Who are you voting for?

[Ecomike]

in the USSR during Nixon, Ford, Carter, they had free elections?

Reagan did not agree to disagree with the Soviets. Reagan & Thatcher changed that nation and freed the nations under the old iron curtain. Dude, Reagan settled and compromised with no one.

Dude, I don't recall even mentioning the Soviets, or Cuba,.... what I said was communists, I never said WHICH communists. :roflmao: Try China. "Only Nixon could go to China!"

We have been getting cozzie with Communist China since Nixon's historic visit. I seem to recall Bush senior visiting China and getting real cozzy with them too. It was all about finding common ground, rather than fighing bloody wars over differences, with which to build a lasting peace.

I don't recall if Reagan went to mainland China, I was too busy at the time scrounging for scraps of food during the Reagan trickle down Era.

So don't preach to me about how tough the Republicans have been on communists.

I don't understand your free elections questions?

 

[The Hard Struggler]

I vote based on guns... because we can fix a nation with them if it comes to it...

Viva la revolution

My morals really are fawked up...

Ha! Guns are good, but money is better when it comes to revolution. 250 years ago, guns gave the common man the ability to fight tyranny, technology changed that, I can't afford tanks, planes, cruise missiles.

Imagine if every business, large and small, along with just half of individuals who pay taxes, suddenly said "Enough!" and didn't pay.

I'm no anarchist, but eventually people will start to buck and I think thats how it will start.

Back to the original post, I vote for nobody.

 

[Ecomike]

Ha! Guns are good, but money is better when it comes to revolution. 250 years ago, guns gave the common man the ability to fight tyranny, technology changed that, I can't afford tanks, planes, cruise missiles.

Imagine if every business, large and small, along with just half of individuals who pay taxes, suddenly said "Enough!" and didn't pay.

I'm no anarchist, but eventually people will start to buck and I think thats how it will start.

Back to the original post, I vote for nobody.

Most large corporations would not stop paying taxes, as it would cost them all those sweet government contracts they make so much money off of.

 

[JohnX]

So shall we pick the weapons of our choice, and step back ten paces?

:shiver:

If so, I pick words!atriot:

Words??? Come now, you won't complete a sentence in that battle before being shot in the head.

 

[Ecomike]

Words??? Come now, you won't complete a sentence in that battle before being shot in the head.

Then I would win anyway, being a martyr, and the shooter would loose the argument and his freedom and or life.

 

[Bent]

Then I would win anyway, being a martyr, and the shooter would loose the argument and his freedom and or life.

In that case I'm all for Oboma winning the election!
:conceited

 

[dbperformance96]

How can anyone vote for a man that will not put his hand on his heart and say the pledge of allegiance...... but yet he is gonna unite this nation? Good luck. IMHO he doesn't stand a chance.....

 

[The Hard Struggler]

Most large corporations would not stop paying taxes, as it would cost them all those sweet government contracts they make so much money off of.

"Most"? Thats a pretty large generalization. According to the G.S.A (the dept that handles most non military procurement) the government spends about 200 billion a year or aprox 3.0% of the GDP, and 25% of that 200 billion goes to small businesses, and another 10% to minority owned businesses.

The military budget was 626.1 billion in 2006 or 3.7% of the GDP.

So roughly only 7.0% of the GDP was spent by the government. "Most" of the 3200 corporations on the NYSE get a very small % of their profits from the government.

A very few do "most" of their business with the government , defense contractors, but still a small % of the GDP.

 

[JohnX]

Then I would win anyway, being a martyr, and the shooter would loose the argument and his freedom and or life.

Right. Just like you're winning everyone here over with your words. And you becoming a martyr....not likely. Shooter losing their freedom....still have to catch them.

My point was....You vs. ANYONE. You are armed with words alone....you'll lose.

 

[JohnJohn]

Dude, I don't recall even mentioning the Soviets, or Cuba,.... what I said was communists, I never said WHICH communists. :roflmao: Try China. "Only Nixon could go to China!"

We have been getting cozzie with Communist China since Nixon's historic visit. I seem to recall Bush senior visiting China and getting real cozzy with them too. It was all about finding common ground, rather than fighing bloody wars over differences, with which to build a lasting peace.

