Adolf Bush, Free speech what is that?

[Raivyn]

So the removal of a fleet so instrumental in the war in Desert Storm is non essential to the ops conducted by our military? And the removal of hundreds of thousands of military personnel and the cutting of a Combat Soldiers pay(GWB jr put in for this just last year) doesn't hurt our serving men and women?

How about the misinformation fed to the public about Pat Tillman by the pentagon and the Bush Administration. Why is no one up in arms about the shooting of ranger Pat Tillman and for over a year the current Bush administration covered it up in order to bolster their cause? Why was there no official inquiry? Why did the secretary of State and GWB come out on CNN speaking of his herosim and his choice to serve and how he fell bravely fighting the enemy when they knew he had been killed by friendly fire?

I'm pointing out the MANY discrepencies, idiosyncrasies and plain garbage the current administration has put out and you have backed them. Now I ask that you defend that position and every argument that you have put forth I have shot down with evidence to back it up. You have given me tons of your opinion. Take that with you. More to come later.

I'm sorry, do you know where the North Pacific IS?

Rones - Mighty fine wielding of the stfu stick. I try to steer away from using the news and articles/editorials as debate 'evidence' but this was well applied. Apparently knowing (after seeing all this happen) and saying so isn't enough, you have to have someone else saying what you're saying.

Yamino - wtf does Pat Tillman have to do with anything we have been talking about? Can you explain that, or are you simply content to sensationalize everything you say? Also, the next time you type the word Ranger it had better be capitalized.

 

[Mokk]

I do to, but it is for the most part a bad, but necessary investment that should be minimized due to poor returns. The government is horribly inefficient at anything it does because it is not competing in a captilist market where efficieny is a requirement of survival. So yes, the government is needed for mainting order, but beyond that it should be minimized due to poor efficiency. Now if we had a system where governments competed for our tax dollar which forced efficieny on their parts, I would call taxes a good investment, but I have no idea how that kind of system would be established. :biggrin:

Would you, say, advocate coporations providing their own roadways/schools/police forces/etc then? Naturally all the tax money isn't dumped into road construction or most of those programs in a large enough percentage to the taxpayer for it to matter on a personal note but it's the first thing that popped to mind. What about the school systems? You could call taxes an investment in future employees, moreover competant ones. All i'm saying is just because it's taken for granted doesn't mean alot of programs that benefit from tax money aren't a solid investment if enough consideration is applied by the taxpayer be it business owner or private citizen.

I agree though, the ratio of services to collection is kinda weak.

 

[Firestreak]

Well Fire, you can rant and rave all you like the 1000 page paper on evidence was directly linked to the conversations Linda Tripp had had with Monica Lewinsky over the phone. During the Jones law suit, which was dismissed due to insufficent evidence, he made those quotes. Did he lie to the grand jury? Yes he did. Was it a matter of national importance in which the saftey and sanctity of the nation was in jeopardy? As am sure any reasonable person would agree, no it was not. Did he commit these act in the hope to obstruct justice as it served the Jones suit. Again, I'm sure you can agree he did not. A loophole, for which our founding fathers never intended, allowed this political farse to advance. You are speculating where the evidence shows otherwise.

Is lying to the grand jury perjury? Yes.

Is it about getting a blowjob as you said? No.

Is it a matter of national importance? Not really.

But where do youi draw the line? What felonies are the president able to commit? Is the president allowed to commit perjury now? Sexual harrassment is ok? How about murder? If it doesn't affect the nation.

I'm not saying that he should have been voted out, but claiming the entire thing is about a consentual blowjob is ignorant. It's ignorant as hell.

 

[yaminotenshi]

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
is a fine way to show the issues we're having with current administration. The numbers have spiked back up during the current year. While your figures for the national average are correct, the jobs that have been created and taken are primarily low income jobs. As a macroeconomist you can see that the number of unemployed dropped to 5634K with this link
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
From that link you can also see that our level of unemployment is the same as it was during the height of the recession during the Clinton Administration.
I would also like to point out that if you use the Combo Box and select 1992 which was the beginning of Clinton's term in office it clearly shows the number of unemployed to be 10040K. That's a substantial drop during a Presidential term I'm sure you can agree.

