PDA

View Full Version : Are we going to witness Great Depression 2?


Pages : 1 [2]

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 01:32 PM
We are all intelligent, it's just beyond your comprehension.


I've dealt with many people of truly stunning intelligence. You're none of them I'm afraid.

You can't even engage in a simple debate.

Donger
03-18-2008, 01:36 PM
This is just bizarre. I'd be willing to bet that Amnorix is well aware that Bush is inherited a substantial national debt, not that he "created" it. He is also correct that Bush has added to it.

That isn't Bush bashing; it's just a fact.

|Zach|
03-18-2008, 01:38 PM
What I find funny is that you don't have a credible argument other than to call names.

It's become boring.

ROFL

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 01:40 PM
This is just bizarre. I'd be willing to bet that Amnorix is well aware that Bush is inherited a substantial national debt, not that he "created" it. He is also correct that Bush has added to it.

That isn't Bush bashing; it's just a fact.

Right. As I stated before in this very thread, Bush obviously inherited a massive debt, and while I blame him for adding to it, I certainly can't blame him for what he inherited.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 01:41 PM
ROFL

Hello zach, and another turd falls into the pot.

|Zach|
03-18-2008, 01:43 PM
Hello zach, and another turd falls into the pot.

Talking like you are tough behind your keyboard again I see.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 01:46 PM
This is just bizarre. I'd be willing to bet that Amnorix is well aware that Bush is inherited a substantial national debt, not that he "created" it. He is also correct that Bush has added to it.

That isn't Bush bashing; it's just a fact.

You honestly believe that Amoronix is being genuine in supporting Bush when he sees that he does something right? I'd like to know when that was, if ever!

Donger, every president in my lifetime has added to the national debt. Amoronix was pointing out the addition by Bush in a manner to bash Bush.

You are usually above the crap that goes on here but I thought that you would be able to see that one clearly.

I have no love loss for Bush, he had done plenty of things during his tenure that has been less than productive for the country, but I will not jump on the "Send Bush to Jail" bandwagon that is being rounded up.

I have seen no incidences of crimes he has committed but many on this board are very adamant about expressing the need to call in a Grand Jury.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 01:47 PM
Talking like you are tough behind your keyboard again I see.

Are you insane? I mentioned that another person I have not respect for has joined the dog pile.

You are actually the one that seems to be talking like a big bad tough guy.

You need help dude.

banyon
03-18-2008, 01:48 PM
I'm just following your lead ambulance chaser.

How many times did it take you to pass the bar? Not Anthony's Bar and Grill on Main Street, or is it that you have yet to pass the bar?

I've slandered nobody and the name calling always starts on from the LWNJ's that you associate with. Return fire is allowed.

I passed the NY and KS bar each on my first try. Does that meet with your slack-jawed approval?


Here are your first three posts in this thread, before anyone had bothered to reply to you AT ALL:

Amnorix where did ya get the picture of Taco?

We all knew he wore the tin foil caps, but now we have proof.

Thanks !! Rep!

You want the original conspiracy nut to cry uncle? Never happen, regardless of what the truth is.

My dear, you need to get a thicker skin and then go back and check out all of the times that the original Mr. Tinfoil Hat said that others were wearing their tinfoil hats, not to mention the ongoing attempts to belittle anyone that does not agree with his totally warped POV.

I thought better of you, looks like I'm going to have to change my opinion. It's bad enough to be a punk here but to send someone rep and say to stop picking on TJ? That's just wrong from the Chiefs board standpoint.


How, EXACTLY, did someone else "start the name calling"? :spock:

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 01:51 PM
I have no love loss for Bush, he had done plenty of things during his tenure that has been less than productive for the country, but I will not jump on the "Send Bush to Jail" bandwagon that is being rounded up.

I have seen no incidences of crimes he has committed but many on this board are very adamant about expressing the need to call in a Grand Jury.

For the record, as much as Bush genuinely sucks, I have not advocated his impeachment nor that he be imprisoned.

Also for the record, you are insane.

Donger
03-18-2008, 01:52 PM
You honestly believe that Amoronix is being genuine in supporting Bush when he sees that he does something right? I'd like to know when that was, if ever!

Yes, I do. I wouldn't have said so otherwise. Of the top of my head, I remember Amnorix agreeing with Bush's support of NASA. I'm sure there are others. Perhaps you should ask him?

Donger, every president in my lifetime has added to the national debt. Amoronix was pointing out the addition by Bush in a manner to bash Bush.

If pointing out facts are "Bush bashing" to you, so be it. It's just a fact.

You are usually above the crap that goes on here but I thought that you would be able to see that one clearly.