I don't recall if Reagan went to mainland China, I was too busy at the time scrounging for scraps of food during the Reagan trickle down Era.

So don't preach to me about how tough the Republicans have been on communists.

I don't understand your free elections questions?

Your right I was mixing threads. We were talking about the Cold War in another thread and my thoughts mixed to this one.

I do recall Gore on a Clinton/Gore fund raiser to China... Why are we talking about China again? :helpme:

 

[billyjp2]

I'm voting for Mccain but i live in Massachusetts so it wont even matter!!!

 

[Ecomike]

Right. Just like you're winning everyone here over with your words. And you becoming a martyr....not likely. Shooter losing their freedom....still have to catch them.

My point was....You vs. ANYONE. You are armed with words alone....you'll lose.

Sorry to disapoint you, but the three times I was facing the wrong end of gun (twice), or knife (once), by someone who inteneded to do me serious harm (or kill me), I came out unharmed, armed only with words.

 

[Deadman 94 xj]

Sorry to disapoint you, but the three times I was facing the wrong end of gun (twice), or knife (once), by someone who inteneded to do me serious harm (or kill me), I came out unharmed, armed only with words.

They only pumped you in the butt and took your money?

Give me a break. Next you'll say bad things don't happen to good people.


I guess the UN should have handled Iraq.

 

[Mudderoy]

Obama sucks....

McCain just sucks less.

 

[Ecomike]

Your right I was mixing threads. We were talking about the Cold War in another thread and my thoughts mixed to this one.

I do recall Gore on a Clinton/Gore fund raiser to China... Why are we talking about China again? :helpme:

Probably has something to with the connectivity of world history, geography, and the way they are interwoven and the way politics (which is interwoven with history and geography....oil politics) eventually drags them all into an inteligent discusion. Possibly because mainland China is still run by a communist repressive regime. Mainland China was a major Russian allie during the Cold war.

Doesn't anyone find it currious that we only risk bankrupting our country by spending 100s of billions of taxpayer dollars, running off and sending our troops to fight in places where known oil reserves are significant, while claiming we are there to protect Human rights of the local population and to free the local population from tyranny, yet we let other repressive regimes commit genocide in areas where there are no huge, known, accessable oil reserves?

And yes, Clinton was friendly with trade policies with mainland China.

 

[Deadman 94 xj]

Doesn't anyone find it currious that we only risk bankrupting our country by spending 100s of billions of taxpayer dollars, running off and sending our troops to fight in places where known oil reserves are significant, while claiming we are there to protect Human rights of the local population and to free the local population from tyranny, yet we let other repressive regimes commit genocide in areas where there are no huge, known, accessable oil reserves?

Yup, it's official. I hate you :laugh:

 

[Mudderoy]

Probably has something to with the connectivity of world history, geography, and the way they are interwoven and the way politics (which is interwoven with history and geography....oil politics) eventually drags them all into an inteligent discusion. Possibly because mainland China is still run by a communist repressive regime. Mainland China was a major Russian allie during the Cold war.

Doesn't anyone find it currious that we only risk bankrupting our country by spending 100s of billions of taxpayer dollars, running off and sending our troops to fight in places where known oil reserves are significant, while claiming we are there to protect Human rights of the local population and to free the local population from tyranny, yet we let other repressive regimes commit genocide in areas where there are no huge, known, accessable oil reserves?

And yes, Clinton was friendly with trade policies with mainland China.

We are in Iraq because dumbass Hussain wouldn't allow inspections.

Other good reasons to be in Iraq:

1. Iran - So they don't control the oil in the middle east
2. Iran - Being very close may make them play better with others.
3. Iran - A nice big FAT U.S. base next door to them.
4. Free people that have had a foot on their collective necks for what 80 years?
5. Fight the terrorist in the Middle East and not in America.

I think there are several good reasons for us to spend 100's of billions of dollars in Iraq. Surely you can see past the simple "we're fighting for oil" idea?

Clinton was willing to trade with anyone in a skirt, including a few Scotts I hear.

 

[JNickel101]

Yes you are right.


