Politics Continued...

Your condescension is duly noted. I don't have to be an economist to understand some of these principles. And no, I don't believe I'm twisting things around. To me, this issue is very clear. Sorry that you don't see it the same way, because from my end, it makes an awful lot of sense.

I'll ask again: where's the flaw with Hazlett? I don't see it. I really don't care if you think you know more about economics than I do, or if you have more formal training on the subject. That's all irrelevant right now. If I'm wrong about this stuff, well then why not correct me? At the VERY least, it's more constructive than little jabs at my perceived (by you) lack of knowledge. Argue with my arguments, not with me. I don't care what you consider to be an economist, or if you think I'm pretending to be one. It's irrelevant, and frankly, came off as a blatant insult.

Don't make accusations of things I haven't done. I told you quite clearly I think they all have their flaws and secrets. Maybe you didn't read that part...but I think I mentioned it at least twice in my last post.

Sorry if that seemed condescending to you, but I thought I made myself clear on an earlier post:

I'm saying neither one of us is a real economist. I didn't pretend to have more knowledge than you at all. However, I do know that there is still debate in academia over how to produce the best economy. I suppose the expansionism of the Reagan years "proves" the Hayekian view, but then wouldn't the expansionism of the Roosevelt years (pre-WWII) also "prove" the Keynesian view? I just think economics is a more complex subject, and it doesn't seem to be nearly as precise as most hard sciences.

I didn't accuse you of anything with that statement, except to wonder why Clinton's scandals are somehow extra-special.

Oh oh, I think Zweee just burst a blood vessel.

__________________
God save Freddie Mercury!

I hate republicans just as much as I hate racists. They are one in the same. Just to know, why can't I say "Right wing republican bast@rd! I didn't even read all of that because if comes from a republican it has to be cr@p. F you and all of the other people that enjoy wearing large belt buckles and riding in an oversized truck that I can't see around when i need to turn. F u all in you Fing @ss."
If your such an American I should be able to say whatever the F I want to. I hate republicans just as much as I hate women. They are both useless.
I don't understand why God allows republicans to exist. That is if there is a God. And if there is one I'm sure that all republicans won't meet him because they are going straight to hell.

__________________
God Bless Mindless Self Indulgence

Look Zwee, I honestly can't tell if you're messing around here, but you're going to have to stop either way. This is your final warning. If you're just goofing, you need to say so NOW. If you're serious, then you d*mn well better back this crap up with something. And no, this forum is not about freedom. This forum is not a Democracy. This is a Tyrannical Dictatorship.

TWT - Reagan's entire economic plan was based on spending money we didn't have. As a result, the Dow Jones went up, but so did the national debt. What's your explanation for this?

Clinton pulled us out of this debt as well as he could. Reagan (well actually the entire Republican party) supplied money and weapons for the Contras for drug money in Nicaragua.

Oh yeah, Reagan was a piss poor actor.

Zwee was joking. And good god, it was funny.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

I still like Zwee. I thought the big belt buckles part was funny.

Alright, it's now very evident that you didn't read a whole lot of my last post...because I've already shown you the entire situation, which include several questions. I suppose I'll have to do some of this again...

No, his economic plan, Steve, as I explained above, was to cut taxes and let the economy take over. A growing economy will pay off debt...it's THAT simple. Now, he also wanted to cut spending, so as to allow him to build up the military at the same time, but the Democrats refused to cut spending. Reagan, in his wisdom (yes, wisdom...sorry, but you're dead wrong on this one), knew that the economy would make up for all in due time, and put defense first. I for one am glad he put an emphasis on our military. Very glad.

Now, as I ALSO explained above, the thing Clinton did to "pull us out of debt" was just the same thing Reagan's congress would not let him do, as well as the same thing Bush had to compromise on to do. Clinton made sure that spending did not get out of control...that's all! In fact, he needed to be convinced of that by Greenspan. So basically, Clinton did well by listening to Greenspan and siding with him over what was generally the popular idea in his party: raise spending.

