liberal puppets?

Originally posted by loserib
i just t end to think conservitives could run the country better and i was not rying to start an argument

Let's examine this, shall we? It's no coincidence that the most fruitful times in American History have happened under a Democratic presidency. In fact, the only Republican I can think of who actually did ANYTHING fruitful was Abraham Lincoln, but he was a different kind of Republican. Here's the facts:

Every day Bush has been in office, 3,409 private sector jobs went down the drain.
Every day, 5,114 more people started working part-time, because they couldn't find a full-time job.

The last president to lose jobs over the course of his term in office was Herbert Hoover, but that was during the time of the Great Depression. Most people consider him to be the worst President in American History, but I think that's an insult to his name. At least he TRIED to put a chicken into every pot.

Republicans are endlessly saying that if we do this or that, we'll "Hurt the economy." You'd think we'd be able to trust them. After all, if there's one thing they know about, it's hurting the economy. Let's take a look at the last 14 Presidents--8 Republicans and 6 Democrats--and examine their annual rate of job growth/loss. These are all Presidents since Coolidge:

Roosevelt (1933-45) (D) +5.3
Johnson (1963-69) (D) +3.8
Carter (1977-81) (D) +3.1
Truman (1945-53) (D) +2.5
Clinton (1993-2001) (D) +2.4
Kennedy (1961-63) (D) +2.3
Nixon (1969-74) (R) +2.2
Reagan (1981-89) (R) +2.1
Coolidge (1923-29) (R) +1.1
Ford (1974-77) (R) +1.1
Eisenhower (1953-61) (R) +0.9
G. Bush (1989-93) (R) +0.6
G.W. Bush (2001-present) (R) -0.7
Hoover (1929-33) (R) -9.0

Notice anything? Every single Democrat has a better record than Any single Republican. In fact, with the exception of "Great Depression" Hoover, the Bush boys are the worst Presidents when it comes to jobs. Even more amazing is that when you combine both of them, they haven't created a single American job. Republicans can lie all they want, spin all they want, hire all the Karl Roves they want, but they cannot dispute the facts. FDR gave us the amazing New Deal, Truman the Fair Deal. Kennedy gave us the Peace Corps, Medicare, Medicaid, and expansive Social Security. LBJ gave us the much-needed civil-rights legislation. What has Dubya done for us? Actually, how much good have any Republicans done for us?

My entire family is right-wing Christian, but I'm not. Because I have a conscience. I refuse to be just another sheep. When I ask most youth today, it is my understanding that most are "Republican". Then again, I live in Texas. My problem with this is that when I ask "why?" They have no answer, or because their parents are. What kind of nation are we living in when our youth cannot think for itself? It's sickening.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You are so right. Oh, and soo smart and insightful. How do you manage to totally sum up everyones feelings in one or two words? It's so cool.

Its a gift.

Funny how all this liberal media is owned by conservative corporations. Who would have figured?

In the thread:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/...eral+media+bias

Plenty of people have thrown facts out and discussed the myth of the liberal media, instead of drudging it up, people can read about it there.

They need to reenact the fairness act

They need to reenact the fairness act

You said that already, what was the point of posting it again?

Originally posted by Jeff_Atello
Let's examine this, shall we? It's no coincidence that the most fruitful times in American History have happened under a Democratic presidency. In fact, the only Republican I can think of who actually did ANYTHING fruitful was Abraham Lincoln, but he was a different kind of Republican. Here's the facts:

[B]Every day Bush has been in office, 3,409 private sector jobs went down the drain.
Every day, 5,114 more people started working part-time, because they couldn't find a full-time job.

The last president to lose jobs over the course of his term in office was Herbert Hoover, but that was during the time of the Great Depression. Most people consider him to be the worst President in American History, but I think that's an insult to his name. At least he TRIED to put a chicken into every pot.

