Is our president insane?

[Coming Soon!]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070609/ap_on_re_eu/bush

Cool, yeah, let's add Russia as an enemy too. Is it November 2008 yet?

[Steve from Indy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070609/ap_on_re_eu/bush

Cool, yeah, let's add Russia as an enemy too. Is it November 2008 yet?

Huh?

[Dracula]

Is he insane?

Of course he is. It took you this long to figure that out

[Knerys]

Yep, just blow it up. kaboom.

[Tolkien]

He's looking for a worthy fight since the Afghan and Iraqi wars were a bust.

He'll be out in a year, so he wants to do one last great thing before he goes.

And that's start a war with a nation that has the ability to destroy us all.

lmmfao. But seriously though, are you surprised?

[halo7]

What a horrible ****ing decision.

[JBond]

Hmm.......

"Daddy, what was it like when President Bush was president?"

"I THOUGHT I GOD DAMN TOLD YOU TO NEVER MENTION THAT MAN!!!"

[Steve from Indy]

I still don't get it. Because he wants a missile defense against Iran and the like, he's insane? How does that make Russia our enemy? What am I missing?

[Tolkien]

1.) And to think... we elected this son of a "see you next tuesday"!

[Coming Soon!]

I still don't get it. Because he wants a missile defense against Iran and the like, he's insane? How does that make Russia our enemy? What am I missing?

Did you read the article? Russia has been strongly against Bush putting the missile defense system where he wants (and now is going) to put them. The world already hates us, this ain't going to help.

[JBond]

I still don't get it. Because he wants a missile defense against Iran and the like, he's insane? How does that make Russia our enemy? What am I missing?

Simply, with countries having anti-missle treaties, it disruptes the power in the world. In some twisted way, it's safer for everyone to have nukes...or something. It enables countries to have first-strike capabilities. Worst case scenario, Cold War II. ;)

Maybe Bush just likes sequels.

[MrT]

I thought Rocky took care of the Russians years ago.

[JBond]

www.crooksandliars.com

Bush thumping his chest: “I am the President!”
By: John Amato on Thursday, May 31st, 2007 at 12:35 PM - PDT

But by all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness.

Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated “I am the president!” He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of “our country’s destiny.”

[sshuttari]

Oh god..

I honestly believe Bush to be the worst president in our Nation's history.

The guy makes every wrong decision in the book.

Honestly he should be thrown out IMO.

Can November 2008 come any faster.

[Steve from Indy]

Did you read the article? Russia has been strongly against Bush putting the missile defense system where he wants (and now is going) to put them. The world already hates us, this ain't going to help.

Well... maybe. I think it's more likely that Russia just wants to be a part of it and not be left out. They already made another proposal. I'm not sure about the hating us part-- but maybe.

Simply, with countries having anti-missle treaties, it disruptes the power in the world. In some twisted way, it's safer for everyone to have nukes...or something. It enables countries to have first-strike capabilities. Worst case scenario, Cold War II.

True. But a nut case like Iran wouldn't worry about a treaty. And M.A.D. does work, but not if you think god has ordered you to launch.

At any rate, I'm suspicious of this too. It's probably just gamesmanship with Iran and North Korea, and maybe even China. Or it could just be an effort to increase American influence. That might be the biggest reason why Russia objects. No one in their right mind thinks those missiles are there to strike Russia. Not even Putin. I'd prefer that it not happen because I don't think it's needed. But if it is needed, and someone launches a missile, it'd be nice to have it.

Whatever the case, I don't think it makes Bush insane. Iraq might, but not this. My biggest problem is that we need to handle this with more tact. Putin is never gonna love us, because he clearly longs for the old days, but we could at least try to be more tactful for the sake of future relations.

Either way, I don't have strong feelings about it. I think the Polish and Russian people should be the ones who ultimately decide on this.

[JBond]

You know...

http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL715/2562261/5091714/258418146.jpg

[sshuttari]

^^

aahhh so it's all coming together.

THE RING MUST BE DESTROYED!

[Ewok Droppings]

Did you read the article? Russia has been strongly against Bush putting the missile defense system where he wants (and now is going) to put them. The world already hates us, this ain't going to help.
But this kind of crap from Russia really shines on their own problems, not ours. Russia is slowly slipping back into heavy government control under Putin. I don't know why in the world you would think that Russia's tiff over this missle defense shield makes us look like the bad guys in any way, shape or form???

Having lived in Moscow for a couple of years under Yeltsin when Zyuganov almost regained control for the Communist party, this kind of crap from Russia isn't surprising at all. It's their leaders who get a little too hot headed with their power that's the problem, not the missile defense shield. I'm not sticking up for Bush so much as I am saying that Russia needs to chill.

[Steve from Indy]

But this kind of crap from Russia really shines on their own problems, not ours. Russia is slowly slipping back into heavy government control under Putin. I don't know why in the world you would think that Russia's tiff over this missle defense shield makes us look like the bad guys in any way, shape or form???

Having lived in Moscow for a couple of years under Yeltsin when Zyuganov almost regained control for the Communist party, this kind of crap from Russia isn't surprising at all. It's their leaders who get a little too hot headed with their power that's the problem, not the missile defense shield. I'm not sticking up for Bush so much as I am saying that Russia needs to chill.

Sounds logical to me.

[Tolkien]

I concur, but it is not to say that Bush can still turn this around and make us into the wrong ones here. With the world on the edge of it's seats because of our President, anything that could be discribed as negative in any way shape or form done by our leader could bring the world to accuse the United States of being a bad guy nation. 99.9% of the time, a nation will not be considered a bad guy unless it's leader him/herself is the one causing the trouble. Japan wasn't a bad nation when it bombed Hawaii. Their leaders were. Germany wasn't a bad nation when it invaded Europe. They were influanced by a bad guy.

[Steve from Indy]

I concur, but it is not to say that Bush can still turn this around and make us into the wrong ones here. With the world on the edge of it's seats because of our President, anything that could be discribed as negative in any way shape or form done by our leader could bring the world to accuse the United States of being a bad guy nation. 99.9% of the time, a nation will not be considered a bad guy unless it's leader him/herself is the one causing the trouble. Japan wasn't a bad nation when it bombed Hawaii. Their leaders were. Germany wasn't a bad nation when it invaded Europe. They were influanced by a bad guy.

I'm not sure I follow you.

[Ewok Droppings]

This is just a little saber rattling from Moscow. If they didn't have something to complain about, they would find an excuse even if it meant going so low as to claim Paris Hilton is a Russian spy and the U.S. should release her to them immediately from jail. That's the Russian way. :)

[Alien]

You know...

http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL715/2562261/5091714/258418146.jpg
Wow, he's Tom Bombadil, no wonder you people voted him into power Tom is cool.

[Andrey83]

But this kind of crap from Russia really shines on their own problems, not ours. Russia is slowly slipping back into heavy government control under Putin. I don't know why in the world you would think that Russia's tiff over this missle defense shield makes us look like the bad guys in any way, shape or form???



Because Europe dont ****ing want your dumb shield.

[Ewok Droppings]

Because Europe dont ****ing want your dumb shield.

Wrong - Prague and Warsaw have been singing it's praises. Last time I checked they were in Europe and it's where the proposed MDS would be located. Some of the citizens of those countries are in support of it and some are against. It's not "Europe doesn't want it", which is not true. Some do, some don't.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003736023_bushmissile06.html

[rosncranz]

Because Europe dont ****ing want your dumb shield.



I have a major problem with all the anti-American sentiment in the world. Bush is an awful, awful president for sure, but guess what Europe, not every American is George W. Bush. The point is it's not OUR "dumb shield" but our idiotic president's.

[FranklinTard]

yet more than half the country voted for this jackass. we deserve the anti american sentiment. fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

[Tony Montana]

Prague is agreeing with it? Wow, what a suprise.

[rosncranz]

yet more than half the country voted for this jackass. we deserve the anti american sentiment. fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

I never voted for him thank you very much, and I think him getting re-elected had more to do with the electoral college than actual votes.

[equipe]

I never voted for him thank you very much, and I think him getting re-elected had more to do with the electoral college than actual votes.

Bush won the popular vote in '04. Unbelievable, but true

[rosncranz]

Bush won the popular vote in '04. Unbelievable, but true


I don't know what to say.

[Ewok Droppings]

I personally don't think Bush is nearly as bad as people have made him out to be. IMHO this is just the popular rhetoric that comes about at the end of every 2-term president. Reagan had a lot of the same, Clinton also, and now it's Bush. There are many things that I don't agree with from this administration (spending, immigration bill, handling of Iraq, etc.) but honestly, I don't think he's the monster the press makes him out to be. But, this will continue until he leaves office and then a few years down the road and into the new administration people will be about their business as usual. If the next president is a 2 term president - REGARDLESS of who they are or from which party, there will be animosity, hatred towards them, disgust, the Chicksie D1cks, etc. etc. This is just the way politics has become. I think Bush is just in that spot where if it was Al Gore that was elected in 2000 and re-elected, people would hate him, and same for John McCain, etc. They would have done things differently, there's no doubts there, but they would have all made their own major mistakes and the rest of the world would still hate us.

I was in Moscow in the mid-90s and people hated us then. American bashing is a favorite past-time of most European nations. I got sick of it then, and I'm still sick of it, but what do you do. Nobody is going to come in as President and suddenly change the way the world has felt about us for decades. Won't happen.

[rosncranz]

I personally don't think Bush is nearly as bad as people have made him out to be. IMHO this is just the popular rhetoric that comes about at the end of every 2-term president. Reagan had a lot of the same, Clinton also, and now it's Bush. There are many things that I don't agree with from this administration (spending, immigration bill, handling of Iraq, etc.) but honestly, I don't think he's the monster the press makes him out to be. But, this will continue until he leaves office and then a few years down the road and into the new administration people will be about their business as usual. If the next president is a 2 term president - REGARDLESS of who they are or from which party, there will be animosity, hatred towards them, disgust, the Chicksie D1cks, etc. etc. This is just the way politics has become. I think Bush is just in that spot where if it was Al Gore that was elected in 2000 and re-elected, people would hate him, and same for John McCain, etc. They would have done things differently, there's no doubts there, but they would have all made their own major mistakes and the rest of the world would still hate us.



