Russia invades Georgia

[dogfaceman]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2723834
That's what Hitler was saying as he tossed humans into ovens and gas chambers. This is for your own good.
that was a genocide and i don't support that in any way, but for instance in Iraq Sudam Hussein was protecting Iraqis now the Sunnis and Shiites are going to fight over the region causing horrible deaths. The Russian Federation is slaughtering people, we cant just act on a guess.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2723829
actually i know our economy sucks, and you know it too. and china is the most powerful country in the world, russia is high up on the list too.
lol, dude, I'm sorry, but check out our economic stats against any country in the world. They'll be very highly ranked. Minus some really small countries sustained by one industry (Ireland, Dubai Ect) our #'s will be better than basically everyone else.
Most european countries would KILL to have our inflation and unemployment rates...

 

[dogfaceman]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2723847
lol, dude, I'm sorry, but check out our economic stats against any country in the world. They'll be very highly ranked. Minus some really small countries sustained by one industry (Ireland, Dubai Ect) our #'s will be better than basically everyone else.
Most european countries would KILL to have our inflation and unemployment rates...
and our debts right, ever heard of 9 trillion dollar debt to china?

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2723841
that was a genocide and i don't support that in any way, but for instance in Iraq Sudam Hussein was protecting Iraqis now the Sunnis and Shiites are going to fight over the region causing horrible deaths. The Russian Federation is slaughtering people, we cant just act on a guess.
The Kurds living in northern Iraq prolly don't hold the same view of their tyrant as you do. They watched their family members die as a result of being gassed and their bodies dumped into mass graves. If that's how you like your government, you can have it. I personally think it's wrong and am glad Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to mankind.
Choose a different dictatorship and I'll point out their atrocities.

 

[dogfaceman]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2723862
The Kurds living in northern Iraq prolly don't hold the same view of their tyrant as you do. They watched their family members die as a result of being gassed and their bodies dumped into mass graves. If that's how you like your government, you can have it. I personally think it's wrong and am glad Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to mankind.
Choose a different dictatorship and I'll point out their atrocities.
ceaser

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2723868
caesar
Which one?
ps...fixed your typo

 

[dogfaceman]

julius

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2723887
julius
That one is easy...
As many as 1 million people (probably 1 in 4 of the Gauls) died, another million were enslaved, 300 tribes were subjugated and 800 cities were destroyed during the Gallic Wars (present-day France). The entire population of city of Avaricum (Bourges) (40,000 in all) was slaughtered. Julius Caesar The Conquest of Gaul During Julius Caesar's campaign against the Helvetii (modern-day Switzerland) approximately 60% of the tribe was destroyed, and another 20% was taken into slavery. Helvetti

 

[socal57che]

Caesra Nero, now that guy was brutal.
"In 64 A.D. the Roman Emperor Caesar Nero attempted to systematically exterminate all people who professed faith in the newfound Christian religion. Many factors played a major part in promoting this Empire wide genocide. First, a great fire broke out that destroyed the city of Rome. The cause of this fire is unknown, however for the Romans it was easy to blame the Christians, whom the Romans considered to be complete and utter reprobates. The second major factor was Nero himself. Nero was insane. The Emperor of Rome took pleasure in other people's pain; he delighted in the idea of wiping the Christians from the face of the Earth."
These were his "citizens" which should have been protected. They were burned alive, fed to lions, had thier limbs ripped off, etc. all while a coliseum full of people watched and cheered.
Dictatorships are one man's ego trip.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2723856
and our debts right, ever heard of 9 trillion dollar debt to china?
What does that have to do with our "bad economy?" That is an issue, but has very little to do with our current economic data. We had trillions in national debt during the "roaring clinton years."
I'm not going to debate whether debt is bad, personally I think you should spend only what you have.
Think of it this way, a guy owns a house. They have morgage (spelling is wrong I know) the morgage is probably 3 times what my dad makes in a year. But he pays his bills on time, and has some left over for the crap he wants to spend his money on. Does this mean his finances are bad because he owes a ton of money on his house?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2723893
That one is easy...
As many as 1 million people (probably 1 in 4 of the Gauls) died, another million were enslaved, 300 tribes were subjugated and 800 cities were destroyed during the Gallic Wars (present-day France). The entire population of city of Avaricum (Bourges) (40,000 in all) was slaughtered. Julius Caesar The Conquest of Gaul During Julius Caesar's campaign against the Helvetii (modern-day Switzerland) approximately 60% of the tribe was destroyed, and another 20% was taken into slavery. Helvetti

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2723912
Caesra Nero, now that guy was brutal.
"In 64 A.D. the Roman Emperor Caesar Nero attempted to systematically exterminate all people who professed faith in the newfound Christian religion. Many factors played a major part in promoting this Empire wide genocide. First, a great fire broke out that destroyed the city of Rome. The cause of this fire is unknown, however for the Romans it was easy to blame the Christians, whom the Romans considered to be complete and utter reprobates. The second major factor was Nero himself. Nero was insane. The Emperor of Rome took pleasure in other people's pain; he delighted in the idea of wiping the Christians from the face of the Earth."
These were his "citizens" which should have been protected. They were burned alive, fed to lions, had thier limbs ripped off, etc. all while a coliseum full of people watched and cheered.
Dictatorships are one man's ego trip.

history man

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2723920

history man

I do love history, but realizing that ALL dictatorships are evil, I knew that any dictator I googled would turn up atrocities against the citizens of that state. Nero came to mind because of my research into Biblical history.