As far as being in a bubble, as an economist what do you think a war time economy is? During every major conflict we see stock and economic stimulation followed by a recession when the conflict ceases.
My numbers about the average median income come from Labor Board statistics as well as IRS income data mapping. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage companies have posted the FHA median home prices for the greater portion of the United States for 20+ years. That's where I get those numbers.
As far as the hyperlinks you posted, the site itself is hosted by a leftist organization. I'm sure they are not going to give a neutral account of the facts. It would be the same as me quoting Micheal Moore or Molly Ivins to bolster my argument. Your numbers regarding national unemployment percent are correct. But the numbers in tech jobs are the staggering difference and a great number of the newly created jobs are in the food service and retail industry that would normally be occupied by low-income households or those ages 16-24. Economics is not my area of expertise, but when the Fed chairman raises rates 14 times to stem the growing tide of inflation there is an economical problem.

As far as the quotes from the editorial web site, that site is a leftist community organization. I sincerely doubt you'd find a single neutral peice of reporting on that particular site. Its no different from me quoting Molly Ivins or Micheal Moore. While the events that took place are true, the view is skewed to match the views of the reader. I don't think you'll ever hear Rush Limbaugh say a positive thing about the Democrats or Clinton in general.

Rayvin your grandstanding is asinine. I don't assume your repulican but you are spouting GOP propaganda. My life experience is no less valuable than yours and you are backing a President who has done nothing but waffle and further the causes of his friends and special interest. I challeneged that directly and you spouted nonsense. If you served in the Military I thank you for your service. My Brother and Grandfather served as do my Uncle and Cousin in 3 of the 4 branches. I have heard these very complaints from them directly as well as read about them. A 101 Political Science class would teach you that the Bush Presidency is severly bereft of positive decision making. I have produced several examples of his inpropriety and you return with rhetoric. Now that Rones has jumped in with his Macroeconomical model you seek to discredit ALL my other points as though the have no merit. Try again. Simply because some facets of Rones' argument hold true, there are things he has left out. As I said earlier, skewing the view to match the ideal of the reader is commonplace.

And Firestreak I'm not saying that the offense Clinton committed was ok. I'm saying it was not impeachable under the Articles of Impeachment. He did not seek to obstruct justice in that matter. He was simply concealing a private sexual affair from the American Public and his spouse. That makes him a bad husband and a bad person. That does not make him a traitor nor does it extrainious enough to be considered for something that has only been done one other time in history. Honestly, it is quite unlikely that a DA would pursue a normal individual for concealing an extramarital affair under oath. That however, is just my opinion.

 

[Firestreak]

And Firestreak I'm not saying that the offense Clinton committed was ok. I'm saying it was not impeachable under the Articles of Impeachment. He did not seek to obstruct justice in that matter. He was simply concealing a private sexual affair from the American Public and his spouse. That makes him a bad husband and a bad person. That does not make him a traitor nor does it extrainious enough to be considered for something that has only been done one other time in history. Honestly, it is quite unlikely that a DA would pursue a normal individual for concealing an extramarital affair under oath. That however, is just my opinion.

Anything they have the right to ask, they have the right to prosecute for perjury over. They had the right to ask about the affair because of the many sexual allegation charges all of women in Lewinsky's position. The assumption that it's not criminal to lie is based on the assumption that whenever a woman accuses a man of sexual harrassment, the charge is a lie and he is allowed to say anything to get aquitted.

You can't say it's wrong for him to lie in court but it's not criminal. It's no different than Nixon if you look at his case with the same scrutiny. In both situations, had the presidents just came forward and told the truth right off the bat they'd have been guilty of nothing.

When you're under oath, tell the truth. If you're the president, you can't get away with lying. Your poltical enemies will get to the bottom of it.

 

[Mokk]

Under our current political quagmire .... on multiple levels.

When you're under oath, tell the truth.

Word.

If you're the president, you can't get away with lying.

HAH! ... ok, sure.

Your poltical enemies will get to the bottom of it.