I don't know where you got your information, but many people hated Bush before his second term.

[FranklinTard]

are you saying you were one of the jackasses who voted for him not once, but twice?

edit: just saw new post from rosncranz, and i totally agree. there was no liking bush from the moment i heard about him. i thought it was fairly obvious by the end of his first term he would not be returning because the american public could not, i repeat could not be so stupid as to vote for him again, but i was proven incorrect. i welcome the american bashing sentiments because they are all too true, our country is full of sheep.

[Catshe]

i think it would be intresting to see if he got in a third term if he could

[Steve from Indy]

are you saying you were one of the jackasses who voted for him not once, but twice?

edit: just saw new post from rosncranz, and i totally agree. there was no liking bush from the moment i heard about him. i thought it was fairly obvious by the end of his first term he would not be returning because the american public could not, i repeat could not be so stupid as to vote for him again, but i was proven incorrect. i welcome the american bashing sentiments because they are all too true, our country is full of sheep.

Oh yeah, John Kerry would've been much better. :rolleyes: http://www.v-rodforums.com/forums/images/smilies/rofl3.gif

[rosncranz]

Oh yeah, John Kerry would've been much better. :rolleyes: http://www.v-rodforums.com/forums/images/smilies/rofl3.gif

Who knows if he would have been better or not. I voted for Kerry, but it was more of a choosing between a lesser of two evils.

[Steve from Indy]

Who knows if he would have been better or not. I voted for Kerry, but it was more of a choosing between a lesser of two evils.

That's some statement. A sad statement. Welcome to the machine. You can have dog crap or horse crap. Which would you like?

[FranklinTard]

dude compared to bush? i would have taken anyone, even hillary, i know... i said it....

[Steve from Indy]

dude compared to bush? i would have taken anyone, even hillary, i know... i said it....

Well, more power to ya'. But there's a reason an unpopular President like Bush won in '04. Pretty sad that you're forced to vote for someone because you think they're less incompetent. But hey, if we keep voting for turds, they'll keep trotting them out.

[rosncranz]

Well, more power to ya'. But there's a reason an unpopular President like Bush won in '04. Pretty sad that you're forced to vote for someone because you think they're less incompetent. But hey, if we keep voting for turds, they'll keep trotting them out.


It certainly is sad, but what can you do when they put two incompetent candidates in front of you? Yes I voted for Kerry, and I am glad I did even though he didn't win and probably wouldn't have been great if he had, but it allows me to sleep at night knowing I didn't unleash the disaster that is George W. Bush on the world.


That being said, I think the next Presidential election will be a good one, I can think of several candidates I would approve of being in office, Obama being the main one for me. I live in Chicago and the city is pulsing with excitement for Obama.

[JBond]

It certainly is sad, but what can you do when they put two incompetent candidates in front of you? Yes I voted for Kerry, and I am glad I did even though he didn't win and probably wouldn't have been great if he had, but it allows me to sleep at night knowing I didn't unleash the disaster that is George W. Bush on the world.

Ditto.

[Steve from Indy]

It certainly is sad, but what can you do when they put two incompetent candidates in front of you?

Not voting for either one would work. :)

As you said, this election will be a little better, I think. But until they come to their senses, I can no longer vote for either party in good conscience.

[Ewok Droppings]

are you saying you were one of the jackasses who voted for him not once, but twice?
:rolleyes: Well, coming from a tard, I don't hold that in too much weight.

I voted for Bush twice - and I'd do it again. I think he has been a decent President in a lot of ways. I know you guys like to run around with the status quo hype and hatred of him, but analyzing his job I don't think he's been nearly as bad as people here make him out to be.

So, let's look at the options we had:

Bush v. Gore - Anyone who thinks Al Gore would have been a good president is simply an idiot.

Bush v. Kerry - Same sentiments as above, but stronger.

Bush might not be the best President we've ever had, but he's certainly not the worst either. He's had a lot of bad press, and a lot of hysteria from the left, but he's had a very difficult run of it IMO with things that were thrust on him right away (bad economy - now better, 9/11, Katrina, etc.). I know you guys will sit around and bash Bush and say I'm an idiot blah blah, but looking at it from face value he's not nearly as bad as the hype.

Now, having said that, if the Republican party or the Democratic party would have perhaps had better choices, I might not have voted for Bush. But, I did and I'm disappointed in some things (spending, immigration, current Iraq policy, etc.) but I think he's done some excellent things since he's been in office as well (no major attacks on U.S. since 9/11, unemployment is low, etc.). I think that it's time for a change, as it would be with any 2-term President.

But - you guys are digressing from the topic, or is this thread just a "Bash Bush" thread? I was under the assumption that it was about the missile defense shield and the policies surrounding that. But the title of the thread is a bit misleading, so whatever.

[HaDoKen]

If Bush is insane why is he in the office?

[Steve from Indy]

But - you guys are digressing from the topic

And this surprises you how? :D

[DAN!]

i hate bush, but kerry would have been just as bad in different ways. gore would have been OK. but compared to bush and kerry, gore would look brilliant

[FranklinTard]

Not voting for either one would work. :)

As you said, this election will be a little better, I think. But until they come to their senses, I can no longer vote for either party in good conscience.

its people who don't vote who make me sick, tons of people have died for the country and the flag, and people who pay attention to the politicos and say my vote doesnt count make me f'in sick. almost as sick as ewok for voting for that jackass not once but twice.... :nono:

if you dont or didnt vote dont post in a political thread. you dont deserve my attention.

[Ewok Droppings]

its people who don't vote who make me sick, tons of people have died for the country and the flag, and people who pay attention to the politicos and say my vote doesnt count make me f'in sick. almost as sick as ewok for voting for that jackass not once but twice.... :nono:

if you dont or didnt vote dont post in a political thread. you dont deserve my attention.

Are you the offspring of RiddleMeThis? You just have that way of being an a**hole in every post you make.

[Andrey83]

Wrong - Prague and Warsaw have been singing it's praises. Last time I checked they were in Europe and it's where the proposed MDS would be located. Some of the citizens of those countries are in support of it and some are against. It's not "Europe doesn't want it", which is not true. Some do, some don't.

The majority of EU (though which sadly is almost less democratic then the US) dont want it. Hence Europe dont want it. You (not you personally) can take your wars elsewere. Maybe your voters cheer for the countless lies of your government, thats fine. You face the consequences. But dont bring us the consequences. Now I am sorry if you feel offended by me sometimes (or often) but i just cant stand what your downright rotten government are doing. And you (your people) keeps voting for him so for all I know, you support his actions.

no major attacks on U.S. since 9/11

Hmm, surely you didnt read the patriot act? Ok, that was a bit smartass comment, but i still think the act in itself is a terrible thing to the development of democracy.

unemployment is low

Hmm, how about doing what other countries are doing and actually factoring in prisoners..... Yes, your unemployment is quite high. You just lock em up.

current Iraq policy

So, tell me again when his iraq policy was good? Was it the time when he lied about wmd or the time when he landed on that carrier and thought the war was over?

Katrina

True, that was terrible for your country and it made me sad watching it on TV, but still - Your government handled that situation terribly. And while the disaster in itself couldnt be avoided, the fallout afterwards could have been limited greatly.

bad economy - now better

Hehe, you meen all the red figures are good? How about he starts fixing your current account, trade balance - and now finally the investment balance (which for the first time in a long time is in the red as well). To put things mildy, if things continue like this it can meen disaster. Your dollar is already falling like a rock and trust in the dollar is falling. If some major countries decided to change their currency reserves from dollar to, say, euro, it could damage you greatly. I wonder why the US threatened Germany and Japan when they wanted to do this (not to euro though).


Anyway, im not saying your an idiot. But i am saying that we have wildly different views ;)

I have a major problem with all the anti-American sentiment in the world. Bush is an awful, awful president for sure, but guess what Europe, not every American is George W. Bush. The point is it's not OUR "dumb shield" but our idiotic president's.

By all means no, im not anti-americans. Americans are individuals who cant be all lumbed into one basket. But i dont like your foreign policy and im not found of your domestic policy. Some would say thats none of my business, but seeing as your country take issue with everyone not like them, and affecting them, i have the right to.

Im more anti-america at the moment. But of cource, that is in reference to your government. It always is.

[Steve from Indy]

its people who don't vote who make me sick, tons of people have died for the country and the flag, and people who pay attention to the politicos and say my vote doesnt count make me f'in sick. almost as sick as ewok for voting for that jackass not once but twice.... :nono:

if you dont or didnt vote dont post in a political thread. you dont deserve my attention.

Okay brother, you keep voting for the party mouthpiece the two parties force on you. That way you'll be sure to get a party drone that doesn't think for his or herself. And please don't complain in a thread about who you're forced to vote for. You don't deserve my attention. Because willing sheep like you, who buy the "it's your duty as a citizen to vote" hogwash they keep manipulating you with, are the reason you get Kerry and Bush.

Real intellectuals with ideas will never win a party nomination, because anyone who doesn't tow the party line will be crushed. And that's because people like you keep mindlessly pulling the lever for the idealogues, which tells the two parties that you're not smart enough to think, and just want to feel warm and fuzzy about your vote.

So thanks for the advice, but I'll keep posting as long as the sheep keep spewing party propaganda. :mad:

[Knerys]

I say we get rid of the parties. It may have worked when this country started but now it just hampering progress.

[equipe]

Don't get rid of the parties, get rid of how they receive money to run their campaigns.

