The next four years

[Cidien]

Suffice to say, the republican party is full of self-fulfilling, self-centered jackasses only interested in money-making jackassery.

Yes, that's true too. I'd rather have greedy hard working people in my party than violent, radical and lazy ass people looking for hand outs from the government. Man does welfare need reform. Way too damn many people sitting on their asses getting paid for it. Almost the entire apartment complex next to my girlfriends house is full of people on welfare with no intention of getting a job.

Funny story (actually it's very very very sad) about the apartments over there. The police were in there for about an hour for a four-way fight thing. (still not exactly sure what happened) They came out and started spraying mosquito spray all over themselves. We were a little puzzled and said "What are you doing? We've been out here for 15 minutes and havn't even seen a mosquito yet." He replied "Ya, but they're damn thick in there!"

[Cidien]

The economy is NOT doing great. It's not improving and the country is in a veritable depression.

:p Go look at the facts bud. The economy IS rising and rising fast. Please show me where and how we are in a depression.

[kakomu]

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid...world_news

Talks about loses in Manufacturing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3959867.stm

Overall jobs down by 800,000, GDP down (see graphs),

http://www.economist.com/finance/display...id=3351231

Spend Thrift president + increasing defecit = bad times in economy.

Not to mention countless issues of Newsweek and the Economist talking of Bush's (or rather, America's, since Bush is RIch and it doesn't matter for him) woes and my Mom who is a Ph.D in Marketing research explaining to me the amount of recession and debt that America is garnering and the impact it has on us as a country.

[Japschin]

Economy is booming if currency is strong against other countries. As far as I know, US currency value is dropping, signifying poor economy..........
2 mths ago when I checked, it was
US$1: S$1.72,
US$1: CAD$1.31,
US$1: AUD$1.42
2 days ago when I checked, it was
US$1: S$1.64,
US$1: CAD$1.20
US$1: AUD$1.30

[kakomu]

Yes, that's true too. I'd rather have greedy hard working people in my party than violent, radical and lazy ass people looking for hand outs from the government. Man does welfare need reform. Way too damn many people sitting on their asses getting paid for it. Almost the entire apartment complex next to my girlfriends house is full of people on welfare with no intention of getting a job.

Liberalism is considered radical by people like you, since you guys are far too concerned with making money for yourself, shifting tax burden from yourself to people who actually work. I don't think republicans are hard working. They're 'old money', or the people that benefit from Bush's tax cuts, that is, the cuts that benefit people who live off of revenue from the market, bonds, stocks, shares, whatever. The debt is later shifted towards people like my mom and I who have to live off of income procured through work. My mom is an Market researcher for a large company and will not benefit at all from those taxes. As for your Broad generalizations, liberal economics is not about welfare for the poor, but being able to help those that need help, such as low income or unemplpyed people who can't find good or better jobs. The people that lost their jobs in that net loss of 800,000 people I mentioned earlier, would benefit from a democrat economic agenda more than Bush's tax cuts. Tax cuts don't mean much to people who have no job.

[multipak]

:p Go look at the facts bud. The economy IS rising and rising fast. Please show me where and how we are in a depression.

My reply in anything goes thread. This is so cool.

http://import-anime.com/forums/showthrea...#post69901

[Cidien]

Liberalism is considered radical by people like you, since you guys are far too concerned with making money for yourself, shifting tax burden from yourself to people who actually work. I don't think republicans are hard working. They're 'old money', or the people that benefit from Bush's tax cuts, that is, the cuts that benefit people who live off of revenue from the market, bonds, stocks, shares, whatever. The debt is later shifted towards people like my mom and I who have to live off of income procured through work. My mom is an Market researcher for a large company and will not benefit at all from those taxes. As for your Broad generalizations, liberal economics is not about welfare for the poor, but being able to help those that need help, such as low income or unemplpyed people who can't find good or better jobs. The people that lost their jobs in that net loss of 800,000 people I mentioned earlier, would benefit from a democrat economic agenda more than Bush's tax cuts. Tax cuts don't mean much to people who have no job.

Wow, what biased crap. It's actually a proven fact that almost all rich people worked for their money. Very few people inherit it. As for the rest... not even worth replying to. You have about as much idea of what a republican is as my college class democrats.

[kakomu]

Wow, what biased crap. It's actually a proven fact that almost all rich people worked for their money. Very few people inherit it. As for the rest... not even worth replying to. You have about as much idea of what a republican is as my college class democrats.

I wasn't talking inheritance, I'm talking stocks, the market, blue chips and liquidation. Any CEO out there doesn't work for their money, since most of it is in their portfolio. I get my view of republicans through conservative media, such as the Economist. Your idea of democrats, on the other hand, is tantamount to what a Devout mormon from Utah thinks when he sees a little belly button. Your political rhetoric is all slop since all it is is general and broad sweeping terms with no sense of fact. It's as if you base your idea of a whole ideology off of 4 people...and you only focus on their negative traits.

