I don't believe it. Liberals have a reputation for giving more power to federal agencies and becoming more involved. And then we have Bush who is trying to please the christian right by letting the FCC out of the gate. It's lose/lose.

------------------
Kieran: The reason I put a link to it is because she is in underwear and I know the admins are touchy on that.
Yecti: Jaiph will touch himself for hours if he so much as smells a woman's underwear

9-11 we discussed already, as in the depression. The dot com crash too was incorporated.

We're not saying anything bad about Hoover here, it wasn't really his fault. Just stating facts.

The fact remains that the economy is doing crappily (just now coming up) because Bush gave HUMONGOUS TAX CUTS TO CEOS and other such people. I'm going to keep repeating it till you guys get it.

I'm not surprised that a Republican would give generous tax cuts, but his were insanely large. Even other republicans questioned him on this.




What? What's there to BELIEVE? www.johnkerry.com tells all. He's against the FCC being nazis, though he does still support them somewhat. Bush just wants anything christian let through, and anything secular squashed.
------------------
There is no signature

[This message has been edited by Dj Yoshi (edited July 07, 2004).]

I kind of jumped in at the end of the first page without reading the entire thread.

------------------
Kieran: The reason I put a link to it is because she is in underwear and I know the admins are touchy on that.
Yecti: Jaiph will touch himself for hours if he so much as smells a woman's underwear

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited July 07, 2004).]

NP

------------------
There is no signature

I wasn't aware of any FCC issues. I don't think Stern carriers being fined for broadcasting obsenity is an issue if that's the deal.

DJ Yoshi, how have the Bush tax cuts adversely affected you?


------------------
Have you forgotten ...

Stern being fined is a BIG issue. He wasn't taken off the air/fined until he spoke out against Bush.

How have they adversely affected me? Well with Bush crumbling our economy, the steady rise of gas prices for no reason, and the inflation that happened in Bush's term...I'd say it adversely affected me.

------------------
There is no signature

I don't care about Stern. But for some ungodly reason, the FCC has decided to mess with the radio waves in general and now everything is far more "safe and clean". It has ruined some of my favorite radio shows. They are cracking down on the radio because Janet Jackson flashed a boob on TV. ON TV! It had nothing to do with radio! And doesn't the FCC think that maybe people enjoy listening to these certain shows? Otherwise they would have been cancelled, like Stern. Evidently people actually enjoyed his excessively dirty radio show. Now give us these shows back god damn it! I know the difference between right and wrong and what I want to hear and what I don't want to hear. I want to be treated like a sentient human being to make my own choices. I don't want to be treated like a 6 year old with downs syndrome anymore. And I'm talking about more than just radio. This is a wider issue.

**** it, I'm moving to Europe. You can actually have a beer on the street over there! OMG! Apocolypse!
------------------
Kieran: The reason I put a link to it is because she is in underwear and I know the admins are touchy on that.
Yecti: Jaiph will touch himself for hours if he so much as smells a woman's underwear

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited July 07, 2004).]

How can you honsetly say that? Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, + 9/11, of course the economy was sluggish for a while. It is coming back though, and if I heard correct, if it keeps up at this pace, it will be the largest quarter of growth in something like 20 years. You can sit there and moan all day about how the economy is crappy, but the fact (harsh reality) is that the economy is pretty damn good right now, and there is just no denying that.

------------------
ZGPC

From what I've read the economy coming back is because of programs and such that Clinton instituted.

------------------
Kieran: The reason I put a link to it is because she is in underwear and I know the admins are touchy on that.
Yecti: Jaiph will touch himself for hours if he so much as smells a woman's underwear

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited July 07, 2004).]

Like...? That is the first time I have heard anything like that. If that is true I would love to hear what exactly these programs are.



------------------
ZGPC

beats me what the specifics are. The book I was reading was talking about how Clinton sucks at foreign policy. It mentioned briefly the good things he did things with domestic policy like welfare, education, etc, etc. I'll look in the book to see if it gives specifics about the economic programs.

------------------
Kieran: The reason I put a link to it is because she is in underwear and I know the admins are touchy on that.
Yecti: Jaiph will touch himself for hours if he so much as smells a woman's underwear

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited July 07, 2004).]

No, the economy IS still crappy. It's getting back on its feet though. Why? Because Bush threw tons of money at it. That doesn't mean it's going to hold.

------------------
There is no signature

Yeah I want to know what Clinton did for the economy.

The economy is much better than what DJ-Yoshi says. We're not all in dire straits. But if you won't take it from me, take it from the CBO


------------------
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

[This message has been edited by Gandalf1120 (edited July 07, 2004).]

Clinton had a plan to save Social Security. That much I do know. Bush forked that over.