Once pay for say lobbying is gone, democracy can return.

[Knerys]

Yay!!! That's actually very true. Maybe if we actually MADE the politician work for us, then they might be incline to do a better job. Say....they don't do a good job, they get a pay cut.


That's another thing! Who on earth decided to let the government decide for itself if it needs a pay raise?

[equipe]

That's another thing! Who on earth decided to let the government decide for itself if it needs a pay raise?

Tell me about it!

Here in Ontario and Toronto they are always talking about having to raise tax revenue, while at the same time, increasing their salary and operating expense budgets. I f-ing hate politicians.

Rasies to policitians should be tied to inflation, anything beyond that should be voted on by the public. That should keep the greed-heads out of office.

[JBond]

I love the idea posed that people say they hate Bush to get on the "Bash-Bush" wagon. And by "love" I mean I'm disgusted by it. As if we have nothing better to do than hate everything about him and his administration.

[Knerys]

I don't hate the man. But I am extremely disappointed in his adminastration. It's like they made a chart and listed all the good decisions and the bad counterparts and guess which side they threw away? :p

[ViRUs]

Hmm, how about doing what other countries are doing and actually factoring in prisoners..... Yes, your unemployment is quite high. You just lock em up.



True, that was terrible for your country and it made me sad watching it on TV, but still - Your government handled that situation terribly. And while the disaster in itself couldnt be avoided, the fallout afterwards could have been limited greatly


You make it sound like we lock up unemployed people? The people that are in prison may have jobs, but I dont think they would be factored in anyway. Why would they even be considered? most people there dont even want a job, which I'm sure if that counted then there would still be practically no unemployment.


Yeah, the fallout was handled horribly. The guy that was in charge of that was fired, and he took the blame for it as well. I know that Bush hired him, but the blame shouldnt fall all on the government.

I'm not the biggest fan of Bush, I do regret voting for him, but I never did like Kerry either. I just think theres a lot of people out there who are using every little thing they can to hate Bush.

[Ewok Droppings]

The majority of EU (though which sadly is almost less democratic then the US) dont want it. Hence Europe dont want it. You (not you personally) can take your wars elsewere. Maybe your voters cheer for the countless lies of your government, thats fine. You face the consequences. But dont bring us the consequences. Now I am sorry if you feel offended by me sometimes (or often) but i just cant stand what your downright rotten government are doing. And you (your people) keeps voting for him so for all I know, you support his actions.
Well, you guys will hate the next President, you hated the last ones before, so what's the difference? You'll still find things to hate about America. That's the European way. ;)


Hmm, surely you didnt read the patriot act? Ok, that was a bit smartass comment, but i still think the act in itself is a terrible thing to the development of democracy.
Huh??? That doesn't even make sense to what I was saying.


Hmm, how about doing what other countries are doing and actually factoring in prisoners..... Yes, your unemployment is quite high. You just lock em up.again - wtf??? Unemployment is around 4.5% which is pretty low historically. Where do you always get this crap from??? Just to make this very simple for you, I found a nice little chart that even you can't mistake for high unemployment rates.
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jensena/sfp/us/US_UR_50.jpg
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jensena/sfp/us/US-UR-50.htm

Here's another good link to check out past history of unemployment rates:
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru


So, tell me again when his iraq policy was good? Was it the time when he lied about wmd or the time when he landed on that carrier and thought the war was over?*sigh* you sound like Rosie O'Donnell.

True, that was terrible for your country and it made me sad watching it on TV, but still - Your government handled that situation terribly. And while the disaster in itself couldnt be avoided, the fallout afterwards could have been limited greatly. Why do you always spew out rhetoric like you know what you're talking about? You don't. Stick to your own country's politics, because you just end up pissing people off here and you sound like a media mouthpiece instead of someone who is well informed.

Hehe, you meen all the red figures are good? How about he starts fixing your current account, trade balance - and now finally the investment balance (which for the first time in a long time is in the red as well). To put things mildy, if things continue like this it can meen disaster. Your dollar is already falling like a rock and trust in the dollar is falling. If some major countries decided to change their currency reserves from dollar to, say, euro, it could damage you greatly. I wonder why the US threatened Germany and Japan when they wanted to do this (not to euro though).

Again, your economics are off. Where the hell do you get your information from? If you have some point you want to make about how crappy you think our economy is - why not cite a source. If you're trying to say our economy sucks because we have a huge trade deficit then you don't understand the economy very well. The deficit is huge, but that doesn't indicate a weak economy necessarily. You're trying to draw all your conclusions off of one factor. That's just not true.


Anyway, im not saying your an idiot. But i am saying that we have wildly different views ;) Right - yours are media sensationalism and I prefer facts. That's our different views. ;)



By all means no, im not anti-americans. Americans are individuals who cant be all lumbed into one basket. But i dont like your foreign policy and im not found of your domestic policy. Some would say thats none of my business, but seeing as your country take issue with everyone not like them, and affecting them, i have the right to.And just what is our "domestic" policy? You speak like it's one thing and it's all bad. Andrey, just stick to your own politics, you're just fed by your anti-American media and you really have nothing of substance to add to the argument other than regurgitating something someone else told you that may or may not be true. Bad domestic policy - LMAO - what the hell is that supposed to mean??? :funny:

Bottom line - if you're going to enter into a debate and you want people to take you seriously, present some facts, some substance, not just something that makes you sound like you just opened your local newspaper and repeated whatever you read. If you want to make a point back it up with something. You won't sound Anti-American and annoying then.

[rosncranz]

Well, you guys will hate the next President, you hated the last ones before, so what's the difference? You'll still find things to hate about America. That's the European way. ;)



*sigh* you sound like Rosie O'Donnell.

Why do you always spew out rhetoric like you know what you're talking about? You don't. Stick to your own country's politics, because you just end up pissing people off here and you sound like a media mouthpiece instead of someone who is well informed.





Right - yours are media sensationalism and I prefer facts. That's our different views. ;)



And just what is our "domestic" policy? You speak like it's one thing and it's all bad. Andrey, just stick to your own politics, you're just fed by your anti-American media and you really have nothing of substance to add to the argument other than regurgitating something someone else told you that may or may not be true. Bad domestic policy - LMAO - what the hell is that supposed to mean??? :funny:

Bottom line - if you're going to enter into a debate and you want people to take you seriously, present some facts, some substance, not just something that makes you sound like you just opened your local newspaper and repeated whatever you read. If you want to make a point back it up with something. You won't sound Anti-American and annoying then.


I kind of agree with all of this...only in a less harsh way lol. I just mean to say that Andrey it doesn't really sound like you have a very good handle on American politics, and I think instead of just taking things you hear on the news and then reciting them on a message board (at least that is how it sounds) you should do some research first. Because as sad as it may be, when it comes to politics, if someone tells you something about it it is usually skewed or biased. Once you hear something that you find interesting our you hate go research it, and see if it is accurate.

OK, this is going to be...weird. I am very liberal, I knew Bush was a bad president before his second term, and am adamantly against almost everything he has done while in office. The actions he is taking with concern to Darfur are commendable...but I can think of nothing else he has done. I am not one of those "freedom fries Americans" I think in the last 10 years or so our government has mostly gotten it wrong. Our government is way too unilateral and it disgusts me. I have attended rally's and protests.

So this brings me to something that will be kind of weird for me--defending the current US regime...sort of.

Andre you suggest the American government is bad for many reasons, I think we interfere too much in some cases i.e. Iraq, Viet Nam etc. However their are terrorists out there and they simply hate those who have differing views. That means The US AND EUROPE. The American government, while certainly going about it in the complete wrong way, is trying to end this. Andrey you say Europe is so much better, but how many terrorist attacks happen in your backyard? How many in ours? There are many attacks in Europe compared to the US. I don't think the attacks have lessened in the US because of the rights-raping Patriot Act, but the simple fact that our intelligence community is actually doing its job. I am so very sick of how Europe is very much the perpetrator of the oh so fashionable anti-Americanism. We know our government sucks right now, Bush's approval rating is very low and was recently the lowest it has ever been. But what is France doing? What about England? How about Italy? What disgusts me is when one criticizes how others handle situations but then sit back and do nothing themselves. If Europe is so great, get off your asses and show us how it's done. It certainly wouldn't be hard to one-up our government.

Ugh, the point is I am not proud to be an American as it is right now, how it seems to be represented in the global community right now. I am very proud to be an American in respect to what the country can and ultimately does truly stand for. And I get sick of this European attitude of, "God these rude offensive American's are so vulgar..." Because as much as I hate the state of our country it hasn't made me want to move to Europe, at least we act here.

I don't know, i am just rambling and taking a position I don't usually take, and the vast majority of the time I find my beliefs and ideals fall very much in line with the overarching global community's. Bush is awful to the point of disgrace. Natural disasters are a human concern, not a national concern, no matter where it is. Abortion is and should be a woman's choice. Without immigrants the US would be NOTHING. The UN is becoming more and more useless though we do need a global police in a form that works. Nukes are bad, but if the US gets to have and make as many as we want how can we tell other smaller countries they can't have any? War is bad, but unfortunately necessary sometimes. The war in Iraq is an outrage, the war in Afghanistan is not. What is happening in Darfur is a GENOCIDE, and is Rwanda all over again. Futbal (soccer) is brilliant. Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, and Edgar Wright are gods. The French New Wave is responsible for the best films ever made. European chicks are hot.

So, show us how it's done, because you guys aren't much better. I hope this doesn't get skewed and misinterpreted, but these are my beliefs as it stands right now with the complete frustration of having to be "led' by an incompetent jackass, all the while listening to others criticize our country. Besides we are trying, proof is in that we are trying to get Barack Obama in office.

