Quantcast
I love this guy. Why canít he be an American and run for office here!

Forums - General Discussion - I love this guy. Why canít he be an American and run for office here!

please take him off us, ill pay you to take him out of the UK, any takers?

seriously, hes another tory blowhard who loves to bitch about the government whilst providing no alternatives that would even remotley benefit society.



Around the Network

^
What he said, if you want him, please take him



psrock said:
TheRealMafoo said:
psrock said:

Obama could leave office today and he would have been a better president than Bush.

 

The only way Obama could end up a better president then Bush, is if he left office today. Bush is going to go down as one of the worst presidents we have ever had. In a hundred years (if the US is still around), Obama will be higher on that list.

 

thanks for repeating what I said. Anyway, i am sorry for using sarcasm in this site, so unusual. I am doing a search for all the threads you posted about Bush being a bad president while he was in office. it might be helpful if you can link me some threads. It's hard going through all these Obma post you got.

 

These are all posts from when Bush was in office:

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=1293759

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=1285228

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=1275104

 



TheRealMafoo said:
psrock said:
TheRealMafoo said:
psrock said:

Obama could leave office today and he would have been a better president than Bush.

 

The only way Obama could end up a better president then Bush, is if he left office today. Bush is going to go down as one of the worst presidents we have ever had. In a hundred years (if the US is still around), Obama will be higher on that list.

 

thanks for repeating what I said. Anyway, i am sorry for using sarcasm in this site, so unusual. I am doing a search for all the threads you posted about Bush being a bad president while he was in office. it might be helpful if you can link me some threads. It's hard going through all these Obma post you got.

 

These are all posts from when Bush was in office:

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=1293759

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=1285228

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=1275104

So you did not create one single thread about Bush, yet in the last month alone, i have seen more threads from you about oBAMA than Killzone threads.

 

 



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
psrock said:

So you did not create one single thread about Bush, yet in the last month alone, i have seen more threads from you about oBAMA than Killzone threads.

 

It's a pain in the ass to search this site, but I will say I didn't make many Bush threads, as back then I blamed congress more then Bush for spending. In this case, I have to thank congress for spending less then Obama. (same congress, if that gives you any indication how bad Obama in is this regard).

When the congress and the president are the same party, what the president wants usually goes, so I blame him. Could just as easily blamed Congress, but they are not coming up with crazy 3.6 trillion spending bills.

My point is I am against the kinds of spending we have been doing, and it does not matter who the president is. Bush signed the package, and I called it a dumb idea.



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo said:
psrock said:

So you did not create one single thread about Bush, yet in the last month alone, i have seen more threads from you about oBAMA than Killzone threads.

 

It's a pain in the ass to search this site, but I will say I didn't make many Bush threads, as back then I blamed congress more then Bush for spending. In this case, I have to thank congress for spending less then Obama. (same congress, if that gives you any indication how bad Obama in is this regard).

When the congress and the president are the same party, what the president wants usually goes, so I blame him. Could just as easily blamed Congress, but they are not coming up with crazy 3.6 trillion spending bills.

My point is I am against the kinds of spending we have been doing, and it does not matter who the president is. Bush signed the package, and I called it a dumb idea.

Well, that's where i draw the line. President Bush, to me, is one of the main reason we are in this mess, Do you agree? Now, why would you critised the person who is actually trying to fix it. We may disagree on the way he's going at it, but it seems before Mr Bush left, he had no solution.

And frankly, give the guy some time. If a year from now, things look bleak, i will be right with you in this argument, but i think it's too early. And, that anger you have against Obama, where is it coming from?

 



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)

"please take him off us, ill pay you to take him out of the UK, any takers?"
"^ What he said, if you want him, please take him"

lol , I may turn into liberal because of these 2 XD



psrock said:
TheRealMafoo said:
psrock said:

So you did not create one single thread about Bush, yet in the last month alone, i have seen more threads from you about oBAMA than Killzone threads.

 

It's a pain in the ass to search this site, but I will say I didn't make many Bush threads, as back then I blamed congress more then Bush for spending. In this case, I have to thank congress for spending less then Obama. (same congress, if that gives you any indication how bad Obama in is this regard).

When the congress and the president are the same party, what the president wants usually goes, so I blame him. Could just as easily blamed Congress, but they are not coming up with crazy 3.6 trillion spending bills.

My point is I am against the kinds of spending we have been doing, and it does not matter who the president is. Bush signed the package, and I called it a dumb idea.

Well, that's where i draw the line. President Bush, to me, is one of the main reason we are in this mess, Do you agree? Now, why would you critised the person who is actually trying to fix it. We may disagree on the way he's going at it, but it seems before Mr Bush left, he had no solution.

