GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 3 of 3 < 12 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Ok, I think I've had it with Bush (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=635443)

woj 07-20-2006 12:10 PM
100........,.

edgeprod 07-20-2006 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks
after me, he had to change his name to "Man'sAlley"
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I just fell out of my chair!

edgeprod 07-20-2006 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sherie
And I applaud you edgeprod, you are a one man show and have posted some of the most intelligent things that I have ever seen on this forum. Thank you, you have restored my faith in mankind...well maybe just GFY lol. It's refreshing to see someone speak as you do; without ridicule and condescension and of course the name calling. Have a fabulous day!
rofflecopter, omgwtfbbq!!!11oneonetwo

*slaps himself*

Er, I mean .. thank you. :)

edgeprod 07-20-2006 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuckOnThis
Polio has not been cured.
I had NO idea, but you're right!

From Wikipedia:

"Eradication efforts led by the World Health Organization and The Rotary Foundation of Rotary International have reduced the number of annual diagnosed cases from the hundreds of thousands to around a thousand."

This is crazy. But the fact remains: you don't see too many young kids walking around with Polio lately.

Sexxxy Sites 07-20-2006 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by edgeprod
More likely, it's to stimulate private-sector research, WHERE IT BELONGS. Do you want the morons in the government having oversight for where the funding goes? Republicans will make it illegal to do ANY stem cell research, public OR private, and Democrats will rob from the program's funding to feed some illegal immigrant with 20 kids.

Too many people are confusing a veto on the FUNDING with a veto on the PROCESS. Stem cell research is legal. Companies do it all the time. These companies are commerical entities, trying to turn a buck. This is what we WANT. What's the last thing the GOVERNMENT cured? Polio? Nearly every major breakthrough has come from the PRIVATE sector.

Funding it at the government level is a huge mistake. If you want to find money for medical initiatives like this, why not cut bullshit porkbarrel projects like John Kerry's and Ted Kennedy's Big Dig ($10 BILLION over budget, and five YEARS late -- so far). $24 Billion (yeah, with a "B") for 6,376 "pet" projects (read: unnecessary shit that is intended to garner votes) was approved at the end of 2005, giving billions of YOUR money to Republicans and Democrats to get votes back home.

Bush did stem cell research a huge favor, but spin it any way you want, I guess. Ask Clinton's "war on drugs" how effective throwing money at a problem is. $30 Billion/year, and 70% of the people who post here still light one up every Friday, like clockwork.

Sorry for the perspective at such an early hour, but the barely educated ranting here has gotten so out of control, that even as a registered Democrat, I'm embarrassed by it.
You are 100% correct in my opinion. In 2005 the private sector spent 100 million dollars on embryonic and other stem cell research and this figure is expected to exceed 10 billion by 2010. Getting goverment monies is usually a game stopped, to much BS involved. Stem cell research will proceed nicely without government funding, but I do agree that using his first veto on this matter is pretty outrageous and is not in tune with the Congress and the people.

minusonebit 07-20-2006 05:40 PM
Recap of Bush Blunders:

Tax Cuts = Bad.
Iraq = Bad.
Axis of Evil BS = Bad.
Listening in on American's Telephone Calls = Bad.
Vetoing Stem Cell Research = Bad.

Thats 0/5. He is too stupid to be alive. Someone, please, stop the waste of oxygen!

Doctor Dre 07-20-2006 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by minusonebit
Recap of Bush Blunders:

Tax Cuts = Bad.
Iraq = Bad.
Axis of Evil BS = Bad.
Listening in on American's Telephone Calls = Bad.
Vetoing Stem Cell Research = Bad.

Thats 0/5. He is too stupid to be alive. Someone, please, stop the waste of oxygen!
Iraq is actually pretty damn strategic if you look at the map of the middle east... The fact that he lied to the people to get there is something else thought.

edgeprod 07-20-2006 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sexxxy Sites
You are 100% correct in my opinion. In 2005 the private sector spent 100 million dollars on embryonic and other stem cell research and this figure is expected to exceed 10 billion by 2010. Getting goverment monies is usually a game stopped, to much BS involved. Stem cell research will proceed nicely without government funding, but I do agree that using his first veto on this matter is pretty outrageous and is not in tune with the Congress and the people.
Yes, you're correct here. The veto was a bit odd, and I think he's got the wrong motives, but it has the right effect. The funding would be so paltry anyway, and add SO much red tape.