Also for the record I was with the Red Cross and went to the gulf coast after Katrina, I was in Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana. I was in New Orleans when it was still closed off after sneaking past military blockades, and it was a ghost town. I met many amazing people and learned many things first hand, and I can say for sure as well as anyone that there were major mistakes on all government accounts-- local, and federal, but the largest was the local government.

[Andrey83]

Ewok, you obviously dont understand judging by your reply. Read my post again, check what I said, then come back. See what I ACTUALLY say about unemplyoment and take your graphs elsewhere. As they say jack ****.

Rosncranz: I wouldnt use the news. Why would i use US propoganda channel cnn for my points? That would be rather counter-productive dont you think? Alot of my points are based on Stiglitz thoughts, which you might wanna read before saying anything.

My economics arent off Ewok. Sorry that you dont wanna listen. My "numbers" are right there and they are based on research. I actually study this you know....You make me laugh, as i do understand economics very well. And I didnt say your country would be going towards judgement day because of a simple trade deficit. But ofcource, you amercian spinner...Cant even argue the points.

Im sorry Ewok, but it turns out you are everything I hate about america. Blind, dumb nationalist.

RosncranzWhile your points are decent i dont wanna argue them after that post by Ewok. Im just so disgusted. To say the least, with that attitude, im not surprised people hate you.

[rosncranz]

Oops, never mind lol/.

[Ewok Droppings]

Ewok, you obviously dont understand judging by your reply. Read my post again, check what I said, then come back. See what I ACTUALLY say about unemplyoment and take your graphs elsewhere. As they say jack ****.

Rosncranz: I wouldnt use the news. Why would i use US propoganda channel cnn for my points? That would be rather counter-productive dont you think? Alot of my points are based on Stiglitz thoughts, which you might wanna read before saying anything.

My economics arent off Ewok. Sorry that you dont wanna listen. My "numbers" are right there and they are based on research. I actually study this you know....You make me laugh, as i do understand economics very well. And I didnt say your country would be going towards judgement day because of a simple trade deficit. But ofcource, you amercian spinner...Cant even argue the points.

Im sorry Ewok, but it turns out you are everything I hate about america. Blind, dumb nationalist.

So... you hate people who prove you wrong is that it? You hate people who disagree with you when you say stupid things like "your unemployment is quite high" when it's not and I prove you wrong and you still won't admit it? What exactly is it that you hate about me Andrey other than the fact that I called you out as not knowing what the hell you're talking about and showed you data to prove it? That's pretty ignorant in my book.

Here's an idea - if you feel the need to come in here and piss people off by bashing America, AT LEAST provide some data to back up your claims. Instead, you just say "well, I study this so I know better!". Do you know better than most experts? One weak quarter does not make a crappy economy. Our GDP is higher than any single nation in the world and rising still. I don't even know what you're getting at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Some articles on the state of the economy (this year and last)
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9307810&fsrc=RSS
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1301.cfm

So again - you sound like a bitter European anti-American when you don't post any proof of your claims. But then again, that's always been your way. If you said it was raining outside and you went outside and it was sunny without a cloud in the sky, you still wouldn't back down from your claim of rain. When you're wrong Andrey, don't be an a**hole and just blame everyone else and say you hate them. Debate like you know what you're talking about with data or don't bother at all.

The other funny thing is that every time you bash America all you do is claim the economy is weak. We've had this discussion before. Last year as a matter of fact which was a strong year economically for America. So, show me your data and where you're getting your mis-information from if you want to make the claim again.

[Tony Montana]

Bush got his wris****ch stolen in Albania while shaking hands with people. He is suporting them in something that is wrong, and they are stealing his ****. Poor guy.

[Ewok Droppings]

^Great - this has become the international Bash Bush thread. Lame. :rolleyes:

[Tony Montana]

Honestly, Im not bashing him at all. The Kosovo politics are insane, but Im talking about him being a guy who wanted to nicely shake hands, while they ripped him off, after helping their asses. I really feel poor for him. He must have felt bad. I mean, he really thinks he is doing the right thing, so my opinion (and of every other serb on this planet who has dealt with albanians, inkluding albanians who avoid other albanians because of how aggresive most of them are) is meaningless in this case.

[Ewok Droppings]

Honestly, Im not bashing him at all. The Kosovo politics are insane, but Im talking about him being a guy who wanted to nicely shake hands, while they ripped him off, after helping their asses. I really feel poor for him. He must have felt bad. I mean, he really thinks he is doing the right thing, so my opinion (and of every other serb on this planet who has dealt with albanians, inkluding albanians who avoid other albanians because of how aggresive most of them are) is meaningless in this case.

My apologies to you then. I thought you were being sarcastic. :)

[Tony Montana]

Not at all. I actually laughed my ass off, cause they were fast, he didnt even notice. Ive heard stories of guys being so fast. But then I felt sorry for him. He has enough watches, but being ripped off by someone you are trying to help is really bad.

[Andrey83]

So... you hate people who prove you wrong is that it? You hate people who disagree with you when you say stupid things like "your unemployment is quite high" when it's not and I prove you wrong and you still won't admit it? What exactly is it that you hate about me Andrey other than the fact that I called you out as not knowing what the hell you're talking about and showed you data to prove it? That's pretty ignorant in my book.

Here's an idea - if you feel the need to come in here and piss people off by bashing America, AT LEAST provide some data to back up your claims. Instead, you just say "well, I study this so I know better!". Do you know better than most experts? One weak quarter does not make a crappy economy.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9307810&fsrc=RSS
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1301.cfm

So again - you sound like a bitter European anti-American when you don't post any proof of your claims. But then again, that's always been your way. If you said it was raining outside and you went outside and it was sunny without a cloud in the sky, you still wouldn't back down from your claim of rain. When you're wrong Andrey, don't be an a**hole and just blame everyone else and say you hate them. Debate like you know what you're talking about with data or don't bother at all.

The other funny thing is that every time you bash America all you do is claim the economy is weak. We've had this discussion before. Last year as a matter of fact which was a strong year economically for America. So, show me your data and where you're getting your mis-information from if you want to make the claim again.

Of cource, you may proclaim you are "right" when not countering what I said.

I said basically 3 things:

1. Inmates are not factored in when looking at unemployment. This is a fact weather you like it or not. US had over 2 million inmates in 2003 and considering your far stricter laws i highly doubt that number have gone anywhere but up. But feel free to counter that statementAs other countries in Europe factor these people into the unemployment ratio, your number presents a false picture.

2. The investment balance has gone in the red. You didnt counter this but raged on about how a simple trade balance deficit isnt bad. Well....sorry to disappoint you but that isnt the same thing. US have managed to keep going strong because of their investment balance - becace it countered the effects of the budget deficit and trade balance. In a simple way, it "payed" the deficit, so to speak. Now that might change. You dont have to link to articles talking about current activity level. Thats not relevant as to my argument.

3. Gave my opinion on matters not needing facts. As they are based on opinion: Bad handling of the Katrina incident, Iraq policy is terrible and the patriot act is a crime. Thats a matter of opinion.

You where the one who attacked me with petty insults. What I hate about you? I dont hate you personally, but what i dont like is alot. The contant personal attacks as opposed to actually seeing what im writing. Everything you wrote 2 post above was irrelevant and still you manage to put "rofl", "wtf", "pathetic" and other insults there. It was quite obvious that you dont even understand the issue, hence the mentioned insults just shows your character - which I find rather blind and propoganda driven.

And the last thing is how you always put words into my mouth. I didnt say the economy is weak. That again, goes to show you dont know anything else then what the media is feeding you. The activity level is high. I was talking about trends - which might be hard to comprehend. Its this simple (and you can read Blanchard, Stiglitz, Salvatore, Weil and Beylis for this - you should be able to find them at your local university): If the trust in the dollar fails your economy is screwed. And going in the red on all the 3 balances i mentioned is not a good sign. Again, as i tried to explain, earlier the one ofset the effects of the other. This is looking to change (already have, but could ofcource change back into the green. Thats my point. It must).

Now if you again what to read all that as "your ecomomy sucks", something you always do, then be my guest. But that will just again show you dont really understand alot.

[Ewok Droppings]

Of cource, you may proclaim you are "right" when not countering what I said.

I said basically 3 things:

1. Inmates are not factored in when looking at unemployment. This is a fact weather you like it or not. US had over 2 million inmates in 2003 and considering your far stricter laws i highly doubt that number have gone anywhere but up. But feel free to counter that statementAs other countries in Europe factor these people into the unemployment ratio, your number presents a false picture. OMG - I think you're retarded. LMAO - you're trying to say because our prison population is on the rise that this should indicate somehow that our unemployment is high? Are you high? Are you trying to say we just take the poor and lock them up to make unemployment rates lower? :funny:

2. The investment balance has gone in the red. You didnt counter this but raged on about how a simple trade balance deficit isnt bad. Well....sorry to disappoint you but that isnt the same thing. US have managed to keep going strong because of their investment balance - becace it countered the effects of the budget deficit and trade balance. In a simple way, it "payed" the deficit, so to speak. Now that might change. You dont have to link to articles talking about current activity level. Thats not relevant as to my argument. You're trying to lump everything into one category like it's a checkbook. If you truly understand economics you would know better than that. You don't just say "well, you're in the red, your economy sucks". :funny: That's like saying because you bounced a check at the store you must declare bankruptcy and you're going to lose your job. It makes no sense. Show some specifics - some data, not some general bullcrap statement like "you're in the red with your trade deficit" which only indicates the trade deficit. Again, the trade deficit does not make the entire economy. But wait - you already know this right? I mean, you do study this stuff right? LMAO!

3. Gave my opinion on matters not needing facts. As they are based on opinion: Bad handling of the Katrina incident, Iraq policy is terrible and the patriot act is a crime. Thats a matter of opinion.
And your opinion is based off of your own media, not your own personal experience on the matter.

