Let Them Have It

[roy reali]

Thanks For The Chart

I see from the chart that from about 1999 to 2001 there was an upward spike in gas prices. During that time the republicans did control congress but we had a democrat in the white house. In 2002 both branches of government were under GOP control. The price seems to have dipped a bit. Then in 2004 the Dems retake congress, from that point till now, prices are going straight up.

Again, thanks for the information.

 

[cornfedmidget]

Awesome, still arguing Apples and Oranges. Guess what, you are eating the same fruit salad. Dems and Repubs served up with a nice whipped topping. We'll throw some grapes in there for good measure.

 

[SecDef]

I see from the chart that from about 1999 to 2001 there was an upward spike in gas prices. During that time the republicans did control congress but we had a democrat in the white house. In 2002 both branches of government were under GOP control. The price seems to have dipped a bit. Then in 2004 the Dems retake congress, from that point till now, prices are going straight up.

Again, thanks for the information.

Err, I think the 2002 dip you mention actually ended in 2003 when the GOP congress would actually be sitting (voting in November 2002). Instead of starting a drop, they started a rise.

I don't see where anyone has anything regarding causation (vs correlation) though.

i.e. the beginning of the large ongoing spike to date doesn't seem to indicate that congressional control has any factor.

 

[ConfuseUs]

I agree that losing this year could force the Republican party to change for the better over the next few years. Ultimately the Republicans have been total hypocrites on the issues of spending and the size of government, cynical as hell about gun rights, and only did one thing they said they would: cut taxes. I would say that they deserve to lose this year too. The generation of Republicans that got giddy once the public purse and the reins of power were in their hands is mostly still in Congress. They need to go and not come back.

Unfortunately the Democratic presidential candidate's platitude laden platform is so utterly repugnant to American values and political practices that letting the Republicans go across the board is awfully risky. The Democrats simply can't be trusted with the economy IMHO. I've never heard a Democrat advance a policy that took basic economics into account. It's all unicorns, sunshine, rainbows, and rivers of milk and honey to these people, not real world tradeoffs which may be unpleasant. The Democrats simply don't get it on national defense, nor are they up to snuff on foreign policy. The only plus is that the Democrats are starting to learn to keep their hands off the public's guns. I'm not sure that lesson has sunk in though.

So letting the Dems run rampant for 4-8 years is OK if there are plenty of good Republican leaders in the wings who are dedicated to advancing the principles of low taxes, small government (including gun rights), slashing gov't spending, and law and order. I just have my doubts about the existence of these leaders.

 

[RDak]

I can't vote for Obama, he is anti-gun. He approves of the DC gun ban.

I'm a one issue voter and simply cannot vote for Obama as a result. Sorry my Democratic friends.

One thing Democrats and Republicans HAVE TO DO is allow oil drilling in the Rocky Mountains and coastal waters. Same for builiding nuclear power plants.

Whichever Party is viewed as being against these energy policies will lose in November IMHO.

The Democratic Party simply has to silence the wacko, idiot "greenies" of their constituency(sp?) IMHO. Much like they are trying to silence the wacko, idiot anti-gunners.

The problem for me is the Democrats have been so rabidly anti-gun for the last 40+ years that I simply cannot vote for them. Like I said, I'm a one issue voter.

However, look at this bill sponsored by REPUBLICANS!!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6257:

 

[Danzig]

Tuttle8, we are on the same page. I do not advocate voting Democrat...I recommend voting Libertarian. Best case scenario, Barr wins. Worst case scenario, Obama wins. In the short term (and long, hopefully) it would be great to have a Libertarian in office. Long term...I agree with many here that it might be a good idea for the Democrats to take the helm now.. that will tell the Republican party that registered Republicans will NOT tolerate it's malfeasance any longer and hopefully provide the incentive the party needs to return to it's Ron Paul (or Barry Goldwater) conservatism.

 

[shortwave]

IMHO,good point but if that happens say goodbye to what 2nd amend. rights you currently have.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Quoted by roy reali:

Fair or not, that is the way its always been and the way it will always be.

I do agree. It's a shame that it is, but it falls under the category of how either ignorant or needy (or both) the general population is.