Clinton can be said to have offset things a bit with his ridiculous tax hike on the wealthy, however, which is one of the reasons we're in the position we're in now. Greenspan screwed up recently, and that has contributed to it, but they both play a role.

Maybe you fail to realize that the US was already in debt when Reagan came along. Maybe you don't realize that cutting taxes and letting the economy run on it's own can erase debt easily so long as spending isn't increased. These are things Reagan knew, and counted on, which is why we're still in one of the most prosperous times in our history.

And don't go spouting off on Iran Contra. That sounds all too much like something you just heard briefly from somewhere else.

So, to correct you: his entire economic plan was based on the fact that if you cut taxes, the economy would return many times over. He also knew that the military was far too important to put off...even if he couldn't convince the stubborn Dems to cut their spending. But no, it's Reagan's fault we went deeper into debt, right? Not the fault of those who refused to make any kind of cutbacks in any area. In my opinion, that's sort of equivalent to a family member continuing to buy Potato Chips when they still need to make room for toilet paper in the budget: if they won't stop with the damn chips, too bad, because we need our necessities, even if it means more debt. The people who refused to budge are just as responsible.

Clinton, on the other hand, has crippled us. I believe our military is less than half the size it was under Reagan. To use your own words: what is your explanation for that?

I would also like to add that many Presidents spend money while in debt. That's hardly an argument against Reagan.

Again, I'm getting the strong feeling that you don't know a whole lot about Reagan or all this situation. You're an intelligent person, but I strongly believe that you're shooting from the hip here. If you want to discuss this, so be it, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say it frustrates me to have to repeat these things.

[quote]Originally posted by TWTCommish

Again, I'm getting the strong feeling that you don't know a whole lot about Reagan or all this situation. You're an intelligent person, but I strongly believe that you're shooting from the hip here. If you want to discuss this, so be it, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable when I say it frustrates me to have to repeat these things.

Now you are patronizin SteveN, TWT. Why do you keep doin this ? You tell posters theyre "intelligent' and then you say the BUT word. Why do you have to "hint' at people that theyre ignorant?? I like you a lot TWT but sometimes the way you say things just annoys me a lot. Im sure you dont mean the way you sound but thats how a lot of your political stuff comes off to me.

PLite, Samoza Lover.

Dude, work on the bbCode usage.

I'm not patronizing anyone, man, but if I see someone who's saying things that indicate that they don't know what they're talking about, is it wrong for me to say so? Are you saying I should play nice and not say anything negative, or what?

And yes, BUT. I say that because I don't want them (Steve) to misinterpret my words the way you did. You thought I was calling you stupid, so this time around I'm making sure to point out that I do not doubt Steve's intelligence, just his knowledge on this particular subject. I also doubt he's reading most of what I post, but that can't be helped much I suppose.

I'm not always going to say happy, nurturing things...sorry! I'm sure it does annoy you, but then try to see my side of things here PLite: I'm just as annoyed when I take the time to write a large post, and someone replies to it asking questions that I already answered there. As annoying as you think I am, to me, it's just as annoying to have someone say rude things about people (like Reagan), when it seems to me (it's just the way it looks, IMO) they might not know a lot about them.

As such, I don't think I'm out of line at all. This is a political discussion...which means it's business only. No one is being insulted, it's all focused around what we know and what we say, and not around what kind of person we are. As a result, it's going to be a little blunt.

Anyway, this post is likely pointless. If you've already said TWICE that you think I become patronizing and such in these kinds of debates, I have to imagine that you've made your mind up...that you've decided that this IS the way I am, regardless of my explanation or defense. If so, then there's nothing else I can do or say to change it.

I'd like to add an analogy, just to make sure everyone understands what I'm trying to put into words here: if I came along and, while talking with Steve, criticized skateboarding, he'd probably disagree. Now, this would all be well and good, but what if I knew very little about skateboarding? Well, then Steve would have a right to basically say "Who are you to criticize it if you know so little about it?"

