Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

We need more Reagans

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-27 7:44

clone him someone

Name: Xel 2006-08-31 14:02

We need more Schwarzeneggers to stabilize the economy, screw the socialist girly-men and tell the christianists where to stick it.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 14:25

>>41
Well he is an actor like Reagan was...

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 15:00

We need more Adolf Hitlers.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 15:01

>>43
We need more Adolf Hitlers to stabilize the economy, screw the socialist girly-men and tell the christianists where to stick it.*

fix'd

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 23:00

God dammit, what 32 was meaning to say is that virtually every person here was just throwing out "Lower taxes = Better Economy", and the link was to show that the periods of prosperity were accompanied by HIGHER TAXES, which is to say, not that high taxes make prosperity, but that cutting taxes willy-nilly is not the best way to go, and that Reagan probably used a tax cut to stimulate the growth, then taxed the growth to keep the deficit from burrowing into hell.
When you say shit like "lower taxes = better economy" you oversimplfy something that is incredibly complex, and it makes you sound like you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Besides, we really don't know if tax cuts really effect growth in the manner that we think it does. Correlation does not prove causation, and the economy is something with an infinite amount of variables effecting it, to the extent that it could never be scientifically tested to prove this hypothesis right.  Hell, people today still dispute whether Keynesian economics works, using the same reason, although "common sense" dictates that Keynesian economics works, and that "Reaganomics" works (I hate that moniker, it sounds so damn childish) they have not, and can not, be scientifically tested.

Hell, I've heard of something called "Elliot Wave Theory" that explains many bizzare correlations between the economy and other shit, like how the stock market rises when horror flicks come out. The theory also proposes that the market is less affected by human action than we think it is, and it follows a repeating fractal wave, and sort of implies that the Great Depression, Stagflation, and the Dot com boom were just parts of the up/down cycle of the US market.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 23:19

>>41
Arnold Governator is one of the best damn politicians I've seen in quite a while.

Name: Anonymous 2006-08-31 23:51

>>45
Correlation doesn't = causation, yes, but it does warrant further investigation.  Lower taxes do seem to be better for the economy, and since we have that correlation, I think it would be... stupid not to delve into this mystery further.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 2:00

Reagan was the best damn president we've had in quite a while.

Name: Xel 2006-09-01 2:07

>>48 I want Ahnuld for prez. He puts his foot down on both the hippies and the christians. I'd change the constitution for him; he's more of an american than 25 congressmen put together.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 2:44

"I'm for gun control; I'm a peace-loving guy."  -Arnold Schwarzenegger

"I support the Brady bill, I support the current assault weapons ban and I believe that guns must have safety devices or be stored as to prevent accidental discharge."  -Arnold Schwarzenegger

"Q: Do you support the death penalty?

A: Yes. I believe it is a necessary and effective deterrent to capital crimes."  -Arnold Schwarzenegger

"The actor also said he does not support the legalization of drugs, except for the medicinal use of marijuana."

"The actor said he supports allowing schools to decide whether prayer will be part of their day."

Arnold fails.

Name: Xel 2006-09-01 3:29

"Yes. I believe it is a necessary and effective deterrent to capital crimes" Deplorable, but he is not the governor of Texas. The states with DP have higher crime rates and they haven't done any good, and Schwarzenegger should learn.
"The actor also said he does not support the legalization of drugs, except for the medicinal use of marijuana." Have you seen California lately? Accepting drugs would be political suicide. Medical marijuana is a start few republicans have the intelligence to accept.
"The actor said he supports allowing schools to decide whether prayer will be part of their day." That is more consistent with liberty than a ban, as the decision to pray is up to the students. I wouldn't mind sending my kid to a christian school as long as he/she informed me of what they told him.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 3:45

>>51
You seem to be confused about the prayer thing.  The idiot christians in this country would like you to believe that prayer is banned in school, but it is not.  All that is banned is teacher-led prayer.  The decision to pray is already up to the students.  I can tell you at my high school every single morning there was a group of christians that would gather around and pray right before class.  No one stopped them because it was their right to do so.  The thing about the schools deciding if they will take time out of the day for prayer is basically wasting the time of all the students who don't pray.  The schools, its teachers, and its facult have no business in leading or sanctioning prayer time.  The students have always found their own way and time to pray.

Name: Xel 2006-09-01 4:06

>>52 Ah. I stand back.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 4:42

>>51
"The actor also said he does not support the legalization of drugs, except for the medicinal use of marijuana."

"Have you seen California lately?"

Have you?  No, I haven't.

"Accepting drugs would be political suicide. Medical marijuana is a start few republicans have the intelligence to accept."

I suppose so.  It might be a step in the right direction, but honestly, I don't give a fuck if it can be used medicinally - I want it totally legal for recreational use.  Yeah sure, I guess its good that he's for medicinal use, but he is still taking the typical draconian 'drug$ r b@d' position.

"The actor said he supports allowing schools to decide whether prayer will be part of their day."

'That is more consistent with liberty than a ban, as the decision to pray is up to the students.'

I don't think that means leaving the decision up to students (but correct me if I'm wrong here), I interpreted that to mean it would be inserted into school schedule, and institutionalized.  I would be against *any* institutionalization of prayer in schools, but yeah I agree with you, children should be allowed to pray in schools on an *individual* basis.

You also didn't address his shitty position & comments on gun control.

Name: Xel 2006-09-01 6:06

"I'm for gun control; I'm a peace-loving guy."  This is bad for my principles, but I don't live in California. Arnold has put the economy in its place and he constantly resists the christianist clique of the right, making him important. I think that each state should try what is best, because since reality is by nature utterly propabilistic I approve of different approaches. Arnold is popular, George is not. People get what they deserve and if the Californians want him they'll get him. He really should deal with youth prisons first if you ask me.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 8:13

>>55
"Arnold is popular, George is not."

Bush was more popular than Kerry. Also, I doubt Arnold would be able to win a national election.  He can win in California, but not the USA as a whole.. I don't think anyway. 

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 8:24

>>56
Arnold has name recognition and lots of it.  Easily the most important part of getting elected.  That puts him at a major advantage to the vast majority of candidates.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 8:32

>>57
You might be right, but it doesn't change the fact that >>56 was right in saying that Bush was indeed more popular than Kerry.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 8:37

2004 Election Popular Vote: 

Bush     159,2 million
Kerry     130.9 million

Name: Xel 2006-09-01 9:07

>>59 We know that. Consensus has no objective value. The US ranked after Georgia (the Yurp one) in voter facilities, after Kazakhstan in the availability of voting centrals and after Mexico in reliability and incorruptibility of *actual* results. Ohio has Blackwell, that is dubious enough. Oh and: http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/10754/Programmer_Finally_Testifies_U_S_Elections_Rigged

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-01 9:20

>>60
Old news.  Also, I agree that consensus has no objective value, but you were saying Bush is unpopular.  Assuming you were saying he was unpopular in relation to his opponent, this would be false.

However.. regarding vote scam:

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/11/10/voting/index.html
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,65665-0.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2
The irregularities in certain communities in rural Florida that many democrats speak of are hyped up to say the least.  These said irregularities are easilly explained away by looking at past voter trends.. see article.

Name: Xel 2006-09-01 9:38

>>61 Florida. Blackwell is in Ohio.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-02 1:50

>>62
Until you show me incriminating evidence regarding Blackwell, I don't see why I should be the least bit concerned.  Link me up if you have something and wish to change my mind.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-02 1:55

Americans tend to have a very perculiar voting mentality, the handsome fellows get elected.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List