Lustalbert Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Just a side note on how the japanese treated POWs Anyone remember the Bataan Death March? Thank God that we had leadership with the nads to do what needed to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Just a side note on how the japanese treated POWs Anyone remember the Bataan Death March? Thank God that we had leadership with the nads to do what needed to be done. QFTx1000 The Japanese mentality towards POW's was not like ours. They were not signers at the Geneva Convention, so they did not feel bound by the basic human rights set fourth. To the Japs surrender meant that the Americans and Filipinos were less than human, therfore they could do as they wished with them. Some were beheaded, others were stabbed with bayonets, and yet others dug their own graves before being executed. Bottom line... The Empire of Japan got what they deserved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 So what policies of his made that stuff happen? You did not answer the question... Dude, as much as I'd love to, I'm not writing you a book on the internet. Look the shit up yourself, or counter it, I don't care. As of 4:30 today, I'm on mutherfuckin vacation. I did answer your vague question, you never asked for every act he moved through congress. The hell did ronnie do? Apart from "Making Uh'muric'ns feel proud to be Uh'muric'n". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Dude, as much as I'd love to, I'm not writing you a book on the internet. Look the shit up yourself, or counter it, I don't care. As of 4:30 today, I'm on mutherfuckin vacation. I did answer your vague question, you never asked for every act he moved through congress. The hell did ronnie do? Apart from "Making Uh'muric'ns feel proud to be Uh'muric'n". You are giving the typical Slick willy answer.... nothing The problem is that Slick Willy did NOTHING to help the economy of the US. Economics of our nation is determined by the administration prior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowgli1647545497 Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 What did Reagan do? One word: Reykjavik Read up some time on the summit - absolutely fascinating. Drama and tension x1000 and stakes as high as they get: survival of the human race. And Reagan was one of only a handful of presidents that could have pulled that off ( Kennedy, both Rosevelts, Grant, Lincoln, Washington). It was the biggest role of his life and he played it perfectly. That was the moment the Soviet Union cracked and broke. Everything else was the visible aftereffects. Its really interesting to read how he'd go outside during breaks, in the bitter cold nonetheless, and confer with his close friends and advisors how and if he was doing the right thing. Even in the middle of beleiving he was. Its that unsurety makes him so human. Gorbachev gets all the credit nowadays in the world of america sucks, but it was Reagan, and his previous credibility built up through his military buildup that turned the Soviet ship. It was this that switched Gorbachev's growing uneasy feeling into a cold lit realization and afterward a steadfast resolution that "we could not match this", that they now, the soviets, had to choose mutual destruction or stepping off the world stage as a superpower. And Gorbachev himself wrote so in his memoirs. Credit for Gorbachev for making the human choice. But credit to Reagan for creating the moment, illuminating it perfectly, forcing the choice, at the perfect, and probably only, moment in time that it could be made with even a hope of the right conclusion, and then not blinking. We owe him immensely. The "we" being humanity, not just americans. So what if we have to pay for it by giving up our govt provided retirement entitlements? Small price. You're welcome, world. We'll just have to save some money, give to our neighbors, and toast Gorbachev and REAGAN every Oct 12th. Now lets see if he and Gorbachev saved humanity from themselves or just bought us another hundred years.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 You are giving the typical Slick willy answer.... nothing. As are you. Or is it the typical Repub answer. "You 're wrong, but I'm so smart that I'm not going to prove it, just take my word for it." Mowgli gets "Post of the day". Apart from his Memoirs, see also "The August Coup" by Miki, I'll loan you a copy if you can't find it. Doing what needed to be done certainly wasn't made easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 What did Reagan do? One word: Reykjavik Read up some time on the summit - absolutely fascinating. Drama and tension x1000 and stakes as high as they get: survival of the human race. And Reagan was one of only a handful of presidents that could have pulled that off ( Kennedy, both Rosevelts, Grant, Lincoln, Washington). It was the biggest role of his life and he played it perfectly. That was the moment the Soviet Union cracked and broke. Everything else was the visible aftereffects. Its really interesting to read how he'd go outside during breaks, in the bitter cold nonetheless, and confer with his close friends and advisors how and if he was doing the right thing. Even in the middle of beleiving he was. Its that unsurety makes him so human. Gorbachev gets all the credit nowadays in the world of america sucks, but it was Reagan, and his previous credibility built up through his military buildup that turned the Soviet ship. It was this that switched Gorbachev's growing uneasy feeling into a cold lit realization and afterward a steadfast resolution that "we could match this", that they now, the soviets, had to choose mutual destruction or stepping off the world stage as a superpower. And Gorbachev himself wrote so in his memoirs. Credit for Gorbachev for making the human choice. But credit to Reagan for creating the moment, illuminating it perfectly, forcing the choice, at the perfect, and probably only, moment in time that it could be made with even a hope of the right conclusion, and then not blinking. We owe him immensely. The "we" being humanity, not just americans. So what if we have to pay for it by giving up our govt provided retirement entitlements? Small price. You're welcome, world. We'll just have to save some money, give to our neighbors, and toast Gorbachev and REAGAN every Oct 12th. Now lets see if he and Gorbachev saved humanity from themselves or just bought us another hundred years.... good post... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 As are you. Or is it the typical Repub answer. "You 're wrong, but I'm so smart that I'm not going to prove it, just take my word for it." Mowgli gets "Post of the day". Apart from his Memoirs, see also "The August Coup" by Miki, I'll loan you a copy if you can't find it. Doing what needed to be done certainly wasn't made easy. Reagans economic plans like cutting the upper income tax levels from 70% to 28% was a large reason. Econ 101.... high taxes= low production= bad economies. Reagan allowed the wealthy to create the jobs to employ the non wealthy. Simple as that.... Now you answer...... Or are you going to side step it again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Reagans economic plans like cutting the upper income tax levels from 70% to 28% was a large reason. Econ 101.... high taxes= low production= bad economies. Reagan allowed the wealthy to create the jobs to employ the non wealthy. Simple as that.... Now you answer...... Or are you going to side step it again? No, I'm going to do what you did, Call it bullshit and log off. Econ 101 never works, just like Reaganomics never worked. The world is too complicated for simple theory. Too much of the extra money was not reinvested back into the American money pool. Econ 101 is what politicians use at rallies to convince gullable people that their plan is good. "OMG, just cut teh taxes and they'll spend their extra moneez on yoo, is so SIMPLE!" 4 more years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 No, I'm going to do what you did, Call it bullshit and log off. Econ 101 never works, just like Reaganomics never worked. The world is too complicated for simple theory. Too much of the extra money was not reinvested back into the American money pool. Econ 101 is what politicians use at rallies to convince gullable people that their plan is good. "OMG, just cut teh taxes and they'll spend their extra moneez on yoo, is so SIMPLE!" 4 more years. Still NO ANSWER!!! It is a trick question, because no answer exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 the truth is, no one knows jack shit about the economy. the only goddamn thing we know about economy, and WHICH WE LEARN IN ECON 101, is that everything revolves around ceterus paribus. And, given that, not a single person can take credit for an economy doing well or doing poorly. You can't say Reaganomics did or didnt work. It did some things well, it fucked up others. Same with every administration. Clinton may have ridden the previous administration's good policy, but goddamn he certainly made it last for more than a couple years. economic policy coming from the federal government will always ALWAYS ALWAYS help some and hurt others. if we want to start programs to help the needy, we're going to hurt the wealthy by taxing them. if we stop taxing the wealthy, as trickle-down economists prefer, we may create more jobs but inflation will then increase and those without skills will be in a worse predicament. I honestly think the Bush administration's true reason for going to war with Iraq had nothing to do with oil or terrorism; it had to do with the economy because war is one thing that ALWAYS helps your economy. Iraq was convenient, not as difficult a target as other countries (i.e. iran, north korea, pakistant, etc.), and it at least ostensibly had some legitimate targets like Saddam and the magical WMDs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 This is a fun game, kinda like talking to a mirror. lol Regan cut taxes for the wealthy, by allot. Clinton raised taxes for the wealthy, top 1.2% actually, and lowerd them on the lower 15% (IIRC), and small buisnesses. Yet Reganomics produced a little more then half of what Clintons '93 econ-plan did. The simple answer to your question is that the 93 plan relied heavily on fiscal discipline. If you want to find out who's 8 years of management worked better, just look at the numbers. "Blah bal previous administration", ok, sure, these were both two-term presedents. At the end of their final term, the previous administration WAS their administration. I'm at work right now, last day before vacation, I've already wasted too much time posting, I'm not spending an hour dragging up specific documents. I'm busy, go ask a professor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 This is a fun game, kinda like talking to a mirror. lol Regan cut taxes for the wealthy, by allot. Clinton raised taxes for the wealthy, top 1.2% actually, and lowerd them on the lower 15% (IIRC), and small buisnesses. Yet Reganomics produced a little more then half of what Clintons '93 econ-plan did. The simple answer to your question is that the 93 plan relied heavily on fiscal discipline. If you want to find out who's 8 years of management worked better, just look at the numbers. "Blah bal previous administration", ok, sure, these were both two-term presedents. At the end of their final term, the previous administration WAS their administration. I'm at work right now, last day before vacation, I've already wasted too much time posting, I'm not spending an hour dragging up specific documents. I'm busy, go ask a professor. In all of that you still have no answer... btw, at the end of the Clinton term we were in a recession. Darn tax hikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 if everything is a result of the previous administration's economic policy, i suppose it was jimmy carter that saved the 1987 stock market crash? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 http://dase.laits.utexas.edu/media/american_politics_collection/viewitem/pres_fedbudget_400.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 whether or not Clinton had sound economic policy, he sure as hell had the confidence of Americans, and that goes a long fuckin' way when it comes to how they spend their money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 and one more for the quartet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowgli1647545497 Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Tell me again: What does the government deficit have to do with the strength or weakness of the (private sector) economy? Aside from showing us how much we're either overpaying or the govt is overspending, I mean. Anyone that looks at a govt surplus and is happy needs to have their testicles yanked and call it a grooming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAOLE Posted August 10, 2007 Report Share Posted August 10, 2007 Tell me again: What does the government deficit have to do with the strength or weakness of the (private sector) economy? Aside from showing us how much we're either overpaying or the govt is overspending, I mean. Anyone that looks at a govt surplus and is happy needs to have their testicles yanked and call it a grooming. You win today... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.