Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Legit Questions for ATS Liberals…Shed Some Light Please

page: 23
27
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DavidWillts
 



Oh please the Clinton boom years were just an after-effect of Reaganomics.


Yeah, it took a complete reversal of Reagan's policies to create a boom.

Such beliefs are excellent examples of how conservatives are in complete denial of reality.

The only thing Reagan did, was redistribute wealth from the middle class to the super rich, vastly expand the federal government, strip people of their rights, and create vast amounts of debt.

Reagan was never more than a figure head. The Bush clan ran the country for the 8 years Reagan was in office, and another 4 when GH got elected, and then another 8 when morons elected another Bush.

Anyone who voted for a Bush, who doesn't spend a lot of time banging their head into the wall, has chosen to remain ignorant of reality, IMO.




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Such beliefs are excellent examples of how conservatives are in complete denial of reality.

Anyone who voted for a Bush, who doesn't spend a lot of time banging their head into the wall, has chosen to remain ignorant of reality, IMO.



You can reverse the first statement on liberals too.
Not about Regan, but about other policies.

Your second statement can be applied to President Obama and those who voted for him.
This is one of my favorite videos Re: President Obama and those who voted for him.



I freely admit I voted for Bush and now think he screwed up on many things.
I still think he was the lesser of two evils/idiots.
There really isn't a difference between either party anymore and anyone who can't see it's all the same BS underneath just wrapped in different flavored candy coating is lying to themselves.

Clinton did a decent job, it wasn't all him anyway.
This idea people have that the success of the nation rides on the President is ridiculous.
Heck everyone is expecting President Obama to fix the economy or those running against him to fix it.

It's not actually the Presidents job.
The President is the Head of State, the job is actually more akin to the Secretary of State.
At least originally that is what it was, each President and each party has taken more power that wasn't theirs to take.

Government can't fix the economy, no Government can.
Economies are supposed to be cyclic, it's when a Government steps in and regulates the highs and lows that the lows become really low.

Everyone needs to stop relying on the Government to fix everything.

Governments exist for a limited number of reasons.
1. Protect us from outside attack
2. Protect us from internal unrest IE, prevent riots, help out during Acts of Nature/God
3. Protect our rights mainly our property rights(this includes your life because you own your life), one can not be free if anyone can take from others without consequences. That's why things cost money, when you buy things like a car or land you are actually buying protection from the Government through their enforcement of laws.

The Government does not exist to provide you with a job, or food, property or even happiness.
The Government exists to protect your right to pursue and acquire those things on your own.


Anyone who thinks the Government should do more than that doesn't understand how our Government was set up.
Anyone who thinks there is a difference between either party is willingly blind.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


You post a video about one Obama supporter making absurd statements, and claim that is some kind of indictment on the whole Obama admin?


You completely destroyed your credibility on that one.

Gore would have made a decent President, and our economy would be doing a lot better right now. You voted for the worst of two evils. You probably think global warming is a myth.

When government actually colludes with corporations to rob the middle class of their wealth, it causes the economy to collapse, and that is exactly what happened under both Bush regimes. That you refuse to recognize this demonstrates that you continue to choose to remain ignorant.

Guess what, writing laws preventing corporations from putting poison in our water supply is protecting our lives. That is the purpose of business regulations. It seems you are unable, or unwilling, to connect the dots.

edit on 14-4-2012 by poet1b because: change adverb



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

You post a video about one Obama supporter making absurd statements, and claim that is some kind of indictment on the whole Obama admin?


You completely destroyed your credibility on that one.

Gore would have made a decent President, and our economy would be doing a lot better right now. You voted for the worst of two evils. You probably think global warming is a myth.

When government actually colludes with corporations to rob the middle class of their wealth, it causes the economy to collapse, and that is exactly what happened under both Bush regimes. That you refuse to recognize this demonstrates that you continue to choose to remain ignorant.

Guess what, writing laws preventing corporations from putting poison in our water supply is protecting our lives. That is the purpose of business regulations. It seems you are unable, or unwilling, to connect the dots.

edit on 14-4-2012 by poet1b because: change adverb


First let me quote myself here.



Your second statement can be applied to President Obama and those who voted for him.