You where the one who attacked me with petty insults. What I hate about you? I dont hate you personally, but what i dont like is alot. The contant personal attacks as opposed to actually seeing what im writing. Everything you wrote 2 post above was irrelevant and still you manage to put "rofl", "wtf", "pathetic" and other insults there. It was quite obvious that you dont even understand the issue, hence the mentioned insults just shows your character - which I find rather blind and propoganda driven.OK, so if I don't understand the issues, and if I'm just trying to insult you, why did I post facts, charts and links to other data? That's way more than you did. Sorry, but again Andrey, you just don't want to admit when you're wrong, you want to shift the argument to bashing me and personal crap. I have given you the opportunity to prove yourself, but you just avoid it with smoke and mirrors. That just tells me even more that you don't have anything to say other than "I'm an expert and know better than everyone" which doesn't hold much weight unfortunately without data to back it up. SHOW ME THAT YOU ARE RIGHT! SHOW ME DATA!

And the last thing is how you always put words into my mouth. I didnt say the economy is weak. No, you said the dollar was dropping like a rock. This says the economy is tanking or do you not understand what you were actually saying? Do I need to quote you on this or can you scroll up to read your own post?

That again, goes to show you dont know anything else then what the media is feeding you. The activity level is high. I was talking about trends - which might be hard to comprehend. Its this simple (and you can read Blanchard, Stiglitz, Salvatore, Weil and Beylis for this - you should be able to find them at your local university): If the trust in the dollar fails your economy is screwed. And going in the red on all the 3 balances i mentioned is not a good sign. Again, as i tried to explain, earlier the one ofset the effects of the other. This is looking to change (already have, but could ofcource change back into the green. Thats my point. It must).

Now if you again what to read all that as "your ecomomy sucks", something you always do, then be my guest. But that will just again show you dont really understand alot.LMAO - Andrey, you can take some quote from your text books or you can look at the current state of the economy and the dollar. Show me your facts where you think the dollar is tanking and where our economy is in such jeopardy. I showed you that it's not, now show me that I'm wrong. Where's your data? But then again, you would have to admit that you're wrong - something you're not capable of doing. :)

[Ewok Droppings]

Not at all. I actually laughed my ass off, cause they were fast, he didnt even notice. Ive heard stories of guys being so fast. But then I felt sorry for him. He has enough watches, but being ripped off by someone you are trying to help is really bad.

I actually haven't heard the story yet, but getting your watch stolen sucks. :) Maybe it was his favorite watch. You have to be a pretty good thief to steal someone's watch from off of their hand. :D

[redman]

Ugh, the point is I am not proud to be an American as it is right now, how it seems to be represented in the global community right now. I am very proud to be an American in respect to what the country can and ultimately does truly stand for. And I get sick of this European attitude of, "God these rude offensive American's are so vulgar..." Because as much as I hate the state of our country it hasn't made me want to move to Europe, at least we act here.


How can you act against a terrorist?

Invading countries doesn't fix that problem. As Iraq and Afghanistan prove, it only infuriates and increases the number of terrorists.

Do you see countries such as England or Spain planning to invade countries after a terrorist attack? No. They learn from the experience but don't lose their heads and start attacking the first thing they suspect.

The only countermeasures you can really use against a terrorist is a good intelligence/defence department to stop them in their tracks. This is exactly what England and Spain did after the attacks. They saw what was wrong with their security and tried to improve it. They didn't get hot-headed and start blowing up countries because they wanted revenge.

And there is a reason why people come on these boards and spout this 'anti-US rhetoric' - its because the US thinks it can just invade and push around any country without consequence. After a while the world community gets sick and tired of the bull****. If you want to have the mantle of the 'leader of the free world', you have to be able to take criticism.

Of course the US has done a lot of good things to police the troubled areas of the world e.g Iraq (1992), Kosovo etc. and helped the world in its darkest hours e.g WW1 and WW2, but its actions post-911 have been pretty appaulling.

As much as the US likes to follow the law, what we seem to forget is that the US invaded 2 sovereign countries post-911. Last time I heard, its illegal to invade sovereign states. And all that bull**** about the invasion being 'justified because we had to remove Saddam' when they couldn't find any WMD's, didn't fly either. As much as Saddam was evil, I'm sure the 4 million Iraqi refugees would much rather have him at the helm than the civil war thats raging now.

[halo7]

Hey guys, calm down.

You're ALL wrong.

[Ramplate]

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=23803

[Ewok Droppings]

How can you act against a terrorist?

Invading countries doesn't fix that problem. As Iraq and Afghanistan prove, it only infuriates and increases the number of terrorists.

Do you see countries such as England or Spain planning to invade countries after a terrorist attack? No. They learn from the experience but don't lose their heads and start attacking the first thing they suspect.

The only countermeasures you can really use against a terrorist is a good intelligence/defence department to stop them in their tracks. This is exactly what England and Spain did after the attacks. They saw what was wrong with their security and tried to improve it. They didn't get hot-headed and start blowing up countries because they wanted revenge.

And there is a reason why people come on these boards and spout this 'anti-US rhetoric' - its because the US thinks it can just invade and push around any country without consequence. After a while the world community gets sick and tired of the bull****. If you want to have the mantle of the 'leader of the free world', you have to be able to take criticism.

Of course the US has done a lot of good things to police the troubled areas of the world e.g Iraq (1992), Kosovo etc. and helped the world in its darkest hours e.g WW1 and WW2, but its actions post-911 have been pretty appaulling.

As much as the US likes to follow the law, what we seem to forget is that the US invaded 2 sovereign countries post-911. Last time I heard, its illegal to invade sovereign states. And all that bull**** about the invasion being 'justified because we had to remove Saddam' when they couldn't find any WMD's, didn't fly either. As much as Saddam was evil, I'm sure the 4 million Iraqi refugees would much rather have him at the helm than the civil war thats raging now.
2 problems with this:

1. We didn't "invade" Iraq. There was a U.N. resolution and a consequence for non-compliance. You may or may not agree with it, but all the same it was there. Many other countries joined in the battle as well. It wasn't an invasion.

2. The problem with thinking that we are pissing everyone off and that's why they want us dead and that's why they attack us is - what the hell were we doing pre 9/11? We hadn't "invaded" Iraq or Afghanistan. These guys want us dead regardless of us sitting around giving them hugs and kisses or not.

[rosncranz]

How can you act against a terrorist?

Invading countries doesn't fix that problem. As Iraq and Afghanistan prove, it only infuriates and increases the number of terrorists.

Do you see countries such as England or Spain planning to invade countries after a terrorist attack? No. They learn from the experience but don't lose their heads and start attacking the first thing they suspect.

The only countermeasures you can really use against a terrorist is a good intelligence/defence department to stop them in their tracks. This is exactly what England and Spain did after the attacks. They saw what was wrong with their security and tried to improve it. They didn't get hot-headed and start blowing up countries because they wanted revenge.

And there is a reason why people come on these boards and spout this 'anti-US rhetoric' - its because the US thinks it can just invade and push around any country without consequence. After a while the world community gets sick and tired of the bull****. If you want to have the mantle of the 'leader of the free world', you have to be able to take criticism.

Of course the US has done a lot of good things to police the troubled areas of the world e.g Iraq (1992), Kosovo etc. and helped the world in its darkest hours e.g WW1 and WW2, but its actions post-911 have been pretty appaulling.

As much as the US likes to follow the law, what we seem to forget is that the US invaded 2 sovereign countries post-911. Last time I heard, its illegal to invade sovereign states. And all that bull**** about the invasion being 'justified because we had to remove Saddam' when they couldn't find any WMD's, didn't fly either. As much as Saddam was evil, I'm sure the 4 million Iraqi refugees would much rather have him at the helm than the civil war thats raging now.

Hmmm, I think you didn't understand my post...though that could be because it is a rambling mess lol. But I said in their at least once that I think invading Iraq was a huge mistake, and made no sense at all.

[JBond]

Through all this arguing, still, can no one answer me the original question asked by this thread?

[Steve from Indy]

Through all this arguing, still, can no one answer me the original question asked by this thread?

No, he is not insane. Not the brightest bulb in the package-- but not insane. How's that? ;)

Boy, this is the little thread that could, isn't it? :)

[Andrey83]

OMG - I think you're retarded. LMAO - you're trying to say because our prison population is on the rise that this should indicate somehow that our unemployment is high? Are you high? Are you trying to say we just take the poor and lock them up to make unemployment rates lower? :funny:

You're trying to lump everything into one category like it's a checkbook. If you truly understand economics you would know better than that. You don't just say "well, you're in the red, your economy sucks". :funny: That's like saying because you bounced a check at the store you must declare bankruptcy and you're going to lose your job. It makes no sense. Show some specifics - some data, not some general bullcrap statement like "you're in the red with your trade deficit" which only indicates the trade deficit. Again, the trade deficit does not make the entire economy. But wait - you already know this right? I mean, you do study this stuff right? LMAO!


And your opinion is based off of your own media, not your own personal experience on the matter.

OK, so if I don't understand the issues, and if I'm just trying to insult you, why did I post facts, charts and links to other data? That's way more than you did. Sorry, but again Andrey, you just don't want to admit when you're wrong, you want to shift the argument to bashing me and personal crap. I have given you the opportunity to prove yourself, but you just avoid it with smoke and mirrors. That just tells me even more that you don't have anything to say other than "I'm an expert and know better than everyone" which doesn't hold much weight unfortunately without data to back it up. SHOW ME THAT YOU ARE RIGHT! SHOW ME DATA!

No, you said the dollar was dropping like a rock. This says the economy is tanking or do you not understand what you were actually saying? Do I need to quote you on this or can you scroll up to read your own post?

