By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Tea Parties: Whats really going on?

Sorry but, once again, ya'll are wrong. Reagan did not have the luxury of a line item veto, so congress used that to their advantage by tying their massive spending bills to Reagan's tax cuts, they spent $1.72 to ever dollar of tax cut Reagan made.

Also, with the Dems in control at the time of the Vietnam war, there was not enough funding behind it, and they hampered the advancement of the war with politics...sound familiar????



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

Around the Network
theprof00 said:
Viper1 said:
theprof00 said:
BTW sqrl,
I think you would be interested in the result of implicit attitude tests.

meta-studies of hundreds of different studies like these show that a very large amount of the population in USA have at least some unconscious racist bias against black people.

I'll look for the actual statistics... but these tests along with others are the whole basis of Equal Oportunity Employment and Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action is not about equality, it's about providing an unfair advantage to a specific population group.    It perpetuates that unconcious racist bias that you even pointed out.

The more we treat a specific group as "special" the longer it will take for racism to dissipate.

Wow. you are clueless. Racism exists in other countries that don't have AA either like other 1st world countries. You really have no basis for your words and not only that, you will never even slightly teensy eensy weensilly concede that you may be judging based on your own views...

 

Are you really this thick?  I said it perpetuates it.   I didn't say it would disappear simply if AA didn't exist.  I'm simply pointing out how it prolongs it due to the resentmnet the special treatment generates.

 

Go ahead and add to your sig but you're the one going to look silly about it.

 

You're a Psych major, you should know better.

 



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:

Oh yeah, LBJ totally botched it by getting involved in Vietnam.  There were some merits to containment as a foreign policy, but on the whole it was pretty much a complete failure, especially containment through the use of military force.

I'm not trying saying that we would have been better off if we would have spent less money in Vietnam, I am trying to say that we would have been better off if we hadn't spent any money there in the first place.  I feel the same way about Iraq.

You could argue that the Soviet Union would have collapsed under its own weight even if Reagan hadn't spent that extra money.  They had systematic problems throughout their entire country even before we started having a pissing contest with them in the 80's.  The vibrancy of our economy and the severe problems with their economy were just as much a factor or more in our "victory" over the Soviet Union.

In a lot of circumstances, economic warfare is more effective than actual warfare.  Plus its typically cheaper and you don't get your hands dirty.


Regardless... when in a war and your option is to spend a lot of money... or not too... to spend money is seen as better.  There was no opting out of the Cold war. 

You should of been there with me.  I was one of the few people i could find who thought attacking Iraq was stupid in the first place.  Everyone else was too caught up in the 9/11 love.

It probably would of collapsed without us spending that extra money.  The question is... what would they have done before it collapsed?  If they thought America was weak. 

Also at the time it should be noted America was in a bit of economic trouble itself.  Blamed at the time on Reagans deficit spending... and trying to control inflation.

Democrats pressured him to fight the recession by raising taxes and focus on fiscal responsibility.  He didn't really... but he did pass a huge tax hike like the democrats wanted.  Eventually the recession fixed itself.

Kinda funny considering.

 

Reagan was right to cut taxes because 1) the country was facing staglation, and 2) the tax rates were pretty high.  I am just upset that so many people now think that cutting taxes is the solution to every economic problem.

He was also smart for later passing that tax hike, as the economy had recovered and it would hurt revenue otherwise.  I won't comment on any of the political decisionmaking that went into the decisions, but they were sound economic ones for that time.

But our economic situation wasn't quite so bad during Reagan's second term.  I don't think Reagan's decision to spend money on the Cold War was a foolish one in the same way that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was, I just think it set a bad precedent of excessive military spending.  Reagan's decision was at least a rational one.  But I do question people's belief that the Soviet Union would not have collapsed without that spending.

In terms of modern day, I mean I didn't care as much about Afghanistan (although I certainly wasn't promoting us invading the country) as they were actively housing terrorists involved in 9/11.  That was at least a rational decision in comparison.  Lol, and I don't know if I would call it 9/11 love, more like 9/11 fear.  People were acting so fucking crazy after 9/11 here in the Texas.  They thought terrorists would attack our podunk ass 200,000 person town.  Simply ridiculous.

And if we were concerned about rooting out terrorists in the Middle East who were tied to 9/11, we should have looked at Saudi Arabia too.  But we had too many other kinds of political ties with them for that to be an option (at least in Bush's eyes).