I was commenting on the people who voted for President Obama, you commented on those who voted for President Bush.
I pointed out that idiots voted for President Obama.
You might want to actually read before you incorrectly infer something or say my credibility is blown.

I will applaud you on your straw man of the EPA considering I didn't even mention the EPA.
You couldn't address the points I raised on what the Governments job is so you threw up a shield so you don't have actually debate...
Now considering I mentioned the job of the Government is to protect our property rights including our right to life I thought it was self evident that protecting us from businesses polluting water supplies was included.
I guess you need that spelled out for you though, yes protecting our property rights which includes our lives includes protecting us from possible toxins in the water.

I'm not the one who recognize to see corrupt Government or fail to connect the dots.

Both sides are screwed up, and it appears you are the one who fails to recognize that.

It's interesting that you bring up Government colluding with Business and blame it all on Bush.
Bush Senior, and Bush Junior spent most of their time in office with Democratic run Congresses.
Did they sign pro Business laws and regulations yes, It's the Democrats who passed them.
It appears you fail to recognize that too.
Your Business Government collusion is also another straw man actually, I guess you really don't want to discuss the issues I raised.
You're much more comfortable ignoring the merits of what I say and than claiming I'm the one who is unwilling to connect the dots.

I'll repeat the closing line from my post again.
Anyone who thinks there is a difference between either party is willingly blind.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 



I pointed out that idiots voted for President Obama.


So what is your point. Yeah, idiots do vote, but that is not a reflection on Obama. Strawman nonsense that has nothing to do with my point.

You didn't specifically mention anything, except that government should protect people's rights. I pointed out that laws against pollution are legitimate, and serve the purpose of protecting people's rights.

Most of the pro-business laws were put into place before Democrats took over office.

Congress only passes laws, it is the exec admin that is suppose to enforce those laws, and that is what the GW admin refused to do. That was the problem.

Yeah, there is a huge difference between the way Clinton ran the exec admin and the way GW ran things, and between the way Obama runs things.

GW selectively ignored those laws he had no desire to enforce, and so business fraud ran amuck, and illegals entered our country at will.

Clinton did a great deal to work towards ending fraudulent business practices and going after those who hire illegals. Obama is doing the same, although he could do a much better job of going after illegal immigrants.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b


I pointed out that idiots voted for President Obama.


So what is your point. Yeah, idiots do vote, but that is not a reflection on Obama. Strawman nonsense that has nothing to do with my point.

You didn't specifically mention anything, except that government should protect people's rights. I pointed out that laws against pollution are legitimate, and serve the purpose of protecting people's rights.

Most of the pro-business laws were put into place before Democrats took over office.

Congress only passes laws, it is the exec admin that is suppose to enforce those laws, and that is what the GW admin refused to do. That was the problem.

Yeah, there is a huge difference between the way Clinton ran the exec admin and the way GW ran things, and between the way Obama runs things.

GW selectively ignored those laws he had no desire to enforce, and so business fraud ran amuck, and illegals entered our country at will.

Clinton did a great deal to work towards ending fraudulent business practices and going after those who hire illegals. Obama is doing the same, although he could do a much better job of going after illegal immigrants.


You made a comment about those who voted for President Bush, and I made a counter point that the same can be said about those who voted for President Obama.
I then provided a video showing an example and you whine that I have blown my credibility, and claim my video was talking about the administration.
My point? That idiots voted for President Obama, and that you took it out of context because you refused to read what I said.
You inferred the video was about the Presidents administration and it wasn't.
My point is you can't debate.

The straw men that I accuse you of putting up are valid.
You decided to not address what I said and put up a distraction that wasn't related to what I said.
Any attempt to change gears and ignore what an opponent says is at the very least poor debating skills and a straw man.
You come across as not caring about actually having a discussion, all you want to do is point out I'm wrong.
You couldn't point out that I was wrong though so you pointed to another issue, or at least an aspect of a broader issue that wasn't being discussed(at least in my post).