LMAO - Andrey, you can take some quote from your text books or you can look at the current state of the economy and the dollar. Show me your facts where you think the dollar is tanking and where our economy is in such jeopardy. I showed you that it's not, now show me that I'm wrong. Where's your data? But then again, you would have to admit that you're wrong - something you're not capable of doing. :)

I told you this was what you would reply. Hehe, man are you dumb. You still managed take what I said, twist it around, and spit something else out. You still managed to not understand anything. Hehe. You are a sad person mate.

[Ewok Droppings]

I told you this was what you would reply. Hehe, man are you dumb. You still managed take what I said, twist it around, and spit something else out. You still managed to not understand anything. Hehe. You are a sad person mate.

LMAO - nice reply Andrey. Rather than respond with something worthwhile (because you have no worthwhile information) you just attack me personally as usual. Here's a tip - since you really don't know anything about American politics and you just want to spout retarded anti-American rhetoric that means nothing because you make crap up, don't bother. You're basically a liar just to be anti-American. :funny:

[FranklinTard]

Through all this arguing, still, can no one answer me the original question asked by this thread?

not crazy just religious. oh no wait that is crazy.

[equipe]

Through all this arguing, still, can no one answer me the original question asked by this thread?

Not crazy. Definitely not the brightest candle in the menorah. Blinded by political, national and religious ideology. A puppet of his political sponsors (same as the rest). Maybe afflicted with early onset Alzheimer’s.

[Ewok Droppings]

There is a new book out by Dick Morris called "Outrage" that chronicles all the crap from both Republicans and Democrats alike and ways they screw with the system. If you really want to get pissed off at Washington - try giving that a read.

[Tolkien]

No, he is not insane. Not the brightest bulb in the package-- but not insane. How's that? ;)



That actually sounds logical to me, lmmfao. Sadly, that is.

Boy, this is the little thread that could, isn't it? :)

I'm surprised Fighting American hasn't joined in yet, lmmfao.

[JBond]

OMG - I think you're retarded.

LMAO - nice reply Andrey. Rather than respond with something worthwhile (because you have no worthwhile information) you just attack me personally as usual.

:rolleyes:

[Tony Montana]

And Ewok, doesnt matter how much your insult others, Andrey proved you wrong (with facts), stated some serious concerns, did that in a nice matter and you didnt even get his point. Im studying economics too, and I do understand what he means, and he is right on that. But you can still believe what you want, or what fits you best.

[Steve from Indy]

Meh, every country has things to be proud or ashamed of. I don't think anyone should be pointing fingers. World affairs are WAY too complex to try to make them a black and white issue.

[Ewok Droppings]

And Ewok, doesnt matter how much your insult others, Andrey proved you wrong (with facts), stated some serious concerns, did that in a nice matter and you didnt even get his point. Im studying economics too, and I do understand what he means, and he is right on that. But you can still believe what you want, or what fits you best.

Show me one fact from his post? He gives statements that "our economy is in the red on trade" and crap like that. That's a statement not a fact. He gave no numbers, he gave no links to credible reports, NOTHING. I gave proof of his stupid theory of our "high unemployment" was false, showed charts, gave links to data and articles etc., but somehow he proved me wrong??? :funny: Where the hell do you guys come from??

So, now we have 2 anti-Americans who claim to be experts on the American economy that won't state any real numbers or data to support their arguments but claim they are experts so therefore they must be right? Are you kidding me? LMAO! If there's one thing that pisses me off than ignorant anti-Americans it's ignorant anti-Americans that claim to know better than those actually living here with no real credibility to back up their claims.

That's the same type of bulls**t I heard all the time in Moscow. "You don't know what America is like on a young person" or my favorite "American culture is no culture". I even had someone tell me I pronounced "Snickers" wrong when I asked them for a snickers bar. Honestly, I hate the anti-American "I know better than you" bulls**t attitude from idiots who have NEVER EVEN BEEN TO THIS COUNTRY. But now we have "economists" who think they know it all. What a joke. :rolleyes:

[Tony Montana]

I dont hate the USA, I dont hate anyone who didnt harm me in any way. Its about the economy and some facts and developments. Just read his post again! Noone is bashing you, but you like doing that to others. But if you like to believe that everyone who doesnt stand up cheering "USA,USA" is an antiamerican, than you have some serious problem.

[Ewok Droppings]

I dont hate the USA, I dont hate anyone who didnt harm me in any way. Its about the economy and some facts and developments. Just read his post again! Noone is bashing you, but you like doing that to others. But if you like to believe that everyone who doesnt stand up cheering "USA,USA" is an antiamerican, than you have some serious problem.
Nobody said you needed to stand up and cheer USA - I just asked for facts and Andrey gave me nothing. He said he reads textbooks, therefore he's an expert. Go back and read the posts. I asked for facts - you guys gave nothing. If you think our economy is so bad (which the experts don't agree with as I pointed out) then show me your data. Don't tell me something dumb like "you have a growing prison population so your unemployment rate is high". That is just ridiculous.

[pixiness]

Show me one fact from his post? He gives statements that "our economy is in the red on trade" and crap like that. That's a statement not a fact. He gave no numbers, he gave no links to credible reports, NOTHING. I gave proof of his stupid theory of our "high unemployment" was false, showed charts, gave links to data and articles etc., but somehow he proved me wrong??? :funny: Where the hell do you guys come from??

So, now we have 2 anti-Americans who claim to be experts on the American economy that won't state any real numbers or data to support their arguments but claim they are experts so therefore they must be right? Are you kidding me? LMAO! If there's one thing that pisses me off than ignorant anti-Americans it's ignorant anti-Americans that claim to know better than those actually living here with no real credibility to back up their claims.

That's the same type of bulls**t I heard all the time in Moscow. "You don't know what America is like on a young person" or my favorite "American culture is no culture". I even had someone tell me I pronounced "Snickers" wrong when I asked them for a snickers bar. Honestly, I hate the anti-American "I know better than you" bulls**t attitude from idiots who have NEVER EVEN BEEN TO THIS COUNTRY. But now we have "economists" who think they know it all. What a joke. :rolleyes:

Sigh....
MSN reputable enough for you? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11270337/
And yes, a trade defecit doesn't always mean the economy sucks... but it will have a negative impact on any country that has (or had) a strong manufacturing industry. It means that the products we manufacture here aren't bought overseas as often as we buy their products. In the long run it usually leads to cuts of American manufacturing jobs. Indeed, it may indicate a stronger financial position for the country - as a sign of growth - but the important thing to remember is that this is a statistic and that it ignores the human element and the lives it effects. Such statistical economic growth is typically "felt" most by service industries such as the legal, advertising, or other such professions and leaves a big gap for those manufacturing workers that have neither the education or experience to jump into those fields that get a boost.

As for crime and economics going hand in hand - would you accept the opinion of one of the country's most respected current economists? http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf (incidentally - this is one of the authors of Freakonomics). What I think he does an excellent job of pointing out is the distinction between property crime and violent crime. Theft, embezzlement, blackmail, etc. all increase or decrease in parallel to unemployment rates and economic conditions. Murder, rape, and other non-financially motivated crimes - do not - quite understandably so. Levitt offers a few very interesting theories to what DOES influence crime rates... all very creative and some controversial.

But more than anything - it's important to understand that economics by and large is a theoretical science. It's not like chemistry where you mix two elements and get a certain molecule. There's not ONE set answer that applies universally. And a large reason for that is that economics deals with human behavior - which is only predictable up to a point. Most people would reason that if you point a gun at me, I won't want to die - but I could duck, run, stand and cry, yell for help, or even try to attack you and get the gun away from you. Economics works in a very similar way. You could take away jobs and some people will try and find new ones, some will collect unemployment, some will become homeless, and yes, some will turn to crime. But a direct cause-effect relationship rarely exists because of all the variables at play. Hence why economics relies on statistical models rather than "cold hard facts".

What this means to you - and the rest of us - All economic theories are valid arguments for debate if based on a reasonable assumption. Andrey's is just as okay as mine, yours or anyone else's. There's not a hard-and-fast SINGLE answer to the subject. So let's all keep an open mind okay?

[Ewok Droppings]

Sigh....
MSN reputable enough for you? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11270337/
And yes, a trade defecit doesn't always mean the economy sucks... but it will have a negative impact on any country that has (or had) a strong manufacturing industry. It means that the products we manufacture here aren't bought overseas as often as we buy their products. In the long run it usually leads to cuts of American manufacturing jobs. Indeed, it may indicate a stronger financial position for the country - as a sign of growth - but the important thing to remember is that this is a statistic and that it ignores the human element and the lives it effects. Such statistical economic growth is typically "felt" most by service industries such as the legal, advertising, or other such professions and leaves a big gap for those manufacturing workers that have neither the education or experience to jump into those fields that get a boost. *sigh* OK, AGAIN - let me urge you to go back and read the entire posts which you obviously failed to do. The deficit is high, but this does not indicate that our economy sucks necessarily. Why do I always have to repeat myself with you? Would you accept some other sources that are more reputable than far left MSNBC?

http://www.economist.com/printeditio...07810&fsrc=RSS
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1301.cfm

Again - read before you comment. :rolleyes: The economy is strong, the deficit is high. What's your point? I agree with the deficit being high. Doesn't indicate that our economy is weak like Andrey tried to claim as you can read in the above articles.

As for crime and economics going hand in hand - would you accept the opinion of one of the country's most respected current economists? http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf (incidentally - this is one of the authors of Freakonomics). What I think he does an excellent job of pointing out is the distinction between property crime and violent crime. Theft, embezzlement, blackmail, etc. all increase or decrease in parallel to unemployment rates and economic conditions. Murder, rape, and other non-financially motivated crimes - do not - quite understandably so. Levitt offers a few very interesting theories to what DOES influence crime rates... all very creative and some controversial.
Pixiness - seriously, did you even bother to try to understand this argument before you posted? He is saying that unemployment rates are low because prison populations are rising. I don't even care about theories - the FACTS are that our unemployment rates are low right now and have been for awhile. Look at the facts - it's not that difficult. Seriously...
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru

I don't know how more simply to spell this out for anyone dumb enough to think our unemployment rates are high right now. It's just simply not true. I don't care if you think 2+3 should equal 7 in theory, it's not true.

