100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Are you better off? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
If the President is the reason for your ills, you have bigger issues than he does. Say that to the dead soldiers. 
i hear ya bro. but he wasn't the only one that wanted us over there at the time, congress was in favor of it all too, as were these "polls" taken from american people. I'm really not routing for this war anymore, and i never was sure way exactly we went over there. Sorry if i come off as being some warmonger, i just fear that i will lose my sanity if i were ever truely convinced that all this was for nothing and this war no longer matters. Just sucks to have all these soldiers go through what they went through when their cause doesn't matter anymore. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Zapchaser
on
Sat 02/02/08 07:04 AM
|
|
Well, granted, Mike asked '... are you better off?...', but I'll dare switch the 'you' for a 'we', and answer Mike's question from that perspective. For the 8 years Clinton was in office, the national debt went for 4,3 trillion to 5,6 trillion. More importantly, it decreased from 70% to 56% of GDP under Clinton's administration. For the 8 years 'W' will have been in office, the national debt will have grown from the 5,6 trillion mark to a stratospheric 10,4 trillion. As an expression of GDP, W.B.'s administering will have reversed all the reduction of the Clinton era, and will have succeeded to push the the debt to 73% of GDP. More than 50% of that debt is now in the hands of foreign countries, with Japan and China on top of that list. THAT'S 5 TRILLION DOLLARS EVERY US CITIZENS OWE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES. What kind of clout do you think the US has over China, to speak of that country, when it is owed nearly 2 trillion of that debt, and you depend on them to keep buying more of those 'debt' bonds in the future?!?!? The same clout you have with your banker, when your mortgage is a few months behind, and you want to complain about service charges!!! Did I mention 'mortgages'?!?!? As 'KerryO' pointed out: '... Record numbers of foreclosures? Record numbers of bankruptcies? Pension funds worried about solvency because of the subprime mess? (<--- oops, I misspelled 'investment fraud'.)...' As for responsibility?!?!? 100% 'W', and 100% the people who voted him in for a second term. Without even getting into engaging with Iraq, it can all be summed-up in te amateur 'cow-boy' manner of his administration's handling, or rather misshandling of the situation. He naively figure on a 3-6 months events, with this invasion. He figured it would 'unbruise' Americans from the 9/11 attacks. He figure it was going to have only limited impact on the economy: drop in consumer spending. Well, we all know what happened. The conflict wasn't over whn the 6 months deadline came up. When 'W', was asked whether his illegal war was going to hurt the economy, he claimed high and loud, hell NO! Miraculously, the 'feds' kept supporting an aggressively low interest rate policy (stimulate domestic spending) at a time when all economic indicators were pointing in the opposite direction. Maybe you can come out unscratched from such 'cowboy' economic policies on a 6 to 12 month window, BUT NOT 5 YEARS OF IT!!! Hello 'steroid' stimulated domestic spending, and 'subprime' monster! When you have a 'bozo' running your business, the only way to exercise your rights and responsibilities (being on the hook), is to FIRE THE BUM ON THE SPOT!!! Not firing the bum is what the US people are on the hook for! Check out the 'National Debt Clock' : http://zfacts.com/p/461.html . Stay for a few minutes on the site, refresh the page every 'second' or so, watch the number change, and make sure to have your 'high-blood' pressure pills right next to you!!! '... ARE WE DOING BETTER...' From that vantage point, I don't know who can answer YES!!! I believe the question asked if "you" were better off but you decided to go the liberal route of avoiding the question by changing the question. This is not about the definition of the word "is". 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i hear ya bro. but he wasn't the only one that wanted us over there at the time, congress was in favor of it all too, as were these "polls" taken from american people. I'm really not routing for this war anymore, and i never was sure way exactly we went over there. Sorry if i come off as being some warmonger, i just fear that i will lose my sanity if i were ever truely convinced that all this was for nothing and this war no longer matters. Just sucks to have all these soldiers go through what they went through when their cause doesn't matter anymore. I'm not degrading what you guys did over there, and in no way intend to be offensive (though I may come off that way). I have nothing against the soldiers, they are afterall doing their job they can't control what they are going to do tomorrow at their place of employment anymore than I can. I was just pointing out several flawed areas in this mess, none of which has to do with soldiers or even the Air Force for that matter. Again I'm sorry if I offended you in any way that was not my intention, I was just shedding some light on the difficulties I have accepting the war as a whole not the soldiers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sat 02/02/08 08:15 AM
|
|
i hear ya bro. but he wasn't the only one that wanted us over there at the time, congress was in favor of it all too, as were these "polls" taken from american people. I'm really not routing for this war anymore, and i never was sure way exactly we went over there. Sorry if i come off as being some warmonger, i just fear that i will lose my sanity if i were ever truely convinced that all this was for nothing and this war no longer matters. Just sucks to have all these soldiers go through what they went through when their cause doesn't matter anymore. I'm not degrading what you guys did over there, and in no way intend to be offensive (though I may come off that way). I have nothing against the soldiers, they are afterall doing their job they can't control what they are going to do tomorrow at their place of employment anymore than I can. I was just pointing out several flawed areas in this mess, none of which has to do with soldiers or even the Air Force for that matter. Again I'm sorry if I offended you in any way that was not my intention, I was just shedding some light on the difficulties I have accepting the war as a whole not the soldiers. honestly you really didn't come off as being offensive. Guess i was kinda explaning myself, to everyone that reads my comments, why i get so hyped up about this