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:

Oh yeah, LBJ totally botched it by getting involved in Vietnam.  There were some merits to containment as a foreign policy, but on the whole it was pretty much a complete failure, especially containment through the use of military force.

I'm not trying saying that we would have been better off if we would have spent less money in Vietnam, I am trying to say that we would have been better off if we hadn't spent any money there in the first place.  I feel the same way about Iraq.

You could argue that the Soviet Union would have collapsed under its own weight even if Reagan hadn't spent that extra money.  They had systematic problems throughout their entire country even before we started having a pissing contest with them in the 80's.  The vibrancy of our economy and the severe problems with their economy were just as much a factor or more in our "victory" over the Soviet Union.

In a lot of circumstances, economic warfare is more effective than actual warfare.  Plus its typically cheaper and you don't get your hands dirty.


Regardless... when in a war and your option is to spend a lot of money... or not too... to spend money is seen as better.  There was no opting out of the Cold war. 

You should of been there with me.  I was one of the few people i could find who thought attacking Iraq was stupid in the first place.  Everyone else was too caught up in the 9/11 love.

It probably would of collapsed without us spending that extra money.  The question is... what would they have done before it collapsed?  If they thought America was weak. 

Also at the time it should be noted America was in a bit of economic trouble itself.  Blamed at the time on Reagans deficit spending... and trying to control inflation.

Democrats pressured him to fight the recession by raising taxes and focus on fiscal responsibility.  He didn't really... but he did pass a huge tax hike like the democrats wanted.  Eventually the recession fixed itself.

Kinda funny considering.

 

Reagan was right to cut taxes because 1) the country was facing staglation, and 2) the tax rates were pretty high.  I am just upset that so many people now think that cutting taxes is the solution to every economic problem.

He was also smart for later passing that tax hike, as the economy had recovered and it would hurt revenue otherwise.  I won't comment on any of the political decisionmaking that went into the decisions, but they were sound economic ones for that time.

But our economic situation wasn't quite so bad during Reagan's second term.  I don't think Reagan's decision to spend money on the Cold War was a foolish one in the same way that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was, I just think it set a bad precedent of excessive military spending.  Reagan's decision was at least a rational one.  But I do question people's belief that the Soviet Union would not have collapsed without that spending.

In terms of modern day, I mean I didn't care as much about Afghanistan (although I certainly wasn't promoting us invading the country) as they were actively housing terrorists involved in 9/11.  That was at least a rational decision in comparison.  Lol, and I don't know if I would call it 9/11 love, more like 9/11 fear.  People were acting so fucking crazy after 9/11 here in the Texas.  They thought terrorists would attack our podunk ass 200,000 person town.  Simply ridiculous.

And if we were concerned about rooting out terrorists in the Middle East who were tied to 9/11, we should have looked at Saudi Arabia too.  But we had too many other kinds of political ties with them for that to be an option (at least in Bush's eyes).

 

But the tax hike was passed during the recession.

In 1982... when the recession was at it's worst.  Furthmore Congress cut government spending.

It's been called the biggest tax hike in US history.



@Kasz, Glenn Beck still does radio stuff across the country, but now he has a show on Fox, and he was one of the 4 Fox News personalities that hosted tea parties. He hosted his at the Alamo and claimed it was "the only place that really really makes sense."



Around the Network
The Ghost of RubangB said:
@Kasz, Glenn Beck still does radio stuff across the country, but now he has a show on Fox, and he was one of the 4 Fox News personalities that hosted tea parties. He hosted his at the Alamo and claimed it was "the only place that really really makes sense."

Oh.  In that case in his parnoid mind i'm sure it was because he thought it was a good place for a "Futile last stand before the deficit spending doomed us all... ending in us being nuked by Iran."



Viper1 said:
theprof00 said:
Viper1 said:
theprof00 said:
BTW sqrl,
I think you would be interested in the result of implicit attitude tests.

meta-studies of hundreds of different studies like these show that a very large amount of the population in USA have at least some unconscious racist bias against black people.

I'll look for the actual statistics... but these tests along with others are the whole basis of Equal Oportunity Employment and Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action is not about equality, it's about providing an unfair advantage to a specific population group.    It perpetuates that unconcious racist bias that you even pointed out.

The more we treat a specific group as "special" the longer it will take for racism to dissipate.

Wow. you are clueless. Racism exists in other countries that don't have AA either like other 1st world countries. You really have no basis for your words and not only that, you will never even slightly teensy eensy weensilly concede that you may be judging based on your own views...