But more than anything - it's important to understand that economics by and large is a theoretical science. It's not like chemistry where you mix two elements and get a certain molecule. There's not ONE set answer that applies universally. And a large reason for that is that economics deals with human behavior - which is only predictable up to a point. Most people would reason that if you point a gun at me, I won't want to die - but I could duck, run, stand and cry, yell for help, or even try to attack you and get the gun away from you. Economics works in a very similar way. You could take away jobs and some people will try and find new ones, some will collect unemployment, some will become homeless, and yes, some will turn to crime. But a direct cause-effect relationship rarely exists because of all the variables at play. Hence why economics relies on statistical models rather than "cold hard facts".

What this means to you - and the rest of us - All economic theories are valid arguments for debate if based on a reasonable assumption. Andrey's is just as okay as mine, yours or anyone else's. There's not a hard-and-fast SINGLE answer to the subject. So let's all keep an open mind okay?Look, to make this simple - you can say whatever you want about the economy and your theories, but the experts agree that the economy is not in the toilet. You can say it's all based on theory and trends, which is partially true, but there are many formulas and calculations that go into this. I've taken plenty of economics classes as well, but most importantly, I can look at the current data like any rational person should be able to do and say "oh, looks like unemployment is really down and that consumer spending is strong, the dollar isn't dropping like a rock, etc. etc. Seriously - I don't know why you people have such a frickin' hard time looking at the facts. It's like you're refusing to say that Bush is our current President just because it's not what you want to believe. That facts are facts - simply put.

[FranklinTard]

dont forget to say "im right and youre wrong" ewok. because thats all that matters to you... and if im not mistaken... the economist is as far right as you can get.

[Ewok Droppings]

dont forget to say "im right and youre wrong" ewok. because thats all that matters to you... and if im not mistaken... the economist is as far right as you can get.

Well, again - as usual you don't have anything to add to the argument other than being an idiot. Why not add something constructive.

And simply put - it's not a matter of "I'm right and you're wrong" it's a matter of the data is right and your theories don't support it. Not that hard to figure out.

[pixiness]

*sigh* Again - read before you comment. :rolleyes: The economy is strong, the deficit is high. What's your point? I agree with the deficit being high. Doesn't indicate that our economy is weak like Andrey tried to claim as you can read in the above articles.


And yes, a trade defecit doesn't always mean the economy sucks... but it will have a negative impact on any country that has (or had) a strong manufacturing industry....Indeed, it may indicate a stronger financial position for the country - as a sign of growth - but the important thing to remember is that this is a statistic and that it ignores the human element and the lives it effects.

I fail to see your point - other than being argumentative. I've AGREED with you that strong economies have high defecits - I've only asked you to consider the danger of theory based on statistical analysis because people aren't statistics.

- seriously, did you even bother to try to understand this argument before you posted? He is saying that unemployment rates are low because prison populations are rising. I don't even care about theories - the FACTS are that our unemployment rates are low right now and have been for awhile. Look at the facts - it's not that difficult. Seriously...
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru

Ever tried looking at cause and effect? The reason I included that little bit of dialog was because if we want to talk about prison populations rising - let's talk about crime rates and what influences them. Unless of course you think the criminals get to prison by magic? Since one theory holds that violent crime and unemployment rates move independently of one another - the idea that unemployment rates being influenced by prison population doesn't seem to hold a lot of water. But it WOULD/MIGHT hold true for non-violent criminals whose crime rate DOES fluctuate in parallel to unemployment. It's a reverse cause and effect approach - and I personally don't agree with it - but I'm willing to consider the theory because I can see where it's coming from.


Look, to make this simple - you can say whatever you want about the economy and your theories, but the experts agree that the economy is not in the toilet. For someone that gets so accusatory about others not reading posts - you could certainly do with a little more careful reading yourself. I never once said the economy was in the toilet.

Perhaps the problem is you fail to understand the point behind healthy debate. "Just the facts" is a really convenient argument for anyone that doesn't want to explore the deeper issues at work in any situation.... especially in a field like economics where the "facts" are so open to interpretation. No one's asked you to once say you're wrong. Only to consider that in some situations there's more than one right answer.

[Ewok Droppings]

Perhaps the problem is you fail to understand the point behind healthy debate. "Just the facts" is a really convenient argument for anyone that doesn't want to explore the deeper issues at work in any situation.... especially in a field like economics where the "facts" are so open to interpretation. No one's asked you to once say you're wrong. Only to consider that in some situations there's more than one right answer.What's funny is that you started off your post with sarcasm (a sigh) and then gave me a bunch of theories that don't support anything and now you want to claim that I am sarcastic and that I don't debate correctly?

I'll make this very simple - if you can show me with your prison population example how we currently have a high unemployment rate when the data shows that we don't, then I'll make a whole thread titled "Ewok is WRONG" OK? The point is, that Andrey's claims, your theories and Montana's, well nothing, don't add up. It's like saying theoretically it might possibly be night outside when it's high noon. I'm sorry, but when you debate you look at facts, not theories that don't support the facts as they are.

[pixiness]

The sigh was because you always get beligerent... not because I was being sarcastic. I was actually on your side (had you bothered to read beyond that sigh) and was attempting to demonstrate a civil-mannered approach to healthy debate. Obviously - last time I'll try to do that... it's clearly not worth the effort.

And although it will be the third time now that I've tried to explain this... I've never contended that I personally agree that high unemployment and high prison populations are linked... Your original beef was that Andrey had said that high prison populations are what caused low unemployment. I said let's examine why prisons get populated. Unemployment (low OR high) has not historically shown any link whatsoever to violent crime (murder, rape, etc.). What has shown a correlation to unemployment is non-violent crime (theft, fraud, money laundering, etc.). Some researchers (see Levitt link) believe that financially motivated crimes are influenced by high levels of unemployment (if people don't have jobs, some will turn to crime as a way to find money or get by). It seems that Andrey's reasoning lies in an idea that if our prison population is filled with a lot of non-violent offenders, then of course they're not drawing unemployment and that figure starts to skew low. Now I specifically said (see previous post, paragraph 2, line 5 and 6) that I don't personally subscribe to reverse cause and effect, but that doesn't mean Andrey's theory isn't possible. To really know one way or the other we'd have to know whether the increase in the prison population has been from violent or non-violent crime. We'd also want to know how many of those people would be actively looking for work (one of the major components of the unemployment rate equation) were they not in prison. If I knew that information off the top of my head, and it didn't support Andrey's theory... sure I might throw the bull**** flag on it... but since I don't - I'm willing to let the idea live rather than launch at him or anyone else for expressing an idea outside my scope of knowledge.

You see, I KNOW I don't know everything and I know that my viewpoint on human behavior is only a very minute part of the whole picture. So yeah, I let ideas live - even if I don't personally agree with them. Now if you are a practicing economist, and I've deeply offended you - please accept my apologies. But, if you're like me and some others that have taken a couple economics classes, watch the news, and listen to what some other experts have to say, then get real about yourself and realize that you don't know everything. As much as research and mathematics and formulas all figure greatly into economics - it's not a 1+1=2 science because not every human person reacts the same way. Sometimes it's a 1+1=2 science, other times the same situation is the result of 1+2=3 science. (Notice - they're both right answers and they can exist at the same time - imagine that). As luck would have it - there's a really good example of this in the Levitt article. He lists 6 different reasons for a drop in crime rate in the 90s. Some apply to everyone, some apply only to some people... but they each had an impact on crime that was independent of the others (in other words - there were several right answers to the same problem).

[Steve from Indy]

Unemployment rates don't concern me. Wage rates are what concern me. A man isn't going to jump for joy because he's breaking his back by cleaning floors for 7 bucks an hour and living on the edge of ruin. Low unemployment rates are only meaningful for people making decent money. That ain't helping the working poor. Poverty wage jobs will always be there.

[Ewok Droppings]

The sigh was because you always get beligerent... not because I was being sarcastic. I was actually on your side (had you bothered to read beyond that sigh) and was attempting to demonstrate a civil-mannered approach to healthy debate. Obviously - last time I'll try to do that... it's clearly not worth the effort.

And although it will be the third time now that I've tried to explain this... I've never contended that I personally agree that high unemployment and high prison populations are linked... Your original beef was that Andrey had said that high prison populations are what caused low unemployment. I said let's examine why prisons get populated. Unemployment (low OR high) has not historically shown any link whatsoever to violent crime (murder, rape, etc.). What has shown a correlation to unemployment is non-violent crime (theft, fraud, money laundering, etc.). Some researchers (see Levitt link) believe that financially motivated crimes are influenced by high levels of unemployment (if people don't have jobs, some will turn to crime as a way to find money or get by). It seems that Andrey's reasoning lies in an idea that if our prison population is filled with a lot of non-violent offenders, then of course they're not drawing unemployment and that figure starts to skew low. Now I specifically said (see previous post, paragraph 2, line 5 and 6) that I don't personally subscribe to reverse cause and effect, but that doesn't mean Andrey's theory isn't possible. To really know one way or the other we'd have to know whether the increase in the prison population has been from violent or non-violent crime. We'd also want to know how many of those people would be actively looking for work (one of the major components of the unemployment rate equation) were they not in prison. If I knew that information off the top of my head, and it didn't support Andrey's theory... sure I might throw the bull**** flag on it... but since I don't - I'm willing to let the idea live rather than launch at him or anyone else for expressing an idea outside my scope of knowledge.