I have no love loss for Bush, he had done plenty of things during his tenure that has been less than productive for the country, but I will not jump on the "Send Bush to Jail" bandwagon that is being rounded up.

I have seen no incidences of crimes he has committed but many on this board are very adamant about expressing the need to call in a Grand Jury.

I see perfectly well. Bush HAS added to the national debt with his spending. Do you dispute that?

a1na2
03-18-2008, 02:02 PM
For the record, as much as Bush genuinely sucks, I have not advocated his impeachment nor that he be imprisoned.

Also for the record, you are insane.

I can accept the first part, the second part is a childish attack again.

Try being an adult for a while, you might surprise yourself.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 02:06 PM
Yes, I do. I wouldn't have said so otherwise. Of the top of my head, I remember Amnorix agreeing with Bush's support of NASA. I'm sure there are others. Perhaps you should ask him?

I wouldn't want to stress his ability to reason.

If pointing out facts are "Bush bashing" to you, so be it. It's just a fact.

The manner in which facts are presented can be construed as bashing.

I see perfectly well. Bush HAS added to the national debt with his spending. Do you dispute that?

You need to read what I've posted rather than the way others have responded to what I posted.

I said, "Every president in my lifetime has added to the national debt." I guess you missed that.

Donger
03-18-2008, 02:13 PM
I wouldn't want to stress his ability to reason.

You are joking, right?

The manner in which facts are presented can be construed as bashing.

I think much of that stems from your misreading of Amnorix' motives. Facts are facts. You decide if it is bashing or not.

You need to read what I've posted rather than the way others have responded to what I posted.

I said, "Every president in my lifetime has added to the national debt." I guess you missed that.

No, I didn't miss it. Nor did I miss this: "I see, and you are blaming the whole national debt on this administration?" How exactly did you reach that conclusion?

a1na2
03-18-2008, 02:19 PM
I think much of that stems from your misreading of Amnorix' motives. Facts are facts. You decide if it is bashing or not.

His mode of operation is always slanted towards the left when it is politically expedient. Why else would he have brought that up? I think I see his motives clearly, but I don't expect others to see it the same as I do.

No, I didn't miss it. Nor did I miss this: "I see, and you are blaming the whole national debt on this administration?" How exactly did you reach that conclusion?

And again, I'm basing that on the way he has presented "facts" in the past. He will slant his commentary against Bush whenever he can, the occasional peace offering is not genuine IMO.

Donger
03-18-2008, 02:26 PM
His mode of operation is always slanted towards the left when it is politically expedient. Why else would he have brought that up? I think I see his motives clearly, but I don't expect others to see it the same as I do.



And again, I'm basing that on the way he has presented "facts" in the past. He will slant his commentary against Bush whenever he can, the occasional peace offering is not genuine IMO.

Well, then, quite simply I disagree. Amnorix appears to be one of our least partisan hacks. When Democrats do something he disagrees with, he states it. When Republicans do something that he disagrees with, he states it.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 02:29 PM
Yes, I do. I wouldn't have said so otherwise. Of the top of my head, I remember Amnorix agreeing with Bush's support of NASA. I'm sure there are others. Perhaps you should ask him?


1. I wholeheartedly supported and continue to support our actions in Afghanistan. While I expressed nervousness at first about whether we could win, given the history of AFghanistan in resisting outside attackers, I saw the need and supported his efforts there, and continue to do so.

2. I think his actions in Pakistan have been borne of necessity and not subject to much if any criticism.

3. I support and agree with his general outline with respect to international trade. I'm sure I coudl quibble with a number of items here or there, but overall I have no problem with it.

4. I haven't done deep analysis, but my cursory understanding is that his environmental record is not bad at all for a republican. While a bit of a "backhanded compliment", it is certainly very surprising to me.

5. His administration has involved women and minorities at the highest cirlces of power, which is very commendable indeed.

Overall, I rate him mediocre, but I think his legacy will be solely determined by Iraq, which has yet to sort itself out, and probably won't until many years after his leaving office.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 02:29 PM
Well, then, quite simply I disagree. Amnorix appears to be one of our least partisan hacks. When Democrats do something he disagrees with, he states it. When Republicans do something that he disagrees with, he states it.

The good thing is that most people here get to have that disagreement freely. Others don't.

pikesome
03-18-2008, 02:30 PM
Well, then, quite simply I disagree. Amnorix appears to be one of our least partisan hacks. When Democrats do something he disagrees with, he states it. When Republicans do something that he disagrees with, he states it.

How can someone be an nonpartisan hack? Isn't that necessary for "hack" status?