I really hope I am wrong about all this.

I don't think you're entirely wrong. Right about America is going through quite a hit on most aspects of govt structure, economics, basic rights, etc. But, I think our country's roots are dug deeper than ever before. We may lose quite a few leaves and branches in the coming years. But, with strong roots we will always have the ability to recover...

Quoted by SecDef:

Wait, your argument is that the 6 years of republican in charge of presidency and congress was simply due to being handed a slowing economy, but then say that 2 years is PLENTY of time for the dems?

Reread what I just said that made you ask this very question. The answer is there....and clearer than fancy charts/graphs and stats that can be skewered to show support for ones' bias...

You going to skewer the dems for this but reward the republicans for leading the way?

Again, I've answered this question over and over in detail yet in lamens terms. If it's anybody that's biased, I have to state from my observations of your posts here and in others that you're the one that's biased. Kinda strange that I see very little dissent coming from you about other politicians that aren't tied to the Bush Adm.

You also say DIRECTLY responsible (your capitalization) but don't say what those direct actions were. You mean that they haven't been caving in to the white house at every turn!?!?

My diatribe was quite long enough. Didn't think you needed a list. I'll give one that sticks in my head...

Last I checked Pelosi and her cohorts spouted off "The first 100 days of change..." was all about correcting Bushes mistakes. So, what all have they done? What efforts were actually put forth to make their "changes"?

My question to you is how long DOES your party need to get the ball rolling? Two years is a lifetime in political office. Are you telling me that 730 days isn't enough?

Hmm, let's see. ahh, yes, the FACTS are that it was signed by George H.W. Bush and pushed through congress by Bill Clinton who didn't change a word. Now shoot, I just can't remember which party George H.W. Bush was affiliated with...

And you again missed my entire point. Several of the current problems we have can be tied to NAFTA. Reread my statements. I beg of you. Here's yet ANOTHER hint: The genesis and driving factors do NOT have anything to do with the CURRENT ADMINISTRATION .

And yet you absolutely ignored the previous 4 years. Unfortunately for you, there is a fairly smooth curve. Since you want to see a chart, HERE you go. Notice the inflection point in 2006. It goes the opposite direction you seem to desire.
Gas has risen immensely since 1999. Not really so much before that.

And another false claim by you. I didn't ignore the previous 4 years. I ventured a guess. I didn't stake claim that my assertion was fact. Up until recent years, an American's dollar would buy more gas today than it would have several years ago.

Your "when the republicans controlled the house" line is amusing. Look at 2000-2006 and tell me that the republicans saved the day (for gas prices) with a straight face.

Yes, they've risen quite a bit in the last 4-6 years. On the same token, the rise in prices have also GONE THROUGH THE ROOF under a Dem controlled Congress the past 2 years. Where have you belted at them for their inaction?

Quoted by Danzig:

Tuttle8, we are on the same page.

I have to admit to you, Danzig. I think the current thoughts on the issue is very similar. The difference between you and me is that I don't have the intestinal fortitude to vote Libertarian.....yet. I'm at a crossroad right now...

Do I vote for the candidate that keeps Obama out? I honestly think he's the worst candidate to take office over ANYONE out there. I would rather have had Hillary in there. You being a soldier would probably understand my angle. At least I and most of America would know thy enemy. We could keep her in check. Obama just opens his mouth to speak and the general public thinks he sings like an arch angel.

On the other side, there's the liberal(modern day context) in conservative's clothing. The ONLY 2 major reasons why I might vote for McCain is that I honestly believe he will most likely appoint SC justices that judge based on the Constitution's intent, not legislate from the bench. The other is that I don't think he will erode our 2A rights quite as fast as Obama. Preserve? Probably not. But, he won't be hell-bent on stripping them away as Obama has in Illinois.

I personally have several disagreements about the Libertarian Party. However, I'm trying to further understand that the main foundation of the party is sound and I'm stuck on nit picking the details of it. I do know the cold hard fact is if I vote Libertarian, it's basically a vote for Obama. The driving factor for me is this: If I don't vote my convictions and principles, then who will? Somebody's got to do it in order to send the message. The only way is to have the cajones to check the Independent box in November and accept Obama as our next president.