I didn't specifically mention anything?
Lets see I pointed out that it's not actually the President's job to fix the economy .
I pointed out that the President was originally a Head of State with similar duties to the Sec of State.
I pointed out that each President and each party has taken more powers that weren't originally theirs.
I pointed out that an economy is cyclic, and that efforts to actually regulate the economy make matters worse.
I pointed out the actual role of the Government.
I pointed out that both sides are messing up, and that anyone who believes otherwise is willingly blind.
I went on to point out that Democrats passed the regulations that the Presidents Bush signed into office and that it was therefore both the Democrats and the Republicans fault.

You side stepped this and said that it's all really the Bush dynasty fault.
No, they can't sign something if it isn't first passed, that makes it both parties fault.
I will take it one step further, economic cycles are more than 10 years long, some say they are 25 some say 30 but at the very least they are more than 10 years long.
The regulations that put us in this mess were singed into office by President Clinton, they were passed by a Republican Congress.
Again both parties faults.
President Bush the second was dealing with regulations passed before he took office.
In fact most Presidents these days deal largely with regulations their predecessor passed.
Now in the 1990's we were reaching the peak of an upswing and than we began to fall.
That was not President Clinton's, or Bush's fault.
It's called the economy, the economy is cyclic as I pointed out before.
The economy was going to fall no matter what.
What made it worse were regulations passed by both parties, and signed into law by both parties.

As for the pro-business laws, the are passed equally by both sides.
It just depends on which part of business benefits, the Dems friends or the Reps friends.
The housing mess that was a Dem mess to buy votes from the public.
It was a Rep mess for not stopping it, again both at fault.

President Obama is also ignoring certain laws, it happens it's called Presidential discretion.
Presidents Bush, Clinton and Bush again did the same thing.

You are right President Clinton did great thing, but he also screwed up.

A few things are clear, both sides screw up.
You are willingly blind to the fact that both sides screw up.
Lastly you don't know how to debate; you throw up distractions and pretend points aren't raised, and you don't read and digest entire posts.

I'm close to done with conversing since you actually ignore the debate just to rail blindly against one side.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


I pointed out that anyone who voted for a Bush should be extremely embarrassed, and re-thinking their whole political perspective.

You posted a bunch of nonsense about idiots voting, and other things that are meaningless, trying to connect two things that are not related.

You claim that business is cyclic, no problem there.

Then you claim that "efforts to actually regulate the economy make matters worse."

The purpose of regulations is Not to prevent business cycles, it is to prevent businesses from committing crimes, which can impact huge numbers of people. Again, you re trying to connect two unrelated things.


I went on to point out that Democrats passed the regulations that the Presidents Bush signed into office and that it was therefore both the Democrats and the Republicans fault.


And I pointed out that it was the GW admins failure to enforce those laws (which is the role of the exec admin) that created all the problems, proving your point mute, as well as completely false.

Business cycles have nothing to do with this mess, that is a bunch of bull hockey.

Failure to prevent business fraud is what created the current mess, just like after Reagan's admin put in place fre market deregulation, the SnLs were robbed by fraudulent business practices, and we went into boom bust cycles created by the business fraud. The boom bust cycles are not natural market cycles, they are created by crooked business practices. GW gets into office, and the whole mess is repeated. It is exactly what happened in the twenties leading to the Great Depression. In the thirties under FDR, they put laws in place to prevent the fraud, and we had reasonably solid economic growth for over thirty years, grew a large middle class and created the worlds strongest economy.

That you want to continue to repeat the whole mess demonstrates that you choose to ignore reality. You want to do what has been proven to fail over and over again.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by LErickson
 


So you are saying that following sharia laws means that Muslims will want to kill you?


No, I am saying my posts are complete and in context. I am not sure what game you are trying to play but I would rather have an actual discussion.


From your earlier posts, sounds like you are flip flopping.


No, I am positive you just have no clue.


When I say Muslims want to implement sharia law, I mean they want to eliminate our rights, and force us to live by their barbaric rules.


Good for you.
You are wrong and apparently quite ignorant of Sharia law but you can mean whatever you want to.


Please try and have an actual discussion, not this fake response to things you pretend to not get so you can just post whatever argument starting crap you like.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 


So you don't think the Sharia law where the word of woman is worth half the word of a man is barbaric?