 

[dogfaceman]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2723847
lol, dude, I'm sorry, but check out our economic stats against any country in the world. They'll be very highly ranked. Minus some really small countries sustained by one industry (Ireland, Dubai Ect) our #'s will be better than basically everyone else.
Most european countries would KILL to have our inflation and unemployment rates...
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
check this chart(use the link above, this paragraph is not about the chart below) out you may need to upload the chart, you can see how IMO the 2nd worst president ever Reagan had large amounts of debt increasing greatly over the years, then bush #1 comes in and makes it even worse, than as you see Clinton comes in and makes large improvements nearly balancing out the horrid debt slope that Reagan and bush#1 teamed up on, then guess what happens next bush 2 comes in and increases the debt by an alarming rate of increasing our national debt $500,000,000,000 per year and that rate is increasing, so don't say Clinton wasn't a good debt manager,

and yeah i bet countries would kill for these inflation rates

next time do some research
our country is in a recession deal with it

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2724076
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
check this chart(use the link above, this paragraph is not about the chart below) out you may need to upload the chart, you can see how IMO the 2nd worst president ever Reagan had large amounts of debt increasing greatly over the years, then bush #1 comes in and makes it even worse, than as you see Clinton comes in and makes large improvements nearly balancing out the horrid debt slope that Reagan and bush#1 teamed up on, then guess what happens next bush 2 comes in and increases the debt by an alarming rate of $500,000,000,000 per year and that rate is increasing, so don't say Clinton wasn't a good debt manager,

and yeah i bet countries would kill for these inflation rates

next time do some research
our country is in a recession deal with it
Awesome!
I love it!
First off, a smart person needs to know what he doesn't know...
You don't know anything about economics.
If your proof of a "recession" is the value of the us dollar (which I would argue isn't bad for everyone) and national debt. Then you really have no idea what a recession is.
Let me start you off with a little definition. A recession is two consecutive quarters with NO GROWTH. Find me two quarters of retraction in real gross domestic product. Tell you what I'll do your "research for you." About 3 weeks ago the BLS (do you know what that is?)
1st QTR 07 - .6%
2nd QTR 07 - 3.8%
3rd QTR 07 - 4.9%
4th QTR 07 - .6%
1st QTR 08 - 1%
2nd QTR 08 - 1.9% (prelim)
So I fail to see how we are in a recession. In fact last year we had about 2.5% growth, which is what the fed would consider sustainable growth. In fact we have not had a year of retraction since Bush has been in office!
It is like being in a swimming pull that is filling up, but the pump doesn't work well and varies how fast the water flows. And even though no water has escaped you are whining because the pool isn't filling up as fast, then saying the pool is losing water, even though every year we as a whole in america make more money than we did the year before...
Now lets get to the topic of the value of the dollar. The value of the dollar helps some people and hurts others. For instance Manufacturing has been experiencing serious growth b/c of the lower selling price overseas of American goods. It also makes investment in domestic firms more attractive aiding domestic growth. There are downsides, overseas products get more expensive. However in our case China has their currency pegged to the USD (did you know that?) so a lot of our products we've purchased haven't been affected by price. But it is a mixed bag, it helps some and hurts others.
I'll be the first to say that Bush has spent entirely too much money. You don't spend what you don't have, I'd be more than happy to attribute the decline in our yearly deficit to clinton, and ignore a republican congress shutting down the federal govt a couple times, if you're willing to attribute the doubling of gas prices to the democratically controlled congress for the past two years...
However I'll take his debt if it means it sank the Soviet Union. Which is what Reagan spend his money on...

 