 

[SecDef]

On the other side, there's the liberal(modern day context) in conservative's clothing. The ONLY 2 major reasons why I might vote for McCain is that I honestly believe he will most likely appoint SC justices that judge based on the Constitution's intent, not legislate from the bench. The other is that I don't think he will erode our 2A rights quite as fast as Obama. Preserve? Probably not. But, he won't be hell-bent on stripping them away as Obama has in Illinois.

Did you know that most "activist judges", those that you are complaining about have been found to have conservative leanings? Apparently you aren't aware of the studies on that.

I think the dems have done nothing but implement republican (read white house) policies over the last two years. Blaming them for being liberals is silly. If they actually pursued a liberal agenda (ending the war, impeachment -- things that they were voted in for) I could understand the complaint against them for their liberal actions. As far as I'm concerned, they've simply been acting like republicans.

The drop in the dollar has been a direct result of republican decisions to jack up the national debt (and not being responsible enough to want to pay it off). That's a very strong reason petrol dollars may/will become euro dollars.

It hasn't been typical "liberal waste" in the form of welfare, etc. Your argument just doesn't make sense to me.

I fully blame this administration's policies (foreign and domestic) for our current situation (lower dollar, higher debt, poor foreign relationships, higher oil prices). I do realize that the current congress has a role in this. I'll still not be voting republican though... just looking for a real progressive. Voting republican would not only validate this crappy policy, but accelerate it.

Just like the whole "no matter how we got into the Iraq war, we are there now so we have to deal with it" argument, we have a huge national debt and we will have to deal with it. Pushing for higher taxes to do this is not an easy path / popular to take, but it is the right one. Unless you LIKE spending the large percentage of our government expenses on paying interest payments and feel that is sound fiscal strategy.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Did you know that most "activist judges", those that you are complaining about have been found to have conservative leanings? Apparently you aren't aware of the studies on that.

Well, here you go again...thinking you know what I don't know. So, tell me all about the judges sitting on the Supreme Court that are labeled as being left leaning yet have conservative leanings. Tell me all about how the 9th Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco has such conservative leanings....

Pushing for higher taxes to do this is not an easy path / popular to take, but it is the right one. Unless you LIKE spending the large percentage of our government expenses on paying interest payments and feel that is sound fiscal strategy.

So, you think the federal government should take even more money from my pocket? That's pure BS. They have more ways than I can shake a stick at to rid the debts we have now without taxing the very person that provides the bacon. Raising taxes is the absolute worst thing to do. It's my own money, not the feds. This is where it's black and white that you're dead wrong.

I think the dems have done nothing but implement republican (read white house) policies over the last two years. Blaming them for being liberals is silly. If they actually pursued a liberal agenda (ending the war, impeachment -- things that they were voted in for) I could understand the complaint against them for their liberal actions. As far as I'm concerned, they've simply been acting like republicans.

I think it's astounding that you really don't see what the far left politicians are capable of doing more less are ready to do. I really don't think there should be any more discussion on how damaging they will be in the coming years if Obama takes the WH in November. My guess is you really don't see it or spend so much time and energy into demonizing the current administration that you can't.

My choice right now is to disconnect from further debate with you on this specific topic. I've posed several earnest questions that you've either finally see (not necessarily agree) my point or you just choose not to answer. Doesn't seem like good etiquette to ignore them.

I guess it might be time to reinstate my father's favorite saying into my sig line....a good man, he was...

 

[SecDef]

Well, here you go again...thinking you know what I don't know. So, tell me all about the judges sitting on the Supreme Court that are labeled as being left leaning yet have conservative leanings. Tell me all about how the 9th Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco has such conservative leanings....

So you choose to not look at all judges as a whole. Your prerogative. I suppose you think that putting the Ten Commandments outside a courtroom isn't a violation of the 1st amendment, too.

So, you think the federal government should take even more money from my pocket? That's pure BS. They have more ways than I can shake a stick at to rid the debts we have now without taxing the very person that provides the bacon. Raising taxes is the absolute worst thing to do. It's my own money, not the feds. This is where it's black and white that you're dead wrong.

Look at the size of the debt added by Reagan, GHWB, Clinton and GWB. It has become YOUR responsibility to vote for someone that will look to America's interest in getting rid of deficit spending. YOU, as a united states citizen, have ultimate responsibility to pay it off. We are of the people and by the people. You can't just hold your ears and pretend the problem doesn't exist. Taxes are proposed way to deal with the problem, and the tax hikes WOULDN'T EVEN AFFECT YOU.

"Raising taxes is the absolute worst thing to do." Trickle down economics (or shall we call it voodoo economics)

'Bush 43 has cut taxes twice. Yet revenue from individual taxpayers has not increased sufficiently to make-up for the loss in revenue. Revenue from individual taxpayers was $994 billion in 2001 and $1.08 trillion in the third quarter of 2006. However, Bush 43 has increased discretionary spending from $649 billion in 2001 to $967 billion in 2005.'

'The growth acheived is insufficient to stimulate the economy to high enough levels to make up for the loss in revenue.'

Supply-side economics appears to be your fairy tale.

I think it's astounding that you really don't see what the far left politicians are capable of doing more less are ready to do. I really don't think there should be any more discussion on how damaging they will be in the coming years if Obama takes the WH in November. My guess is you really don't see it or spend so much time and energy into demonizing the current administration that you can't.

I'm demonizing based on facts and evidence. You are demonizing based on conjecture. I do NOT want more of the same coming into the white house.

My choice right now is to disconnect from further debate with you on this specific topic. I've posed several earnest questions that you've either finally see (not necessarily agree) my point or you just choose not to answer. Doesn't seem like good etiquette to ignore them.

I've answered your questions that I saw. Your NAFTA question showed a lot of ignorance on your part. Both sides were were involved, and it was initiated by a republican white house. In the SIX YEARS OF WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL, DID NAFTA GET DROPPED? No, of course not.

Feel free to disconnect. Your bias is as strong as mine, though I would vote for a republican if a good one was offered up. I doubt you could say the converse.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Yes, they've risen quite a bit in the last 4-6 years. On the same token, the rise in prices have also GONE THROUGH THE ROOF under a Dem controlled Congress the past 2 years. Where have you belted at them for their inaction?

Last I checked Pelosi and her cohorts spouted off "The first 100 days of change..." was all about correcting Bushes mistakes. So, what all have they done? What efforts were actually put forth to make their "changes"?

My question to you is how long DOES your party need to get the ball rolling? Two years is a lifetime in political office. Are you telling me that 730 days isn't enough?

I've answered your questions that I saw.

You did? All you basically did was completely ignored the question or filled a response of "he started it". You appear to have a very difficult time answering questions DIRECTLY without trying to divert. Reminds me of the reasons why having a conversation with a defense attorney at a dinner party never ends up being beneficial. Instead of being clear as Torch Lake, it's as muddy as the Mississippi...

I answered your questions as direct as I could WITHOUT spin. You consistently spin my questions in order to point the blame the direction you desire and then have the audacity to claim I'm ignorant of the very answers to my questions.

Taxes are proposed way to deal with the problem, and the tax hikes WOULDN'T EVEN AFFECT YOU.

And this is the mother of all screw-ups. You really assume that after all these years the politicians on both sides of the aisle that the tax hikes in the future won't even affect me? WOW! How about starting up a thread asking if members here think that the tax hikes in the years to come if Obama gets elected won't affect them either. Since you apparently have this keen knowledge of my financial status, it shouldn't be so hard for you to win the arguments of others here that would disagree with you, too...

Your bias is as strong as mine, though I would vote for a republican if a good one was offered up. I doubt you could say the converse.

Yes, my bias is strong. I love personal freedom without major involvment of the federal government. I also love my country. I also see that you know me so well about my voting record. Didn't know it was public records. My guess is that it might not still because if you did know who I vote for it would really be great to see you choke down those black feathers of a crow...

I've answered your questions that I saw. Your NAFTA question showed a lot of ignorance on your part. Both sides were were involved, and it was initiated by a republican white house. In the SIX YEARS OF WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL, DID NAFTA GET DROPPED? No, of course not.

What ignorance was that? My point was you are one of the guilty parties that do nothing but rake the (here comes the bold face since you continually ignore my statements) CURRENT ADMINISTRATION over the coals when in fact there's plenty of blame to go around. The Clinton Adm had their hand caught in the cookie jar quite often and has allowed what hardships we have today to continue. This is my entire point of most of my responses.

I'm demonizing based on facts and evidence. You are demonizing based on conjecture. I do NOT want more of the same coming into the white house.

That's funny. I think the same of you. You really think "change" will come from Obama? Scarily enough, there will be change. But, not the right change.

The priority of voting for President that's going to get rid our deficit takes one of the last rows of the Yellow Bird bus' seats. First of all, contrary to popular belief, Presidents aren't the main driving factor of the economy and government spending. Second, there's NO WAY to keep our goverment from becoming a tyranny if our 2A rights are stripped. Your priority has been trumped....

By all means, have the last word. I'm no longer going to view this thread. I think it will be quite beneficial to the OP that I don't anyway since I think I participated drifting it OT. So don't even bother replying to the questions I posed again. It wouldn't do any good anyway it there's nobody in the forest to hear the tree fall...

 

[SecDef]

You did? All you basically did was completely ignored the question or filled a response of "he started it". You appear to have a very difficult time answering questions DIRECTLY without trying to divert. Reminds me of the reasons why having a conversation with a defense attorney at a dinner party never ends up being beneficial. Instead of being clear as Torch Lake, it's as muddy as the Mississippi...

I answered your questions as direct as I could WITHOUT spin. You consistently spin my questions in order to point the blame the direction you desire and then have the audacity to claim I'm ignorant of the very answers to my questions.

Read post #49. Oh wait, you won't be reading this, like you didn't read that. I fully blame the democratic controlled congress for following the WH policies.

How about starting up a thread asking if members here think that the tax hikes in the years to come if Obama gets elected won't affect them either. Since you apparently have this keen knowledge of my financial status, it shouldn't be so hard for you to win the arguments of others here that would disagree with you, too...

Why? Aren't all the liberals "limousine liberals" and conservative america is hard working blue collars? Forgive me for abusing the stereotypes put forth by the far right. I assumed because I had a 90% chance of being right. I note you are just petty for me making an assumption, not saying I was wrong. Too funny.

Yes, my bias is strong. I love personal freedom without major involvment of the federal government. I also love my country. I also see that you know me so well about my voting record. Didn't know it was public records. My guess is that it might not still because if you did know who I vote for it would really be great to see you choke down those black feathers of a crow...

You hate personal freedom if you support this administration. 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments.

The Clinton Adm had their hand caught in the cookie jar quite often and has allowed what hardships we have today to continue. This is my entire point of most of my responses.

Even if all problems are attributed to the Clinton administration, the hardship has not been relieved by the Bush administration. This is my entire point of most of my responses.

The priority of voting for President that's going to get rid our deficit takes one of the last rows of the Yellow Bird bus' seats. First of all, contrary to popular belief, Presidents aren't the main driving factor of the economy and government spending. Second, there's NO WAY to keep our goverment from becoming a tyranny if our 2A rights are stripped. Your priority has been trumped....

Presidents aren't he main driving factor of government spending? I guess you have no idea who writes the budgets.. hahahaha, it's a joke arguing that point.

I understand your position on the 2nd amendment but think you are wrong. You should not lose other rights simply to defend one. Best case is we retain them all, but the republicans can't seem to be able to put up a candidate that would do that. Your casual attitude towards the other amendments shows your lack of love for the constitution.

By all means, have the last word. I'm no longer going to view this thread. I think it will be quite beneficial to the OP that I don't anyway since I think I participated drifting it OT. So don't even bother replying to the questions I posed again. It wouldn't do any good anyway it there's nobody in the forest to hear the tree fall...

Like nobody else is reading this? What misguided hubris on your part.

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

Do any of you realy think it matter wether Obama or McCain take office? When all is laid bare there both gut hating liberals. One is just a little btter at hiding his thoughts on the matter. I am conservitave and vote accordingly. If the "evil" obama gets in becuase enough people voted for a third, Quess what? not my problem maybe the GOP has to put it's hand on the stove a few times before they realize that it's hot.