Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Those Darn Democrats. How Do They Do It?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GrndPnd0311
    replied
    Originally posted by Stormy View Post
    Ground pounder,

    America has turned to Socialism, when the government begins to back all the failed banks; Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros. etc. with our tax dollars. And instead of discussing this matter, this board prefers instead to discuss Palin's dysfunctional family matters.
    Americans need to get there noses out of the Enquirer and into an Econ / Political / History / Math 101 book(s).....

    When they hear the word "socialism" they compute "Communism" along with a red flag a wavin' and visions of Bibles burning and Atheism running rampant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stormy
    replied
    Originally posted by GrndPnd0311 View Post
    I dont neccsarily like this site, but the video is decent:
    http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2...marketers.html

    I understand free market, little government involvement, blah blah blah, but NO government is absurd. If your an idiot, your an idiot and should pay, but not at my expense. But that is exactly what we are doing, we are now paying for NO regulation of greedy, mindless policy and executives. Blame it on Wall street all you want, but government is there to be the overseer and should regulate, not sit back and watch a finical collapse.
    Ground pounder,

    Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros. etc. with our tax dollars. And instead of discussing this matter, this board prefers instead to discuss Palin's dysfunctional family matters.
    Last edited by Stormy; 11-02-2008, 01:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GrndPnd0311
    replied
    I dont neccsarily like this site, but the video is decent:
    http://democurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2...marketers.html

    I understand free market, little government involvement, blah blah blah, but NO government is absurd. If your an idiot, your an idiot and should pay, but not at my expense. But that is exactly what we are doing, we are now paying for NO regulation of greedy, mindless policy and executives. Blame it on Wall street all you want, but government is there to be the overseer and should regulate, not sit back and watch a finical collapse.

    Leave a comment:


  • GrndPnd0311
    replied
    Originally posted by sinned View Post
    Actually, that small government, no regulation plan is the basis this great country is built on and exactly what our founding fathers fought so hard to put to in place. It is a great system...until the government decides it needs to bail folks out. It is called an investment, sometimes they don't work out, especially when you buy too much and use creatve financing to qualify...your bad. Tough sht. I have lost thousands on 401's and poor investment choices, nobody gave a hand-out.

    So you are a follower of Economic Liberalism and buy into the "invisible hand" theory Adam Smith proposed?

    And again...take a look at the Federalist Papers.... might be of some help.

    Leave a comment:


  • sinned
    replied
    Originally posted by GrndPnd0311 View Post
    Yea...that Republican small government, no regulation plan used on Freddie Mac and Fannie May worked real well. When they were in profit, the CEOs and the highers were living large. But, when they tank, its the tax payers that have to front the bill.
    Actually, that small government, no regulation plan is the basis this great country is built on and exactly what our founding fathers fought so hard to put to in place. It is a great system...until the government decides it needs to bail folks out. It is called an investment, sometimes they don't work out, especially when you buy too much and use creatve financing to qualify...your bad. Tough sht. I have lost thousands on 401's and poor investment choices, nobody gave a hand-out.

    Leave a comment:


  • ray8285
    replied
    Originally posted by GrndPnd0311 View Post
    This is where I think you are mixing Iraq with Afghanistan. The totals in the Senate to use military force against terrorists were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R) so I doubt Kerry or Gore would have been against that action. ."
    Maybe. Bush brought the request to use force which congress approved. I am not so sure Gore would have made such a request. Based on what his boss did for 8 years I could easily see him launching some missles at a base and calling it a day.

    Leave a comment:


  • GrndPnd0311
    replied
    Originally posted by Soleil_nuage
    And there is also the Savings and Loan crisis, the '87 market crash, and the Enron debacle. Capitalism = great. Crony capitalism = very bad.
    Yea...that Republican small government, no regulation plan used on Freddie Mac and Fannie May worked real well. When they were in profit, the CEOs and the highers were living large. But, when they tank, its the tax payers that have to front the bill.