I have a horse in the stem cell race, but I prefer not to go into details. Let's just say I prefer the research gets done.

JaneB 07-20-2006 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by edgeprod
More likely, it's to stimulate private-sector research, WHERE IT BELONGS. Do you want the morons in the government having oversight for where the funding goes? Republicans will make it illegal to do ANY stem cell research, public OR private, and Democrats will rob from the program's funding to feed some illegal immigrant with 20 kids.

Too many people are confusing a veto on the FUNDING with a veto on the PROCESS. Stem cell research is legal. Companies do it all the time. These companies are commerical entities, trying to turn a buck. This is what we WANT. What's the last thing the GOVERNMENT cured? Polio? Nearly every major breakthrough has come from the PRIVATE sector.

Funding it at the government level is a huge mistake. If you want to find money for medical initiatives like this, why not cut bullshit porkbarrel projects like John Kerry's and Ted Kennedy's Big Dig ($10 BILLION over budget, and five YEARS late -- so far). $24 Billion (yeah, with a "B") for 6,376 "pet" projects (read: unnecessary shit that is intended to garner votes) was approved at the end of 2005, giving billions of YOUR money to Republicans and Democrats to get votes back home.

Bush did stem cell research a huge favor, but spin it any way you want, I guess. Ask Clinton's "war on drugs" how effective throwing money at a problem is. $30 Billion/year, and 70% of the people who post here still light one up every Friday, like clockwork.

Sorry for the perspective at such an early hour, but the barely educated ranting here has gotten so out of control, that even as a registered Democrat, I'm embarrassed by it.

I agree with you 100%. People on here and in general do not know what they are talking about 99% of the time.

Brujah 07-20-2006 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneB
I agree with you 100%. People on here and in general do not know what they are talking about 99% of the time.
Including you, after reading some of your posts. :2 cents:

edgeprod 07-20-2006 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneB
I agree with you 100%. People on here and in general do not know what they are talking about 99% of the time.
It's not that they don't know what they're talking about that bothers me. It's how they express themselves. Look at the "oh, I'm not doing business with a Bush supporter" nonsense, etc. It's just drivel, and if people are really that stupid, they deserve what they get, I'd say.

I know a lot of Republicans discount my opinion solely based on the fact that I'm a Democrat, but I try to leave the general hysteria and backstabbing to others in the party. I'm saddened to say -- few of the Republicans here shout down the opposition by just repeating their point LOUDER. It'd be nice if the party of compassion, peace, and love ... would act like it from time to time.

I've gone out of my way not to be a cock, overall, in this thread. Maybe more people can try it, and we can have some serious discussions.

12clicks 07-20-2006 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by minusonebit
Recap of Bush Blunders:

Tax Cuts = Bad.
Iraq = Bad.
Axis of Evil BS = Bad.
Listening in on American's Telephone Calls = Bad.
Vetoing Stem Cell Research = Bad.

Thats 0/5. He is too stupid to be alive. Someone, please, stop the waste of oxygen!
how sadly uneducated you are.
lets just pic one.
how are tax cuts bad?

czarina 07-20-2006 08:30 PM
just one more proof that he is a total ass hat.

modF 07-20-2006 08:35 PM
Am I the only one who thinks the world will now spin off of it's axis? Have my prayers been answered?

edgeprod 07-20-2006 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks
how are tax cuts bad?
They stimulate growth, force fiscal responsibility, and remove something to complain about. The third part is the rub, I believe.

Of course, Presidents inherit the economies of those before them, for the most part -- so the next President is going to be set up, whoever it is.

pocketkangaroo 07-20-2006 08:44 PM
I'm surprised it has taken conservatives so long to figure this out. Bush spends like a liberal and has made some huge mistakes (Iraq, Katrina). I don't mind a conservative person running the country, but I want them to stand for conservative beliefs.

pocketkangaroo 07-20-2006 08:47 PM
Why are tax cuts bad? Why should I have to pay 40% while someone else pays 5%? Why should I be paying 5000 times the taxes that someone else pays when they use more government resources than me?

edgeprod 07-20-2006 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
Why are tax cuts bad? Why should I have to pay 40% while someone else pays 5%? Why should I be paying 5000 times the taxes that someone else pays when they use more government resources than me?
You shouldn't actually have to pay *any* taxes. It's not strictly necessary for the middle class to do so. It's all of the wasteful spending that creates this need.

pocketkangaroo 07-20-2006 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by edgeprod
You shouldn't actually have to pay *any* taxes. It's not strictly necessary for the middle class to do so. It's all of the wasteful spending that creates this need.
I agree. However that is an issue both sides have a problem with.

jayeff 07-20-2006 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by edgeprod
They (tax cuts) stimulate growth...
That is the sales pitch. What experience has shown repeatedly since WW2 is that as a stimulant for growth, tax cuts run a very poor second to increasing demand.