And frankly, give the guy some time. If a year from now, things look bleak, i will be right with you in this argument, but i think it's too early. And, that anger you have against Obama, where is it coming from?

 

I can tell you where his anger is coming from. Most likely that fact that Obama has turned out to be a puppet just like every other President. Also the fact that he's destroying your economy, and if you look at his administration there all CFR and Trilateral Commission memebers. Maybe, it could be the fact that his spending is even more irresponsible than the Bush regime.

Also attempting to hint that he has some sort of issue with Obama because he is black is rather pathetic, grow up.

 



" Rebellion Against Tyrants Is Obedience To God"

akuma587 said:
First of all, I can't remember the last time that conservatives had something good to say about a foreign official. That in itself is newsworthy.

I wouldn't have a problem with this if "fiscal conservatives" were man enough to raise taxes when times are good.

If you can't spend your way out of recession, then you also can't cut your way into profitability. Any good corporation knows that if you are in debt, you increase your revenue.

If "fiscal conservatives" had raised taxes while the economy was good so that we weren't running deficits during good economic years, then I would listen to what they have to say with a kinder ear. A true fiscal conservative is not scared to raise taxes.

 

I would like to add the ignoring Keynesian economics when times are good and then trumping it up and going overboard when times are bad doesn't help any.



akuma587 said:
mrstickball said:
akuma587 said:
First of all, I can't remember the last time that conservatives had something good to say about a foreign official. That in itself is newsworthy.

I wouldn't have a problem with this if "fiscal conservatives" were man enough to raise taxes when times are good.

If you can't spend your way out of recession, then you also can't cut your way into profitability. Any good corporation knows that if you are in debt, you increase your revenue.

If "fiscal conservatives" had raised taxes while the economy was good so that we weren't running deficits during good economic years, then I would listen to what they have to say with a kinder ear. A true fiscal conservative is not scared to raise taxes.

Here's the problem, Akuma: Raising taxes during good times can cause reduced profitability for businesses and people to lead a country into worse times. We're seeing American jobs being outsourced as a result of more competitive corporate tax rates in other developed, and developing nations. Therefore, by raising taxes, you start to reduce the effect of a 'fat' period.

If anything, the government should learn to actually store back funds for use if times get bad, instead of hampering growth by raising taxes. If they are absolutely needed, I guess I can understand that. But if they are not needed, it won't work. When was the last time a politician raised taxes to pay something off, rather than raise taxes to fund new spending?

And I think your analogy of 'if you can't spend your way out of recession, then you can't cut your way to profitability' is beyond laughable. Have you ever ran a business? Know someone who does? Ask them if cutting back raises profitability. They'll tell you that it does. By your logic, the Big 3 auto manufacturers should be leading the world since they've never cut back a day in their life.

The fact is, that businesses trim the fat and reduce spending to increase profitability. Taxation & spending reduction is the same way. If the government wants to create a surplus, it needs to do what businesses do: lay people off. Close down unprofitable wings. Find more efficent ways to do business. The government, however, has that wonderful advantage of legislating revenue increases, since it can merely force it's populace to give them more revenue. That doesn't mean that it's a smart way of doing business. If anything, it's a horrible model to run a business, or government.

Here's an example of the correlation of corporate taxation, and the effect it has on our economy, and the economies of others:

Now, if you'll notice, outsourcing is increasing, while corporate taxation drops overseas. Guess why? If a business can hire people and pay them, and get taxed less, they have an incentive to do it.

Of course, I question if you'll understand this if you've ever run a business, or understand business economics.

Did I ever say that shrinking the size of government wasn't an option?  You can reduce the size of your workforce all you want, but if you aren't bringing in enough money to sustain yourself, you are screwed either way.  You shrink government and raise taxes.  Using only one of those options makes no sense if you really care about being fiscally conservative.

What you said is all well and good.  But you can't call yourself a true fiscal conservative if you aren't willing to raise taxes to reduce the national debt.  A true fiscal conservative would use all options at his disposal to control the government debt.

If you are more concerned with economic growth than being fiscally conservative, that is fine.  But don't say that you are fiscally conservative.

These are the top 3 priorities of the party that calls itself fiscally conservative:

1) Cut taxes

2) Increase the strength of the military

3) Be fiscally responsible

 

The 3 reasons mentioned is why republicans lost. Fiscal conservatism is a very good strategy, but repulbicans have not actually been conservative in quite a while. This has alienated their base, hurt our economy, and stripped republicans from power. Hopefully republican leader will get back to their roots soon.