Let's hope so. :thumbsup:

 

[Rones]

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
is a fine way to show the issues we're having with current administration. The numbers have spiked back up during the current year. While your figures for the national average are correct, the jobs that have been created and taken are primarily low income jobs. As a macroeconomist you can see that the number of unemployed dropped to 5634K with this link

Link doesn't work. What are you basing your assement of what jobs are created on? Is that just your guess? Don't make claims like that unless you have some records or proof to back it up.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
From that link you can also see that our level of unemployment is the same as it was during the height of the recession during the Clinton Administration.

Link also doesn't work. No, unemployment isn't at the height it was under Clinton. It is currently 4.8% as of 2006 which is full employment in the macro economics view. Under Clinton it reached 7.8%.

As far as the hyperlinks you posted, the site itself is hosted by a leftist organization. I'm sure they are not going to give a neutral account of the facts.

Don't you mean rightist? Anyway, I already showed where they got their statistics from, the same place you tried to get your source from in your two earlier links. So if that source is bad for me, it doesn't work for you either. :wink: The article sticks to the facts and statistics to prove its point rather than making generalizations and unsupported accusations.

when the Fed chairman raises rates 14 times to stem the growing tide of inflation there is an economical problem.

Do you know what causes inflation? It's caused by strong economic growth and expansion. Too much expantion can cause an economy to overheat and get hit with very bad inflation. The fact that they have to raise the rate so many times means we have a very strong economy.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage companies have posted the FHA median home prices for the greater portion of the United States for 20+ years. That's where I get those numbers.

Where did you get it though? I googled that company, but I can not locate any relevent statistics put out by them. If you are citing them, then surely you can provide the source in the form of a link or specific text article.

Would you, say, advocate coporations providing their own roadways/schools/police forces/etc then?

There are some things such as you bring up, where it isn't practical for it to be done by private businesses. However, there are some that could be done by businesses and hired by the government instead of being directly run by the government. Private schools and road construction are a good example. When you make it a business, it forces these groups to work efficiently to get the contract from the government (assuming corruption isn't a factor). It is the competition that brings efficientcy, something that doesn't exist in government organizations.

 

[Raivyn]

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
is a fine way to show the issues we're having with current administration. The numbers have spiked back up during the current year. While your figures for the national average are correct, the jobs that have been created and taken are primarily low income jobs. As a macroeconomist you can see that the number of unemployed dropped to 5634K with this link
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost
From that link you can also see that our level of unemployment is the same as it was during the height of the recession during the Clinton Administration.
I would also like to point out that if you use the Combo Box and select 1992 which was the beginning of Clinton's term in office it clearly shows the number of unemployed to be 10040K. That's a substantial drop during a Presidential term I'm sure you can agree.

As far as being in a bubble, as an economist what do you think a war time economy is? During every major conflict we see stock and economic stimulation followed by a recession when the conflict ceases.
My numbers about the average median income come from Labor Board statistics as well as IRS income data mapping. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage companies have posted the FHA median home prices for the greater portion of the United States for 20+ years. That's where I get those numbers.
As far as the hyperlinks you posted, the site itself is hosted by a leftist organization. I'm sure they are not going to give a neutral account of the facts. It would be the same as me quoting Micheal Moore or Molly Ivins to bolster my argument. Your numbers regarding national unemployment percent are correct. But the numbers in tech jobs are the staggering difference and a great number of the newly created jobs are in the food service and retail industry that would normally be occupied by low-income households or those ages 16-24. Economics is not my area of expertise, but when the Fed chairman raises rates 14 times to stem the growing tide of inflation there is an economical problem.

As far as the quotes from the editorial web site, that site is a leftist community organization. I sincerely doubt you'd find a single neutral peice of reporting on that particular site. Its no different from me quoting Molly Ivins or Micheal Moore. While the events that took place are true, the view is skewed to match the views of the reader. I don't think you'll ever hear Rush Limbaugh say a positive thing about the Democrats or Clinton in general.

