justinb138

Ever wonder why liberals make unfounded generalizations? Politicians from both parties do both things. Doesn't make either of them right for pointing it out, just makes them both wrong. The side that's losing usually tries to make it purely a systemic issue, the winners illustrate the contrast. Here are more specific data for you to chew on: SPENDING: Reagan increased by 57% in 8 years GHWB increased by 42% (adjusted for 8 years) Clinton increased by 27% in 8 years GWB increased by 56% in 8 years (not counting Iraq) ANNUAL DEBT INCREASE: Reagan increased debt by 250B/yr GHWB increased debt by 250B/yr Clinton increased debt by 187B/yr (last year was 33B as it declined every year) GWB increased debt by 400B/yr BHO increased by 1200B/yr for his first year so far. Give me the topic and I'll provide the data; that's why I'm here. Are these too general for you? IS teh sample size too small? 28 years. Can't we infer from this data that Republicans have dropped a big poopy on us? Or do we have to wait for them to drive us all the way into the ground? It's no secret that the Republicans in congress have screwed the pooch when it comes to the national debt. Given that BHO has borrowed more than GWB, GHWB, Clinton, and Reagan's annual average combined, I'm not understanding how Obama is the solution to this problem. Regarding the "losing side", it's not D vs. R like the politicians would have you think. The people are the losing side on this, no matter who has been in office.

Once again, thanks for making my point for me.

Ever wonder why liberals make unfounded generalizations? Politicians from both parties do both things. Doesn't make either of them right for pointing it out, just makes them both wrong.

Thanks for admitting that the translation applies to you as well. You appear to have no interest in listening to what anyone has to say if they disagree with you - bringing up creationism just seems to be your way of attempting to justify it.

That's like saying that without the telegraph, the automobile would have never been invented. You're assuming that because the CRA came first, that it is the cause the high risk loans. Where is your data supporting that assertion? If I read correctly, Ron didn't say it was the cause, just a contributing factor, an 'enabler' of sorts. That'd be like saying "Without the steel, they wouldn't have been able to make automobiles."

Best thing I've read on here in a long, long time.

Translation: -------------- Me, and everyone that agrees with me are competent. All the people that disagree are idiots and incapable of making the correct decisions for themselves. I know what everyones best interests are, and I'm better at making those decisions for them than they are. I'm unwilling to listen to any contrary beliefs because their opinions are different than my own, and therefore they must be of the aforementioned idiots whom are incapable of rational thought.

Some would consider me a 'gun nut'. Show me a gun law that actually works to stop crime, and it'll probably get my support. The AWB didn't have any effect on crime, yet there are people that want to bring it back. The magazine capacity limits in CA don't make a damn bit of difference in preventing crime. I believe that the problem isn't that pro-gun people aren't willing to compromise, it's that the anti-gun people keep throwing out 'solutions' that aren't solutions at all. Things like 'one gun a month', waiting periods, and capacity limits may sound good on paper, but they don't really have any effect on crime. Why not? I think there's a few reasons, primarily that laws can't really be used effectively to prevent crime, only to punish it once it's been committed. The stated goals of gun laws are basically to prevent violent crime. If someone going to commit murder, are they really worried about being charged with something much less than that? Does a gang member intent on shooting up a rival gang really care that he's using a banned weapon? Passing minor laws to prevent people from breaking major laws (murder, armed robbery, etc..) is a pretty foolish thing.

Glad to see you're now a self-proclaimed expert on the republican platform. I mean, otherwise making a blanket statement describing right-leaning voters would just be foolish right? Current government (both sides) is wrong on many levels. Believing any of them doesn't help anything. I've seen your "bigger picture", and I don't like it. Please don't mistake that for lacking the ability to see it. Glad to see that you're now also a self-proclaimed expert on my best interests as well. My best interests involve getting people like you out of government and leaving me the f*ck alone.

They are all equally dangerous, which is to say, not at all. If you'd asked which of these situations is more dangerous, the answer would be the picture with the guy holding the gun. Guns don't shoot things by themselves, no matter the type. People don't make guns dangerous, people use guns to make themselves more dangerous.

Please don't believe that the people who support big government programs, regardless of their intent, are the political right, even if that's the party they claim to represent. As far as credibility in Washington goes, I can count the number of people I believe to be credible on one hand.

8 months in and finally something I agree with.

It probably won't do any physical harm, but it'll probably taste pretty bad. The fact that it's Heineken isn't helping either The effect of aging on beer is dependent on the type of beer doing the aging. Stronger beers tend to improve with some age, but mass-produced light lagers, etc.. generally don't. People often cellar Thomas Hardy's Ale for several years before drinking them, but it's a 12% abv Old Ale. The heat's gonna be the killer though. Here's an interesting article about it if you feel like doing some reading. http://www.houblon.net/spip.php?article681 edit: sp.