You have proven that you don't know squat, or are incapable of telling the truth about Islam, and that is all you have proven.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


according to some christian sects....
it's still the father's right to chose who the women marries...Princess Diana's marriage war arranged.
women are to obey their husbands in EVERYTHING....
men should dicipline their wives when it's needed.
men kind of stand in as high priests in the home.
they should have the final say in all decisions.


there really isn't that much difference between the words in the bible and the words in the koran, and by what I've read of both, the koran kind of gives women a little more in the line of rights.

for instance, the koran specifically says that no women should be hindered when going to a mosque and worshipping..... in some christian sects, they will quite plainly tell ya, if your husband don't want you to be there, well, then you probably shouldn't be there, and the bible doesn't say much of anything, except...well...obey your husband, in all things!!!

so, why is it that the christian cultures are extending so much freedom to their women while the islamic world seems to be still in the darkages?? I would venture to guess that it has more to do with the way their cultures are, most are very authoritarian and quite frankly, not only are their women treated horribly but so don't their men, the barberism is quite equally shared!!!

but, well, let's consider for a moment, which way our country seems to be going, let's remove the christian or muslim titles, and just call a fanatic a fanatic!!!
we have tsa at our airports, for our safety, zapping us with radiation and strip searching our babies!!
we have cameras in about every corner recording our moves, telephones tapped, internet being monitored.
we have a gov't who thinks they can just arrest anyone they wish, strip them of our basic constitutional rights, strip us of our citizenship even, skirt us away to a prison anywhere in the world, and well, our family and loved ones can just guess as to what happened to us!! to trial, no judge, nothing.....just a suspicion!! kind of like, ya know...oh, I suspect that those evil muslims are wanting to instill sharia law here...we should go bomb a few more countries!!
it seems to me that we are heading straight towards that authoritarian state, the fanatics in this country are screaming to reduce women's rights, heck the christians here in this country, not long ago were wanting to implement something that was kind of similar to sharia law, covenant marriages.......
which well, if sharia law ever did make it into america, I imagine that it would be as watered down as those covenant marriages are, considering what the supporters really wanted to begin with!



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Sure, there might some radical Christian groups out there following ancient barbaric practices, but they are an invisible minority, while we get reports of honor killings on a regular basis, girls as young as 8 married to old men, girls forced to marry their cousins, girls getting killed for going to school, raped victims being beaten for putting themselves in a position where they could be raped.

This stuff is common in the Muslim world, while your claims about Christians in our modern era are not backed by any evidence.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by poet1b
 


according to some christian sects....
it's still the father's right to chose who the women marries...Princess Diana's marriage war arranged.
women are to obey their husbands in EVERYTHING....
men should dicipline their wives when it's needed.
men kind of stand in as high priests in the home.
they should have the final say in all decisions.


Sounds like Mormons to me. Exactly like Mormons.

Anyone know any prominent Mormons in our government right now?

Oh.. right.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


how about you reread my post, and try to answer the question I asked??

just a suggestion???



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by LErickson
 


So you don't think the Sharia law where the word of woman is worth half the word of a man is barbaric?

That is pretty stupid. I can sit here all day and list religious dogma that is anti-woman and the first few off the top of my head are Christian. None of that is for me and I do not practice it. I feel Steven Segal movies are stupid, instead of running around complaining about them I do not watch them. I am not sure why you feel Sharia has any more power over me.


You have proven that you don't know squat, or are incapable of telling the truth about Islam, and that is all you have proven.



You just keep saying that yet every single post of yours is an example of ignorance about Sharia.
Why do I not worry about Sharia law effecting me? Because I understand Sharia law.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Sure, there might some radical Christian groups out there following ancient barbaric practices, but they are an invisible minority, while we get reports of honor killings on a regular basis, girls as young as 8 married to old men, girls forced to marry their cousins, girls getting killed for going to school, raped victims being beaten for putting themselves in a position where they could be raped.

This stuff is common in the Muslim world, while your claims about Christians in our modern era are not backed by any evidence.



You can find examples in both religions of barbaric idiocy.

The fact you obsess on Islam while ignoring it in Christianity shows your bias.