The reason is that corporate America is no longer in the business of taking risks. It only reacts. Nor do the wealthy, although they are usually the main beneficiaries of tax cuts, increase their spending in response.

Thus, painful as it may be to admit, Democrat spending on programs which put more money into the bottom of the economy, are much more productive. Almost all the people who benefit from their programs are on modest incomes, therefore they will spend the additional money. Once in circulation, it increases state and federal taxes and it also generates jobs, primarily jobs at the bottom end of the economic ladder, further fuelling the cycle.

It is not what many Republicans want to believe, but if you correlate government and the economy since 1950, Republicans have been responsible for shorter and less dramatic periods of growth, longer and deeper declines. Democrats have in fact performed much better overall.

edgeprod 07-20-2006 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
Bush spends like a liberal
You're absolutely right. This Presidency has been marred by some of the worst financial irresponsibility we've seen in a long time. Bush should have used his veto power to strike down Liberal spending a LONG time ago. Even if it would have gotten overturned, he would have shown that he isn't going to pass the burden on without a fight.

edgeprod 07-20-2006 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayeff
That is the sales pitch. What experience has shown repeatedly since WW2 is that as a stimulant for growth, tax cuts run a very poor second to increasing demand.
That's not the reason.

When tax cuts occur, you have to try harder to balance a budget (although, admittedly, that hasn't been happening either lately). Because of this, some of the Liberal social programs and the Conservative pork gets tossed out. This causes people to have to seek employment rather than being on welfare, and creates a (false) perception of prosperity in the populace. So, people spend several times their tax break instead of resolving debt, which creates another cycle of bankruptcy filings. This, of course, is harder now, creating more poor people -- which creates more sex, which creates more kids, who work for $4/day in China.

Thus, tax cuts help young children learn responsibility. That's my point.

You buy that .. right?

:1orglaugh

edgeprod 07-20-2006 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
I agree. However that is an issue both sides have a problem with.
It's a worse issue for the Republicans, at least on the surface. With the exception of scumbags like Kerry and Kennedy, the Democrats are overspending to create social programs, and try to help people. The Republicans are overspending to make the rich richer and to help oil companies.

They both need to stop.

minusonebit 07-20-2006 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by czarina
just one more proof that he is a total ass hat.
You can go fuck yourself if that comment was directed to me. If it was about Bush, then cheers. :thumbsup

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks
how sadly uneducated you are.
lets just pic one.
how are tax cuts bad?
Tax cuts are normally good.

The way Bush did tax cuts was disgusting. I was refering to Bush's taxcuts. He cut it for the rich and for familes only. Which is a typical Republican move. Single people making an average income got absoultely nothing from his tax cuts.

E$_manager 07-20-2006 09:26 PM
more people in our camp, who thinks he is the wrong man :)

sacX 07-20-2006 09:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12clicks
how sadly uneducated you are.
lets just pic one.
how are tax cuts bad?
tax cuts in themselves aren't bad, but ideally they should be tied to reductions in spending also. Mr Bush is not a fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Aquaman 07-20-2006 09:44 PM
The same question was just brought up in the EU. Now when Bush used his Veto, most of the Catholic countries in the EU are going to block EU's budget for embriotic stamcell research.

My dad suffers from Parkinson disease and I'm very pissed right now about this news. If there is a god, please dear god, let huge meteors hit the following countries and let noone survive:

Germany
Austria
Lithuania
Luxemburg
Malta
Poland
Slovenia
Slovakia

Thanks in advance dear loving god. Let them all die.

edgeprod 07-20-2006 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cristie
more people in our camp, who thinks he is the wrong man
Sure, but it's easy to go to "camp" and just sit around and bitch.