But, you see, if this did happen, I don't think you'd be accusing Steve of being patronizing/rude/whatever. Hey, Steve can demonstrate his knowledge of things and prove me wrong anytime if he wants, etc, but I'm doing something perfectly reasonable: questioning his experience and education on this one SPECIFIC subject. You know, we're all ignorant in some areas...that doesn't make us ignoant people. I think this is a realm Steve has not studied much. Heck, compared to some adults (though not too many in the US...we're a stupid people), I haven't either, even though I like talking about it.

I hope that clears up my stance here.

YeAH, I am sayin that you should be nice TWT! Being nice isnt a bad thing, you know--you get more friends that way. SERIOUSLY!!! Get out of home skizool & go to parties & drink nasty root beer & talk to other kids your age!!! NICE IS A GOOD TING!!! And Ya know, if Pigsnie hadnt boxed me on the ears long ago, I would just be as un-nice as you, hahaha!

Well, while I appreciate your good-naturedness (and believe me, the stuff you say really cracks me up in most cases), I can't agree here. I mean, this is an argument...it's all about disagreement. I'll complement Steve on his extensive vocabulary, though.

Ouch, boxing on the ears, eh? Sounds painful. I wonder if it causes any serious damage.

No, it wasnt too painful, I can still hear 20/20. But in the old days like yesteryear, I was truly obnoxious, worse than Zwee & even you TWT, LOLL. I was serious potty mouth & I always had to have the last word about ANYTHING!!! Then one afternoon Pigsnie ties me to a rocking chair whit real fat rope (to make me nausous) & like really gave me a ton of earful & I have been nice PLite ever since.

Side not from the current discussions in this thread: Bill Clinton said the following in August of 1974, while talking about Nixon's offenses:

So, regardless of what PLite and Company think of lying under oath (which is against the law...Clinton knew this, obviously), Clinton himself has said that making false statements to government officials is an impeachable offense.

I didn't wanna bring it up, but it was just too good.

I found this article from the Sunday Times-London. If anyone is thinking about voting against defense spending EVER again please read this. This article basically states that the Clinton administration is responsible for the attacks.

Now before you rip my head off I am suggesting that we are ALL responsible to a degree for becoming lackadaisical in the face of history. All great nations fell because they became apathetic and lazy. I'm saying we all need to change this. The Clinton Administration was made up of Democrats and Republicans and they all should have been on their toes as we should have been(at least those of us old enough to vote). I'm not being divisive (Arthur) but I think it's important to look at the situation from this point of view.

http://www.rense.com/general14/clintonshadow.htm

I hate to resurrect this thread, but I've been pondering some things in my head, and am rather upset about a couple of things. Now, I can handle someone who disagrees with me. That's no big deal...we all have our own views, and they're not always going to fit together well...so be it. However, there are some views that genuinely bother me, simply because I cannot understand the reason (if any) behind them.

One of these views is the view that somehow what Clinton did was not wrong. PLite supports this view, sorry to say, and I just don't get it. Many people (PLite included) go on about how Clinton was simply "protecting his family," and how it was horrible that those people interrogated him to such a degree...

...but these same people make no mention of how horrible it was that Clinton did those things in the first place. The man cheated on his wife several times (with even more serious accusations of rape and such left unproven, but plausible), lied about it under oath after swearing to tell the truth, and yet people still act as if it means nothing. What the?

I will agree with one simple thing: some people on the right went too far in their mission to "get" Clinton, but this is nothing new, and it is a lesser evil than what Clinton did. Nixon was targetted heavily. Some people will always be out to get the current President, no matter what. That doesn't excuse the President from our laws...the very laws he (or she, sometime in the future, perhaps?) swore to upheld when s(he) took office.