And you guys miss it when I say the economy is STARTING TO GET BETTER. It's still not as good as it was though. Jeez pay attention.

------------------
There is no signature

No, I did not miss that, you are just wrong there. The economy is not starting to get better, it is, and has been getting better, for a while now.



------------------
ZGPC

For about 6 months-a year maybe. But it's been downhill till then. For obvious reasons.

------------------
There is no signature

Yes, as I said before, 9/11 and an inherited recession. Those are your reasons.



------------------
ZGPC

It's been getting better for months now.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Hmmm... I'm currently watching something on FOX news how Kerry and Edwards some to have a bit of competitive tension between the two.

-- SavageX

------------------
"...and if you don't like that, then you need to be slugged in the face repeatedly, until my hands are soaked in blood. Have a nice day!"
http://geocities.com/savagex378

Do you guys not LISTEN? The man lost 11 trillion in tax cuts, lost a ****load of jobs, and at the end starts to bring it up. He has the luck of hiding behind a recession to those who don't know the truth. Do you guys not read? Avenger I SAID it's been coming up for months now. Screw it, anything said past this post is not of my concern. Nobody here cares about learning the truth, they just decide what they want to believe and stick with it, whether it's right or wrong.

------------------
There is no signature

What is the truth then? The truth is that 9/11 happened. The truth is that Bush inherited a recession fron Clinton. The truth is you dont have a massive terrorist attack happen and not have the economy directly suffer. Tax cuts? give money back to the people to help improve the economy. And don't bring up that "tax cuts for the rich" bull ****. The rich already pay well over their fair share of the taxes. Giving money back to the people that make the jobs helps create more jobs, and putting more money back in the middle class persons pocket helps to improve the economy.

------------------
ZGPC

We are speaking truth, Yoshi. The economy, like you said is going up, and I believe the unemployment numbers were down. $11 trillion in tax cuts were "lost?" Explain lost to me. How is it bad to "spend" money by giving it back to the people (ALL people). And do you see a detrimental effect to the tax cuts? Revenues are up. But like you said to me I need to retake some courses in (Keynesian) economics.

------------------
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

[This message has been edited by Gandalf1120 (edited July 07, 2004).]

Maybe if you live in Canada.

In the States you vote directly for the MAN. The party he represents is the more irrelavent part (though it is not by all means). Canada on the other hand, you check the ballot for whatever party you support, and the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister.

Coupled with the "registered republican" comment I can now know see the reason for your ridiculous political beliefs - you don't know a whole lot about politics.




------------------
"If there's one thing I've learned it's this - you just can't shake hands with a fist" - David Allen Coe

Also, elections would be kind of pointless if everyone was forced to vote for the canidates that are part of their party. If it was meant to be that way, they should just count how many people are registered for each party and declare the winner based on that alone. Not much of a free country if that were the case, eh? Allowing people to vote for whoever they want, regardless of party, is real freedom to vote. However, I personally recommand that people vote for their party's canidate because you want to make sure that your party's platform is implement rather than your opposing party's.

-- SavageX

------------------
"...and if you don't like that, then you need to be slugged in the face repeatedly, until my hands are soaked in blood. Have a nice day!"
http://geocities.com/savagex378

I'm just comforted by the idea that if they were to win and Kerry were somehow incapacitated, we'd have an ambulance chaser for president.

DJ Yoshi, you don't read. Those of us who have expressed our disagreements with you don't buy your argument. And you are still incorrect about tax cuts costing money. Tax cuts don't cost anything. Nothing. Nada. It's a reduction in what is taken from others. It is not a payment. Now you have already agreed that the economy is "starting" to come back and you also haven't expressed any personal ways that you have been harmed. You cite gas prices but it is the Democrats that want our gas prices to remain high. Otherwise they would pass legislation that would allow us to increase our own production. Besides, Europeans all think were stupid for complaining about such cheap gas among other things. Wacky Europeans!

------------------
Have you forgotten ...

I do read. You misread me. Tax cuts do cost something, because every year the government spends this much and takes in that much. If this much is > that much, then we have a problem. That's what's happened en masse. Mostly the cuts and breaks have been given to the top 1%, yes, top ONE PER CENT of the economical structure.
I remember Kerry addressing that gas prices were idiotically high, far too high. Remember the rest of the forum--just because he's a Democrat doesn't mean he supports ALL of their ideas.

------------------
There is no signature

I hate to break this to the obviously republican majority of this board, but DJ Yoshi is right.