And I mostly agree with you. And even when he's wrong it's well argued. :)

a1na2
03-18-2008, 02:32 PM
1. I wholeheartedly supported and continue to support our actions in Afghanistan. While I expressed nervousness at first about whether we could win, given the history of AFghanistan in resisting outside attackers, I saw the need and supported his efforts there, and continue to do so.

2. I think his actions in Pakistan have been borne of necessity and not subject to much if any criticism.

3. I support and agree with his general outline with respect to international trade. I'm sure I coudl quibble with a number of items here or there, but overall I have no problem with it.

4. I haven't done deep analysis, but my cursory understanding is that his environmental record is not bad at all for a republican. While a bit of a "backhanded compliment", it is certainly very surprising to me.

5. His administration has involved women and minorities at the highest cirlces of power, which is very commendable indeed.

Overall, I rate him mediocre, but I think his legacy will be solely determined by Iraq, which has yet to sort itself out, and probably won't until many years after his leaving office.

What will you think in years ahead if it is said that Bush was one of the greatest presidents we've had?

When Nixon went down there was much disdain for him overall but today he is not seen in the same light as he was then. His problems were compounded by Watergate. I wonder how many presidents have participated in similar activities and just not been caught?

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 02:38 PM
And even when he's wrong it's well argued. :)


Wrong? ME?!! Never...


:p

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 02:43 PM
What will you think in years ahead if it is said that Bush was one of the greatest presidents we've had?

About the same as what I say about Reagan -- he's vastly overrated by most people.

The only way Bush will ever have that said about him is if Iraq turns out to have been a terrific decision -- a solid and reliable "friendly" government is established there and is able to withstand the fractious pulls of Iran and its own ethnic and religious disparities.

I will be very happy if that indeed turns out to be the case, and I will really have no choice (at that point) but to move my esteem (or lack thereof) of Bush up a fair few notches.

My current opinion is that we are knee deep in a complete mess, but that having made the commitment, we don't have much choice but to try to see it through until it becomes clear it's pretty hopeless.

When Nixon went down there was much disdain for him overall but today he is not seen in the same light as he was then. His problems were compounded by Watergate. I wonder how many presidents have participated in similar activities and just not been caught?

Nixon's image recovery (from crook to "elder statesman") is frankly both astounding and laughable. He was great at foreign policy, but honestly, he was the most dangerous President we ever had. It's a good thing that his paranoia didn't do more damage than it did.

G. Gordon Libby and those of his ilk, whom Nixon surrounded himself with, were fabulous representations of absolutely everythign that is wrong with government, and power corrupted.

Nixon was a very smart man, but a very dangerous one to have in the White House.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 02:48 PM
About the same as what I say about Reagan -- he's vastly overrated by most people.

The only way Bush will ever have that said about him is if Iraq turns out to have been a terrific decision -- a solid and reliable "friendly" government is established there and is able to withstand the fractious pulls of Iran and its own ethnic and religious disparities.

I will be very happy if that indeed turns out to be the case, and I will really have no choice (at that point) but to move my esteem (or lack thereof) of Bush up a fair few notches.

My current opinion is that we are knee deep in a complete mess, but that having made the commitment, we don't have much choice but to try to see it through until it becomes clear it's pretty hopeless.



Nixon's image recovery (from crook to "elder statesman") is frankly both astounding and laughable. He was great at foreign policy, but honestly, he was the most dangerous President we ever had. It's a good thing that his paranoia didn't do more damage than it did.

G. Gordon Libby and those of his ilk, whom Nixon surrounded himself with, were fabulous representations of absolutely everythign that is wrong with government, and power corrupted.

Nixon was a very smart man, but a very dangerous one to have in the White House.

His image now compared to the day he walked out of the White House is very different. Your opinion is not fully reflected when you research his presidency.

One search provides this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 02:57 PM
His image now compared to the day he walked out of the White House is very different. Your opinion is not fully reflected when you research his presidency.

One search provides this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon


I didn't even get into his Congressional career, which is nearly as disgusting as McCarthy's. Alger Hiss almost certainly was a Communist, and I'm not saying that NO good came out of the entire "red scare", but ultimately, Hoover, McCarthy and Nixon truly ruined alot of good people to weed out a few bad apples.

While his price controls concept was VERY badly flawed, I don't oppose many of his policies. It was his APPROACH to governance and corruption of power that I refer to.

It's not WHAT he did so much as HOW he did it, and how he wanted to do it. He established some very bad precedents that are in my mind anathema to the American political process and the balance of power.

a1na2
03-18-2008, 03:01 PM
I didn't even get into his Congressional career, which is nearly as disgusting as McCarthy's. Alger Hiss almost certainly was a Communist, and I'm not saying that NO good came out of the entire "red scare", but ultimately, Hoover, McCarthy and Nixon truly ruined alot of good people to weed out a few bad apples.