No need to hide it.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
I pointed out that anyone who voted for a Bush should be extremely embarrassed, and re-thinking their whole political perspective.

You posted a bunch of nonsense about idiots voting, and other things that are meaningless, trying to connect two things that are not related.

I was gonna let this go but I can't...
You made a comment about those who voted for President Bush, I pointed out the same for those who voted for President Obama.
Are you saying that is nonsense?
Are you saying that idiot and others like her shouldn't be embarrassed and shouldn't rethink their entire perspective?
Oh wait that's right in your little world there is only one bad guy and one good guy, it must be nice to see the world in such simple bifurcated terms instead of as the mixtures of grey that it really is.
Meaningless, not connected?
How is defining what the Presidents job is meaningless?
Defining the proper role of Government before it ran amuck is meaningless?
It must be nice to just ignore any questions you can't answer.
Do you often stick your fingers in your ears and go "nah nah nah la la la"?


Originally posted by poet1b
You claim that business is cyclic, no problem there.

Then you claim that "efforts to actually regulate the economy make matters worse."

The purpose of regulations is Not to prevent business cycles, it is to prevent businesses from committing crimes, which can impact huge numbers of people. Again, you re trying to connect two unrelated things.


You must not know much about the economy or the laws you are talking about.
I am not referring to the laws that protect us which criminal regulations do.
I am referring to the myriad of laws that regulate the businesses and economies itself not the ones that protect us from crime.
The market is cycling, but the Government has tried to regulate that cycle, there have even been regulators testifying in Congress that they have and are trying to regulate the business cycle.
When you regulate a naturally cycling system like the free market it makes the crashes worse.
Even if all the laws were originally intended to do good, the fact that we have laws stacked up on top of each other means one agency can say yes and another no which creates more problems than good.
President Obama even said he would like to bankrupt the coal industry through over regulation, that itself shows that the Government knows their regulations can affect business.
If you are really so blind to the fact that regulations can harm a free market there is no helping you.
Are there necessary laws for our protection yes, I have admitted that.
I am talking about all the red tape and the laws and regulations that try and control the free market which is alive in the sense that it is alwayse changing; growing, expanding, contracting.
There are in fact laws that try and regulate the business cycles and if you refuse to see that, just go back into your sheltered bifurcated black/white world.


Originally posted by poet1b
And I pointed out that it was the GW admins failure to enforce those laws (which is the role of the exec admin) that created all the problems, proving your point mute, as well as completely false.

Does the Executive branch appoint the head of the Justice Department yes.
The JD can be advised by the President, but can and does act on it's own.
Even if it didn't act on it's own Congress still has over site, and can demand investigations, call hearings and much more.
So no my point isn't moot.
You can't discuss the point so you claim it isn't valid.
Again you are a weak debater and conversationalist.
Ignoring points and pretending they don't exist does not in fact make them false.
You actually have to prove they are invalid.
You might say here that I am doing the same, but I am not.
I am providing explanations on how you are wrong not just dismissing your argument.

To be continued.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Business cycles have nothing to do with this mess, that is a bunch of bull hockey.

Well now lets see medium to sluggish economy coming into the 90's followed by a .com boom.
Next comes the .com crash as the market was propped up on services, and information rather than physical tangible goods as well as speculation.
Coming into the 00's a rise in physical production(lessons learned from the 90's), return on foreign investments, natural gas construction jobs, as well as a housing market lead to a short lived market boom.
Mid 00's to now market crash, from multiple sources including the housing industry.

You're right there is nothing cyclic about that.
You really do have your head in the sand.
I'm not saying that the business cycle is the only cause of this, but it's part of it.
Any educated person knew this crash was coming, they might not have talked about it openly no one wants to be the naysayer.
They did talk about it in private though, I had many conversations with people who knew this was coming.
You are right to a point though it's not all the cycle, it's the fact that Congress was playing with the financial regulations and with the housing industry that helped it fold like a house of cards.
It's okay if you didn't see this coming though no need to be embarrassed because you don't understand how the economy works.
I didn't until I actually got out there and talked to people, read economic books as well as looked at the history of the market, all markets(currency, business, consumer goods).