The camp I'd like to see people go to is the "here's a better alternative" camp. I haven't seen a decent candidate since Clinton. And, no matter how you feel about him as a person, he wasted his intelligence and opportunities.

tony286 07-20-2006 09:48 PM
Clicks is a true conservative my Dad said the same thing and he is hardcore he voted for Goldwater lol

edgeprod 07-20-2006 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquaman
If there is a god, please dear god, let huge meteors hit the following countries and let noone survive. Thanks in advance dear loving god. Let them all die.
This seems to be a highly compassionate and well thought out argument.

KRL 07-20-2006 09:54 PM
The whole concept of one man having so much power in today's world is flawed to begin with, smart or dumb.

There should just be a board of directors in the executive office. And this group shouldn't be professional politicians like you see in the congress.

edgeprod 07-20-2006 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRL
The whole concept of one man having so much power in today's world is flawed to begin with, smart or dumb.
What power does he really have?

Kimo 07-20-2006 10:09 PM
uh, veto power? duhhh

Aquaman 07-20-2006 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by edgeprod
This seems to be a highly compassionate and well thought out argument.
It's in the danish news this morning ( http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=466439 if you know danish )

Those countries I mentioned ARE going to block the budget for embriotic stamcell research.

Those countries shouldn't exist.

E$_manager 07-20-2006 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by edgeprod
Sure, but it's easy to go to "camp" and just sit around and bitch.

The camp I'd like to see people go to is the "here's a better alternative" camp. I haven't seen a decent candidate since Clinton. And, no matter how you feel about him as a person, he wasted his intelligence and opportunities.
By the way, i agree with you. I felt good about Clinton, mostly i felt good about his romance.:winkwink:

edgeprod 07-21-2006 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimo
uh, veto power? duhhh
Are you really saying that there should be no checks and balances built into the American system of Democracy? Even a veto can be overturned -- everything is a check and balance.

I assume from the "duhhh" at the end of your post that you aren't having a serious conversation, so I won't hold my breath on this one.

edgeprod 07-21-2006 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquaman
Those countries I mentioned ARE going to block the budget for embriotic stamcell research.

Those countries shouldn't exist.
This, also, seems to be a highly compassionate and well thought out argument.

edgeprod 07-21-2006 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cristie
By the way, i agree with you. I felt good about Clinton, mostly i felt good about his romance.
Thanks. Now go find me a candidate. :)

broke 07-21-2006 06:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by edgeprod
Unfortunately, because we live in the reality of a two-party system, your only "real" voice is in a political party's primary. For example, I am a registered Democrat, so in Connecticut, I have a choice between Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman. A Republican isn't going to beat either one of them, so the "real" election is in the primary. Depending on your state, you can't participate in the primary without registering with a party. But, I respect your independence.
Don't be so sure...

If Joe loses to Lamont in the primary and ends up running as an independant, you may just see that seat go the Republican nominee.

minusonebit 07-21-2006 07:13 PM
Bush is a fuckin idiot.

12clicks 07-21-2006 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayeff
That is the sales pitch. What experience has shown repeatedly since WW2 is that as a stimulant for growth, tax cuts run a very poor second to increasing demand.

The reason is that corporate America is no longer in the business of taking risks. It only reacts. Nor do the wealthy, although they are usually the main beneficiaries of tax cuts, increase their spending in response.

Thus, painful as it may be to admit, Democrat spending on programs which put more money into the bottom of the economy, are much more productive. Almost all the people who benefit from their programs are on modest incomes, therefore they will spend the additional money. Once in circulation, it increases state and federal taxes and it also generates jobs, primarily jobs at the bottom end of the economic ladder, further fuelling the cycle.

It is not what many Republicans want to believe, but if you correlate government and the economy since 1950, Republicans have been responsible for shorter and less dramatic periods of growth, longer and deeper declines. Democrats have in fact performed much better overall.
If your story were true, then why not just tax at 100% and let the government do everything for you?:stoned

edgeprod 07-22-2006 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by broke
Don't be so sure...

If Joe loses to Lamont in the primary and ends up running as an independant, you may just see that seat go the Republican nominee.
It's difficult for Republicans to win in a state like Connecticut. It's not as bad as California, but residents are blind to quite a few issues.

Strangely, Iraq isn't one of them, due to the proximity to NYC.

Also, the Republicans aren't running a real candidate this year. The party wants the current guy to step down so they can run someone better. They've asked him to do this, but you don't see the back-biting and throat cutting that exists in the Lieberman situation happening in that case.

Dirty Dane 07-22-2006 02:31 AM
Bush is a nice guy when you get to know him


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:36 AM.
Page 3 of 3 < 12 3
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123