While his price controls concept was VERY badly flawed, I don't oppose many of his policies. It was his APPROACH to governance and corruption of power that I refer to.

It's not WHAT he did so much as HOW he did it, and how he wanted to do it. He established some very bad precedents that are in my mind anathema to the American political process and the balance of power.

So you are saying that wiki is wrong with what they have regarding Nixon throughout his career?

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 03:21 PM
So you are saying that wiki is wrong with what they have regarding Nixon throughout his career?


No, more like points of emphasis, and points of omission.

Nixon is somewhat like Jefferson in my mind -- very, very odd ducks with tremendous discrepancies in their abilities and personalities. Discrepancies isn't quite the right word....

How to phrase this...

Both were EXTREMELY well-credentialed for the Presidency. Indeed, their resumes were as strong as possible for the job. Yet both of them performed very erratically -- in some ways VERY good, and in other ways VERY bad. Jefferson just had a far better PR department, essentially.

pikesome
03-18-2008, 03:38 PM
Both were EXTREMELY well-credentialed for the Presidency. Indeed, their resumes were as strong as possible for the job. Yet both of them performed very erratically -- in some ways VERY good, and in other ways VERY bad. Jefferson just had a far better PR department, essentially.

One could argue that, ignoring Watergate, Nixon was one of the best Presidents in many decades. The problem is no one is going to be ignoring Watergate. Something like that never gets downplayed, it over-shadows all. And for good reason, I still can't fathom WTF Nixon was thinking.

Amnorix
03-18-2008, 03:44 PM
One could argue that, ignoring Watergate, Nixon was one of the best Presidents in many decades. The problem is no one is going to be ignoring Watergate. Something like that never gets downplayed, it over-shadows all. And for good reason, I still can't fathom WTF Nixon was thinking.

Yes, there were many positives. The whole wage and price control thing frequently gets forgotten, however, and that was a real fiasco. It's hard to blame him for TRYING, but it was fundamentally misguided.

But yes, he handled a number of thigns very well. His international program was extremely good, and many domestic programs I would agree with (though I don't know how many hard-core conservatives would).

As you say, Watergate overshadows all in the final analysis. His insulated approach to governance was very bad as well, IMHO, and he encroached on Congressional prerogatives quite a bit, which I'm not in favor of.

Donger
03-18-2008, 04:24 PM
Haha! [/pointingandlaughingatthehistorygeeks]

a1na2
03-19-2008, 03:44 PM
Man we could really use John Proctor over here so you two could have a chest thumping festival and you could both tell us how much bigger your dicks are because you served. Then Proctor could tell you that you are nothing because you don't have a medal for serving in Iraq. Man that would be swell.

Say what you want. I served honorably for over 28 years. I did what I felt needed to be done. Where I served is none of your business. It's really a shame that someone that never served feels the need to attack those that did so and remain proud for serving.

Your credibility level has hit rock bottom.

What you need to know is that your opinion is basically useless in regards to my service. My opinion of your lack of service is equally as useless.

Give it a rest.

a1na2
03-19-2008, 03:53 PM
I've dealt with many people of truly stunning intelligence. You're none of them I'm afraid.

You can't even engage in a simple debate.

I should be insulted but I've considered the source.

Back to your soap opera, you don't want those women to do you in.

Logical
03-19-2008, 09:01 PM
Say what you want. I served honorably for over 28 years. I did what I felt needed to be done. Where I served is none of your business. It's really a shame that someone that never served feels the need to attack those that did so and remain proud for serving.

Your credibility level has hit rock bottom.

What you need to know is that your opinion is basically useless in regards to my service. My opinion of your lack of service is equally as useless.

Give it a rest.Oh damn what will I ever do my credibility has hit rock bottom with you.:rolleyes:

a1na2
03-19-2008, 09:12 PM
Oh damn what will I ever do my credibility has hit rock bottom with you.:rolleyes:

You have never had any credibility with me so the point is moot.

Logical
03-19-2008, 10:33 PM
You have never had any credibility with me so the point is moot.What a tragedy.ROFL

a1na2
03-20-2008, 02:01 AM
What a tragedy.ROFLThe only real tragedy here is that you feel the need to insult someone just because you don't agree with their method of replying to your or any other posts.:rolleyes:

DenverChief
03-20-2008, 03:02 AM
I'm saying don't worry about the Chinese invading.

well with almost 84 guns per 100 people in the US I wouldn't be too worried about an invasion either