D: Keneddy - started Vietnam
R: Nixon - fought Vietnam
R: Ford - finish Vietnam
D: Carter - tried to fight Iran (crash and burn)
R: Reagan - fought cold War
R: Reagan - fought cold War
R: GHW Bush - fought 1st Iraq War
D: Clinton - pu$$y
D: Clinton - pu$$y - bombed Yugoslavia that was about it
R: GW Bush - fought Afgan War
R: GW Bush - fought Afgan & Iraq War

Wars cost money

Whats funny about this is that Clinton actually used the volunteer military more than any other president in US history, but at the same time cut the defense budget more than any other president in US history. Remember launching 100 cruise missiles into Afghanistan at the time of his impeachment? yeah....they cost between 1-2 million bucks each....

expensive distraction. didn't accomplish much.

 

[JNickel101]

Probably has something to with the connectivity of world history, geography, and the way they are interwoven and the way politics (which is interwoven with history and geography....oil politics) eventually drags them all into an inteligent discusion. Possibly because mainland China is still run by a communist repressive regime. Mainland China was a major Russian allie during the Cold war.

Doesn't anyone find it currious that we only risk bankrupting our country by spending 100s of billions of taxpayer dollars, running off and sending our troops to fight in places where known oil reserves are significant, while claiming we are there to protect Human rights of the local population and to free the local population from tyranny, yet we let other repressive regimes commit genocide in areas where there are no huge, known, accessable oil reserves?

And yes, Clinton was friendly with trade policies with mainland China.

If we are in Iraq b/c of oil (most of which is sour crude anyway, except for the Basra reserve, IIRC), then why is Iraq selling 38% of its oil to China and India? You'd think if we were there b/c of oil, we'd be getting all of it....

:banghead:

As much as you seem to love Clinton, I remember posting a quote from him in 2003 saying/agreeing with going into Iraq and removing Saddam from power. If you really want the reference, I can waste more time and find it for you.

I'm sure you also agree with Obama's "I never voted to send troops into Iraq" statement.

Sure, true....because he wasn't even a f-ing US Senator when we went into Iraq.

For the sake of the election, he should change his middle name to "inexperienced"....he wont stop running his mouth about a war that started when he wasn't even around!!!

 

[Ecomike]

"Most"? Thats a pretty large generalization. According to the G.S.A (the dept that handles most non military procurement) the government spends about 200 billion a year or aprox 3.0% of the GDP, and 25% of that 200 billion goes to small businesses, and another 10% to minority owned businesses.

The military budget was 626.1 billion in 2006 or 3.7% of the GDP.

So roughly only 7.0% of the GDP was spent by the government. "Most" of the 3200 corporations on the NYSE get a very small % of their profits from the government.

A very few do "most" of their business with the government , defense contractors, but still a small % of the GDP.

I think there are some serious problems with the numbers you posted above, and no links to your sources.

According to what you said, "roughly only 7.0% of the GDP was spent by the government" and "military budget was 626.1 billion in 2006 or 3.7% of the GDP" that means that 3.7/7.0 = 52.857% of the what the govenment spent was on the military budget. ????? But then you said earlier that "According to the G.S.A (the dept that handles most non military procurement) the government spends about 200 billion a year or aprox 3.0% of the GDP" and yet it spent "The military budget was 626.1 billion in 2006 or 3.7% of the GDP" according to your post.

I did some digging and found some links to some easy to follow data at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

But getting back to my original point, I probably was not clear enough earlier, if you look deep and close enough at the results of everyone stopping paying their taxes (the original point of my comment), huge amounts of money would stop flowing to major businesses whose customers get their cash from the government, not just direct government contracts to large companies, but social security and medicare, medicaid. Retired, social security dependent people would have no SS cash flow to spend or would cut back due to the lack of monthly checks, and much of what they spend affects the bottom line of major corparations (medical industry which is over 10% of GDP now IIRC). Government employees would be laid off, so they would stop spending money, another big hit. Banks and countires like Japan and China would no longer value the dollar, and they (Japan and China) hold the 2 largest quantities of US debt right now, so the dollar value would plummet, and gaslone would quickly rise to say $100/gallon and keep going as the dollar became worthless, all becuase tax payers stopped paying taxes and stopped the government from servicing it's debt.

The entire US (and eventually world wide banking system) would collapse. You would be broke and out of work in no time with prices doubling weekly.

No US coproration in its right mind would allow that. Probably has something to do with why US employeers are required to withhold taxes and pay them to the government for you.