Rayvin your grandstanding is asinine. I don't assume your repulican but you are spouting GOP propaganda. My life experience is no less valuable than yours and you are backing a President who has done nothing but waffle and further the causes of his friends and special interest. I challeneged that directly and you spouted nonsense. If you served in the Military I thank you for your service. My Brother and Grandfather served as do my Uncle and Cousin in 3 of the 4 branches. I have heard these very complaints from them directly as well as read about them. A 101 Political Science class would teach you that the Bush Presidency is severly bereft of positive decision making. I have produced several examples of his inpropriety and you return with rhetoric. Now that Rones has jumped in with his Macroeconomical model you seek to discredit ALL my other points as though the have no merit. Try again. Simply because some facets of Rones' argument hold true, there are things he has left out. As I said earlier, skewing the view to match the ideal of the reader is commonplace.

And now you assume I have never been to college. Forgive me for not enaging fully in an argument with a person who does nothing but 'waffle'. The simple fact of the matter is that you completely lack a holistic view of any situation we are talking about. As much as you say I have not provided facts (which I have) you have done no more. Regardless, it is a handy argumentative tool to label someone as a propaganda spouting clone and then ignore their valid points, all the while changing the topic.

The reason arguing with people like you infuriates me so much is that you come to a public board and start spouting completely uninformed and baseless crap. You hype on points that don't matter, all without an understanding on the subjects you are talking about. You are pretentious in the extreme, and it is downright annoying.

A 101 Political Science class would teach you that the Bush Presidency is severly bereft of positive decision making. I have produced several examples of his inpropriety and you return with rhetoric.

If I was a dumbass who didn't pay attention to anything but that which supported my preconceived beliefs and personal views of the current administration it might. Anyhow - you claim to have posted all these verifiable examples and yet, have I not done the same? The only thing I can recall you posting a source on was the clinton impeachment debacle (which you are wrong on) but that is not what I am debating with you. You also failed to provide me with the first thing I asked for.

Moving on; you're simply STUCK ON STUPID. Closing several non-essential bases and decommissioning a portion of a non-essential fleet (by the way, I am not a navy guy, and I have not been able to verify this, but let's just say you are right) is not the same as decommissioning nearly half of the entire U.S. military. Here's a question for you; if you control all of the countries surrounding a single small country, and you have a lot of force in each of those countries, and no serious threat in the region, are you going to pay to maintain the force in the center country? NO. If you think this has no bearing on the current conversation you are still STUCK ON STUPID. Allow me to explain one more time.

Decommissioning a force for tactical reasons is nowhere near the same as decommissioning a force for political reasons. NO MATTER WHAT SIZE. The legacy Clinton left behind is one of shafting any and every group imaginable for political gain - specifically the military. The long lasting effects of his decisions reverbrated throughout the world and have left us with many problems today, including our current problem with islamic terrorism. I'd explain, but you're not one to listen. You've got it all figured out, and that's great for you. In the future it would pay off to be more open-minded to the possibility that you are wrong on some things.

 

[yaminotenshi]

I am not ignoreing your points Raivyn. That is what you have done. Every point that I have made about the inequities and inproprieties of the current administration has been left unaddressed or marginally addressed by you personally. You left Rones to step up and bring examples for you. And while he has points that are fact and I agree with there is also inequity in what he is saying. Yes Rones, I confused Rightist and Leftist lol. I brought to you what rights of ours had been undermined. You just glanced right over it sighting a strict interpretation of the Constitution or a more relaxed interpretation. Well sir, in section 308 of the Patriot act, it clearly underlines that any agency the Secretary of State has labeled as a terrorist organization is subject to observation and search with any means provided available to law enforcement. There is no probable cause. They simply need to label you as having ties to known terrorist organizations or organizations that have been labeled as terrorist by the Secretary of State. Now, just because this hasn't happened to you personally, I'm sure you can agree that it is within law enforcement power to 'say' your a terrorist or afilliated with terrorists and violate your rights under the fourth amendment.