Republicans are endlessly saying that if we do this or that, we'll "Hurt the economy." You'd think we'd be able to trust them. After all, if there's one thing they know about, it's hurting the economy. Let's take a look at the last 14 Presidents--8 Republicans and 6 Democrats--and examine their annual rate of job growth/loss. These are all Presidents since Coolidge:

Roosevelt (1933-45) (D) +5.3
Johnson (1963-69) (D) +3.8
Carter (1977-81) (D) +3.1
Truman (1945-53) (D) +2.5
Clinton (1993-2001) (D) +2.4
Kennedy (1961-63) (D) +2.3
Nixon (1969-74) (R) +2.2
Reagan (1981-89) (R) +2.1
Coolidge (1923-29) (R) +1.1
Ford (1974-77) (R) +1.1
Eisenhower (1953-61) (R) +0.9
G. Bush (1989-93) (R) +0.6
G.W. Bush (2001-present) (R) -0.7
Hoover (1929-33) (R) -9.0

Notice anything? Every single Democrat has a better record than Any single Republican. In fact, with the exception of "Great Depression" Hoover, the Bush boys are the worst Presidents when it comes to jobs. Even more amazing is that when you combine both of them, they haven't created a single American job. Republicans can lie all they want, spin all they want, hire all the Karl Roves they want, but they cannot dispute the facts. FDR gave us the amazing New Deal, Truman the Fair Deal. Kennedy gave us the Peace Corps, Medicare, Medicaid, and expansive Social Security. LBJ gave us the much-needed civil-rights legislation. What has Dubya done for us? Actually, how much good have any Republicans done for us?

My entire family is right-wing Christian, but I'm not. Because I have a conscience. I refuse to be just another sheep. When I ask most youth today, it is my understanding that most are "Republican". Then again, I live in Texas. My problem with this is that when I ask "why?" They have no answer, or because their parents are. What kind of nation are we living in when our youth cannot think for itself? It's sickening. [/B]

Stop being such a whiner; Kerry used a lot of this in his campaign, look what happened.
Instead of whining, you peoples should try winning at the ballot box instead of in the court room.
I think the most fruitful times happened around the reagan presidency.
This social security you are talking about; isn't that the one that needs reform? I think Clinton said"fix social security first." Shows how much that helped.

I'm starting to agree with George Washington original thinking on his disagreement with political parties. I am thinking that they do more harm than good in today's world.

I am thinking that Delay should be thrown out of Congress and the media should report that Attorney General Gonzales has stalled the investigation into the Valerie Plame leak.

Originally posted by moviejunkie23
You know I was noticing allot of people in their teens and in their early adult years sound like mouth pieces for extreme liberal ideas. I am 23 myself and my age group counts as well in this. It just seems to me like i have this impression they are regurgitating these ideas and maybe not thinking about it. I am not persay against being a liberal, but i have just noticed allot of people, in this age group especially, that just seem like liberal clones that have been given a certain point of view and they just pick it up and run with it.
It almost reminds me if someone watched Micheal Moore movies and memorized them all and then read allot of liberal books without putting their thinking caps on and then just turned around and started spewing the information they just obtained at anybody that crosses them.
Now of course their are people on the right wing that do the same. Anyone that says "Liberals are unpatriotic and hate america, and the right are for smaller government!"
Thats a stupid statement as well and is made by plenty of right wingers, but i guess what i am saying especially on these threads i have noticed allot of liberal views that take the extreme stance on something with a very closed mind and allot of them seem very bitter and hatefull, allot of times directed at christians in particular.
Anyway Discuss

I think you sort of answered your own question there moviejunkie23,
most young people, atleast here in America and probably in Europe
as well, tend to be liberal (I guess), and most people on this sire
are young, therefore it isn't surprising that most members here will
be on the Left.

Besides, I don't think this site woyuld have been as fun if it was made
up of Freepers.

Anyway, political point of views have rarely caused much trouble
here from what I've seen

Originally posted by loserib
i watch the news every day most of the day it pisses everyone i know off. most of the reports all seem to be very anti-conservitve to me even when he won they were all scrachtng there heads wondring how.
and i dont see how movies telivison and music is irelivent since most people tend to watch and belive what there favorite actor or pop star belives.
what i saying about music is all from personal experince. i have been told these things from promoters and other bands some of them wont even book us becuese of the way i feel.also every politcal group has fanatics .

Music is music. Except for a few cases, like Dylan or Rage Against the
Machine, it rarely has a political agenda. It is true that music, like
movies, often portray a life-style that isn't very conservative, with
sex and everything, but this has less to do with "liberal values" and
more with money: sex sells.

Besides, that talentless annoying Kid Rock is conservative, isn't he?

As for the news. I agree it is often more sympathetic to certain
social beliefs that can be calles "liberal", like abortion or Affirmative
Action, but in foreign pilicy and in politics, it is firmly conservative.

