taks

not sure if "lovingly" is the term i'd use for some of the comments i've read taks

i'm actually a full-time student again... sigh... sorry, don't have much of a physics background other than dabbling on my own. statistics or math or signal processing and i could help... taks

poor form to openly criticize your teammates... sportsmanship is supposed to rule. particularly since he's obviously the standout on the team, he can't expect everyone else to perform to his level. if that's what he wanted, he should've tried to be on a team that is comprised of nothing but NBA stars (the US team, btw, is missing a lot of the NBA's big talent). taks

you all must've either forgotten about the SLI voodoo cards or are not old enough to know... the dual card thing is what put the VooDoo2 on the map as the best graphics card EVAR! then Nvidia releasted the TnT... oops. taks

uh, i already pointed them to the CBO, and enoch provided a link. the whitehouse numbers are usually proposed, the CBO numbers are actuals and a bit easier to decipher. taks

the tax cuts were clearly a RESULT of the recession, but i don't think enoch is arguing that... he's arguing them as a primary cause of the deficit (well, increase in deficit). the cuts were implemented as a hope of getting us out of a recession. we're out of the recession, for sure, but why is where the debate fodder lies. investments are back to slow growth, but the extreme gains of the 90s were very abnormal. there was plenty of "imaginary" capital created due to the hype of the tech craze. all that money that was lent out to startups and dot-coms will NEVER be paid back, ergo, false capital. the US economy and tax base was the primary beneficiary. the dollar isn't really worth that much less, at least not in the traditional sense, simply because inflation has been in the 1% range for a while. unfortunately, some of the items that people notice are much more expensive (property)... nobody notices that milk costs only a dime or so more than it did 4 years ago... taks

actually, if you want to talk "real" numbers there's several factors. the biggest is the slump in the economy which is partly why clinton had such a boon. the over-inflated economy due to the tech craze (dot com galore) created higher than expected revenues... they immediately dropped after the "bubble" hit and we're currently at $1.7 trillion vs. $2.02 trillion in 2000. in 2001, BEFORE the tax cuts, we actually dropped to $1.9 trillion... i.e, spending increases were about the same (an extra $80B that year) yet we actually had a $100B drop in revenues INSTEAD OF an expect $100B+ increase in revenues... not much we could have done there. the tax increases have dropped some of our revenues, but the resulting recession was even worse. anyway, blaming the current situation "mostly" on the tax cuts is disingenuous, i.e. not telling the whole story. taks

no, that is not true at all... that is their excuse, but not their true motivation. islamic fanaticists want infidels converted or dead. and some probably don't really care about conversion. an infidel is anybody that does not already believe... this is pretty much general knowledge here, mkreku. the only major political differences in the world arena are exactly how to deal with the situation and make them not want us dead. taks

again, not true. the numbers can easily be found at the CBO. bush sr. and clinton are by far the worst offenders since deficit spending began... before you make such rash statements, PoTC, you should check to verify your numbers. i've discussed this with you before, yet somehow you still fail to grasp the concept that true objective analysis requires true investigation of all the facts. it took me less than a minute to get this information. rather than spout rhetoric, i choose to cite facts. taks

not true enoch... since taking office, bush has increased the debt by $500B total, not $700B/year... the tax cuts are only a few hundred total so far, and not really the majority. an increase of spending on entitlements is a biggie (medicare prescription drugs) as well as the war monies. overall, the debt held by the public is $3.9 trillion, up from $3.4 at the end of clinton's term. as a percentage of GDP, it actually peaked during clinton's 1st year in office at 49.5% (49.4% his 2nd, which was his budget plan...) he did get it down to a modest 35% by the end of his two terms and it now sits at 36.1%. credit where credit is due, clinton did manage to get into the black on spending. HOWEVER, keep in mind he had a republican congress which pretty much created a stalemate on any spending he wished to implement. had he and the first lady had their way, we'd have been saddled by government supplied health care which would have wiped out his reductions... in short order, the numbers may seem staggering, but they really aren't that much worse than they've ever been. $500B today is not the same as $500B ten years ago... the CBO has this information, btw... taks

probably the largest cause of the "debt" is the fact that the dollar has fallen w.r.t. other currencies, i.e. our currency is not worth as much against our loans as it used to be... actual budget information can be obtained online, but the whole 7 trillion dollar number isn't real debt created by the administration... if i get a chance, i'll look it up. taks

uh, that's kinda what i just said. he wants one big happy theocracy... and, beyond "driving all infidels out of the middle east", he'd prefer to kill us all if possible. taks

bragging rights... nothing more that i've seen. oh, and posting in this forum won't add to your post count, either. taks

it is an ad-hominem attack. period. first of all, bush's intelligence is actually above average, as has been shown many times, even if servant doesn't want to believe that. second of all, simply attacking somebody in an argument, particularly using a statement that is not true, is an ad-hominem attack. by calling bush an idiot, you're dodging any other argument that is occuring AND, insulting him without merit. you should refresh yourself on such definitions, eldar... oh, and PoTC... wake up and smell the garbanzos... osama wants control. he, like nearly every other islamic terrorist, wants nothing else but control. the only way to get that is to take away our freedom. his religious arguments are nothing more than an excuse to lure the masses into his rhetoric. remember, he comes from a fairly well-to-do family that was not even close to opressed. ergo, any of such arguments he makes are pretty empty, something YOU seem to be oblivious to. taks

oh... yes... boobies. without boobies, it is NOT fantasy roleplaying. it must be a cold climate, too, so that the inclusion of bikini clad babes makes even more sense... taks

when exactly, did you become a moderator, phosphor? taks

Debunking... taks

yeah, occam's razor be damned... taks

BULL! still irrelevant. again, nothing more than an ad-hominem attack. go look it up. excusing bad behavior using equally bad behavior is a ridiculous argument. and yes, this thread is NOT about debating bush, which is exactly my other point. get a clue. you can't even get it right and you're criticizing him??? laughable at best. nothing unusual in the name of politics... they say silly stuff all the time. how many times have you stood up and spoke in front of the nation? none? thought not. you also have multiple degrees and a high SAT test score, right? wait, you don't? sheesh... i hate to tell you but this is patently wrong. the only way for terrorists to stop seeing us as targets is to die. period. they don't want freedom, they want theocracies in the name of allah. and, above all else, the heads of such organizations really don't even care about that. osama is nothing other than a power hungry dictator. he wants freedom gone so he can rule all. same pattern as every other dicttator that's walked the planet, uses the same means to convince his "flock" (read: clueless followers) and in the end, uses nothing more than violence to acheive his means. taks

ooh, ouch. wife. i see. perhaps something a bit more technical and a bit less... bikini? taks

calling bush an idiot is NOT constructive, no matter how you spin it. it is an ad-hominem attack, precisely what you complain about with JN*. that's hypocrisy, PoTC. you "inject" your slams into nearly every post you make, regardless of the topic. it gets old and people get tired of it, kinda like you getting tired of JN*'s comments, right? i never equated his negativity with yours, either, and neither did i justify what he said. you've substituted a straw-man here. using his behavior to justify yours doesn't cut it. taks

you sat in on that class often, i suppose? taks

but then again, maybe they'll be hot party chicks!? uh, you are a dude, right? taks

nearly half of all your posts are complaints somehow or another about bush or the current administration, PoTC... be careful calling the kettle black... taks

i spent most of my time there drunk, so much more from me will be difficult. i found the city breathtaking, however, what little i did see. now, ender, why exactly do you suppose i was down at mission beach? j/k... taks