As far as base closures, why would it be necessary to maintain a high state of readiness during peace time? How about war time? Those bases and the fleet that I mentioned were removed at the end his presidency. This was DURING the gulf conflict. And yes, a good deal of those ships launched tomahawk cruise missles from the gulf into the heart of Baghdad. If your numbers are about jobs what about the communities that needed those bases? The hundreds of thousands of jobs that were lost? I don't see you even acknowledging the surplus of funds that were in the national coffer at the end of the Clinton Administration. I also don't see you identifying all the good things he did as President. In fact, other than your initial numbers you've 'waffled' in all of your posts. I am open to all sides. And yes, my opinion of Bush is that he's not a Republican, he's a fiscal Liberal and just plain stupid. You sir, refuse to validate any points I have brought up and continue to carry on in the same manner in which you turn on me. You sir, are STUCK ON STUPID! As I said earlier, perhaps you should point that scatheing mirror at yourself. Keep assuming on that educational background of mine. What was it you said earlier. Ass + U + me. Well mostly you. Thank you, drive through.

Rones they have firewalled me at work so I can't pull up the graphs any longer. Pull up median homes on Century 21 or use the LA times. That's the best I can suggest. The LA times just posted the average Income by US labor statistics to show the growth in the Inland Communities as opposed to Los Angeles and Orange counties. 45k-24k were the ranges. I agree with you about inflation but it is not necessarily a reflection of a strong economy. The economy was failing pre-9/11 as were Bush's numbers. The economy is strong war time due to increased production. But the trend is a recession post war. Its rather convenient that during his major crisis in presidency he has an on-going war to keep him in power and keep the economic numbers at a viable level.

 

[yaminotenshi]

I am not ignoreing your points Raivyn. That is what you have done. Every point that I have made about the inequities and inproprieties of the current administration has been left unaddressed or marginally addressed by you personally. You left Rones to step up and bring examples for you. And while he has points that are fact and I agree with there is also inequity in what he is saying. Yes Rones, I confused Rightist and Leftist lol. I brought to you what rights of ours had been undermined. You just glanced right over it sighting a strict interpretation of the Constitution or a more relaxed interpretation. Well sir, in section 308 of the Patriot act, it clearly underlines that any agency the Secretary of State has labeled as a terrorist organization is subject to observation and search with any means provided available to law enforcement. There is no probable cause. They simply need to label you as having ties to known terrorist organizations or organizations that have been labeled as terrorist by the Secretary of State. Now, just because this hasn't happened to you personally, I'm sure you can agree that it is within law enforcement power to 'say' your a terrorist or afilliated with terrorists and violate your rights under the fourth amendment.

As far as base closures, why would it be necessary to maintain a high state of readiness during peace time? How about war time? Those bases and the fleet that I mentioned were removed at the end his presidency. This was DURING the gulf conflict. And yes, a good deal of those ships launched tomahawk cruise missles from the gulf into the heart of Baghdad. If your numbers are about jobs what about the communities that needed those bases? The hundreds of thousands of jobs that were lost? I don't see you even acknowledging the surplus of funds that were in the national coffer at the end of the Clinton Administration. I also don't see you identifying all the good things he did as President. In fact, other than your initial numbers you've 'waffled' in all of your posts. I am open to all sides. And yes, my opinion of Bush is that he's not a Republican, he's a fiscal Liberal and just plain stupid. You sir, refuse to validate any points I have brought up and continue to carry on in the same manner in which you turn on me. You sir, are STUCK ON STUPID! As I said earlier, perhaps you should point that scatheing mirror at yourself. Keep assuming on that educational background of mine. What was it you said earlier. Ass + U + me. Well mostly you. Thank you, drive through.

Rones they have filtered a great deal of net access at work so I can't pull up the graphs any longer. Pull up median homes on Century 21, or use the LA times. That's the best I can suggest. The LA times just posted the average Income by US labor statistics to show the growth in the Inland Communities as opposed to Los Angeles and Orange counties. 45k-24k were the ranges. I agree with you about inflation but it is not necessarily a reflection of a strong economy. The economy was failing pre-9/11 as were Bush's numbers. The economy is strong war time due to increased production. But the trend is a recession post war. Its rather convenient that during his major crisis in presidency he has an on-going war to keep him in power and keep the economic numbers at a viable level. And when Clinton came into office the Unemployment rate was at nearly 10% according that Labor site you posted. In 1992. So if he reduced it to 7% that would be an improvement would it not. And upon his exit from office the Unemployment rate was at 5.6% was it not?

 

[yaminotenshi]

Ugh double post. My fault. >.>