If the government doesn't manage it well, then simply having a government option shouldn't worry conservatives, should it? I mean, since the competing private health insurance companies will be so much better, then everyone will choose that, instead, right? In order to compete it has to be self-sufficient, and cease to exist if it fails. Do you think the government won't try to prop up a failing system by either borrowing a bunch more money to support it or adding regulation to the system so that the public 'option' will be more competitive?

And it's pretty clear some of the House members wanted to turn it into a race issue when there's no evidence that it is one.

Well, if I had any faith that Bernanke had any clue what he was talking about it might. How can he predict that it's over when he couldn't predict it was coming? How can he smart enough to "fix" something, but not smart enough to prevent it from happening in the first place?

I agree with you on alot of things, but I don't recall him saying that. The purpose of this website is to discuss opinions. Isn't your request akin to yelling at people for drinking at a bar? That's just taking it a little too far. Unless I'm mistaken, he never said that. Then you're much too easily offended. How is what you're doing any different?

So spending waaay more money is the solution to spending too much money? How does that work? How does one spend their way out of debt? Yes, and so did Bush. He seems to be doing it at a much faster rate. Doesn't make either of them right, but it does make one worse than the other - the degree of which isn't worth arguing. GM, Chrysler bailouts to "prevent the collapse of the auto industry if they filed bankruptcy", which they did, and which didn't happen. What was that, 30 billion dollars down the drain? Almost as bad as TARP, AIG, etc.. Agreed. We didn't go blowing shit up when there were missles in Cuba, yet now North Korea is a serious threat to the US? Hindsight is always 20/20. Where are the anti-war activists now? Not seeing a whole lot of anti-war stuff out of the dems lately. Once again, is this your reason or your excuse to dismiss them?

Agreed, which is why I disagree with Obama's policies - it's more of the same. He's been better than some, but given the current state of politics in Washington, that's not a compliment by any means. I think everyone agrees on that, it's just that the argument is over how to do it. TEA party people don't think the government is the solution. Given government's history in solving problems, especially fiscal problems, I'd say they have a pretty strong argument in not letting the government take it over. And I'll disagree with the "however we do it" comment as well. Is it worth destroying the dollar and taking the entire US economy along with it? Agreed. Not pissing off the rest of the world by interfering with other people's business would probably be a good step in that direction as well by reducing the need for such a large military (Non-interventionism, not isolationism, before someone tries to go that route with it). I think all solutions need to be considered for health care "reform". Most in congress aren't willing to consider solutions that don't involve themselves - which is a deal-breaker in my mind. They're not willing to consider researching the idea and testing some of it small scale before trying to implement something nationwide - it's an all-or-nothing approach. This makes me believe they're more interested in having more control than getting positive results. Also, if the program was to be a massive failure, do you think they'd change it or just let it run itself into the ground under the weight of massive debt ? (think Medicare and Social Security on this one) Is it possible that things went to crap because spending wasn't cut along with them? If tax cuts were the problem, then things should have been getting better since for the last 100 years or so as taxes have gradually increased to their present ridiculous amounts. Sadly, this attitude is not present in the current congress (on either side) at all. They'd rather keep people's focus on immaterial bickering than the fact that they really, really, suck at their jobs (all of them). Again, I don't think anyone, especially the Tea Party people want to see anyone go without. They simply believe that whatever the answer is, politicians aren't it. I think most of them see the failure that is Medicare and don't want it forced upon the rest of the country. Everyone has priorities, and the health care issue is the current one for these groups. Can't throw the car into reverse without stopping first. Is your dismissal of them for this a reason or an excuse? Government involvement in everything is the status quo. These people don't want to see more of it, but less of it.

Feet ? She has feet ? I had to go back and re-open the picture to see the footwear too.

Disagree. They are a bunch of hypocrites who just want to complain about Obama. Next Republican spendthrift in the White House and they will quiet down again. I doubt it. Just from people I've talked to, it seems like in general those folks aren't particularly fond of either party. Having attended a few of these events in the past (which I doubt kallend has), I'd agree. There was no "official" republican presence at the July 4th event in Hartford, and quite a few people bashing Bush right along with Obama. At the one I attended in Arlington, TX there was a few people from a local GOP-affiliated group asking people to sign up for a newsletter. They weren't asked to leave, but they certainly weren't getting much attention from any of the people attending.

You do know there were two Bushes right? 4(Bush) + 8(Clinton) + 8(Bush) = 20.

They seem to be doing a damn good job of turning money into shit lately.

Well, given our history with things like that, I'd say that it's a pretty safe assumption.

Yep!! Same here. Dave introduced me to Don Julio too. Tried Gran Centenario Anejo before? Best tequila I've ever had. http://www.tequilasource.com/grancentenario/index.html