[Elcoholic]

Probably in about 3-3 1/2 years, but ONLY if Iraq is mostly under control. We need to deal with Korea, and there are a few other middle easter countries and african countries that could use our help as well. Especially the african countries.... but that's not gonna happen for a while reguardless of who's president.

Cool but doesn't this worry you? Invading North korea is something the Chinese won't even consider. Take aside their atomic weapons (which would be directed at South korea or Japan or other western oriented countries) they also have a huge military power. I heard they spend about 25% of the national income on the military and have been doing so for decades. They have an army of milions of people. Ofcourse it also has a population that is one of the most opressed in the world and fully deserve the right for democracy, I still believe this can't be accomplished by military force or it would cost hundreds of thousands of lives. I don't think the oposotion in the world would be as large as it was with Iraq but you certainly would not be able to find coutries to help you attack SK so you would have to again do it on your own.

Then again, we are talking about Bush.

[-spike-]

You guys have to got to watch this, the best part is about the new voteing system.
http://newgrounds.com/portal/view/200762

Watch these also, great stuff. Found it today.
http://www.boomchicago.nl/Section/Videos

[Zagatto]

My reply in anything goes thread. This is so cool.

http://import-anime.com/forums/showthrea...#post69901

multipak gets a three day ban for this.
I thought did my best to be painfully clear that I didn't want ANY use of that thread OUTSIDE OF THAT THREAD.

[Homeless Joe]

Wow, what biased crap. It's actually a proven fact that almost all rich people worked for their money. Very few people inherit it. As for the rest... not even worth replying to. You have about as much idea of what a republican is as my college class democrats.

and the stuff your saying isn't biased? even if they did work for their money they should help peopel that are less fortunate then they are. if not for kindness, then because, correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't giving the middle class or lower class more money allow them to spend more money at the places that the rice people own?

[Cidien]

I wasn't talking inheritance, I'm talking stocks, the market, blue chips and liquidation. Any CEO out there doesn't work for their money, since most of it is in their portfolio. I get my view of republicans through conservative media, such as the Economist. Your idea of democrats, on the other hand, is tantamount to what a Devout mormon from Utah thinks when he sees a little belly button. Your political rhetoric is all slop since all it is is general and broad sweeping terms with no sense of fact. It's as if you base your idea of a whole ideology off of 4 people...and you only focus on their negative traits.

Once again.. you have absolutely no idea what a CEO does. My dad is a CEO and he works harder than just about anyone at his company.

And note: I don't say all democrats - you are making yourself look like a fool by saying crap like "Any CEO out there doesn't work for their money". You know what? They worked damn hard to become a CEO. You know what? 99% of them still probably work damn hard. The one's that don't own enough of the company to sit on their ass as the money rolls in, assuming the people s/he put in charge runs the company well. Ya know what? They probably earned the right to do that too. They made good decisions and now they can relax because of it. Ya know what else? There aren't very many republicans like that. Whether you want to accept it or not most republicans are poor. Want proof? Go look at how many people voted for Bush. Unless of course you think over half the country are rich fat republicans.

[Cidien]

Cool but doesn't this worry you? Invading North korea is something the Chinese won't even consider. Take aside their atomic weapons (which would be directed at South korea or Japan or other western oriented countries) they also have a huge military power. I heard they spend about 25% of the national income on the military and have been doing so for decades. They have an army of milions of people. Ofcourse it also has a population that is one of the most opressed in the world and fully deserve the right for democracy, I still believe this can't be accomplished by military force or it would cost hundreds of thousands of lives. I don't think the oposotion in the world would be as large as it was with Iraq but you certainly would not be able to find coutries to help you attack SK so you would have to again do it on your own.

Then again, we are talking about Bush.

What worries me is what we are going to do with their nukes. I really have no idea how you handle a country like this. What I do know is we need to do something to deal with them soon. I don't know if you can handle a country like North Korea with a simple invasion like Iraq. At this point, i'm not sure i'd support an invasion either. I just hope we will be able to resolve this through diplomatic means....

[Cidien]

and the stuff your saying isn't biased? even if they did work for their money they should help peopel that are less fortunate then they are. if not for kindness, then because, correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't giving the middle class or lower class more money allow them to spend more money at the places that the rice people own?

Excuse me, but I don't know a single "rich" person that doesn't donate thousands to charities. Once again, people have a huge misconception of "rich" people. Now if you're talking about tax cuts and such, that bugs the crap outta me. Where i'm heading right now i'll become a middle class person my entire life. Now, were I making a couple hundred thousand a year and I got the same amount in my tax cut as mr joe schmoe working at burger king, i'd be pretty damn pissed. Mr joe schmoe doesn't hardly pay a damn penny in taxes compaired to the guy making $200000.