It supported this war. it supported the Vietnam War until it became
apparent that it was unwinnable (that famour Walter Cronkite
moment was actually, from what I've read, a rare moment and not
the usual portrayal of that war), and they supported Reagan's
bulls*** arms build-up, not to mention his utterly humiliating and
criminal invasion of Grenada (same with Bush Sr.'s Panama operation,
and his Gulf War I).

Look at the hassel they gave Clinton over the Lewinsky Scandal,
and compare it to what this President. Hell, even Rather's report
scandal got more attention than the remaining questions about Bush
Jr.'s attendance records.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yeah...I watched five minutes of MSNBC. I left the room afterwards. Anyone who says there isn't liberal bias is full of it.

You mean the same MSNBC that fired Phil Donahu because he was
against the war? The same one that dropopd "Buchanan & Press"
because Buchanan, despite being a stronge conservative, was an
out-spoken and eloquent opponent of not just the Iraq War, but of
America's whole provocative foreign policy and of this b.s. "War on
Terror"?

The fact of the matter is that young people are still thinking for themselves, on top of rebelling against the estabishmant. There is no right or wrong as far as they're concerned. If you've been tought to think a certain way, then; once your ready to get laid, there's a discrepancy.

What it´s interesting is that you almost can predict the extremist opinions (like in another thread about drugs) but what I enjoy is mixed responses like : I like PETA but I listen to JLO (sorry I couldn´t stop this) 😆 😛

Originally posted by KidRock
Its a gift.

I hope you kept the reciept.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I hope you kept the reciept.

😂

Originally posted by Echuu
Stop being such a whiner; Kerry used a lot of this in his campaign, look what happened.
Instead of whining, you peoples should try winning at the ballot box instead of in the court room.
I think the most fruitful times happened around the reagan presidency.
This social security you are talking about; isn't that the one that needs reform? I think Clinton said"fix social security first." Shows how much that helped.

I'm starting to agree with George Washington original thinking on his disagreement with political parties. I am thinking that they do more harm than good in today's world.

I'm not whining, I'm stating the facts. Reagan didn't do anything productive. You honestly think his "Reagonomics" could have gotten us out of the depression? And his "foreign policy" could have dealt with the Cuban Missle Crisis? I think not. Anyway, Social Security is not a crisis. Anything that Bush disagrees with is a "crisis," apparently. As time goes on, there are going to be things that were unforseeable that need to be addressed. All it would take to fix Social Security is to raise it from 2.2% to 3%. That's it. A mere 80 cents. There are a number of other options out there, but this is probably the easiest one. But leave it to the Bush administration to make things as hard as possible.

The Democratic Party has not been very bright as of late. Kerry sure as hell wasn't their best choice for a candidate, but it's too late to do anything about that now. Besides, they cannot compete with the amount of money that the Bushies have. So they need a strong candidate, someone like Hillary Clinton, who can actually take on the bastards and make things better. I don't care how you feel about Hillary Clinton, she is very smart and has the drive to accomplish anything she wants.

There will always be political parties. We couldn't switch to a one-party system because then we'd be in a dictatorship, so to speak. There will always be disagrements that will lead to seperation by opinion. There is not getting out of that. I think political parties are bullshit as well, but they're here to stay. If it were possible to unite them, that'd be great. But it will never be.

You know, this COULD be a productive thread where we would be able to discuss the youth's psyche and the ability one has to mold youth into whatever we please, similar to what Watson said.

Instead, we have accomplished something scarcely above the level of what one sees at the Fires of Heaven forums.

(If you knew what I just said, you would all hang your heads in shame.)

Yeah, Liberals f*ck up the economy all right. Note that graph. It's directly from the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, MY FRIEND.

Furthermore, read this: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04485sp.pdf

It's a smidgen over 1MB in size, and it's a publication by the General Accounting Office of the US. Specifically, read pages 18-19, where it's got some very nice graphs along with an explanation of the ups and downs of the graphs themselves. Oh screw it, the GAO is so liberal, you don't even want to read no stinkin' federal publication, right? So here's a copy-and-paste quote. Emphasis (bolding) mine.