And whoever is saying W inherited a bad economy is just flat out stupid. That's right, stupid. If Clinton was so hard on the economy during his presidency then why didn't his second term show a poor economy? Since apparantly the changes don't really take effect until 3 years after they were made. Then again are we to assume that the economy of Clinton's presidency was great because of Bush Sr? Uh, no. Cause we all remember how spectacular the economy was back then, but if the economy is inherited, then maybe Reagan wasn't such a great president after all (he wasn't anyway), and he caused the crap economy of Bush Sr's term.

Or maybe the current president causes the current economy. And anyone that says different doesn't know their *** from their elbow. If the economical changes didn't realy take effect for a few years, then every president would make decisions to destroy the economy if he thought someone of the opposite party would be elected. Just as a fail safe. These are politicians we're talking about here. They don't really care about our country. And by they, I mean Bush. If "they" cared about our nation, why would "they" lead us to war against a country we can easily beat up on, because of a made up threat, when we have a real threat in southeast asia. Go attack North Korea. They advertise it to the world that they have WMD's, but instead we wanna catch 'em before they get the weapons, that way they don't stand a chance against us. Or maybe the Oil supply of North Korea just isn't big enough. On a side note, the leader of North Korea never tried to kill George Bush Sr. either.

Bush is a bad president on so many levels. I can't wait for Kerry and Edwards to take over, and they will.

------------------
I resent that.

I hate to break it to you, but it takes eight years for economic policies to take effect. As for the rest of your bull s**t, I won't even bother to reply.

And, just to let you know, I'm not a big fan of Bush. I'm also not a fan of Kerry. I am a fan of people who know what the hell they're talking about, though, so I guess that means I'm not a fan of yours, Billy.

------------------
Empty.

Actually the greater majority of these forums is liberal...but apparently they are all on vacation...

Also:



[sarcasm] Sure, go attack the ones that DO have nuclear weapons. Then we can all watch millions of innocent people die! [/sarcasm]

okay, first off, don't ever call someone who has an opposing view to you as stupid. Better to be thought stupid then to have everyone know you're an *** for insulting someone. Secondly, it was the end of the Clinton administration that all the internet businesses tanked. That hurt the economy and set it in a sharp spike downwards. Notice I never said it was Clinton's fault.

Acoording to the political quiz I had a bunch of people take a year or so ago, these forums are overwhelmingly liberal. However, most of the liberals don't participate in political threads. It's not their thing I guess.

------------------
Kieran: The reason I put a link to it is because she is in underwear and I know the admins are touchy on that.
Yecti: Jaiph will touch himself for hours if he so much as smells a woman's underwear

I hate to break it to you, but that would mean that the majority of the problems that the bush v2 administration is facing are because of the bush v1 administration. Not the Clinton administration.

And yes attack North Korea, if you're going to base your attack on who is the most imminent threat, of course attack them. They actually HAVE weapons!

------------------
I resent that.

You didn't break anything to me, I knew that already.

------------------
Empty.

Bush senior left office 11 years ago.

------------------
Kieran: The reason I put a link to it is because she is in underwear and I know the admins are touchy on that.
Yecti: Jaiph will touch himself for hours if he so much as smells a woman's underwear

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited July 08, 2004).]

And Bush Jr took office 3 years ago. Do the math.

------------------
I resent that.

Apparently, you have no care whatsoever for the lives of millions of people.

Yes, N. Korea does have nukes and they also have the capability of striking US soil. So, logically, military action against them is the LAST thing we should do.

Morf--we don't have any evidence that they have silos, they have what, 5 nukes? And those can be taken down midair. Not easily, albeit, but they cant. I don't even think NK has had any testing for the nukes, unless I'm mistaken. They really aren't a threat to us yet, but when their technology becomes more sophisticated, they will be.

------------------
There is no signature

I did. And Hellequin is wrong in saying it takes 8 years because it doesnt. FDR proves this because the country was coming out of the Depression when WWII started which made the recovery a lot more faster and permanent instead of being a temporary quick fix from the multitudes of programs FDR instituted. Besides that, guess what came under Clinton's crosshairs as soon as he got into office? It's almost ritual for new presidents to redo or completely do away with their predecessors special programs and policies if they are opposing ideologies. The entire point is the President (unless there are extreme circumstances like what happened in the Depression) has very little control over the economy. Long term programs and policies(what little that Congress pass) have a low survival rating once their creator is out of office. The things that drive the economy are consumer spending and consumer trust in the stock market. On a side note, the President does not make anything. He enforces existing laws and acts passed by Congress.

------------------
Kieran: The reason I put a link to it is because she is in underwear and I know the admins are touchy on that.
Yecti: Jaiph will touch himself for hours if he so much as smells a woman's underwear

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited July 08, 2004).]

You forget, Bush is backed up by a majority of Republicans in Congress. So what he says goes. He can pass just about any law he wants to.

------------------
There is no signature