stuff. My last comment wasn't a result of anything you said. You never actually did offend me, i was just making sure i didn't come off the wrong way if that makes any sense. you not only have a right, but a responsibility to question everything our government does. After all the reason we have free speech, free press, and the right to bear arms is to keep our government in line. Just like you i question why we ever went over there. Something just doesn't sound right. Seeming how we believed in our cause for going over when we first went over i try to find ways to accept it. here's how i accept things; for starters Sadam himself was pretty ruthless, which is how he actually kept a lot of insurgeants/terrorist at bay. If someone threatened him we would publicly execute the offender, kill his/her family and probably turn the female figures into hookers for his men. or at least that is what the locals believed (the ones i talked to). I don't believe that we went over for the iraqi people. We as a country felt threatened. Now, like i said, i don't know what the original plan was, but right now if we leave that country will be taken over most likely by a terrorist dictatorship. We are merely there to prevent that from happening. If ( and this may be a big IF) we are successful that iraq becomes a democracy we may have some pretty useful allies when it comes to the war on terror. not to mention it would help keep them (the terrorists) from spreading. I just try to keep my mind under the tactical advantages to accept things. Sometimes it may take a cold heart to hold on to such a cause, but, sometimes you have to have a bit of a cold heart to deal with many issues in life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in response to the comment earlier you are right, i was in the army, a paratrooper actually
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Sat 02/02/08 09:19 AM
|
|
Dear 'Zapchaser',
You wrote, I believe the question asked if "you" were better off but you decided to go the liberal route of avoiding the question by changing the question. This is not about the definition of the word "is".
I clearly respected our host's question by suggesting that the 'we' (collective) vantage point to the question was very much part of the 'you' (individual) vantage point of the question. I certainly did not 'avoid' the question as you incorrectly suggest. As a reminder, here is the opening paragraph of my post: Well, granted, Mike asked '... are you better off?...', but I'll dare switch the 'you' for a 'we', and answer Mike's question from that perspective. I chose to argue against the impression of being individually 'better off' as one might think, out of paying one's latest christmas spending 'credit card' DEBT with 'bush's deceitful tax returns, while ignoring one's share of the 9,3 trillion DEBT the same 'bush' is racking up for each one of us, is IMO opinion vey much on topic. On the other hand, I fail to see what your nebulous 'non-point', based on a no less neboulous motive, has to do with 'topic' !!! I invite you to have a good and strong 'morning' coffee, and give my post a second read, ... in the right context. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear 'Zapchaser', You wrote, I believe the question asked if "you" were better off but you decided to go the liberal route of avoiding the question by changing the question. This is not about the definition of the word "is".
I clearly respected our host's question by suggesting that the 'we' (collective) vantage point to the question was very much part of the 'you' (individual) vantage point of the question. I certainly did not 'avoid' the question as you incorrectly suggest. As a reminder, here is the opening paragraph of my post: Well, granted, Mike asked '... are you better off?...', but I'll dare switch the 'you' for a 'we', and answer Mike's question from that perspective. I chose to argue against the impression of being individually 'better off' as one might think, out of paying one's latest christmas spending 'credit card' DEBT with 'bush's deceitful tax returns, while ignoring one's share of the 9,3 trillion DEBT the same 'bush' is racking up for each one of us, is IMO opinion vey much on topic. On the other hand, I fail to see what your nebulous 'non-point', based on a no less neboulous motive, has to do with 'topic' !!! I invite you to have a good and strong 'morning' coffee, and give my post a second read, ... in the right context. Again, which part of the question did you not understand? At this point I wouldn't even ask you to answer the question as to whether or not "you" are better off as your credibility has since gone out the window with your little song and dance. You should be a politician. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Sat 02/02/08 05:20 PM
|
|
'Zapchaser' wrote, Again, which part of the question did you not understand? At this point I wouldn't even ask you to answer the question as to whether or not "you" are better off as your credibility has since gone out the window with your little song and dance. You should be a politician. Dearest 'Zapchaser', Your aimless insistance at swording with water will not change the facts Sir. Again, you fail to make any sort of valid point. You seem to feel that I didn't understand the OP's premise and question. If that were so, the host and other posters would not have bothered to reply in agreement with my comments. The host would have pointed out instead, that I had missed the point of his question, or would simply not have replied. That you Sir do not agree with the essence of my post is entirely your prerogative. You don't have to agree, and you can write so, along with substantiating claims if you wish. That's the point of 'debating forums'. But let me remind you that the claims you have served so far: 'didn't understand', or 'change and avoid the question', are totally impertinent and rather incoherent, given that the facts simply do not support them. To highjack this post as you do, with unfounded, unwarranted and unsubstantiated claims, rest assured dear sir, taints your credibility, and not mine. So let's see, - writes and speaks a lot, - with nebulous motives, - without making a point. - Interjects with impertinence and incoherence. - Makes gratuitous, unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations. Without any hesitation, between the two of us, YOU ARE THE POLITICIAN! Respectfully, unless you have a valid counter argument to offer, which could be discussed in the context of the topic proposed here, I invite you to find something better to do than highjacking this otherwise interesting thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know anyone who feels that they are better off...