Originally posted by poet1b
Failure to prevent business fraud is what created the current mess, just like after Reagan's admin put in place fre market deregulation, the SnLs were robbed by fraudulent business practices, and we went into boom bust cycles created by the business fraud. The boom bust cycles are not natural market cycles, they are created by crooked business practices. GW gets into office, and the whole mess is repeated. It is exactly what happened in the twenties leading to the Great Depression. In the thirties under FDR, they put laws in place to prevent the fraud, and we had reasonably solid economic growth for over thirty years, grew a large middle class and created the worlds strongest economy.


The SnLs did collapse because of fraud and over speculation.
It was on Congresses part not President Regan's, he worked with a Democratic Congress to fix the mistakes of a Republican Congress.
It wasn't deregulation that cause the mess though, it was the regulations themselves that provided loopholes that masked a problem until it was too late to see that.
President Bush was dealing with laws passed before he came into office.
Again I stipulate that most Presidents don't see their policies take affect until they leave office.
Well their negative ones kick in fast because the market moves to protect itself.
For the most part they are trying to navigate the course laid for them by the previous Congress(not the previous President).
Before President Bush took office housing regulations were passed that provided a boost for his first 2-3.5 years.
They got shaky near the end of his first term and folded like a house of cards.
It wasn't President Clinton's fault it was congress.
The President isn't as powerful as you think he is...
Your bifurcated view of the world has the President and his administration on top like fat cats and it's simply not so.
The Government has many layers and they all add to the mess, most layers more than the Executive branch.
President FDR please, ask any historian worth their weight President FDR prolonged the Great Depression.
Heck FDRs first act was a bank holiday when he took office, President Hoover was going to do the same thing but post election President Elect FDR asked him not to.
President FDR has done more damage than you realize.


Originally posted by poet1b
That you want to continue to repeat the whole mess demonstrates that you choose to ignore reality. You want to do what has been proven to fail over and over again.

This last part is rather funny, it applies more to you than me.
Blame only one side, ignore cycles, when you can't argue a point claim it is not valid and not worth arguing...
Yup plays straight out of the head in the sand brigade if I ever saw them.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by LErickson

No, I am saying my posts are complete and in context. I am not sure what game you are trying to play but I would rather have an actual discussion.

Please try and have an actual discussion, not this fake response to things you pretend to not get so you can just post whatever argument starting crap you like.


I wouldn't hold your breath.

poet1b doesn't actually want to have an actual discussion.
They ignore questions and valid points.
Post the same thing over and over at the same time claim others are just repeating themselves.

They just want to rant and rant and don't care about the replies they get.

Looking at his replies to your posts and to mine it seems like he is very confused and just wants to argue.

Not that I agree or disagree with you, this thread is so huge I honestly don't know what position you are taking.
Just pointing out you might be trying to put out a fire using a bucket with a hole in it trying to get an actual reasoned debate from poet1b.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 



You can find examples in both religions of barbaric idiocy.


Baloney, google "muslim violence women" and you will get more pages than I am going to bother to identify, of honor killings, killing school girls for going to school, beating rape victims, marrying of pre-adolescent girls to old men, and on and on throughout all Muslim culture.

Google "Christian violence women" and you find nothing of the kind, possibly a few isolated incidences, unless it is Muslim treatment of Christian women.

Your posts indicate that you are either trying to be deceptive, or choose to be ignorant about the reality of how biased modern Islam is against Christianity.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


The economy of the nineties was the longest period of economic growth in our nations history, starting just after Clinton put his policies in place, raising taxes on the wealthy, and bringing back regulation of business. Hardly a sluggish economy.

A bubble isn't a natural business cycle, it is an inflated market usssually created by widespread business fraud and deception, usually as a result of de-regulation or poor regulation. The Dotcom boom began after the Republicans, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, managed to get a good deal of his de-regulation policies in place.

Those bubbles were the result of de-regulation, not over regulation, and if you had a clue what you are talking about, you wouldn't post such nonsense.

And REALLY, you don't think the DOJ and the rest of the regulatory agencies follow the policies of the admin under which they serve?


I don't know who pumped you full of this nonsense, but I suggest you stop listening to that ignorant nonsense.





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join