I don't see why it's so hard to admit. Clinton did some very immoral things, and then broke the law to cover them up. This doesn't make him a bad President overall by default...it's just a negative aspect of his term. And besides, do you honestly believe that he was lying for the sake of his family? I think it's rather evident that he lied for the same reason most people lie: to cover their own butts. Yes, some of the interrogation was truly shameful...but not as shameful as what Clinton did, or how he reacted when asked about it.

Not only that, but here's an interesting tidbit from former CLINTON AIDE Dick Morris: the US Government, almost exactly around the time Clinton had confessed his affair with Monica to Hillary, had knowledge of where Bin Laden was. For a short while, in the midst of all this personal controversy and turmoil, Clinton had to make a decision concerning whether or not to go after Bin Laden, and, if he chose to pursue, how hard he wanted to come at him. The effort made obviously did not suffice, and today, we're left wondering as to whether or not that made a difference.

In short: a man's personal life will always have implications on his professional life. This is remarkably obvious. Bill Clinton, by all reasonable opinion, is a womanizer. So were some great men throughout history...but then again, so were some scoundrels. His dishonesty and immorality, while not some sort of universal failing as a President, are definitely a negative...a BAD thing. Why do some people refuse to admit even that?

If you were hiring someone for a fairly important position, wouldn't you be interested in whether or not they've been accused of rape and forcing themselves on other people? Wouldn't you want to know if they had been unfaithful to their wives/family several times over? Would you not be concerned if you had learned that they had lied about it to protect themselves?

Well, if so, magnify that a couple hundred times, because Clinton's job is the most important out there, and deserves an adjacent level of scrutiny as a result.

Just admit it! It'll feel good to get it off your chest: Clinton slipped up. He did immoral things, and he shouldn't have lied about them. Overall, he made mistakes, and they hurt his credibility. I'm not asking anyone to say that Bill Clinton is a horrible person, or was a horrible President...that's another issue. I think he had his ups and downs, but I will tell you this: I have no doubt that his personal problems reflected on his professional life. Believe it or not, strong morals and a strong family do have a positive impact on such things. They are not a guarantee (a**holes can be successful, and nice-guys can indeed finish last)...but they are a PLUS. A positive thing. It's that simple.

I didn't read through all of that and I didn't have to. Clinton screwed up, why he tried to hide this from everyone is a mystery, the man did things that made sense, then he did things that didn't. Either way, he tried redeeming himself a little too late in the presidency. If he would have come clean earlier on then when he did I would have been ok with him.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

I'll tell ya' what, I would have a lot more respect for Hillary if she would just dump his a** already. I understand the "stand by your man" stuff, but he's out of office now, and I think we can safely assume they're not too fond of each other.

Anyway, sorry about the long post. I was thinking about it all, and I've been reading some of the old stuff PLite said. ARGH...I swear, he must've been skimming my posts, because he kept accusing me of stuff I never said...and I've read those posts like a dozen times...so I'm sure of it.

I would say Clinton is bad, he would say Nixon is worse...I would say I don't care, I'm not talking about Nixon, he would act like I'm being mean, and then tell me I should go read a book if I want to see how bad Nixon was. I swear, it's like I was a mute for awhile there. ARGH! Sorry, just ticked off. I guess you just can't win with some people, because they refuse to hear what you have to say.

TWT-I'm sure more than one president cheated on his wife.I'm not defending his actions,I'm just saying that where he went wrong,and where other presidents didn't,is getting caught.He was sloppy.He brought other people into his(monica's)afairs.So did she.The whole thing was this trailer-trash affair that ended up making Clinton a laughing stock.If he had been upfront about it in the first place,people would have forgiven him and forgotten,because he was very well loved(blech)but he blew it with the lying.You can't be the president and LIE to your nation...just doesn't go over real well.Look at Kennedy,he wasn't exactly faithful...we don't know that he wasn't for sure though...why not? He covered his a**.Is that better than lying about it? It is if you're the pres.