    Leave a comment:


  • GrndPnd0311
    replied
    Originally posted by scratched13 View Post
    Actually, if Gore or Kerry had been in charge, we would have done nothing except ask for some help (and gotten none) from the UN and we would have been attacked again by now .........
    This is where I think you are mixing Iraq with Afghanistan. The totals in the Senate to use military force against terrorists were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R) so I doubt Kerry or Gore would have been against that action. I dont believe they would have gone for Iraq like Bush did, which caused gave many extremists a cause and a battleground to fight the infidels. Not to mention it caused us to lose focus in Afghanistan and made allies even more reluctant to help us. It also brought us down in the eyes of the international community, which I believe is overlooked by many.

    "From time to time, one should look at a forest instead of glaring at single trees."

    Leave a comment:


  • scratched13
    replied
    Originally posted by GrndPnd0311 View Post
    I can see some of those...and I could question a few others. But this one, I think you might want to take a better look at...
    Actually, if Gore or Kerry had been in charge, we would have done nothing except ask for some help (and gotten none) from the UN and we would have been attacked again by now .........

    Leave a comment:


  • scratched13
    replied
    Originally posted by Stormy View Post
    I always wondered how those democrats make the Republicans look bad.
    Ever notice who is always in charge when the sh*t hits the fan ? Here's an example;


    EVENT - POLITICAL PARTY IN CHARGE
    • 1873 bank panic - Republican
    • 1893 bank panic - Republican
    • 1907 banking crises - Republican
    • 1929 stock market crash - Republican
    • 2008 Wall Street crises - Republican
    Who is in charge of Congress right now????? And by the way, they are all dirty in this one - Repubs as well. It is greedy corp execs and pols AND greedy citizens that have created this situation. Of course I have been flamed on other threads by other conservatives for saying as much, but I consider some - most - of our high end execs of being greedy to the point of being evil.

    Again, don't point at Repubs only one this one, you will end up with egg on your face.

    Leave a comment:


  • GrndPnd0311
    replied
    Originally posted by SkepticAlways View Post
    Drink some of the Kool-Aid, and you'll start to see it.
    What will I see if I drink this "kool-aid"?

    Leave a comment:


  • SkepticAlways
    replied
    Originally posted by GrndPnd0311 View Post
    I can see some of those...and I could question a few others. But this one, I think you might want to take a better look at...
    Drink some of the Kool-Aid, and you'll start to see it.

    Leave a comment:


  • GrndPnd0311
    replied
    Originally posted by 1042 Trooper View Post
    Virtually eliminating the Taliban and Al Quida as a threat - republican

    Yeah, you democrats are the bomb alright
    I can see some of those...and I could question a few others. But this one, I think you might want to take a better look at...

    Leave a comment:


  • cgh6366
    replied
    By in charge, you mean in the White House, since Congress is currently controlled by the flip-floppers:

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
    Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

    "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
    Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
    Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

    "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1042 Trooper
    replied
    Originally posted by Stormy View Post
    I always wondered how those democrats make the Republicans look bad.
    Ever notice who is always in charge when the sh*t hits the fan ? Here's an example;


    EVENT - POLITICAL PARTY IN CHARGE
    • 1873 bank panic - Republican
    • 1893 bank panic - Republican
    • 1907 banking crises - Republican
    • 1929 stock market crash - Republican
    • 2008 Wall Street crises - Republican
    Not for nothin, but, eh, ever notice who fixes everything in our country and who the leaders really are........ :

    Victory in the Revolutionary War - republican (would be later anyway)
    Victory in the Spanish-American war - republican
    Victory in the Cilvil War - republican
    Immancipation Proclaimation - republican
    Panama Canal - republican
    Victory in WW1 - republican
    Victory in WW2 - republican general
    Ending Korean War - republican general
    Ending Vietnam war - republican
    Ending the cold war without a shot - republican
    Destroying the USSR - republican
    Lowest unemployment in 3 decades - republican
    Revamped and saved Medicare - republicans
    Improved health care for poor children - republicans
    Best financial market overall (save recently - but not to worry) - republican
    Finding and bringing to justice Sadaam Hussein - republican
    Virtually eliminating the Taliban and Al Quida as a threat - republican

    Yeah, you democrats are the bomb alright

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 5534 users online. 325 members and 5209 guests.

Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X