Recent increases in the debt held by the public broke with
historical patterns by climbing significantly during a period
marked by the absence of either a major war or depression.
Beginning in the late 1970s, rising federal budget deficits fueled
a corresponding increase in debt held by the public, which
essentially doubled as a share of GDP over a 15-year period
through the mid-1990s and reached about 50 percent of GDP in
1993. The budget controls instituted in the 1990s successfully
restrained fiscal action by the Congress and the President
and—together with economic growth—contributed to the
budget surpluses that materialized by the end of the decade.
These surpluses led to a decline in the debt held by the public,
and from fiscal years 1998 through 2001, the debt-to-GDP
measure declined from about 43 percent to about 33 percent.
Tax cuts, increased spending (including spending for increased
homeland security and defense commitments), weak economic
growth, and lower-than-expected capital gains receipts have
led to a return to annual deficits and a rise in the debt-to-GDP
measure. In addition, the budget controls that once helped to
lower deficits have expired, and no agreement has yet been
reached on a successor regime. The sharp reversal in the
government’s fiscal position is reflected in the debt numbers.
From the end of fiscal years 2001 through 2003, debt held by
the public rose by about $594 billion from $3.3 trillion to
$3.9 trillion. As a share of GDP, debt held by the public at the
end of fiscal year 2003 was about 36 percent of GDP, still lower
than about 49 percent of GDP reached in the mid-1990s.
Figure 6 shows debt held by the public and debt held by
government accounts as a share of GDP from 1960 through
2003.

Waitaminit.... so the GAO is saying that *gasp* Reagan (1981-1989) and George H.W. Bush (1989-1993) ran huge deficits and ran up massive debts through both of their administrations? But Oh, there's more! Is it saying, further, that it took a damn dirty Liberal like Clinton to bring spending under control, stimulate the economy, and shrink the debt-as-%-of-GDP ratio?

Looks like your bullshit-o-meter is broken, you're having trouble calling BS when you see it on TV. I'll give you mine, I have no trouble being able to smell it from miles away, and hence, read Google news and use my TV for gaming and movies.

Note: Down at the end of that GAO publication is a one-page section titled "Appendix III: Scope and Methodology." where they note that they did their work on the document between August '03 and June '04. I'd imagine any bias pushed by the Executive branch would abviously attempt to put it in a favorable light, would it not?

...But it's ok. I'll let you sit there and blame Clinton. Because, you know, he was so soft on terror, we got attacked by al-Qaeda all the damn time, if, by "all the damn time", I mean "once back in 1993."

...and we caught Ramzi Yousef.

Liberals are such piss-poor 'war presidents' that we got all those US soldiers killed in Kosovo and Bosnia. That is, if, by "all those US soldiers," I mean zero.

We (Allies) won in World War II, while under the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (OMG, LIBERAL!!) and for the tail end of it, Harry S. Truman (OMG ANOTHER LIBERAL!!)

We invaded Korea and fought the North all the way back up to the 38th Parallel under Truman.

We were slapping the NVA and VC around in Vietnam until Nixon instituted his "Vietnamization" plan in 1969 and immediately pulled 25,000 troops out, with another 60,000 withdrawing the following year. 4 years later, in 1973, the last US troops left Vietnam. The next year, North Vietnamese forces invaded the South. Saigon was taken and Vietnam was 'united' as a single Communist state by 1976. Three cheers for not even doing a good job at "Vietnamizing" Vietnam. (the strategy in Iraq is very similar. We trained indigenous (South Vietnamese in Vietnam, Iraqi in Iraq) forces to fight for themselves, and then pulled out. 🙄 Let's hear it for learning from the past!)

And, in closing, Watergate.

That graph seems to have disappeared from my post....

So here it is:

Something tells me Dubbaya isn't handling the budget too well.

-AC

I like this powerpoint: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/BudgetChartBook.ppt

From The Heritage Foundation, a.k.a. Right-wing think tank. They admit this often swept-under-the-rug fact: "Federal revenue per household under President George W. Bush is significantly higher than under any Presidency but for Bill Clinton’s." (I was viewing it as HTML, so I can't see what page it's on. It was referenced to "Chart R-4. Average Federal Revenue per Household, by Administration." So, maybe you'll see a graph or a chart showing this in a easy to read graphical format.

Originally posted by BullitNutz
That graph seems to have disappeared from my post....

So here it is:

I remember in my econ class last year seeing that chart.