It's a subjective question obviously but unfortunately I think in this case it's accurate. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'Zapchaser' wrote, Again, which part of the question did you not understand? At this point I wouldn't even ask you to answer the question as to whether or not "you" are better off as your credibility has since gone out the window with your little song and dance. You should be a politician. Dearest 'Zapchaser', Your aimless insistance at swording with water will not change the facts Sir. Again, you fail to make any sort of valid point. You seem to feel that I didn't understand the OP's premise and question. If that were so, the host and other posters would not have bothered to reply in agreement with my comments. The host would have pointed out instead, that I had missed the point of his question, or would simply not have replied. That you Sir do not agree with the essence of my post is entirely your prerogative. You don't have to agree, and you can write so, along with substantiating claims if you wish. That's the point of 'debating forums'. But let me remind you that the claims you have served so far: 'didn't understand', or 'change and avoid the question', are totally impertinent and rather incoherent, given that the facts simply do not support them. To highjack this post as you do, with unfounded, unwarranted and unsubstantiated claims, rest assured dear sir, taints your credibility, and not mine. So let's see, - writes and speaks a lot, - with nebulous motives, - without making a point. - Interjects with impertinence and incoherence. - Makes gratuitous, unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations. Without any hesitation, between the two of us, YOU ARE THE POLITICIAN! Respectfully, unless you have a valid counter argument to offer, which could be discussed in the context of the topic proposed here, I invite you to find something better to do than highjacking this otherwise interesting thread. Then do me a favor by answering the original question. You know, the reason that this thread is here. The question. Are you better off? Wait! You are Canadian? You don't have an answer then, "eh"? Continue to spout nonsensical jibberish. Who has in fact hijacked this thread? Did I change the original question? Go ahead and do your little tap dance. I am sure you will impress yourself. Where is that damned flipping off the stuck up Frog emot? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'Zapchaser' wrote, Again, which part of the question did you not understand? At this point I wouldn't even ask you to answer the question as to whether or not "you" are better off as your credibility has since gone out the window with your little song and dance. You should be a politician. Dearest 'Zapchaser', Your aimless insistance at swording with water will not change the facts Sir. Again, you fail to make any sort of valid point. You seem to feel that I didn't understand the OP's premise and question. If that were so, the host and other posters would not have bothered to reply in agreement with my comments. The host would have pointed out instead, that I had missed the point of his question, or would simply not have replied. That you Sir do not agree with the essence of my post is entirely your prerogative. You don't have to agree, and you can write so, along with substantiating claims if you wish. That's the point of 'debating forums'. But let me remind you that the claims you have served so far: 'didn't understand', or 'change and avoid the question', are totally impertinent and rather incoherent, given that the facts simply do not support them. To highjack this post as you do, with unfounded, unwarranted and unsubstantiated claims, rest assured dear sir, taints your credibility, and not mine. So let's see, - writes and speaks a lot, - with nebulous motives, - without making a point. - Interjects with impertinence and incoherence. - Makes gratuitous, unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations. Without any hesitation, between the two of us, YOU ARE THE POLITICIAN! Respectfully, unless you have a valid counter argument to offer, which could be discussed in the context of the topic proposed here, I invite you to find something better to do than highjacking this otherwise interesting thread. Interestingly I was just reminded that you are aligned with a certain person that has been permanently banned from TWO sites. I have nothing more to say to you that would be worth my time. Tell her....... nah, not worth my time there either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi people, What i see here are two very intelligent individuals with different points of view. Please do continue the debate without making any personal comments. We are getting abuse reports, and quite frankly i feel this is a good debate, less the personal remarks. Thanks guys, Mark |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
leahmarie
on
Mon 02/04/08 02:44 AM
|
|
zapchaser..... I like everything you are saying and agree with you. You have clear logic. You win the debate!
. |
|
|
|
|