 

Are you really this thick?  I said it perpetuates it.   I didn't say it would disappear simply if AA didn't exist.  I'm simply pointing out how it prolongs it due to the resentmnet the special treatment generates.

 

Go ahead and add to your sig but you're the one going to look silly about it.

 

You're a Psych major, you should know better.

 

I do know better, than you. It was one of the most racist things I've read by someone who claims they aren't racist. But hey, that's the kind of racism that is called "unconcious bias", and it is actually very common.

Because you've been conditioned to believe that AA perpetuates racism,  even though the same racism exists throughout the world. Obviously something besides AA perpetuates it.

Studies have shown that employers unconsciously prefer white males over everything else. AA does not perpetuate it compensates. I really cannot believe you won't even budge in your thought. You are 100% sure that you are right and you don't care about anything else.

 



theprof00 said:
Viper1 said:
theprof00 said:
Viper1 said:
theprof00 said:
BTW sqrl,
I think you would be interested in the result of implicit attitude tests.

meta-studies of hundreds of different studies like these show that a very large amount of the population in USA have at least some unconscious racist bias against black people.

I'll look for the actual statistics... but these tests along with others are the whole basis of Equal Oportunity Employment and Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action is not about equality, it's about providing an unfair advantage to a specific population group.    It perpetuates that unconcious racist bias that you even pointed out.

The more we treat a specific group as "special" the longer it will take for racism to dissipate.

Wow. you are clueless. Racism exists in other countries that don't have AA either like other 1st world countries. You really have no basis for your words and not only that, you will never even slightly teensy eensy weensilly concede that you may be judging based on your own views...

 

Are you really this thick?  I said it perpetuates it.   I didn't say it would disappear simply if AA didn't exist.  I'm simply pointing out how it prolongs it due to the resentmnet the special treatment generates.

 

Go ahead and add to your sig but you're the one going to look silly about it.

 

You're a Psych major, you should know better.

 

I do know better, than you. It was one of the most racist things I've read by someone who claims they aren't racist. But hey, that's the kind of racism that is called "unconcious bias", and it is actually very common.

Because you've been conditioned to believe that AA perpetuates racism,  even though the same racism exists throughout the world. Obviously something besides AA perpetuates it.

Studies have shown that employers unconsciously prefer white males over everything else. AA does not perpetuate it compensates. I really cannot believe you won't even budge in your thought. You are 100% sure that you are right and you don't care about anything else.

Have you had your "race and gender" psych class yet?  When you do you'll understand why your interpreting the studies wrong.

 



Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Viper1 said:
theprof00 said:
BTW sqrl,
I think you would be interested in the result of implicit attitude tests.

meta-studies of hundreds of different studies like these show that a very large amount of the population in USA have at least some unconscious racist bias against black people.

I'll look for the actual statistics... but these tests along with others are the whole basis of Equal Oportunity Employment and Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action is not about equality, it's about providing an unfair advantage to a specific population group.    It perpetuates that unconcious racist bias that you even pointed out.

The more we treat a specific group as "special" the longer it will take for racism to dissipate.

Wow. you are clueless. Racism exists in other countries that don't have AA either like other 1st world countries. You really have no basis for your words and not only that, you will never even slightly teensy eensy weensilly concede that you may be judging based on your own views...

 

... not really.

Think about this.  Say your a poor person living in the city.  You have a really crappy life.  Say a poor person of a different color lives in the same city.  They live the same crappy life.

Say your told that they will get advantages you won't... because there is some rich guy off somewhere who has the same skin color as you.

This doesn't give you resentment?

Taking care of the poor should be done from the bottom up... based soley on need.

 

Being poor has nothing to do with it. Having a crappy life has nothing to do with it.

No it doesn't give me resentment because 90% of the time (and trust me that is a pretty accurate statistic) I will get a job easier than the black man will.

 



Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:

I do know better, than you. It was one of the most racist things I've read by someone who claims they aren't racist. But hey, that's the kind of racism that is called "unconcious bias", and it is actually very common.

Because you've been conditioned to believe that AA perpetuates racism,  even though the same racism exists throughout the world. Obviously something besides AA perpetuates it.

Studies have shown that employers unconsciously prefer white males over everything else. AA does not perpetuate it compensates. I really cannot believe you won't even budge in your thought. You are 100% sure that you are right and you don't care about anything else.

Have you had your "race and gender" psych class yet?  When you do you'll understand why your interpreting the studies wrong.

 

mind clarifying your argument? I've done more than taken classes I've done research of journals and meta compilations. I want to know what you think you are right about.