[dogfaceman]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2724116
Awesome!
I love it!
First off, a smart person needs to know what he doesn't know...
You don't know anything about economics.
If your proof of a "recession" is the value of the us dollar (which I would argue isn't bad for everyone) and national debt. Then you really have no idea what a recession is.
Let me start you off with a little definition. A recession is two consecutive quarters with NO GROWTH. Find me two quarters of retraction in real gross domestic product. Tell you what I'll do your "research for you." About 3 weeks ago the BLS (do you know what that is?)
1st QTR 07 - .6%
2nd QTR 07 - 3.8%
3rd QTR 07 - 4.9%
4th QTR 07 - .6%
1st QTR 08 - 1%
2nd QTR 08 - 1.9% (prelim)
So I fail to see how we are in a recession. In fact last year we had about 2.5% growth, which is what the fed would consider sustainable growth. In fact we have not had a year of retraction since Bush has been in office!
It is like being in a swimming pull that is filling up, but the pump doesn't work well and varies how fast the water flows. And even though no water has escaped you are whining because the pool isn't filling up as fast, then saying the pool is losing water, even though every year we as a whole in america make more money than we did the year before...
Now lets get to the topic of the value of the dollar. The value of the dollar helps some people and hurts others. For instance Manufacturing has been experiencing serious growth b/c of the lower selling price overseas of American goods. It also makes investment in domestic firms more attractive aiding domestic growth. There are downsides, overseas products get more expensive. However in our case China has their currency pegged to the USD (did you know that?) so a lot of our products we've purchased haven't been affected by price. But it is a mixed bag, it helps some and hurts others.
I'll be the first to say that Bush has spent entirely too much money. You don't spend what you don't have, I'd be more than happy to attribute the decline in our yearly deficit to clinton, and ignore a republican congress shutting down the federal govt a couple times, if you're willing to attribute the doubling of gas prices to the democratically controlled congress for the past two years...
However I'll take his debt if it means it sank the Soviet Union. Which is what Reagan spend his money on...
i was just saying we are in a recession( really its an opinion because people are always going to argue over whether we are in it or not) and i was just showing how the value of the USD has dropped which does affect our economy, and as for Reagan he did use money to stop the soviets, but i think he used too much, also i thought he wasn't very Eco-friendly, but the thing that got me was that he was very sneaky, i mean iran-gate and giving weapons to Afghanistan( i know it was to help destroy the soviets but it lead to bad stuff like the talabins how osama binladin got his power) i just dont think he was that great

 

[texasmetal]

Reagan for the most part rocked. He accomplished some really great things. Who cares if it's how you would do it? You're not a politician. You don't fully understand what it takes to make things happen on an international level, just like I don't. It's like running a business. Doing what you want because it's what your heart tells you to do isn't necessarily what's best for the objective. The means to the end.
Sure Reagan did some stuff that I'm not fond of, like releasing a lot of mentally handicapped people from institutions into the streets... that sucked. The whole Oliver North scandal was bad business, but it was done with good intent. It's not our fault we helped someone out and they turned their backs on us.
And something else....
Eco-friendly? You mean like these new compact fluorescent bulbs we are being told are so good? The ones that are full of MERCURY? Sure they save a lot of electricity, that's good for the eco system right? How about in a few years when landfills are full of them and they're being busted and releasing all the mercury into our water systems and Earth? This whole "green, eco-friendly" trend is a load of dog crap my friend. And Al Gore is getting rich on it, laughing hysterically at us all the while.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2724127
i was just saying we are in a recession( really its an opinion because people are always going to argue over whether we are in it or not) and i was just showing how the value of the USD has dropped which does affect our economy, and as for Reagan he did use money to stop the soviets, but i think he used too much, also i thought he wasn't very Eco-friendly, but the thing that got me was that he was very sneaky, i mean iran-gate and giving weapons to Afghanistan( i know it was to help destroy the soviets but it lead to bad stuff like the talabins how osama binladin got his power) i just dont think he was that great
A recession isn't an opinion but an interpretation of data. The USD does effect the economy, but not necessarily in a bad way or a good way. It depends on the distribution of capital and labor.
And simply put as a whole, we are still producing and consuming more goods and services than ever.
I'm not going to get really deep into reagan era politics because I'm not as familiar with them. But I'd go as far as to say on par with defeating the soviets, is how he abandoned the keynesian economic model for the Freedman model. That change basically allowed the growth we have seen for the last 26 years.

 

[el guapo]

Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2724127
i was just saying we are in a recession( really its an opinion because people are always going to argue over whether we are in it or not) and i was just showing how the value of the USD has dropped which does affect our economy, and as for Reagan he did use money to stop the soviets, but i think he used too much, also i thought he wasn't very Eco-friendly, but the thing that got me was that he was very sneaky, i mean iran-gate and giving weapons to Afghanistan( i know it was to help destroy the soviets but it lead to bad stuff like the talabins how osama binladin got his power) i just dont think he was that great

Just a little FYI its not talabins . It's Taliban and that is plural . It is also not binladin it's Bin Laden . Osama was already fighting the soviet troops before the US goverment started to supply the afganistan rebels with arms. Osama Bin Laden was/is a man with man conections . He was a leader then just as he is now .

 

[texasmetal]

Has it ever been determined a fact or not that he was a CIA informant? Just asking.

 

[dogfaceman]

Originally Posted by EL GUAPO
http:///forum/post/2724224
Just a little FYI its not talabins . It's Taliban and that is plural . It is also not binladin it's Bin Laden . Osama was already fighting the soviet troops before the US goverment started to supply the afganistan rebels with arms. Osama Bin Laden was/is a man with man conections . He was a leader then just as he is now .
actually Osama was in Syria while these weapons were supplied then he was kicked out so he went to Afghanistan and united the Taliban with his army and overtook the Afghanistan government