiar with but I'd like to learn.
I'm definitely not into social governance and I mainly focus on Reagan for his economic and military implications.
I believe in smaller government in both the financial and social sector which is why I often am at odds with presidents of all kinds because they usually believe in one and not the other.[/QUOTE]
Reagan's presidency will never be one I like, he helped unemployment out, yes, but he still caused a huge rift to grow that had never, and has never been seen since, and that has only been exaggerated since between the rich and poor.
As far as the military goes, I'm not a supporter of the spending. At all.
He was also abominable socially. He was a right wing christian with his head up his ass so his morals weren't exactly something supportable in my mind.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;24396959]If people aren't understanding or agreeing with him, I'm glad he's one of the few people that's on the right of every argument that actually cares enough to source once, let alone all the times he has.[/QUOTE]
Hey I appreciate that.
A lot of times I like to play devils advocate so if everyone was on the right I'd probably be defending the left :razz:.
The people I'm around are very split up as far as political standpoints so I hear it all.
[editline]12:15AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;24397132]Reagan's presidency will never be one I like, he helped unemployment out, yes, but he still caused a huge rift to grow that had never, and has never been seen since, and that has only been exaggerated since between the rich and poor.
As far as the military goes, I'm not a supporter of the spending. At all.
He was also abominable socially. He was a right wing christian with his head up his ass so his morals weren't exactly something supportable in my mind.[/QUOTE]
I believe the spending is what brought the Soviet Union to their knees as they realized they could not outspend us.
I'm not one for right wing christians either but I did believe in some of his messages such as
[I][I]"I know in my heart that man is good[/I]. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life."[/I]
and that the USSR was an evil empire who's people had the right to be free.
I like Reagan because he was strong and I think that is a characteristic that Carter lacked.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