You see, I KNOW I don't know everything and I know that my viewpoint on human behavior is only a very minute part of the whole picture. So yeah, I let ideas live - even if I don't personally agree with them. Now if you are a practicing economist, and I've deeply offended you - please accept my apologies. But, if you're like me and some others that have taken a couple economics classes, watch the news, and listen to what some other experts have to say, then get real about yourself and realize that you don't know everything. As much as research and mathematics and formulas all figure greatly into economics - it's not a 1+1=2 science because not every human person reacts the same way. Sometimes it's a 1+1=2 science, other times the same situation is the result of 1+2=3 science. (Notice - they're both right answers and they can exist at the same time - imagine that). As luck would have it - there's a really good example of this in the Levitt article. He lists 6 different reasons for a drop in crime rate in the 90s. Some apply to everyone, some apply only to some people... but they each had an impact on crime that was independent of the others (in other words - there were several right answers to the same problem).
See - this is the great irony of your posts. You come across as argumentative - then you say I misinterpret it (which by the way is a complete lie. You were sarcastic and condescending in your first post) and then you revert back to saying crap that's condescending again like "get real about yourself". I've got news for you chicko - this is the second time you've jumped into an argument and made dumb comments without reading all the facts and then tried to back your way out of it. How about you get real about yourself. Either get it straight or stay the hell out of it! Don't lecture me on your supposed nobleness and bullcrap about wanting to present another point of view. I call bulls**t on that. You simply jumped into the middle of a debate again without reading the history. Just stay out of it. :mad: You're sarcasm and your *****iness are not welcome and you're not convincing with your attempt to play it down like miss innocent. Go back and re-read your crap if you don't understand.

Unemployment rates don't concern me. Wage rates are what concern me. A man isn't going to jump for joy because he's breaking his back by cleaning floors for 7 bucks an hour and living on the edge of ruin. Low unemployment rates are only meaningful for people making decent money. That ain't helping the working poor. Poverty wage jobs will always be there. True, but that's why you look at consumer confidence. If people are only getting minimum wage jobs which bring down the overall earning potential of the average citizen, then people don't spend as much. But again, even this is strong:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/29/news/economy/confidence/index.htm


I'm not exactly sure why we got from a debate about the missile defense shield to whether or not our economy is strong. Andrey always enters into political debates and makes a statement that the economy is weak. He's done it before, wasn't true then, and he'll probably do it again. But, let's get back on topic here. Let's talk about the missile defense shield and whether or not that's a good idea. The whole point of this thread was to say that Bush was setting us up to fight Russia (which I firmly disagree with) by pressing forward with this missile defense shield. Does anyone have any views on that?

[Steve from Indy]

True, but that's why you look at consumer confidence. If people are only getting minimum wage jobs which bring down the overall earning potential of the average citizen, then people don't spend as much. But again, even this is strong:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/29/news/economy/confidence/index.htm

You're right. I was just making the point that a low rate of unemployment isn't exactly telling the whole story. If wages were higher, the economy would be even stronger, as you seemed to say yourself. In other words, a gain in the economy or consumer confidence will never have much effect on the working poor as long as low wage jobs remain outside of the loop, as it were. But more taxes coming in are somewhat beneficial to the working poor, so it does help to a point. Just not nearly enough.

Anyway, good enough. And I already gave my view on the missile thingy.

[JBond]

You're all crazy. Ewok for finding a way to argue with everyone for something different every week, and the rest of you for arguing with him again.

[Steve from Indy]

You're all crazy. Ewok for finding a way to argue with everyone for something different every week, and the rest of you for arguing with him again.

I don't argue, I devastate with my geometric logic! ;)

For 5 bonus points, what movie does the term "geometric logic" come from?

[Tolkien]

The Caine Mutiny. :)

[Steve from Indy]

You're right! You're right! Very good! Here you go:

5

[Tolkien]

Thought of Bogart when I saw the term... :) LMMFAO added it to my signature. lol.

[Steve from Indy]

A vastly under appreciated performance, imo.

Hey, you earned them. :)

[Ewok Droppings]

You're all crazy. Ewok for finding a way to argue with everyone for something different every week, and the rest of you for arguing with him again.

It's every other week - get it right! And it's always something political.

[Tolkien]

I wonder what would happen to this message board if we had a Presidential Race where one could vote for his or own favorite members that they'd want to see as Forum President, then have the highest voted members face off in a weekly debate which would run in REAL TIME back to back with the real Presidential Race? Imagine a political cabinet, nay, TWO political cabinets made up of ONLY CS members? Naaaaaaaaah, would never work... Nevermind.

It could happen...

[sshuttari]

we should start an official Presdential 08 debate thread.

Have like the 2 main democrats and 2 republicans poll.

And see what the CS! thinks of it.

[Tolkien]

I call shotgun on the making! lmmfao. But it's too early to say what two Dems and what two Reps should make it into the polls. Isn't it?

[sshuttari]

well we have Obama and Clinton on Dems

and I honestly dont pay attention the republicans

[Steve from Indy]

well we have Obama and Clinton on Dems

and I honestly dont pay attention the republicans

Probably Giuliani and Romney.

[Steve from Indy]

I wonder what would happen to this message board if we had a Presidential Race where one could vote for his or own favorite members that they'd want to see as Forum President, then have the highest voted members face off in a weekly debate which would run in REAL TIME back to back with the real Presidential Race? Imagine a political cabinet, nay, TWO political cabinets made up of ONLY CS members? Naaaaaaaaah, would never work... Nevermind.

It could happen...

Great, one more way for me to be humiliated. I'd be like guy that nobody's heard of that doesn't make it past the first debate. :)

[Ewok Droppings]

I actually thought of starting an official '08 Presidential thread. The problem is I think too many people simply bash instead of actually thinking of the issues. It would probably just turn into an ugly thread unfortunately. If someone else wants to start it though... make sure to add a poll I think.

[pixiness]

You simply jumped into the middle of a debate again without reading the history. Just stay out of it. :mad: You're sarcasm and your *****iness are not welcome and you're not convincing with your attempt to play it down like miss innocent. Go back and re-read your crap if you don't understand.
Because I disagreed with what you had to say and offered another opinion? Yeah - I suck. And obviously trying to reason with you like a rational person doesn't work. So forget it - live in your narrow little world - it's of no consequence to me. As jibbs so elequently pointed out you're not worth the effort.

[pixiness]

I wonder what would happen to this message board if we had a Presidential Race where one could vote for his or own favorite members that they'd want to see as Forum President, then have the highest voted members face off in a weekly debate which would run in REAL TIME back to back with the real Presidential Race? Imagine a political cabinet, nay, TWO political cabinets made up of ONLY CS members? Naaaaaaaaah, would never work... Nevermind.

It could happen...


Interesting idea. My guess would be that you'd find a couple outraged individuals that'd say the whole thing was a popularity contest. We did have a Hall of Fame once... no one really "lobbied" for votes... and certainly never debated... and there were some "bruised" egos involving that as well.

What would you propose a "Forum President" preside over? Board-related issues - or a mock-political thing?

[Ewok Droppings]

Because I disagreed with what you had to say and offered another opinion? Yeah - I suck. And obviously trying to reason with you like a rational person doesn't work. So forget it - live in your narrow little world - it's of no consequence to me. As jibbs so elequently pointed out you're not worth the effort.

No, not because you disagreed, but because you were a snotty brat from the start - why is that so hard for you to understand? If you don't want someone to be a jerk to you - maybe you shouldn't start off by being one, that's pretty simple. You started it with your sarcasm and your attitude and you think you did nothing wrong. Primadona brats aren't worth my time. :rolleyes: Don't start by being a jerk next time and you won't get a jerky response. Look in the mirror before you condemn others.

[pixiness]

^
Hi pot, I'm kettle - nice to meet you. :)

[Steve from Indy]

I actually thought of starting an official '08 Presidential thread. The problem is I think too many people simply bash instead of actually thinking of the issues. It would probably just turn into an ugly thread unfortunately. If someone else wants to start it though... make sure to add a poll I think.

Bash, bash ,bash!! http://www.world-of-smilies.com/html/images/smilies/gewalt/d066.gif

[Tolkien]

Interesting idea. My guess would be that you'd find a couple outraged individuals that'd say the whole thing was a popularity contest. We did have a Hall of Fame once... no one really "lobbied" for votes... and certainly never debated... and there were some "bruised" egos involving that as well.

What would you propose a "Forum President" preside over? Board-related issues - or a mock-political thing?

oh, no no, it would just be a mock political thing. lol.

You try taking Frizzo, Jibbs and Drakon's jobs away. :eek:

[Ewok Droppings]

^
Hi pot, I'm kettle - nice to meet you. :)

You're right - we were both jerks. :)

[JBond]

I think pixi should be CS president. Or maybe we could go with a monarchy and make her Queen...

[pixiness]

I think pixi should be CS president. Or maybe we could go with a monarchy and make her Queen...


hahaha - cute. When the beheadings begin I promise you'll be one of the last (unless of course you'd like to go first - which can easily be accomodated).

[JBond]

If the beheadings ever slow down I'll be glad to lend a hand...or a head, whatever.

[Brock Landers]

If we're setting up a government, can I be in it? I don't even need an important job, just as long as I get a briefcase and a monocle and get to say things like "rather interesting, right JB?" or "our strategy rests solely on our abundance of weapons and loud rock music."

[JBond]

I suppose there's an opening for you...do you have a top hat and pipe?

[Steve from Indy]

I'm the Queen's loyal confidant and adviser. You don't want to piss me off. :D

[Brock Landers]

I suppose there's an opening for you...do you have a top hat and pipe?

Yes, in fact I do. And one of those adorable mini-pistols. Like the one that killed Lincoln, rest in peace.

[vader4902]

You know...

http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL715/2562261/5091714/258418146.jpg

:lol: :lol:

regarding your question, of course he is....

ahhh...and 2008 seems still so far away...how many more wars and disgrace to the world can "it" still create....?:meanie: :omg: :mad: